Dear Editor:
I have been going to the Queen's Park dog park since it was established. Often I go daily with my two dogs, one big and one small.
Yesterday there were three official-looking people with clipboards there when I arrived. I had to ask what their purpose was, fearing for my beloved pet's favorite park. They explained tentative plans to section off part of the park for small dogs only. They said their "survey" concluded there were small dog owners who wanted a space for only small dogs, citing fears and concerns of perhaps a few "elderly" citizens who didn't feel secure putting little Fluffy in with the big dogs.
In the many years I have been going there, I have yet to meet one person who wished for a separate small-dog-only park!
I was horrified when they shared their intention to cordon off the best part of the park for little dogs only and their owners who are, perhaps, two per cent of the population that would actually use it!
Everyone who goes there knows that 98 per cent of the dogs play in the north end of the dog park where there are lots of trees, boulders, logs and benches to provide stimulating play for rambunctious dogs, large and small.
The south end of the park is rarely used as there are fewer of the obstacles at that end and fewer trees to provide shade. So, logically, wouldn't you first look at utilizing the part of the park least used for the separate small dog area?
Why would you take away the part of the park that 98 per cent of the dogs - big and small - play in 99 per cent of the time and give it to the maybe two per cent that may or may not even bother to use it - and certainly not even remotely close to the amount of time big dogs and their owners spend there?
I couldn't believe what I was hearing and had to argue my case for all of us who love this dog park. They listened respectfully while I pointed out it made no sense to take the best area for the very few who are rarely there.
The logical place, I pointed out, would be the south end of the park where hardly anyone ever goes and dogs rarely ever play, except to chase a ball thrown from the other end. If they must reduce our beautiful all-inclusive dog park to a segregated large and small dog park, then do so in a manner that recognizes and respects how many actually use which areas and base the decision on the factual numbers of past and current utilization.
Also this fact: if their aim is to reduce the possibility of small dogs being subject to big dog aggression, then putting a fence between them is totally counterproductive to that end.
Just watch the dogs inside the dog park react to someone walking a dog past them on the other side of the fence. Watch both sides go ballistic as they jump at the fence trying to get to each other. The best way to ensure animosity is to put a fence between two dogs. Even leashing can trigger protective behaviour between them.
Put those same dogs together free in the park and they will play together just fine 99 per cent of the time - large and small. In fact, it is generally the small dogs who are the troublemakers and boss around the big dogs! I myself have one big and one small dog, and it is the little one that dominates, always. I would never even consider putting my little one in the small-dog-only park, even if his "big brother" wasn't with him. He loves to play with the big dogs!
Their last reason for their plan of putting the small dog only area in the most popular part of the park? "That is where the drinking fountain is."
Really? My solution: Get another bowl and put it at the other end for them. Seriously, it is the big dogs running around with each other that use it mostly anyway. I'm sure anyone there will gladly fill the bowl with fresh water for the little pups that don't want to be in with the general pupulation!
I know I have ranted on, but I really feel strongly that we must raise our voices against potentially losing the best part of our park for the 98 per cent of the frequent users to the two per cent that rarely use it.
It was obvious two of these officials did not use the park and likely don't own dogs. The third person of the group thanked me for bringing up my objections to the others, stating he had been making the same points to them and was speaking from experience as a past user of this park.
I would implore them, whoever these decision-makers are, to please listen to the voice of experience in your group and spend some time there and really investigate for yourselves who uses this park the most and where they spend the most of their time.
Then, and only then, explain to me why you would want to take that away from them.
Please do the right thing, and if you must do this then put a separate small-dog-only section at the south end where the park is rarely used.
Even better yet, fence off a totally separate area - and there are many in the south end of Queen's Park - that is hardly ever used.
An area either just south or just north or just east of the current dog park could easily be fenced and dedicated to small dogs and their owners.
Leave the existing dog park totally alone and let both big and small dogs continue to play together and enjoy what is currently the nicest dog park in New Westminster. Leave them to run the length of it chasing their frisbees and tennis balls; don't chop it up and spoil it for the majority to appease the very few.
That would be the most brilliant solution. Everybody wins. Everybody's happy.
R.L. Duncan, on behalf of Toto and Kobe
