Parks are for pets

That humans are superior is debatable

It was puzzling to open the Oak Bay News on June 13 to find a anti-animal editorial diatribe, along with a dog-rejecting letter from a reader. Taking a swipe at those who oppose a deer cull, and urging dog guardians to leave their canine friends at home, the editorial says:

“We must remember that as humans we are the superior species, and as such we must make decisions based on what is best for us, even if that means our four-legged friends miss the picnic.”

That humans are superior is debatable; to say that excluding animals from our surroundings is “best for us” is nonsensical. Best for which of us? Not those who enjoy the company of pets, or who take pleasure in local wildlife like deer.

As for the idea that dogs shouldn’t be able to enjoy McNeill Bay because seabirds and mammals live there: I have lived off and on for decades near McNeill Bay and have yet to see a dog catch a seal, gull or goose.

I don’t have a dog, but one pleasure of walking on our beaches is to watch the array of ecstatic dogs at play.

In a world where the cost of everything is going up, that is one entertainment that all can enjoy for free – unless someone takes it away.

What is this “dog pollution” the letter-writer refers to? The only pollution in Oak Bay comes from over development, architectural uglification and pavement-creep.

Since the present municipal council seems determined to eradicate the private garden, where are people supposed to play with their dogs, if not at parks and beaches?

S.B. Julian

Oak Bay