Dear Editor:

Kim Robinson recently wrote a letter expressing his concern about allowing the Angel’s Animal Rescue Centre to be relocated to a specific piece of crown land. He argues that it would disrupt the wilderness, including the wild critters that live there. In his letter, Mr. Robinson volunteers to show the Rescue Centre other pieces of land in the wilderness where it could relocate.

I presume that there are wild animals living there too, which seems to negate his arguments of incompatibility. In his letter, I was left with the impression that Mr. Robinson uses this piece of land for his own purposes, accompanied (one would presume) by domesticated dogs.

I am having difficulty understanding how allowing the rescue centre on these lands is an issue. There are already animals on these lands and the last time I looked dogs are also animals. It is not like the TNRD is suggesting that the land be subdivided and dozens of homes be built. I do understand that domesticated dogs can chase cattle and wildlife. When they do, one of two things happens to them: they are killed by a wild animal or they are killed by a human with a gun. One would suppose that the operators of the rescue centre are also aware of this and will take steps to ensure that critters under their care do not run amok in the wild. Otherwise, what would be the point of their venture?

I cannot, in good conscience, accuse Mr. Robinson of having self-serving motives, because I do not know him, nor what motivates him. I do understand, however, that his job is to take dogs into the wild to chase down and kill cougar. I am sure he will argue (and I have no reason to doubt) that these dogs are completely under his control and, therefore, not a danger to wildlife unless or until he allows them to be.

I am sure that the shelter operators will argue that they, too, will control the rescued dogs using fences, pens, buildings, etc. to get the job done. And, if they fail to do so, their rescued animals will meet an untimely end. Therefore, on the surface at least, it seems that these wild animals are in far more danger from Mr. Robinson’s dogs, which are trained to hunt and kill them, than they are from the shelter dogs, who are simply awaiting a new home.

Those who oppose the relocation of the shelter to these crown lands will quickly point out that I am motivated by my desire to have these rescued dogs removed from my neighbourhood. Of course I am. It does not belong in anyone’s backyard. Having said that, I have steadfastly expressed the view publicly that the shelter is a critical service that must be located away from the general populace.

The abuse of animals is a societal problem and the crown land belongs to all of us. I fail to understand why it cannot be shared between wildlife and those unfortunate critters awaiting a better life. After all, we created the problem. The least we can do is share this land with them in the same way that we share it with the various local ranchers and, I presume, Mr. Robinson.

Norma Cannon

Canford, B.C.