North Cowichan council has voted to relocate Chemainus’s off-leash dog park from Field 3 of the Chemainus Baseball Park to a new site on Elm Street, adjacent to the current location. It’s a decision that’s being met with disappointment and concern from regular users of the current park.
At its Sept. 17 meeting, council approved the Committee of the Whole’s recommendation to establish a year-round off-leash dog area at the Elm Street location and revise the Animal Responsibility Bylaw to remove Field 3 as a designated off-leash area.
While the move is intended to resolve years of tension between dog owners and the Chemainus and District Baseball Association, many dog park users say the new site isn’t adequate in size, layout or usability.
Michele Yeoman, who helped lead the original 2011 petition that secured dog access at Field 3, said the new space is less than ideal.
“They didn’t pay attention to the 300 signatures we got that said we wanted a good dog park. This is basically a kennel run and then this little wide space. When you get dogs in there, it’s going to be crowded. The crowding is going to start fights. Because you’re so close you can’t even throw a ball.”
Greg said he felt the decision didn’t address the reality of dog behaviour or the layout needs of the park.
“It’s not great. I mean that to me is not a big enough area. I get that it’s long, but it’s very narrow. My dogs need lots of room to run. To me it’s not adequate. It’s small.”
Bev Gerick, who has used the current park for seven years, said Field 3 remains the safest and most accessible option and agrees that the new spot will be too small.
“It’s long enough for them to run, but you get a group of them doing zoomies and it won’t be enough space. There’s not too many places in Chemainus that they can go safely to run.”
Barb Hilborn said the proposed location also lacks sunlight during the times people typically use the space.
“At this time of the morning it’s completely shade. All winter we’re here every morning and it’s freezing in the shade. I can see in the summer it’s nice to have a bit of shade, but eight or nine months of the year, we’re going to be in constant shade no matter what time of the day we go there. There’s no sun on that spot.”
Pam Cade said she questioned why other locations weren’t more seriously considered.
“I asked about Fuller Lake because they put up a snow fence one winter and called it a dog park. But they said, well, no, that’s too far for people to travel. If that’s the only place where there’s enough room to put up a decent dog park then people are going to drive there.”
Yeoman also pointed to an option she believes was overlooked.
“There’s a small field over there. It’s called the T-ball field. About twice a year the little kids come and play T-ball. T-ball you can move to this area or anywhere because the bases are movable. I said that would be your least expensive dog park. It’s already fenced. It has water, it has seating. They’re not listening to any of us, and I’ve given up. I’m through with it.”
John questioned the rationale behind removing access to Field 3, especially given its limited use during much of the year.
“If you bring your dogs here frequently, you see kids on this field in the daytime, like maybe once or twice a year, a weekend tournament. So the way the schedule has been going, I don’t see how it’s a bad thing.”
Gerick also pushed back on the claim that Field 3 is in constant use by the baseball association.
“No one uses the park from now until March. Even when I walk by here in the summer months, rarely is anyone ever in here. Even when it’s spring baseball season, other than tournaments, there’s no one in here.”
The relocation was one of three options presented in a public survey earlier this year. While Field 3 had been used seasonally for more than a decade, the CDBA has argued for full-year access, citing growth in its programs and concerns about field conditions.
The approved Elm Street site lies adjacent to Field 3 and is currently undeveloped municipal land. According to the municipality, it was the most preferred of the options among survey respondents. However, many park users say their input has been dismissed.
While the new site has been approved, many dog park users say the outcome doesn’t reflect what the community asked for.
