Manchester: Warrant article would ban all dogs from Singing Beach

By Patrick Anderson
Staff writer

—

MANCHESTER — A winter walk with your dog on the sands of Singing Beach could soon be illegal.

Frustrated by what they say are unsafe and unclean conditions caused by legions of dog owners, many from out of town, visiting the beach each day, a group of residents has placed an article on this year's annual Town Meeting warrant that would ban all canines from the sand — year-round.

Currently, dogs are not allowed on Singing Beach from April 30 to Oct. 1.

"I just don't think it's a good idea to have all those dogs down there with children there," article sponsor Patricia Morley, a Beach Street resident, said yesterday. "There have been complaints about people not picking up after their dogs. It is not a safe situation."

Morley said those without dogs often avoid the beach out of concern they will be harassed or encounter droppings from the numerous animals running around there.

The article is the latest measure proposed to control the volume of people and animals coming to the beach.

Looking to keep professional dog walkers out, selectmen voted in 2006 to make it illegal to bring more than two dogs per person onto the beach.

At the same time, selectmen voted to prohibit non-residents from parking in the roughly 120 spaces at the Singing Beach parking lot during the offseason, from October to May. During the summer, when the beach bathhouse is open, out-of-towners can use the lot for a $25 daily fee and residents can access it if they buy a $25 annual permit.

But the non-resident, off-season ban met stiff opposition from beach visitors from inside and outside of town. In response to the outcry, selectmen voted to carve out 20 spaces in the lot where non-residents would be allowed to park.

Selectmen Chairwoman Susan Thorne said yesterday that although she signed the petition that placed the article on the ballot, she had not yet decided whether she would support its passage when selectmen issue their recommendations in March on Town Meeting articles.

Thorne said trying to balance the rights of everyone to use the beach, resident and non-resident, human and non-human, has long been a challenge.

"Personally, it would not bother me to see no dogs on the beach," Thorne said. "What I see is the large majority of people are coming from out of town to walk their dogs. But if you ban dogs you penalize Manchester residents who are conscientious. It is a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation."

Thorne said she would prefer the issue be decided by the public through a general election referendum.

Singing Beach Committee Vice Chairman Paul Barclay, a dog owner, said yesterday that he believed the beach was operating well under the current rules and he would oppose a new dog restriction.

"I find it hard to believe this will go into effect," Barclay said. "Right now everything is working smoothly. I think the responsible people who pick up after their dogs outweigh the people who don't."

The committee would meet and review the article before Town Meeting and issue a recommendation on it, Barclay said.

Under bright sunshine yesterday morning there were around 10 dogs roaming around the beach. No one appeared to be walking without a dog.

Sean Donoghue of Beverly, who was walking with his dog Ranger, a brown Rhodesian Ridgeback, said he made it to Singing Beach at least once a week.

"I think it is unfortunate," Donoghue said of the dog ban proposal. "Because if we weren't allowed to be out here, no one would be out here. The dogs that come down here are more well-behaved than most. It is a great place for them to socialize."

Sharon Sucharski of Forster Road said she didn't know where she would walk her dog, Pepe, during the winter if she couldn't come to the beach.

"We would have nowhere else to go," Sucharski said. "I can see not allowing them in the summer, but not year-round."