City Unleashes Dangerous Dog Bylaw

Monday, September 12, 2005 04:01 AM

Prince George City Council will consider the first three readings of a new animal control by law tonight that will toughen up the penalties on "dangerous dogs."

Those dogs are defined as Pit Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull terriers, Pit Bulls, Staffordshire bull terriers , American Staffordshire terriers or a cross breed of any of the above.

The maximum fine for a dangerous dog that is at large becomes $10,000 dollars. The minimum for the contravention of a dangerous dog offence is $2,000 dollars.

In offences related to dogs other than dangerous, the fines are $500 dollars for a first offence, $700 for a second offence and $1000 for the third offence.

In addition, the owner of a dangerous dog must display a warning on the property, give the City the name and address of a new owner of the dog within 2 days and advise the city within 2 days if that the dog has bitten someone or another dog .

The new bylaw would mean anyone under the aige of 18 would not be allowed to have alicense for the dog. and no more than 4 dogs would be allowed on any property without obtaining a kennel license.

At the same time the new by law says owners of dogs must immediately remove and dispose of in a waste container or by other sanitary means any fecal matter deposited by a dog.

With respect to barking dogs ; a dog must not bark excessively and when such barking disturbs, or is likely to disturb persons in the neighborhood or vicinity, the owner is in contravention of the by law.

Licensing a dangerous dog will cost $100 dollars for the animal if it is spayed or neutered, $250 dollars if it is not.

Licenses for other dogs are $25 dollars for a spayed dog and $60 dollars for a non spayed or neutered dog.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, September 12, 2005 04:01 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: BCRacer on September 12 2005 6:17 AM

It is all well and good to make up these bylaws but is there anyone in animal contol with enough to enforce it.
They handed a barking dogs complaint back to me... so much for enforcement!

Posted by: gypsy on September 12 2005 7:48 AM

Must be looking at a way to entice that by law cop to get out there and earn his keep.
Increase the fines enough to make it worthwhile to keep him employed-not that they need that excuse. He has been there for years and has proven himself fairly useless But isn't that par for the course at Prince George city hall???
They have so many archaic by laws they actually appear to be a stupid lot.
Oh well, I always say, "If the shoe fits. wear it."
Prince George city hall needs to be swept clean and every once in awhile, a fresh start is in order.
And scrap all these stupid so called "visions."
If this old council and mayor get voted back in, we deserve them.
It will just prove we, the public, are a bunch of red neck, spineless, bush whackers looking for punishment.
Actually begging for it!!!!
Nope-I am still not angry!!!!Nothing really gets to me-fortunately.

Posted by: spanky on September 12 2005 9:16 AM

sounds brilliant. unfortunately usually lowlifes live below the radar and will never even here of any of these rules. i bet ol brian skakun will no doubt put way more than his two cents worth tonight and get on my nerves again. and if you can stand to watch, sheryy sethen will be totally confused(yet again). oh well,

later.........

Posted by: owl on September 12 2005 12:25 PM

I agree that the city does not have the capacity to enforce the bylaw other than on a complaint basis.

I wonder what the thinking is behind setting higher license fees for "dangerous" dogs. I would make licenses free for sterilized animals, but mandatory, then more people would get licenses and the city would have a better idea of where dogs are located.

License fees for intact animals should be in the range of $150. That would encourage more people to get animals sterilized since that is about the cost for doing the procedures and the license would then be free.

That should then be backed up by heavy fines for not having licenses.

This city has an animal "problem", both cats and dogs. The SPCA has put a clinic here to help try to solve it. People are not doing it voluntarily, so enforcement is the next step. A lot of people in the community give money and time to basically take care of "problems" created by other people. If people would take more care of thier animals, that money and volunteer time could go to helping less fortunate people in this community.

Posted by: tami on September 12 2005 8:08 PM

I must take issue with the comment about the by law officers not earning their keep. I am a person who has spent a great deal of time walking the streets and driveways of Prince George as a part of my job. As a result, I've had more than a few occasions to call the animal control department, and I can tell you that my calls were answered promtly by people who were very concerned with my welfare, as well as the welfare of the "problem dog." Let's not kid ourselves, alot of people in this city have no control over their own animals, and the animal control officers do a thankless job under sometimes incredible pressure, on a daily basis. You couldn't pay me enough...thanks to all of them!

Posted by: gypsy on September 13 2005 9:51 AM

I am fortunate I do not have to walk the streets, nor do I have to bother homeowners by occupying their driveways for any reason.
If I encountered a dog in a driveway that I was afraid of, I am sure a by law enforcement officer would tell me to leave the driveway post haste, as I would be on private property, and more than likely, uninvited.
I have yet to encounter vicious pit bulls on the streets, roaming at will.
Makes me wonder if I really live here!!!!

Posted by: tami on September 13 2005 9:18 PM

Gypsy, you may or may NOT have noticed in my post that I walked into peoples' driveways as a function of my JOB, not to "bother" homeowners, and NOT uninvited...and as part of my job, I also encountered numerous pit bulls, rottweillers, labs, mutts, you name it, "roaming at will." If you haven't encountered any problem dogs on the streets of this city, consider yourself lucky. I've been attacked three times and bit once, and as I previously stated, the animal control people were there for me. I'd like to state at this point that if you've never been the victim of a dog attack, consider yourself fortunate, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Two of the dogs had to be destroyed because they had attacked people on previous occasions. I consider the owners of those dogs responsible for their fate, as they couldn't be bothered to keep their pets safely in their own backyards. Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if you live here too.

Posted by: gypsy on September 14 2005 3:23 AM

How uncouth!!!
To be invited to a home and the people have you greeted in the driveway by a pitbull that then ends up having to be destroyed.
Sounds a bit cruel to me.
To both you and the poor animal.
I'd be looking for another job.
Yep, I live here.
Incidently, I am very much afraid of those breeds of dogs myself.
Fortunately I am not placed in a position whereby I encounter them running freely.
Have a nice day!!!

Posted by: owl on September 15 2005 3:52 PM

Tami

Census Canada, for instance, would not allow its enumerators to step on a property where a potentially dangerous dog was visible to the enumerator. One has to be a bit more concerned about workers than that.

In fact, it is not practicing due diligence when it comes to worker safety for any organization to allow that type of practice.

In the case of Census Canada, a supervisor would then go out to assess the situation to determine if it was safe for the supervisor to even step onto the property to make personal contact with the inhabitants of the property. Otherwise, they would be contacted by phone.

I would have to seriously question your workplace situation and vthose who supervise it, in that it is simply not safe.

Other methods need to be found for such places to deliver items to such sites or pick up information from such sites that can only be done by an individual.

Posted by: tami on September 15 2005 9:42 PM

Owl, I appreciate your concern. My employer and my union agree that I should not have to enter a driveway/yard to perform my duties if I do not feel safe. My problem is that most dogs do not feel territorial until AFTER I have entered the driveway. I completely understand the dog defending its territory, what I don't understand, is the owners of this beloved "family pet" letting the dog run loose, out of the safety of its back yard. At this point, my employer and I have done all we can and after one or two close calls, animal control HAS to be called in. Somewhere in all this, the owners of the animals have to be held accountable. I am a dog owner and animal lover myself, this by law isn't something I wanted, but is something I totally support for the safety of my co-workers, my children, my neighbors, AND my beloved family pet. And as for your comment about finding another job, Gypsy, some of us don't have that option. As a person who seems to be concerned about the concerns about the middle class working family struggling to get by, I'm sure you'll understand my position, right?

Posted by: gypsy on September 16 2005 8:30 AM

Put yourself in harms way-and " suffer the consequences."
When you have a gut feeling when facing a pit bull that says ,"Don't go there"--well then don't go there."
Many people have those dogs for a good reason-like a "Keep off my property." signal.
As you say-you do NOT go UNINVITED, so ask the dog not be free when you attend.
Don't go, then call an animal control officer to assist you, and have an animal destroyed.
There are too many animal lovers like you already in this city.
Cry me a river!!!!!

Posted by: tami on September 16 2005 2:48 PM

One last post, then I move on, Gypsy. People like you have your minds made up, and no one else can possibly have a valid opinion, right? On two of the occasions when I was attacked, the dog came off its own property to attack me. This means that the dogs were NOT restrained, NOT in their own yards, and on one occasion, the dog had already attacked a child riding a bike a short time earlier. It's animal lovers like you that give the rest of a bad name...there are bad owners, and there ARE bad dogs! I'm just saying that it's high time these owners were made to pay for letting their dogs run loose. Are you going to disagree with that??? Or are you one of those people that blames the child with face wounds and puncture marks, because they must obviously have "provoked" the poor dog? Cry your own river!

Posted by: gypsy on September 16 2005 6:17 PM

Would have been much more appropriate if you had given the actual fact initially.
I previously stated I am afraid of those dogs, so I would never go near one, even with a guarantee I could come to no harm.
A dog would sense my fear and could become aggressive, sensing it's power over myself.
No, I do not want to see anyone bitten.
I was bitten in the face by a German Shepherd when I was about four years of age.
The fear was therefore instilled at a very early age.
I readily admit Prince George is not renowned for taking great care of their so called pets.
It is a shame-and yes, at times, it does make me feel like crying a river.