Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Letters Oct. 9: Off-leash dogs and safety; change bicycle traffic flow; embrace heat pumps and solar panels

web1_bicycle-lane-wharf
Cyclists wait at a red light on the Wharf Street bicycle lane, approaching the Johnson Street Bridge. TIMES COLONIST

Restrict off-leash times for everyone’s safety

Re: “When dogs run loose, problems for others,” letter, Oct. 4.

The letter is absolutely correct about the “right” to have off-leash dogs.

I am also a dog lover, and I also have problems with people walking their dogs off-leash on the Ed Nixon Trail around Langford Lake.

I go on bike rides on this trail with my kids and we have encountered uncontrolled dogs more and more frequently.

Most people will call their dogs back and leash up when they see us coming, but there are more than a few who yell about the dog being friendly when it barrels at our bikes while we brake hard and need to dismount.

My son is skittish around dogs and he is likely to fall off the trail if he gets scared by your “friendly” dog.

Who is at fault if your dog runs under our bikes (in spite of our best efforts to get out of the way at low speeds) on the multi-use trail?

The worst are the people who have aggressive dogs who actively bite at our heels when we go by. How many times does an owner get to say “no thank you, we don’t do that Fido” before we get to defend ourselves from a dog attack?

Keeping dogs on leash in multi-use areas is a must for everyone’s safety and running off-leash is not a “right.” Keep off-leash activities to designated areas for the happiness of your dogs and the safety of everyone else.

Richard Despres

Langford

Now, Saanich, about that tax increase

So Saanich council has had a major shift in the dog leash bylaw. How about they have a major shift in the eight per cent property tax hike!

Mary Godlonton

Saanich

Switch traffic flow to make bike lanes safer

I am concerned about the layout of bike lanes in Greater Victoria. Our approach to cyclist safety needs a re-evaluation.

Cycling should be against the flow of traffic rather than with it, a change that can significantly enhance safety for both cyclists and motorists.

One of the main issues with the current system is the danger cyclists face by riding in drivers’ blind spots. This puts them at a higher risk of accidents and collisions.

Furthermore, the restriction on right turns on red lights in a tourist town like Victoria can lead to confusion and potentially dangerous situations.

If we were to implement a system where cyclists travel against the flow of traffic, similar to making a left turn into traffic, it would eliminate the need for these restrictive right-turn rules.

Instead, drivers could make right turns into oncoming cycling traffic, a practice adopted safely throughout the country. This change would make our roads safer and more efficient.

In conclusion, reversing the direction of bike lanes would not only improve safety but also simplify traffic regulations.

It’s time we consider this shift in our approach to cycling infrastructure to create a safer environment for all road users. Let’s prioritize safety and ensure that our roads are conducive to efficient, safe, and eco-friendly commuting.

Kelly Galbraith

Victoria

Plenty of houses, if you have money

Why is it a housing crisis? Those with deep pockets can afford to buy houses.

It should be called an affordability crisis.

Don Boyce

Victoria

Without a liveable planet, we will not have liberty

Re: “The goal is nirvana, but the result is slavery,” letter, Oct. 3.

The writer raises fear of collectivism. Yet much of what we have accomplished was done through collective action and decision making.

I think of medicare, once denounced as “state medicine.” Perhaps a greater example is Canada’s war effort in the Second World War. A million people gave up their liberty to join a top-down structure where there was little room for individualism.

The writer wants personal liberty. That is a worthy goal. But in order to achieve that we will need a liveable planet.

Ken Hiebert

Ladysmith

All our governments are falling short

The environment is under siege by every level of government in Canada despite warnings from many other countries.

The federal government has approved the expansion of the Roberts Bank coal port facility in a sensitive migratory bird flyway and orca habitat because it will supposedly provide billions of dollars in revenue.

Furthermore how is the export of coal going to help us meet our global commitments to climate change? This facility will not be operational until mid 2030s and by then global imperatives may render this facility obsolete.

The provincial government is continuing the logging of old growth trees, is considering opening up the grizzly bear hunt that was closed in 2018 and allows the trophy hunting of our majestic creatures.

At the municipal level the use of gas-powered landscaping equipment is still the norm while in California there is a complete ban in all municipalities.

The trimmers, blowers, mowers and other equipment with a two-stroke engine produce enormous quantities of emissions.

These are just a sample of misdeeds. Nature is in a precarious state indeed but the actions of our government are antiquated rather than forward looking. There is no revenue on a dead planet.

Al Niezen

Saanich

Heat pumps, solar panels could ease climate crisis

Nanaimo wants to regulate new housing by not allowing natural gas for primary heating due to concerns for the environment.

If you are going to regulate new buildings to help with the climate crisis, why not also insist on heat pumps and solar panels for all new buildings? Indeed the government should offer incentives to help with doing this.

John Miller

James Bay

Prisons will not solve drug addiction

Re: “Legalizing drugs has led to many problems,” letter, Sept. 29.

I think the letter confused “legalized” with “decriminalized.” I don’t know the answer to drug addiction or alcoholism but using the courts and imprisonment does not equate to a long-term solution.

Alcohol use is legal and causes much grief but, apparently, not as much as during Prohibition.

Certainly early and harshly realistic education of where using these substances can lead will save some from this horrible social and personal tragedy, but degrading those in its clutches isn’t a sound strategy.

Deborah Crawford

Saanich

Let’s try to learn from history’s lessons

“Hark hark the dogs do bark and more beggars are coming to town.

“Some in tents and rusty old vans and needles lie on the ground.”

The walled cities of olden times struggled with the same problems of hordes of outcasts. Now only the wealthy can afford gated security.

Our climate is the most welcoming in Canada but we are not equipped for a recession based surge of sanctuary seekers; other cities will incentivize their unwanted with credits to go elsewhere. You can guess where…

Unless we institute special powers and some kind of conscription workfare along the lines of FDR’s 1930s plan, civic order will deteriorate. You have only to look at U.S. sanctuary cities to glimpse the future.

When inaction leaves the gate open for the worst kind of extremist solutions, those nasty beggars in high places jack-boot their way to the top.

We have good policemen if we let them do their job. Bad things happen slowly and then very fast.

Harken to history’s lessons!

Russell Thompson

Victoria

Let B.C.’s visitors pay higher prices

Parking fees at regional parks makes one contemplate exactly who should be paying. Certainly not the B.C. or municipal taxpayer. The proposed burden should be paid by non-B.C. residents.

If tourists and visitors are enjoying our “Beautiful B.C.,” then they should be paying for that privilege.

Furthermore, I feel that B.C. residents could enjoy a discount at all government-funded venues and conveyances. For example, camping fees at B.C. and regional parks, fees at provincial museums and of course, B.C. Ferries.

If it is deemed that there is no fiscal room for a discount, then visitors should pay a premium for all B.C. taxpayer funded locations.

Adam Kanczula

Sidney

Many advantages to our Garry oaks

Re: “Garry oak trees are just nuisances,” letter, Sept. 28.

Hold on a minute! There are 11 of those trees in the backyard of the one-third-acre property where I’ve lived for the past 25 years, all ranging from 70-100 feet high, and while they’ve expanded their canopies to the point where the rear vegetable garden has too much shade to grow much in the way of food for family and friends, they support an incredible variety of wildlife.

I’ve seen barn owls swoop down from them and snatch grey squirrels from that garden, several species of hawks, woodpeckers, jays, kites, flickers, bald eagles (!) and even a few blue herons sitting on their branches.

I don’t care about the acorns! Right now, every second day, there’s a crunchy carpet of them out there. And raking all those leaves is darn good exercise!

Give me Mother Nature’s peace; it’s a lot better than the stress the letter-writer suffers.

T.L. Pedneault-Peasland

Saanich

SEND US YOUR LETTERS

• Email: [email protected]

• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, B.C. V9A 6X5

• Aim for no more than 250 words; ­subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information.