WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH — Changes to Wrightsville Beach’s dog ordinance continue to be at the forefront of discussion and though none have been set in stone, aldermen are asking staff to begin preparing an update. It is proposed to include increased fines for pet owners that leave behind their animal’s waste instead of disposing it.
“We are all annoyed by poop — and not just on the beach, it’s everywhere,” Mayor Ken Dull said at Tuesday’s aldermen meeting.
The conversation of focusing on dog waste stemmed from a broader discussion that has been ongoing for months now about making changes to Wrightsville Beach’s dogs on the beach ordinance. Currently, the ordinance states leashed dogs are allowed Oct. 1 through March 31 and prohibited April 1 through Sept. 30. It also mandates all dogs are registered to the owner’s place of residence, and dog waste must be cleaned up and disposed of properly.
READ MORE: Early-morning dog walks could come to Wrightsville Beach during tourist season
However, suggestions have been batted among a dogs on the beach working committee, the planning board and the aldermen about expanding hours.
Town Manager Haynes Briggs gave a presentation, similar to one he presented in March, suggesting changes. He noted the majority of the committee — featuring six resident voting members and two nonvoting staff members — voted to expand hours that dogs are allowed on the beach.
The committee originally took up four options, but landed on the third:
- No change to the current ordinance
- Expand the season dogs are allowed on the beach, by adding a month to each end
- Allow dogs from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. during the currently restricted summer period
- Allow dogs year-round outside of 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Brigman added any times restricting dogs would not apply to service animals, always allowed per federal regulations. He also noted staff can’t necessarily ask a vacationer or resident about verification.
“So individuals can proclaim their dog being a service dog and effectively can circumvent any rules that need to be put in place,” he said. “There are, obviously, folks that, you know, do that the right way, and unfortunately, we know that there are people that take advantage of that.”
When the aldermen first heard potential changes in March, they forwarded it to the planning board for consideration, which did not favor additional hours in a 5-2 vote. But the board thought fines should escalate for people who do not follow current rules.
Brigman mentioned 110 citations were issued last year, with the majority being for dogs left off leash or running on the beach when not allowed.
“There’s environmental and wildlife, habitat concerns,” he said. “There’s cleanliness of the beach and just the overall impact of those nuisances that, unfortunately, it’s not the dog’s fault. It’s the owners of those dogs’ fault, but nonetheless, things that we have to worry about and challenges from a quality of life and enforcement perspective.”
More so, he said staff is picking up dog waste on a daily basis along the 4-mile stretch of beach, despite whether or not it’s during the year when dogs are allowed, which is a public health issue, affecting the shoreline and water. But because the town has limited park rangers and can’t necessarily afford to put law enforcement at every corner of the beach or public access, it’s hard to catch people in the act of breaking an ordinance.
“But we repeatedly and consistently hear from residents about their frustration when we don’t always catch violators,” Brigman added.
In April, the planning board picked up the dog ordinance and voted unanimously against recommending expansion of hours and instead thought fines should increase from $250 to $1,000.
The working group suggested a fine increase of $500 instead of $1,000, which Brigman said Wrightsville Beach staff agreed with, as that would fall in line with other violation penalties in the town code.
Brigman added, though the planning board and working committee were at odds on expansion of hours, both groups agreed to administrative suggestions. One included any ordinance change be treated as a trial run for one year to assess issues that arise before becoming permanent.
Both the board and committee also wanted to restrict dog access in vulnerable wilderness areas, particularly south of Shell Island and north of beach access 42, where birds and turtle nesting is frequent.
The groups also talked about the need for dog waste stations more prominently available throughout the island and for the town to do a better job educating the public about the ordinance, particularly when it comes to tourists visiting and bringing pups on vacation.
Aldermen Margaret Baggett agreed with restrictions in vulnerable areas, but didn’t think ordinance changes should be under a year-long pilot period — rather less. More so, she thought fines should increase for only waste left behind, not necessarily for dogs on the beach during the off-season or if unleashed.
Aldermen Jeff DeGroote said he would not support increased fines at all, but did desire more enforcement to what already is in place.
“I’m a dog owner, like a lot of these people are,” he said. “It seems excessive if someone comes down here and we need to be neighborly. They may be having a bad day, a bad month and come down here and walk their dog and get a $1,000 ticket. … So I don’t agree with any increase and I’d like to keep everything the way it is right now.”
He also asked if there happen to be “excessive fines” given for dog waste, to which Brigman noted around 20.
Aldermen Todd Schoen agreed with increasing fines for people who didn’t pick up after their dog’s waste.
“That’s the part that bothers me most,” Schoen said. “And I think we’re past educating the public on what’s right.”
Though he agreed literature regarding ordinance times and months allowing dogs does need to be better distributed through second-home rentals, hotels, motels and the like.
His colleague, Zeke Partin, seemed more inclined to agree with the planning board, which she reminded her fellow aldermen where meant to vet issues for the elected leaders. Thus, she also did not favor expanding hours for dogs on the beach but supported extra fines on dog waste.
Partin cited an example at the condo she lives in, once primarily owned by residents, but is now mostly rented during summer months.
“And these kids who come here don’t care,” she said. “I mean, you got to get their attention. … And it’s a common sense thing. So if they complain about a $500 fine, it’s their problem.”
Dull agreed with DeGroote that enforcement needed to be looked at more closely, particularly when it comes to getting another park ranger.
Only one member of the public, Doug Wilson, spoke during public comment about the dog ordinance, asking aldermen not to vote on expanding hours until more help is in place.
“We need more help to enforce the rules,” Wilson said, stating they also should be focused on putting in place better signage everywhere for public knowledge.
Dull suggested the town begin better enforcement discussions in the offseason during the next budget process. More so, he asked staff to start drafting an amendment for changes about increased fines for dog waste and bring it back to the aldermen in July.
“I’m in favor of raising it to $500 and we need for the general public on the other side of the bridge and the residents, to know it’s just not accepted,” Dull said.
At Port City Daily, we aim to keep locals informed on top-of-mind news facing the tri-county region. To support our work and help us reach more people in 2026, please, consider helping one of two ways: Subscribe here or make a one-time contribution here.
We appreciate your ongoing support.
