Led away in Handcuffs

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

What would stop a "private" beach owner from allowing them to let their dogs run on their beach?

Nothing, from everything I've read and understand as long as the dog stays on the private property.

 

[Bobby J]

Nothing, from everything I've read and understand as long as the dog stays on the private property.

What if he steps off the boundary line for a brief moment and is reported by a person enjoying the beach?

 

[Mango]

SeacrestKristi........Looks like your ate your Wheaties this morning.
You just made my day.

 

[Arkiehawg]

Two questions.

Wouldn't county signage and trash regulations also effect private beaches?

Doesn't the county have signage requirements for the beach areas? They seem to everwhere else?

If they do, I'm sure that their mobile metal "for sale" sign doesn't meet the criteria.....

No offense Bobby....

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

What if he steps off the boundary line for a brief moment and is reported by a person enjoying the beach?

I had some real responses thought out, but what the hell...

Shoot the mutt!!!

All this dog talk makes me miss Saint George Island regarding dogs on the beach.

 

[NotDeadYet]

What would stop a "private" beach owner from allowing them to let their dogs run on their beach?

The ordinance governing dogs. It applies to "private" beaches too.

From the AG opinion:
The City of Destin may regulate in a reasonable
manner the beach within its corporate limits to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This regulation must have a rational relation to and be reasonably designed to accomplish a purpose necessary for the protection of the public. The city may not exercise its police power in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner. Such regulation may be accomplished regardless of the ownership of this area, with the exception of state ownership, and without regard to whether the public has been expressly or impliedly allowed to use that area of the beach by a private property owner who may hold title to the property.

 

[yippie]

I had some real responses thought out, but what the hell...

Shoot the mutt!!!

All this dog talk makes me miss Saint George Island regarding dogs on the beach.

I lived in a place that allowed dogs on the beach. Some dog owners are not considerate. If all the owners would pick up the Dog doo-doo it would be fine, however, not all the owners did and it was absolutely the grossest thing! Looking down a beautiful beach and a big pile of dog Sh*t in the middle of it.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

The ordinance governing dogs. It applies to "private" beaches too.

From the AG opinion:
The City of Destin may regulate in a reasonable
manner the beach within its corporate limits to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. This regulation must have a rational relation to and be reasonably designed to accomplish a purpose necessary for the protection of the public. The city may not exercise its police power in an arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable manner. Such regulation may be accomplished regardless of the ownership of this area, with the exception of state ownership, and without regard to whether the public has been expressly or impliedly allowed to use that area of the beach by a private property owner who may hold title to the property.

So based on your interpretation, if an owner sitting on his private beach with his dog by his side, that the owner should be cited for having a dog on the beach?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I lived in a place that allowed dogs on the beach. Some dog owners are not considerate. If all the owners would pick up the Dog doo-doo it would be fine, however, not all the owners did and it was absolutely the grossest thing! Looking down a beautiful beach and a big pile of dog Sh*t in the middle of it.

"Some" parents with "kids" aren't considerate either. Watch as some kids run up and down sand dunes while the parent photographs them.

 

[Smiling JOe]

I found a comment you made kind of interesting: "In fact, it sort of implies that the beach is public, why else would you worry about a public access?"

Bobby J is going to be proud of me (I hope)! According to Surfrider, lateral access to the world's waves is a principal goal. In other words, if they can't get to the "public" water, they can't surf. The rest of the beach doesn't have to be public.

But the reality is 99% of the visitors in that area don't surf and the county knows that. So your point is very valid.

I, too, think that this is a great point. Thanks for bringing it up again, BMBV. I believe that many people share that point of view regarding the beach.