Fun At Fairfield Hills

To the Editor:

I am surprised to read all this to-do about enforcing the leash law up at Fairfield Hills.

I also cannot understand how one person — Mr Geckle “head of Fairfield Hill’s Authority” — is thinking of banning dogs altogether. How does one person get so much authority? Will he decide to ban children on bikes and horses next year?

As stated, the purpose of the leash ordinance is to keep public land free of unsupervised roaming pets. A controlled, well-behaved dog, walking off leash with its owner, is not unsupervised.

My understanding is that Fairfield Hills is for the enjoyment of all the taxpayers of the town.

We are surrounded by towns that are providing more and more services for pet owners to commune with nature. Newtown instead of providing for its pet owners is now trying to take away places and space.

Even New York City, that “Urban Jungle,” allows dogs in Central Park off leash before 9 am.

As a longtime resident of Newtown, I would not like Newtown to be thought of as “not dog friendly.”

With 185 acres of land at Fairfield Hills, you would think that there is enough room for everyone to find green space to enjoy nature.

Isn’t there some way that all of us kids can play together in harmony?

Debra Trillhaase

6 Sutherland Drive, Sandy Hook                             October 6, 2009