Saanich Council Candidate, Graham Wright

1. Are you familiar with the lingering issues created by the People, Pets and Parks Strategy in Saanich?

Gray: SHORT ANSWER: Yes, but I don't consider myself any kind of expert. DETAIL: My familiarity is growing by the week with the help of groups like yourselves and other likeminded individuals that bring it up to me at the door when I go campaigning. I am a dog owner as you saw my phone screen saver of my big old Golden Retriever. As such, he has terrible, terrible recall and follows his heart wherever we go. That said, when we approach dogs on-leash, I leash him up. He is fearful of small dogs so he steers clear. His intentions, when allowed to approach someone or their pet, are to see if they have treats. :-) My impression of the policy as I listen to feedback, hear about the petition, the initial budget set (and the restraint in actually using it) says to me that it was born of typical government overreach.

2. Has the People, Pets, and Parks (PPP) initiative been effective so far? Why or why not?

Gray: I guess this depends on your perspective? I haven't seen any data on whether or not the parks have been "saved" by this initiative. It seems to me that the work of the conservationists is not done and they would actually like to restrict access even further given the authority to do so. This begs the question: who are our parks for? I'm the furthest thing from an expert on the science of conservation and natural protection. That said though, I have a pretty good understanding that the taxpayers of this great municipality pay, directly and indirectly, for these parks to exist, be protected as parks from outside interests, and for their ongoing maintenance through park staff and volunteer organizations. If that remains true, then why are we not working with any and all large groups of stakeholders to ensure fair use of the park is permitted while creating effective policies to minimize our impact for areas that simply are too sensitive to share. I read the response from Mr. Wick and setting the whole park aside without compromise and I think that this approach does not factor in the fact that all of us pay for this park and compromises need to be made. That long answer is to say "I don't think it has been the right approach". :-)

3. What aspects of the PPP, if any, do you think need to change?

Gray: Simply put, the PPP does not reflect the compromises that were put forward, deeply restricts the land available, and does not contain any initiatives proposed by other large groups of residents that wish to preserve the parks respectfully while getting some reasonable access to them. It appears to be inconsistent with other municipalities that have equally important land and waterway sensitivity issues. Again, not being an expert, I think we need to consider what those 9,000+ people wanted to say about park use too.

4. How do you see Saanich supporting education programs related to Park, beach and trail etiquette? Gray: I enjoyed reading some of the etiquette suggestions that you provided. I think that if Saanich, the conservationist groups, CRD DOGGS and all other interest groups promoted these important etiquette guidelines (with a consistent message), then conflicts and disturbances of natural features of our parks could be reduced significantly. Imagine posting these at trailheads and parking lots. What about bending the funding towards enforcement for serious violations? Moving some of the budget towards an additional bylaw enforcement officer that could do random sweeps for poor behaviour and directly responding to reports of it might curb citizens from harassing others. An improvement would be needed to the dispatch process as I heard it is abysmal.

5. Is the $1.7M taxpayer funding allocated to the PPP the best use of those funds for Saanich? Why or why not? Gray: I don't believe so. Education and enforcement of the etiquette and potential infractions is a better approach. Attractive, permanent fencing (where really necessary) and clear on-leash markers of identified sensitive areas (even as they adapt and rotate seasonally) with the support of volunteer organizations would make the money go a lot further. Imagine the conservationist volunteers and the dog groups working together to place and remove signage to indicate a nesting area? With Saanich bylaw available with a simple phone number to report serious infractions. It makes sense to me that getting people signed on as stewards of their local park, providing guidance and education and FAIR use for all residents would make park use stress-free and minimize the impact of our presence in these preserved areas. 6. Are you familiar with the Peg and Post fencing added to PKOLS this year? Gray: Yes, I have seen it firsthand.

a. Do you support spending a further $270,000 to fully enclose the 1.7 km off-leash trail at PKOLS? Why or why not?

Gray: No. The 1.7km area was imposed without proper consultation. No point in doing any more fragile fencing until the true nature of the negotiated compromise is complete. I do want to hear more from the conservationist volunteer organizations but I consider input from all sides valuable. We must respect the democratic process in addition to the environment. These parks would not exist without taxpayers to continually fund the conservation of the land - their voices must be considered.

7. In seeking to be elected what do you stand for that you think would be important for our members to know about? Gray: Other important things to know about me when considering your vote. 1. I am a respectful dog owner like you. 2. I believe in collecting community feedback BEFORE making decisions that affect all of us. This applies to roads, development, infrastructure, bylaws, planning, parks, recreation programs - everything our local government is responsible for. 3. Government should not be involved in our daily lives - like walking a dog, if we pose no threat or harm to others and we respect the land we are treading upon. 4. Retractable leashes ARE LEASHES. Your dog is still under control and can be reeled in. 5. I have no personal agenda whatsoever. No ideology I feel that I should enforce upon our residents. I don't think I know better than you what is good for you. I don't need this job, I was trying to retire. However, I couldn't stand what was happening to our network of roads. No improvement to one mode of transportation should definitively and irrevocably cause harm to another important one - needed by the vast majority of residents and visitors to our large municipality.