Dear Editor:
After getting past the dismay as to how much water my family uses in a month as recorded in the last received mailing from the corporation, I noticed an interesting piece of information in the newsletter from the District of Summerland. It states that all dogs must be on a leash unless they are at the Dog Beach.
A review of the Dog Control Bylaw 96-002 reveals that any dog “not leashed... while on a highway, park or other public place” is considered unlawfully at large and according to section 28.b. the pound keeper may seize such a dog. The owner of such a dog faces a fine of not less than $50 a day to a maximum daily fine of $2,000 and after 72 hours, the dog may be destroyed.
With the designated dog beach adjacent to Peach Orchard Park and being a two-sided fenced enclosure with one end open allowing dogs to escape their designated area, is the District of Summerland setting up dog owners for a revenue grab when the dogs become unlawfully at large? Is the district in violation of the wording of their own Dog Control Bylaw which states, “where a property is fully enclosed with a secure fence and self-locking gate which will prevent a dog from escaping, the dog may be untethered and permitted to roam.”
I am of the opinion that if my own dog was to leave the partially fenced dog beach by its unfenced south end and be seized and myself as a responsible dog owner was to be fined, I believe I would forward a claim for compensation from either Parks and Recreation or Engineering and Public Works for their absolute slipshod work performance in constructing a fenced enclosure for dogs to run untethered.
How much money and work would it really take to add eight to 10 feet of chain link fencing to the south end of the doggie beach?
Is this another example of municipal departments lacking common sense and not knowing what is expected from them?
Elden Ulrich
Summerland