Dog on the beach

[BlueFox181]

So- dogs on the beach- I've read you need paperwork done- or only certain hours it's allowed? Can anyone fill me in?
Thx!

 

[jodiFL]

Yes you have to get a permit from the county and there are restrictions on the hours. I will try to find a link or more info and post it here.
Here you go...
http://www.co.walton.fl.us/default.asp?id=29 scroll down a bit

 

[BlueFox181]

Thanks!

 

[seaside2]

Jodi,

I suspect that this "Property owner or permanent year round resident" business is illegal.

Has anyone taken this issue to court or am I benhind times?

 

[BlueFox181]

probably not- as in the same way tourists aren't allowed on the beach w/their cars...

 

[Kurt]

Jodi,

I suspect that this "Property owner or permanent year round resident" business is illegal.

Has anyone taken this issue to court or am I benhind times?

Why would you take the issue to court when you could spend that time with your dog? Also, with the money you save you could feed more than one dog, or even a person.

 

[ShallowsNole]

Jodi,

I suspect that this "Property owner or permanent year round resident" business is illegal.

Has anyone taken this issue to court or am I benhind times?

Before the beach ordinance was enacted, Walton was the ONLY county in the Panhandle that allowed canines access on the beach at all. As SoWal was discovered and the area grew, the number of dogs roaming our beach became a problem. The permitting procedure and the property owner or permanent year round resident clause were put in the ordinance as a compromise between banning dogs and appeasing those who say that they chose to buy/live here so that they could walk with their dog on the beach.

Repeat: Dogs are not allowed on the beach AT ALL in any of the other counties along the Emerald Coast. The closest one is St George Island in Franklin County.

Not being an attorney, I have no idea if there is anything legally amiss with the beach ordinance. However, it is obviously NOT illegal to ban domestic animals from the beach altogether - which is exactly what would happen if the compromise were taken to court.

{{Hugs}} to seaside2, as you are not the only one to have said this. I don't want to take any of my dogs to the beach, but I hate to see it messed up for those that do.

 

[Teresa]

Blue Fox: we used to love taking our lab out on the beach. but that was before it was so crowded, and before the ordinance that restricts hours and requires a dog permit (worn on the dog collar) and requires a leash. Taking my lab out on a leash to sowal beach would not be funn for her at all! So, we just don't even get a permit and we do not do it at all. Grayton Beach was once a haven for wonderful dogs - some of the local dogs just took themsevles out to the beach each day. (you can search the site for more info about dogs on the beach in sowal).

Instead we take Lulu to beaches in Florida that are not crowded and are pet friendly, such as Indian Pass, Cape San Blas and Amelia Island. It's much more funn for her, and we don't have to worry about offending or scaring people with a running/drooling labrador retriever - hardly anyone around!

 

[seaside2]

Also, with the money you save you could feed more than one dog, or even a person.

Kurt, Actually we do both. But in any case, I was being legalistic in my question. the concept of issuing permits for what appears to be public property to property owners/full time residents based soley on where they live smacks of something wrong. Kind of like a poll tax, etc.

No I don't want to push the system and I do understand about growth's negative effects.

 

[scooterbug44]

I don't understand why you wouldn't be within your legal rights to issue permits (either for dogs or driving on the beach) solely based on residency, defined (in my mind at least) as either property ownership or full time occupation of a rental unit.