It did not go well for the petitioners (or for the Commission itself, in my personal opinion, although that assessment is not strictly relevant to the sticker issue).

 

Below is my annotation of the meeting, with timestamps:

****BOTTOM LINE, NO GOOD ARGUMENTS MADE FOR ACCESS RESTRICTIONS COMING SPECIFICALLY OUT OF CONS COM****

1:45 The Chair misrepresents the prior proceedings. The Commission did not “make findings” on the petition recommending denial of the original petition (the “Dog Owners’ Petition”) when that petition was heard on October 1, 2024. Instead, the Chair read a cursory statement which avoided the issues in the argument in support of the Dog Owners’ Petition. You can watch that here, at 1:46:05:

https://archive.org/details/OrleansMA-Ch18Conservation-10-01-2024

 

Among those issues were defects in the proceedings, including reasons to doubt the likelihood of the two main incidents described by the original petitioners, and biased, intemperate remarks by one Commission member casting dog owners in a bad light, namely, as a prelude to a speech about how dogs “are helping to destroy many of the areas that we love:”

“I know that there will be immediate screaming and yelling, and probably a bombing of my house at night.” March 5, 2024 at 2:09:20. – Judith Bruce. Totally inappropriate casting of dog owners as impulsive, thoughtless, and violence-prone, equally inappropriately tolerated by the Chair.

https://archive.org/details/OrleansMA-Ch18Conservation-03-05-2024

 

The statement from which the Chair read was never deliberated upon or voted on. Hence, it is a legal nullity, NOT a finding of the Commission. The Chair knows this, as she admitted publicly in a later meeting to personally violating the Open Meeting Law by responding without deliberating and voting. One interesting unanswered question here is, where did that written statement come from? Six months later, the Commission sent a curative letter (meaning that they filled a gap in their own process by holding a “deliberation” and a vote and then writing me to report it), rejecting the relief proposed in the Dog Owners’ Petition.

4:22 The Chair deceptively presents this sticker requirement as just like other stickers; however, the proposal specifically calls for year-round enforcement, which is unique. She also doesn’t mention that nonresident stickers cost $420. In short, she is covertly advocating for the sticker requirement.

 

5:17 The Chair refers to stickers as a potential solution to “overuse” and the resulting environmental degradation. None of that has been established. Back on October 1, 2024, at 1:49:33, Judith Bruce explained:

“The purpose, really, of the study was to be able to say, has there real damage been done, and if there has, what is that from?”

 

https://archive.org/details/OrleansMA-Ch18Conservation-10-01-2024

 

On pages 18 and 19 in the recommendations section, the study focused on the obvious addressable problems at Kent's: "rogue" trails and erosion from runoff. The study did not in any way identify any damage from overuse, or even use the term “overuse.” So what is happening here is that the Chair is marching forward with a narrative which has not stood the test of contact with reality. That tells us that all of this is political, and insincere. 

 

5:40 [A sticker requirement] “also provides the Commission with a means of access control via sticker parking if we feel that access control will offer an environmental benefit.” WHOA! No, no, no, no, no. Decisions of regulatory boards have to be based on data and logic. We have an environmental study – financed by $15,000 of taxpayer money, by the way – which identified no specific harm caused by “overuse,” did not use that term, and declined to recommend access restrictions even though a series of coordinated witnesses pushed that remedy over and over and over again. Now we’re supposed to accept that the Commission can still endorse this remedy because they “feel” like it’s a good idea? Are they psychic? Have they received a message from God? I just hope that anyone who accepts that kind of governance – by unelected non-expert volunteers, no less – isn’t upset by any irregularities they see on a national level, because I can’t really see any difference.

​

From here on, I’m going to offer generally brief summaries of the remarks of each witness, getting into particulars mainly when I judge that something is inaccurate. To make things easier to follow, I have color-coded witnesses as follows: Red – opposes restrictions; green – favors restrictions; Blue – stresses problems which restrictions have been offered to solve, but doesn't necessarily advocate restrictions specifically.

WITNESS 1 @8:05

Opposes restrictions. Finds them outrageous and elitist. Mentions that her cousin in Eastham does all her shopping and business in Orleans right after dog-walking, and that her business will follow her to another town if she has to walk her dogs elsewhere. This consideration is outside the ConsCom’s jurisdiction, and inasmuch as no clear and effective notice has been given to affected business owners, it makes any action on this proposal based on this hearing impossible from a legal standpoint, or at least a moral one.

 

WITNESS 2 @11:40

Keziah’s Lane resident. Favors restrictions. Begs the question by asserting that Kent’s Point is “overused.” (See the comments above relating to the Chair’s remarks at 5:17. "Something, something, overuse" is not an environmental argument; it's a slogan.) “This is not about trying to exclude people,” she says. Says Kent’s is “not a park,” but rather a “conservation property,” as though these categories were mutually exclusive. (They are not. Kent's Point is divided into designated "Habitat" areas, and the remainder area where the walking trails are. In the remainder area, the rules allow biking, horseback riding, dog walking, hunting and fishing, making that area a park. Kent's Point is not a wildlife refuge, like the Audubon sanctuaries, where you can't even use a mobile phone on the trails. Using a label such as "conservation area" doesn't change that. What matters here, legally and otherwise, is reality, not "magic words.")  Refers to ongoing degradation which is not supported in the expert’s report. Suggests that maybe Orleans dog walkers should go elsewhere, then says again, with no trace of irony, that “this is not meant to be exclusionary.”

WITNESS 3 @13:45

Orleans resident. Opposes restrictions. Cites societal benefits of Kent’s. Suggests that erosion concerns have been addressed already. Decries the trend of exclusion, and asks if Beach Road residents will choke off access to Nauset if this continues.

WITNESS 4 @15:49

Brewster resident. Opposes restrictions. Doesn’t see how she could be an erosion causer, and notes the lack of any recommendation for access restrictions in the LEC report. “We’re all neighbors” is her core message.

WITNESS 5 @17:25

South Orleans resident. Opposes restrictions. Worries about other towns retaliating. Urges us to define community more broadly than just one town. Thinks notion that Kent’s is overrun is exaggerated.

 

WITNESS 6 @19:37 ****BE SURE TO READ THIS ONE

Orleans resident. Favors restrictions. Has been the lead voice for the original petition. Says he lives on Keziah’s Lane even though the property he refers to is being rented out short term. (He does apparently own that property, though, and perhaps he intends to move back in eventually.) Makes a big deal out of the number 1100, which is the number of weekly visits to Kent’s during busy summer weeks. “Imagine if you had 1100 cars going by your house every day,” he then says, multiplying reality by seven. Casts the problem as a traffic problem, which is clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Cons Com. Uses the word “environmental” a couple of times, but never in relation to anything specific. Suggests that we should favor this solution because it doesn’t harm Orleans citizens, totally ignoring the importance of our regional community to so many of us, and the significant harm to that community which these restrictions would deliberately cause. Mentions the worse solutions that could be inflicted, such as banning dogs or requiring leashing, as though that makes this option somehow good. Says it’s an achievable and enforceable measure, which would be true if it weren’t illegal. Says the dog walking is “probably not good for the environment,” trying to shift us away from the expert’s report to some sort of gut-feeling approach. Does a flat, unengaging riff about Kent’s being the "Shaw’s of open space." Tells us restrictions are the “best possible solution that [he] can come up with” and he would love to hear others. Spoiler: Later witnesses talk about making the lot smaller having a LOT FULL sign down at the corner of Monument and Keziah’s, so there are some better ideas, partly because they aren’t illegal. But again, there is nothing in the expert’s report suggesting that usage needs to be curtailed, so we’d be doing this for traffic reasons, not environmental reasons, and that takes this whole thing out of the ConsCom. And beyond that, wouldn't it have made more sense to sit down and have dialogue about this to find a sensible solution, rather than putting town government through these embarrassing hearings because a few people "couldn't think of anything better?" I offered that kind of dialogue on February 2, 2024, by the way, only to run into a brick wall. Here's what I said to Witness 6 in a text message that never went anywhere on his/their end:

All right. So I guess my “ask” here is that you feed my comments back to your group, with some emphasis on the potential I’m saying exists through humanization and detribalization (they can make of that what they will), and then let me know if there is any shift, or whether they are open to dialogue with me/us, or whether you’re collectively set on this proposal as is, just so I can feed that information back to my group. I think I’m inclined to stay pretty quiet with them until I get some feedback I can accurately describe as being from you folks collectively. Does that make good sense?

 

I hit a similar brick wall in September of 2024 when I emailed some of the petitioners asking them to withdraw their petition so we could sit down and talk like adults:

What I do wish for from everyone involved in this issue is an abandonment of "politics" as the means by which to arrive at a solution. I don't want to malign or embarrass anyone by being specific, but I've seen some stuff in the past five years that has really made me cringe. Performative theatrics are demeaning to those who engage in them, in my judgment, as well as toxic to the community, and they're just not worth it. We can be straightforward with each other, and get to a solution without this kind of psychic harm.

 

Just bear that in mind when you hear this witness talk about sitting down respectfully, etc.

WITNESS 7 (me) @24:32

Orleans resident. Lead voice against restrictions. In my remarks, I note the jurisdictional issue mentioned just above and the need for data and logic, not “feelings” as bases for decision-making. I then just summarize this website until I run out of time. Read the other Kent’s Point tabs (Background, Deception, Lawlessness, and Scapegoating) if you haven’t yet, and you’ll be well-versed in the subtopics of importance.
 

WITNESS 8 @30:22

Lives in Brookline. Opposes restrictions. “Everything is being shut off to just the ‘haves.’” Advocates buying more conservation land, to create more opportunities to enjoy the outdoors.

 

WITNESS 9 @33:04

 

Lives on Frostfish Lane. Seeks a solution to a problem. Notes that the parking lot used to be smaller. Cites a tendency to speed on the road, changing its character through repeated grading, and leading to consistent flooding problems at his property. Knew Ms. Kent, and doubts that she would have wanted to wish such problems on her neighbors. Has a legitimate concern, in my opinion. I just don’t think we can violate two constitutions in order to solve it.

 

WITNESS 10 @37:19

Lives in Orleans. Supports access restrictions. This one is complicated and needs some background. From my perspective as an expert of sorts in administrative procedure (I've written about it for over 40 years), I challenged reliance by the ConsCom on the anecdotes offered by the two original petitioners involving injury and risk of injury by dogs. In the case of the broken leg, it was because of the inherent unlikelihood of being plowed into from behind at full speed by a single dog, and the better explanation of unexpectedly face-planting on one of the many tripping hazards (as has happened to me and several of my friends). In the case of the alleged baby-pawing, it was because when I followed up for details by text, the witness couldn’t offer the remotest detail about anything, and because in a subsequent hearing in December of 2024, that same witness said about Kent’s Point, “of course it’s not a dangerous place." See the video at 1:49:17:
 

https://archive.org/details/OrleansMA-Ch18Conservation-12-16-2024

My position is that because these are administrative hearings, we should use the default standard of proof, under which we take something to be true only if it is “more probable than not.” In my judgment, both anecdotes fail that test, especially the latter one. That is a technical, intellectual, procedural judgment, not a personal one.

 

This witness is convinced otherwise, and starts out – ironically – by turning around and chiding me for being “personal,” in spite of the instruction to direct comments to the Chair. (Note that the Chair obligingly waits until he's done to remind him of that instruction.) All I can say is, every time someone does this, they’re just inviting me to explain my position. They’re not changing my assessment, and they never will.

The witness then asserts that “people have had dogs jump up on their kids” at Kent’s. For the record, there is no mention of that in 25 years’ worth of police reports (see pages 144 et seq. of https://www.town.orleans.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/8289/5-Kents-Point-Public-Comment-for-2024-Environmental-Assessment). In fact, as far as I am aware, in the entire written and video administrative record of these proceedings, going back to early 2024, there is only the problematic account offered by Witness 6, the uncorroborated accusation made in the original petition and now published on the Town’s website (see page 1, third paragraph of https://www.town.orleans.ma.us/DocumentCenter/View/7825/2024-Kents-Pt-Petition-KLA), and now this uncorroborated assertion by Witness 10. I don’t apologize in the slightest for pointing this out. When citizens don’t bother to check facts and speak out, I think many of us understand what kind of chaos can ensue.

With that bit of finger-wagging and bolstering of petitioner narratives out of the way, the witness proceeds to discuss wildlife. “This is supposed to be a conservation area for the wildlife,” he says, and asserts that dogs are inconsistent with that. Somehow he then wraps up as though his anti-dog-presence argument supports access restrictions. There is no evidence, however, that halving the number of dogs, for instance, would bring any wildlife out of the designated habitat areas – which serve a wildlife conservation function – on to the trail areas, which serve a recreation function. Importantly, recreation is part of the Commission’s functions. See https://www.town.orleans.ma.us/1201/Functions-of-the-Conservation-Commission, referring to “Recreation. Passive (and to some degree active) use of open space.” So basically, his remarks boil down to "Oakes bad and dogs bad; therefore excluding nonresidents good." 

WITNESS 11 @40:57

Lives in Orleans. Opposes restrictions. Notes that streets all over town now have more traffic than they used to. Asks, “if the solution is restriction, what problem is it solving?” In question form, this directly underlines the lack of any link between restrictions and any concrete environmental benefit. Talks about the legal status of private roads. Keziah's Lane isn’t "private" in the sense that you can keep people off of it. You can’t use misinformation to make good decisions, he says. The ConsCom has no traffic jurisdiction and conservation land is not only for Orleans residents. He notes that the parking lot at Kent’s Point is actually useful to people coming to look at houses for sale or to go to tag sales (so that you wouldn't want to close it off), and stresses again the need for accurate information.

WITNESS 12 @46:00

Lives in Orleans. Favors restrictions. Rues the admission of dogs to the property in the first place. Notes the critical nature of the property as an estuary. Doesn’t want the property not to be taken care of, “just because of dogs.” (?) Argues that the environmental study didn’t mention access restrictions (which she calls “traffic’) because the scope of work didn’t allow for that. There are two problems with her argument: First, the study does mention keeping people and dogs out of habitat areas, so how likely is it that the expert wouldn’t even have made a passing comment about reducing the number of people and dogs in non-habitat areas (the trails, that is) if he had thought it was a good idea? Second, are we supposed to believe that when the ConsCom crafted the scope of work and then had consultations with the expert, they just accidentally set everything up so that the report couldn’t answer the central question in these proceedings – i.e., whether the remedy petitioners have sought since Day One was environmentally useful? Doesn’t that scenario make the ConsCom incredibly inept? So, this is just a silly argument. She then picks up an old, abandoned theme when she says that “dogs can’t read signs.” That goes way back to March 5 of 2024, when Judith Bruce was banging the drum that dogs were "destroying our public lands" by going under the fences onto the banks. As we find out later in this meeting, though, that’s not a talking point any more.

WITNESS 13 @48:15

Lives in Eastham. Opposes restrictions. “Outdoors person.” Points out – very correctly – that people who are on-site every day see clearly what is and isn’t causing erosion. (See, for instance the photos I have taken documenting the true causes of erosion at Kent's Point.) Cites the increased damage to various conservation lands all over the State because of climate change. Cites the health benefits of dogs, especially to seniors.

 

WITNESS 14 @52:40

Lives on the Brewster/Harwich line. Opposes restrictions. Mentions lack of cooperation among towns. Loves taking his grandchildren to Kent’s Point. Attributes erosion to climate change. Notes the inadequacy of Frostfish Lane as an access road. Notes that the Welcome sign will have to be amended. Asks about the cost of stickers (it’s $420)

WITNESS 15 @58:34

Lives in Orleans. Opposes restrictions. Thinks the issue needs to be looked at “comprehensively,” and that ConsCom may lack authority to do that. Notes that the LEC report doesn’t support stickers. Speculates that Wildflower closure may have pushed dog traffic to Kent’s, as an example of what happens when you don't look at the big picture. Agrees that flooding on Frostfish should be dealt with. Doubts that stickers will solve the problem, and predicts that if they don’t, the price will be raised.

WITNESS 16 @1:01:32

Lives in South Wellfleet. Opposes restrictions. Tends not to see many people at the times when he goes. Appreciates and cares for the land. Doesn’t see stickers as solving any problem. Views us as a community. Argues that it is best for Kent’s Point to have as large a constituency of support as possible, in case there is a future need to raise money for its preservation, for example.

WITNESS 17 @1:04:59

Lives in Chatham. Opposes restrictions. Notes the establishments that she and other residents patronize in conjunction with going to Kent’s Point. She also thinks “it’s the neighborly thing to do,” to keep Kent’s Point open, but points to potential financial loss “in case that’s not compelling.” Again, as I noted in regard to Witness 1’s remarks, this consideration is outside the ConsCom’s jurisdiction, and inasmuch as no clear notice has been given to affected business owners, it makes any action on this proposal based on this hearing impossible from a legal standpoint, or at least a moral one.

WITNESS 18 @1:08:05

Lives in Orleans. Wants a solution to what he sees as the main problem, which is that the Town of Orleans does not contribute anything to the maintenance of the private road over which so many people travel because the Town purchased a park there. Talks about 1100 cars per day as did Witness 6. Isn’t it actually 1100 cars per week to Kent’s? Proposes the use of technology to let people know when the lot is full. I assume he means that there would be a sign at the corner of Monument and Keziah’s, which seems on its face like a reasonable thought. Cites speeding, and recognizes that it’s not a ConsCom issue. Would like the issue finally to be addressed, though.

WITNESS 19 @1:10:46

 

Lives on Keziah’s Lane. Says Kent’s Point is very fragile. Doesn’t like privatization. Afraid to run on Keziah’s. Predicts car-related calamity. (Personally, if I lived on a private road and had serious concerns about safety, I would put out speed bumps. There's a seemingly suitable 6-footer on Amazon for $125. Shall I donate a set of four? Just let me know.) Recounts some bad encounters with dogs, including children "being knocked over" (which we need to distinguish from "infants being jumped on") and her receiving a bite. Says she didn’t report them. Considers the land “overused.” (Reminder: This is a conclusion LEC did not reach. "Something, something, overuse" is not an argument; it's a slogan.) Suggests making the parking lot smaller (which is better than residency-based access restrictions because it isn’t illegal). Cites stickers at ponds in Brewster and Wellfleet, not mentioning that they are summer-only. (Note that Kent’s probably can’t be made sticker-only during the summers because it is both a park and dedicated land, which makes it legally different from other areas it is often compared to. Ironically, that information would not be publicly known now if the people pushing this had just gone for summer stickers. Now, however, that opportunity is gone. There's a lesson there.)

WITNESS 5 ROUND 2 @1:15:37

South Orleans resident. Opposes restrictions. Says he runs into various types of wildlife.
 

WITNESS 1 ROUND 2 @1:16:06

Orleans resident. Opposes restrictions. Also cites encounters with wildlife (although certainly the trail areas, as opposed to the habitat areas, are not teeming with wild mammals during the day). Brings up cost of stickers in Orleans (she says $400, but it’s $420, apparently). Says that’s a hardship for some.

 

WITNESS 7 (me) ROUND 2 @1:17:36

 

Orleans resident. Lead voice against restrictions. I make some of the points I have been making in the course of the entire narrative above, including specifying that my evidentiary point is not personal.

WITNESS 6 ROUND 2 @1:21:53

 

Orleans resident. Favors restrictions. Has been the lead voice for the original petition. Tells the story of dog jumping on his baby. Provides a somewhat shocking (and thus, I would imagine, rememberable) detail mysteriously missing from our interaction about a year and a half ago, when he couldn’t remember anything at all. Everyone has to make up their own minds, but this does not change my generic assessment that the lack of initial detail – followed by the “of course [Kent’s Point] is not a dangerous place” remark made at the workshop in December, 2024 – make the story unsuitable as a foundation for making policy. Goes on to say, “I don’t think anyone is saying that dogs cause erosion,” although that is precisely the line Judith Bruce was pushing in March of 2024. Brings up 1100 again (trying in vain to make that number "sizzle," if you ask me), calling it a “Skaket parking lot full of people.” Specifies that he really means about 175 a day, which makes sense with 1100 a week. (Honestly, I don't see 175 cars a day as a crisis. Sure, it's worth looking at how to alleviate this, but one thing that hangs me up a bit is that the locals keep talking about speeding, but won't put down speed bumps. When someone is unwilling to help themselves, that makes me less willing to help them.) Says stickers won’t fix everything but will “whittle away at a litany of problems,” although it’s not clear that he’s talking about problems within the jurisdiction of the ConsCom.
 

WITNESS 3 ROUND 2 @1:25:16

Orleans resident. Opposes restrictions. Suggests stickers for summers only. (Again, I think it's too late for that now that the legal realities are public knowledge, and I'm saying that as someone who wouldn't have minded summer stickers enough to oppose them.) Mentions that the price is $420.

WITNESS 2 ROUND 2 @1:26:00

Keziah’s Lane resident. Favors restrictions. Brings up speeding and traffic dangers, again raising the question, why haven't the locals installed speed bumps? Is there really a sane explanation for their long-standing failure to do that – other than "the problem isn't as bad as they're saying it is?" 

****CONCLUSION OF WITNESS REMARKS****

1:27:32 The Chair announces that public comments will be received until the close of business on September 9.

 

1:28:00 The comments at the hearing and the submitted comments will be discussed on September 16. In my judgment, it would be a better use of the Commission's time to figure out how they're going to avoid another catastrophic scouring erosion event from the next big rainstorm. Do we need to hire a contractor to put in functional water bars? Why isn't that on the very next agenda?

My final comment: When you look back over the hearing, all you see from access-restriction supporters are traffic concerns, "something, something, overuse," and some unhappiness about dogs. It's shocking that on such a flimsy record, a Commission which is conspicuously failing in its most basic task of preventing erosion would conduct a public hearing to consider unconstitutional restrictions – and would do so without making a serious effort ot notify the business owners who will lose revenues no one has even bothered to try to calculate. Something is wrong here. Some person or persons on the Select Board pushed these volunteers out in the spotlight to embarrass themselves, and now what have we harvested from that as a town, other than humiliation and scorn? To all you volunteers out there, whom we appreciate and on whose efforts we all depend: don't let yourselves be used this way. Don't "go along along to get along." Vote "no" when the necessary data are missing and the arguments don't add up. Everyone, including you, will be better off for it.

​​