I read with interest your article on the front page (of the June 19 Current) outlining what occurred in sort of a curious (at least to me) meeting of the City Council addressing the

necessity of terminating the joy of interaction of pets and owners on Willard Beach in the dawn hours, well before the arrival of families in the heat of the day.

I guess if I were a dog owner I would have used the words “enraged” by the process or consider it nearly a “crime” doing

something so invasive to the joys of enjoying morning life with one’s pet. Rather, I feel shame, only sad, sad shame, at a council feeling the necessity of acting on these types of reduction of citizens’ joys rather than more important matters.

I am not a dog owner. If I were, I would have my pet join me on the beach in the morn. However, even without a dog, I do go to the beach near the rising of the sun, hot mug of coffee in hand, and walk the beach, sit on a rock or sewer top, and just watch with the utmost glee folks strolling the beach in the salt

air, the smell of the rising or falling tide, with their dog.

I watch how the owners gather to talk about all sorts of items, unabashedlyhappy with seeing each other, some talking about the dogs, but in general just enjoying each other’s company in such a beautiful environment. I watch the unmitigated wild pleasure the dogs exude, be it racing their legs off chasing, bobbing in the water, running to fetch a thrown ball or tumbling over and over, enjoying a fellow dog.

As I watch each owner carefully pick up after each dog, I truly wonder what on earth could be so devastatingly wrong with

this interaction of pets, owners and nature that would require having it either terminated or moved to the early evening, when families are still out on the beach with the late summer sunsets. So puzzling to me. Such a shame. Just as my 33 years involved with the sea solidify my knowledge that the rises and falls of the beautiful tides cleanse the beach each and every day for those that follow, I also know all too well that whatever is left over from a joyous morning romp on the beach leaves precious little, if anything, that would be injurious to those who follow.

If I knew how to get this to the City Council, I would have. Maybe this note of shame would suffice. As we all feel the pinch from our federal government failing to ease the increasing costs of our services and energy costs, all the while infringing a little more each year on our privacy and other constitutional rights, it is always unfortunate when local organizations can remove a true joy of interaction with nature.

No outrage, no overspent anger – just shame on the

person who introduced this action so as to reduce others’ joys, shame on the council for actually hearing it, and shame on the members for actually seeming to vote to put it into effect. I wonder if more sensible heads prevail in the end.

David E. Buck

Las Vegas, formerly of South Portland