Q Should the boundaries of country parks be sacrosanct? There is a danger that an inch given may turn into a mile - probably on a piecemeal basis. Country parks are areas of natural beauty and conservation for the recreation and education of all. Unfortunately, at a time when an appreciation of our areas of natural beauty and an awareness of environmental and conservation issues is increasing, so are the threats to our natural heritage. The Soko Islands, a pair of beautiful spots, are in danger of having a power [facility] built on top of them. Plans are in progress by various parties and government departments to pour a serious amount of concrete over our countryside on Lantau, which now really has its back against the wall. For continued public enjoyment, country park boundaries should be retained and preserved for the use not only of this generation, but future generations as well. Terry Ridgley, Lantau I read with a sense of despair, and frankly not a little self-interest, the reported possibility of an expansion to the Tseung Kwan O landfill site. I live in Clearwater Bay, so the prospect of an expanded landfill site in Tseung Kwan O definitely falls into the NIMBY (not in my backyard) category. What really galls about the possibility of an expanded site is not its location, but the fact that it is needed at all. How many times do your readers shop at ParknShop or Wellcome - or, for that matter, most other stores in Hong Kong - to be faced with an attempt to make every customer take at least half a dozen plastic bags home? These are bags that eventually end up in Tseung Kwan O or a similar site. The pithy arguments offered by ParknShop and Wellcome collectively, that a 10 cent rebate for not taking plastic bags works, doesn't merit rational (or polite) response. Frankly, neither company has shown the slightest initiative, and there's no likelihood of change from that direction. It should be obvious to government that trash costs money (and let's not even go down the how-about-doing-the-right-thing route), and that most consumers don't respond to requests to either recycle or consume less trash. So, why not kill two birds with one stone - raise government revenue, while decreasing the levels of waste, by slapping a $5 tax on every item of packaging used in retail? Stores would have to cough up, so pretty sharpish they'd pass costs on to consumers. Consumers would have to choose, and my suspicion is that while we aren't prepared to do the right thing because it's the right thing, most of us do (eventually) respond to being spanked in the pocket. Nick Morgan, Clearwater Bay I refer to the articles carried by your paper on January 10, entitled 'Environmental officials may use part of country park as rubbish dump', 'Anger at country park landfill plan' and 'Rubbish problem needs sustainable solution'. I wish to clarify the position for the benefit of your readers. Waste prevention and recycling have been, and will always be, the government's main focus in tackling the waste problem in Hong Kong, but not all waste is recyclable. Even if we are able to reduce and recycle waste as much as possible, there will still be over 4 million tonnes of non-recyclable waste that need to be disposed of each year. Our three existing landfills will be full in about six to 10 years. The policy framework for the management of municipal solid waste (2005-2014), published in December last year, aims to address and tackle the imminent waste problem in Hong Kong. As explained clearly in the policy framework, even with all the proposed measures to meet various targets given in the plan, there is still the need to extend the existing landfills, to serve as final repositories for non-recyclable and residual waste. A strategic study completed in January 2003 looked into the feasibility of extending the three existing landfills, including the South East New Territories Landfill in Tseung Kwan O. As the South East New Territories Landfill is the most widely used waste disposal facility, it is estimated that it will be filled up around 2010 or 2011. As it takes a long lead time to design and commission a landfill project, the Environmental Protection Department started the detailed feasibility study and environmental impact assessment (FS/EIA) for the South East New Territories Landfill extension in August 2005 as a follow-up to the strategic study. The FS/EIA will take about 18 months to complete. Under the FS/EIA, a scientific assessment of the engineering feasibility and environmental impact of the landfill extension will be conducted. The FS/EIA is currently at the early stage of identifying and exploring possible extension options. The department will examine ways to avoid encroaching onto the Clear Water Bay Country Park. It should be noted that no option has been chosen yet at this early stage of the study. The extension project has adopted a proactive public communication approach with key stakeholders who have an interest in the landfill extension and with the general public. The views and concerns gathered from this continuous public involvement exercise will be evaluated under the EIA process. Please rest assured that the department will aim to develop the most suitable extension option, one that is capable of striking a balance between various views, considerations and demands in developing the South East New Territories Landfill extension to meet the waste disposal needs of Hong Kong. Ellen Chan, for director of environmental protection Q Should more parks and beaches be open to dogs? I would like to answer the feedback from Carol Chu on January 6 in Talkback. I do not intend to hurt real pet-lovers; on the contrary, I respect them. The term 'so-called' I used refers to inconsiderate pet owners. I believe Ms Chu is not one of those to whom I referred. One thing I want to clarify is that the 14 dogs I kept back then had new owners before I left them. None of them became a stray dog. So I don't think I am an irresponsible owner. Years ago, when the government announced a ban on dogs from housing estates, 1,000 pet-owners protested and appealed to the government to change the decision. As a result, the government made a compromise. Owners were allowed to keep their dogs but they were required to comply with some rules: planting a chip in the dog's body; being responsible for dog faeces and urine; and being required to use stairs rather than passenger lifts when with dogs. Years later, what is the result? Dog faeces and urine are still found in corridors. Owners use lifts with their dogs. Dogs are left unattended to bark all day in the flats. As for Doctor Pet (an animal therapy programme in which volunteers and their pets visit hospitals, schools and homes for the elderly), which Carol Chu mentioned, I very much appreciate it. This, at least, lets people know that dogs can be used as a psychological pill and it cultivates many future responsible pet-owners. However, it cannot cover up the fact that dogs still pose a threat to people. Has Ms Chu read the recent news? A big dog attacked an eight-year-old girl. An animal is an animal. We don't know when they will attack us; they are like a time bomb to people around them. The government ought to learn the lessons of past experience. It should know how to handle a public outcry. No matter how great the public pressure is, it should not bow to it if the requests are unreasonable and harmful to the future of our society. Gary Ko, Kwai Chung
