91Ô­´´

Saanich council did not listen to residents

Saanich council’s adoption of the People, Pets and Parks strategy is a profound injustice, not just for dog owners, but for all Saanich residents.

Council admitted that 90 per cent of the feedback to this proposal was negative, and the mayor and councillors made a lot of noise about how difficult this decision was – except that it actually wasn’t difficult at all, it was just awkward to finally enact their agenda in the face of such overwhelming opposition.

Council, rightly, faced an onslaught of criticism over the PPP, especially at their inability to produce any evidence demonstrating the need for these new restrictions.

However, residents also brought forward many suggestions to make the PPP a better proposal. Council could have adopted some of these ideas, but they did not bother.

Although they gave the impression that they were open-minded and listening, they were neither, and missed an opportunity to work with their own community.

This behaviour sets a bad precedent and illuminates the poor state of our local democracy and the lack of accountability of our elected officials.

The mayor said he laments the divisiveness this issue has caused, but apparently not enough to actually do something about it.

Residents be warned: this council is not interested in listening to your concerns, nor will they take the majority opinion into account when making decisions. After all, they apparently know better than the rest of us. Why should council listen to you? After all, you’re only a taxpayer and a citizen.

Bruce Watson

Saanich

Saanich council does not understand democracy

Saanich spent $175,000 on a 16-month public engagement process for People, Pets and Parks and ignored that the “general public input has been largely in opposition” (Coun. Colin Plant, quoted in the Times 91Ô­´´ June 29).

Council is spending another $11 million over four years for enforcing the policy that confines off-leash dogs to smaller spaces, because dogs concentrating in smaller spaces will have more problems for dogs and the neighbourhoods they are in.

This is an astounding lack of understanding of the issue and democratic process, to say nothing of the outrageous spending of taxpayers’ dollars.

Candace Nagy

Saanich

Political agendas first, public opinions second

It is beyond disappointing to hear that the People, Pets and Parks strategy was passed by Saanich council, in spite of the facts presented.

As a resident of Saanich, who for 22 years has enjoyed the freedom and quiet enjoyment in our parks with my dog, I feel betrayed and disrespected by our elected officials.

The mayor and council have ignored the interests of thousands of Saanich residents – almost 9,000 who signed the petition against the PPP strategy, hundreds who wrote letters to the council and more than 80 who spoke at the council meeting.

The opportunity for compromise was suggested by many of these offering less restrictive alternatives that were less costly and more inclusive of the community, while respecting non-dog owners and the environment.

This, too, was ignored, there was no compromise. The message this sends to me as a voter is that our elected council members are not interested in the opinions and needs of the majority of Saanich citizens but rather their own political agendas.

In addition, the implementation of this strategy in my opinion is fiscally irresponsible: Spending more than $10 million to do it. Sad.

What will they take away from us next?

Kim Sterling

Victoria

Parks are not just playgrounds for dogs

Kudos to Saanich council for unanimously adopting the same policy of dogs being leashed in parks that is used by ­literally every major municipality across the country.

Dogs are great companions and help many people get needed exercise, but they need to be controlled and owners need to collect their refuse.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve seen a dog owner fail to control their dog in a confrontation with another dog, or fail to clean up after them because they did their business off in the bushes.

Whenever I go for a hike at PKOLS-Mount Doug, I’m a little taken aback by the number of dogs I see running in every direction, disrupting wildlife and restoration efforts.

Are Saanich parks playgrounds for our dogs? No, they are for everyone: people, pets, plants, and wildlife. Let’s try to remember that as we modernize and move forward.

Edward Pullman

Saanich

Let’s try separation of dogs and people

Mob rule tactics of outraged dog owners thankfully didn’t prevail.

I have seen dog/people separation work well in Toronto, such as in marked areas where people know dogs will be off leash, and other areas where people can be assured there will not be dogs.

Maybe it won’t work here but it might be a good compromise. How do we know if people refuse to even try?

As a dog owner who firmly believes that dogs need some running “free”” time, I am embarrassed that other dog owners are not willing to even try a new idea.

The old way obviously didn’t work. No one probably would be comfortable with horses charging down the trails, and some people are just as uncomfortable with the thought of big dogs “coming at them.”

They have rights too.

Fran Kordoski

Victoria

Many reasons to grieve after decision on dogs

I am grieving.

I am grieving for the loss of my freedom to walk my dogs off leash in Mount Douglas (PKOLS) on 93 per cent of the park trails.

I am grieving for Saanich council’s lack of conscience and compassion. So much public input was against the strategy and they passed it unanimously without considering solutions that offered compromises so everyone could have had sensible safe spaces.

I am grieving for the loss of rights of disabled dog owners, unable to walk their dogs on leash, who are now limited to unsuitable options.

I am grieving for the split in the community this will inevitably cause.

I am grieving for the lack of common sense not to use the regulations and bylaws already in place for misbehaving dogs by extra enforcement and regulations already in place.

I am grieving for the residents of Cordova Bay who will have such a huge influx of dogs on their beach.

I am grieving for the unnecessary expense making dog fences (pens) that will never meet the needs of owners who prefer to walk their dogs off-leash in nature for exercise.

I am grieving for the pollution to the environment by forcing people to drive further distances for enough trail walking in nature to satisfy their souls and the needs of their dogs off leash.

I am grieving.

Merlayna Snyder

Saanich

More dams would help if mountain rain rises

Re: “Scientists fear rise in mountain rains,” July 2.

With this rise in water levels and anticipated flooding would it not make sense to invest heavily in dams located up where the snow and ice once accumulated?

That way, you will avoid flooding at lower levels and have a reserve of water for drinking and agricultural purposes. As well as a controlled water system that would allow for fish spawning steams.

This investment would far outweigh the damage recovery cost of flooding and landslides and loss of fish habitats.

John C. Hobbs

Victoria

Who owns the road to The Butchart Gardens?

We have one of the wonders of the world here in our backyard, The Butchart Gardens, and the road that leads to it is a disgrace.

The Gardens is the major reason why people from all over the world come to Greater Victoria, to see the stunning beauty and to share the incredible story of Butchart’s development.

The first impression they get is that bumpy, narrow and dangerous cow trail. You only get one chance to make a first impression and that road is not a good one.

We all take pride in “The Butchart” and its entrance road is as important to selling its beauty and reputation worldwide, as the Gardens itself.

Please fix, repair or replace that pathetic road, so that entry to The Butchart is as impressive as its destiny.

Jim Laing

Saanich

SEND US YOUR LETTERS

• Email letters to: [email protected]

• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times 91Ô­´´, 201-655 Tyee Rd.,

Victoria, B.C. V9A 6X5

• Submissions should be no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information; it will not be published.