Editor:
I understand that naysayers are generally more vociferous that proponents, which might explain the number of adverse letters you have published regarding dogs on the promenade.
Despite this, I believe that the proponents are deserving of some objective comments. And since I am not a dog owner and therefore have no dog in the hunt, and for the past dozen years have walked the promenade two or three times a day, I consider myself as objective.
I have only three comments to make:
1. Since the commencement of the trial period I have yet to see any evidence of owners failing to pick up after their dogs.
2. If anything, the promenade is a great deal cleaner since the presence of the dogs seems to deter the geese who are now relegated to the grass. Previously, one had to play hopscotch through the droppings left by the geese.
3. Without any question, since the inception of the trial period there has been a substantial increase of traffic on the promenade and people are friendlier and happier, which is lovely.
I understand that some people aren’t dog lovers and they are entitled to feel that way. I have yet to see any evidence that dogs or their owners in any way interfere with anybody not interested in them.
I can only suggest that any anti-dog folks start carrying dog cookies rather than grudges, and their lives would be a great deal happier. As somebody smarter than me once pointed out, the best therapists in the world have fur and four legs.
David Wolinsky, White Rock