LETTERS: White Rock has prioritized dogs over the environment


Re: Finally time for people, dogs, to enjoy waterfront together, Sept. 24 letters

Jane Thrall’s jovial letter fails to address any legitimate issue, and is fooling no one that has the facts and cares about the beachfront.

White Rock had it right banning dogs on the promenade, but has now taken a giant step backwards for a minority group, while disregarding the negative consequences.

October to April is not the “off-season,” but the “on-season” for migrating and nesting birds, the most challenging time of year when long journeys, scarce food and harsh weather make their lives difficult.

It is proven that even leashed dogs frighten and harm wildlife, so we must better manage areas where they intersect.

Boundary Bay is an important place on the Pacific Flyway migration route, and dogs on the promenade and beach negatively impact wildlife here. I’m sure residents would rather see migrating and nesting birds using the beachfront and the return of eagles, than a multitude of dogs, scaring them away and causing irreparable harm.

In his Oct. 8 letter, Ron Kistritz, on the other hand, makes valid points. By inviting dogs to the promenade, the city has turned the grassy picnic and play area into a permanent sponge of festering feces and urine.

The city cannot ignore this health issue, especially during a global pandemic when we are expected to be proactive in safe-guarding other people’s health and well being.

The city must provide dedicated collection bins or instruct people to responsibly take their pets mess home and either properly compost or de-bag and flush it (which any responsible dog owner already does) and ticket those that don’t. Why has the city made dogs the priority instead of people and the environment?

A. Brown, Surrey

City of White RockLetter to the Editor