Sitka WhaleFest
Dear Editor: Why would over 100 visitors come to Sitka in early November? Why do hundreds of Sitkans gather at Harrigan Hall for a weekend? It is because the community comes together to create an interesting and interactive event called Sitka WhaleFest.
There are so many individuals who make this four-day festival possible and rather than listing their names here, I will direct you to an ad in this paper. You will see an incredible list of people who donated their time to make the 2012 a great success.
These folks are students, teachers, volunteers, artists, musicians, sound techs, businesses, donors, science professionals, local non-profits, city departments, SWF speakers and Sitka Sound Science Center staff members. A special thanks goes out to the crew at Harrigan Centennial Hall who go above and beyond to make things run smoothly.
Thanks to you if you participated in any of the events and please join us again next autumn for the 17th Annual Sitka WhaleFest. If you have any questions about WhaleFest, would like to contribute or want to volunteer, please call me at 747-8878.
With great appreciation,
Lily Herwald, Director,
Sitka WhaleFest
Dog Ordinance
Dear Editor: Recently I read about a city Assembly proposal to amend the Sitka General Code (SCG) to establish a $300 fine for allowing non-service dogs on the Moller Baseball Field and Kimsham ball park complex. I question the rationale behind such a staggering first offense fine, as well as why the Moller and Kimsham sites are designated as hallowed ground compared to other public access areas under the City’s span of control. As a baseball fan who has attended many SHS games, I’m thrilled to have an artificial turf ballfield comparable to major college football programs. Still, I wonder if this proposed amendment is an overly inflated case of civic pride versus a true need to close a gap in existing City codes.
I believe the existing SGC adequately addresses public safety and animal control issues. I also believe our City planners have better uses of their time and our tax dollars than to expend effort in crafting, enacting, and enforcing more animal control ordnances associated solely with the Moller and Kimsham fields. In researching the proposed amendment, four major concerns come to mind: universal application of animal control laws; the magnitude of proposed fines; ambiguity in the intent of proposed changes; and the cost / difficulty of enforcement.
First, it would seem that any General City Code should be universally applied to avoid prejudicial bias to any segment of the public. This avoids excessive energy being spent in interpreting and enforcing city ordinances, as well as forcing someone to weigh the relative merits of one location where the code applies to another similar location where the code does not apply. I can’t understand why having a well-behaved dog walking across the access to our public schools is less of a threat than the same dog being walked by its owner on a leash at Moller Field? Do I now get a $300 fine for walking a leashed dog inside the Moller boundary fence but no fine whatsoever for walking it 2-feet outside the same fence? Do I get only a $50 fine when that dog bites a human (first offense) at the pedestrian crosswalk while leaving Moller Field to pay my $300 fine for its leashed walk across Moller?
Second, the magnitude of the first offense fine for walking a dog on these ballfields is absurd. An eleven-fold increase in fines certainly will “get everyone’s attention” as Mr. Dinley was quoted in the Sentinel article. If you’re looking for your most bang for the buck, I suggest you have your dog eliminate waste on the City Office front stoop, cause that only costs $25, and you could circle the block to have it poop in that high traffic area twice with a savings of $100 over the $300 “ballpark fines.” At least your elected officials will know how you feel about the proposed fines!
Third, when I first heard of these proposed SCG changes I was led to believe its concern centered on dogs running at large. That certainly would represent a safety concern in a high use, public area with a large volume of children nearby. But why would such a severe fine be restricted to only two locations, namely Moller and Kimsham, while ignoring the approaches to schools, medical facilities, and virtually any other location in town? As I read the proposed changes I began to think the central issue was inappropriate defecation which represented a potential health hazard. Makes sense but why wouldn’t that also apply to other areas used by youth sports teams? Then I thought maybe the issue is dog-related damage to those Moller and Kimsham fields such as digging. But, why is our artificial turf field more susceptible to damage than those four SEC football teams that have live canine mascots at their events? Apparently those mascots and the huge football players wearing cleats must cause less damage than a dog simply walking across our comparable turf ballfield. I thought things were tougher in Alaska?
Lastly, I’ve always been grateful that I’m not one of the poor souls assigned animal control duties for the City. Those folks have the unenviable task of enforcing animal control laws in a town where a prerequisite for living here appears to be owning at least one pet. I’m sure that those city officials spend countless hours brokering endless complaints from citizens about neighbors’ pets running unrestrained and/or pooping in adjacent yards. As if they didn’t have enough righteous work to do already, now we’re going to make these pet control personnel take their game up a notch by adding more contentious ordinances to their already full plate.
David Durham, Sitka
