Q Should dogs be allowed to use public beaches? I am straining at the leash about the Hoi Ha locals, namely the so-called Friends of Hoi Ha chairwoman Nicola Newbery and resident Karen Winton, and their selfish and over-the-top reaction to some dogs enjoying a day out with their owners at the Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park beach. Of course dogs should be allowed to use public beaches. It should not even have been posed as a question. Since when did dog-haters have the divine right to determine that only they have the right to enjoy the natural environment? Is the Hoi Ha Wan beach the sole preserve of Ms Newbery and Ms Winton? Does Ms Winton live in the real world if she can describe the beach as 'a scene from a horror movie?' Such scenes are those being played out daily in Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Afghanistan and other trouble spots, not at the Hoi Ha Wan beach. There is enough persecution of animals by people in this world already, without petty little people like those at Hoi Ha putting in their ten pennyworth of nonsense. It was gratifying, however, to see that the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department has emphasised that marine parks are public areas (not just the sole preserve of a select few) and that no violation of the Dogs and Cats Ordinance was found. Phillip Davies, Tai Wai I was one of the visitors with a dog at Hoi Ha on that day out with our club members. There was more than one club on the beach on that particular day. The newspaper article made all of us very angry. The piece quoted, 'One resident, Karen Winton'. Can this represent the whole village? I suspect there are selfish residents who want to make the marine park their own backyard. When we first walked into the village after getting off the bus, there was an expatriate woman who was very rude to us. There are a few doubtful points raised that I want to counter. Throughout the day we strictly followed the government regulation on cleaning up excrement. There was a government official with us the whole day, and if the resident took photographs, why didn't she get the official to issue fixed penalties to the dog owner and be a witness? The official also told the newspaper that nobody was violating regulations. The rude woman I mentioned had a dog walking outside her premises. Residents also keep dogs in the marine park. Is there any proof that the excrement photographed came from the visiting dogs? Could it have been from their own dogs? How come their dogs can use the park and not others? The woman was rude from the time we were walking in an orderly and disciplined fashion to the beach. While we were waiting for the bus when we were leaving, she came out and said: 'This is my village.' We asked her: 'Can you say again in front of the people that this is your village?' She replied: 'None of your business.' It is quite obvious that some people are trying to make the marine park - a public area - their own backyard. This is selfish behaviour. The marine park is a public area. As long as everybody follows regulations, nobody should be blocked from using it. Name and address supplied It is ridiculous to ban dogs from using public beaches. As the beaches are public areas, no one should have the power to stop pets from visiting them. There may have been some irresponsible owners with no regard for others and who were not willing to clean up their dogs' droppings. But it is groundless to say that all dogs will cause such a problem to beaches, and that all dog owners are irresponsible. Pollution of beaches is usually caused by people. After spending a day out on beaches, people leave heaps of rubbish and walk away. Many people try to play down their own faults, and try to shirk their responsibility and shift the blame to dogs. Matthew Yui Ming-tak, Wong Tai Sin Q Is it worth losing more than 500 trees for a park? I own a flat in Stanley Main Street where I have lived for about 16 years, and was horrified to read your story on Monday about the planned park. The notion of cutting down beautiful mature trees with nesting kites, bougainvillea flowers and stunning natural greenery tumbling down to boulders and an unspoilt beach, only to replace it with a park is arrogant and obscene. Do the park planners presume to improve on nature? By all means let us have parks and greenery in areas of the city crying out for green breathing spaces, but why replace natural beauty with a 'park' and a car park? The people who sneakily foist these plans on an unprepared public deserve to have their motives thoroughly examined. Where is our open government? What commercial interests are again scheming to benefit behind closed doors at our expense? When we have covered all of Stanley in concrete and toilet tiles, will the tourists still come? Please do all you can to stop yet another outrage. Clive Rigby, Stanley Let me make sure that I fully understand this brilliant plan. Ding Yuen Arboriculture Foundation is going to chop down all the trees in a 48,477 square metre site at Stanley so that, in two-thirds of the site, they can create playgrounds and a hiking trail which, presumably (as most popular hiking trails do), will pass among ... trees? Fantastic! I appreciate that, as a non-profit organisation, they cannot do everything at once. But, when funds allow, perhaps they might consider draining Stanley Bay and filling it with sea water? Peter Robertson, Sai Kung
