Animal Control Bylaw Under Review
Dog on left is a restricted breed while dog on right is not-image courtesy City of PG
Prince George, B.C. -Council for the City of Prince George has given the green light for Bylaw Services to review the City’s Animal control bylaw.
The approval clears the way for the development of a new bylaw that would put more responsibility on pet owners.
According to Bylaw Services, measures such as designating certain breeds of dogs as “dangerous” and requiring the animals to be muzzled when in public and in an “enclosure” at home, have had little effect in protecting the protect the public from dogs that bite.
According to their report, identifying a dog that is “”restricted” is difficult as is evident in the image posted above. The City relies on the honesty of the owner when it comes to licensing such animals. Only 50 such animals are currently licensed in the City, however, Bylaw Services is certain there are many more.
Restricted dogs in Prince George are:
- Pit Bull Terrier,
- American Pit Bull Terrier,
- Pit Bull,
- Staffordshire Bull Terrier,
- American Staffordshire Terrier, and
- crossbreeds of each.
The number of bite incidents in which the restricted breeds were involved has increased, but not all bites involved such breeds. In fact, in the10 years since the current bylaw came into effect a restricted breed was identified in 23 of every 100 incidents. That compares to 14 of every 100 incidents in the 5 years prior to the current bylaw coming into effect.
Restricting breeds, and labeling the breed as ‘dangerous’ is opposed by the BC SPCA and the Canadian Kennel Club. Both organizations say there are a number of factors which contribute to a dog being aggressive and genetics is just one of those factors.
Bylaw Services Manager Fred Crittenden says there is also an issue with cats. He says while “Unidentifiable free roaming cats” create nuisance complaints for his office, (657 last year) the owner of a cat can simply pay a nominal impoundment fee to have their cat returned should it be impounded. The report says “creating a bylaw to encourage spaying or neutering and having permanent forms of identification cats would allow for a more effective way of dealing with nuisance cats and the overpopulation.”
Councillor Jillian Merrick says her research has brought her to conclude the current animal control bylaw is “Woefully inadequate.”
Councillor Brian Skakun was on Council when the restricted dog rule was brought into effect. “There was a need then and there is a need today” said Skakun, who referred to a letter from a woman who suffered from a ‘pit bull’ attack. “These dogs need to be muzzled.”
Councillor Terri McConnachie admitted this issue is “Very highly charged, an issue that brings up a lot of emotions on both sides of the equation.” She supports reviewing the bylaw, but noted “All dogs can bite, all dogs have teeth.”
“It’s a concern in almost every community” said Councillor Murry Krause but said it’s far too prevalent, “It’s not just people being bitten, but its people and children being frightened.”
Council has unanimously approved staff developing a new bylaw.
Comments
Dogs, dogs, dogs, time to license the damn cats that are running around all over the place!!! My dog is licensed every year faithfully, yet cats are null and void. Talk about discrimination! Get with it, either that or supply th cat traps free, why in h_ _l should should I have to rent the traps to cure a cat problem that some irresponsible owner doesn’t care about!!!
let us see which money gets the decision
Before making any assumptions about the “dangerous breed” terminology, one should first look up the term “nanny dog”. This is a name which is attached to the Staffordshire bull terrier.
I have had many different breeds of dogs throughout my life (Staffordshires, Amstaff, Labradors and a few mixed breed shephards), I been involved in dog training and a CKC registered breeding kennel as well. In all the “pitbull” encounters that I have ever had, only 2 such dogs were anything to be feared… these 2 dogs were possesed by idiots who made them mean, mistreated the poor animals and caused these dogs to become this way. It is a common misconception that all “pit bulls” are bred to fight.. yet many people use this defence to promote hatred and fear of the breed.
If one takes the time to research “pit bulls” you will find that it is as broad a spectrum label as the term “caucasian”.
One cannot change everyone’s perspective on the dog breed issue, but just like racism .. .dont judge by appearance. There are a great many fine “dangerous breed” dogs out there who dont deserve to be feared any more than the average retriever.
The laws should be changed to hold owners completely responsible for their dogs actions, no matter what breed.
‘Holding the owners accountable’ is a nice thought, but it’s not much comfort to people who have been mauled and permanently injured from these dangerous breeds. Yes, I know any breed can injure, but the fact is that bull terriers account for far more than their share of the carnage.
By that logic, holding the human responsible is a nice thought but it’s not much comfort to the person that has been injured or killed from drunk drivers. I know anyone can drink and drive but humans account for all of the carnage. You are responsible for the actions of your child till they are deemed adult and responsible for their own actions. Why are we not responsible for our dogs. They’re not people. I get that. It doesn’t stop me from feeling responsible for my own dogs actions. I raised them. I helped mould their personalities and their behaviours. Some wasn’t easy but that doesn’t mean I blame their genetics. I could go on but I’m not sure these opinions can be changed. Oh and 23 out of 100 is not a majority. And out of the 23 I’m willing to bet they were not all bull terriers. All nature is sacred except the ones we don’t like. I’m not a full vegan tree hugger, I just get annoyed by hypocrites. Accidents will always happen. That is a crappy part of life we all must deal with but I refuse to allow myself to be swayed on these wonderful friends because some ******’ decideds they make good guard or fight dogs. That is not the breed. That is the owner.
“Nanny Dog” is a myth. Even major dog advocacy groups have publicly denounced this term in favour of children’s safety.
http://thetruthaboutpitbulls.blogspot.ca/2010/08/nanny-dog-myth-revealed.html?m=1
Funny, I too can copy links.. and not from a site known for promoting hatred of the breed,
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/pitbulls-used-be-considered-perfect-nanny-dogs-children-until-media-turned-them
According to the American Veterinary Medicine Association, “controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous.” The American Temperance Testing Society (ATTS) puts thousands of dogs – purebreds and spayed and neutered mixed-breeds – through their paces each year. The dogs are tested for skittishness, aggression and their ability to differentiate between threatening and non-threatening humans. Among all of the breeds ATTS tested – over 30,000 dogs through May 2011 — 83 percent passed the test. How did pitbulls do? They showed an above average temperament, with 86 percent making the grade. Pitbulls are the second most tolerant breed tested by ATTS, after only golden retreivers.
…..
Having raised a few and known a great number of these dogs. I will say with all honesty that the breed hatred of these animals is uncalled for. My dogs, my friends dogs and the vast majority ARE loving loyal friendly animals…But as with ANY breed.. BAD OWNERS MAKE BAD DOGS.
But the narrow minded who spread the fear and fallacy wont be swayed. It is with this mentality that people also believe that all Muslims must be terrorists.. or that all Irishmen are linked to the IRA.. just keep on your hate train!
IMO it still comes down to the fact that while most people are loving pet owners very few are actually responsible pet owners. Most people still do not know what it is to be a responsible pet owner it’s great they are loving but ar woefully negligent in being responsible to and for their pet
Instead of focusing on the breed of dog, the bylaw should focus on the dog. Any dog has the potential to be dangerous no matter the size or breed. Once a dog has been reported and proven to have bitten a person or animal (for no reason) then it should be designated as dangerous and as such, be subject to the limits put out. I would much rather see this happen than what is happening right now. We have perfectly social dogs being treated like aggressive dogs and we have aggressive dogs being treated as though they have no issues.
Comments for this article are closed.