New Animal Control Bylaw Passed
By 250 News
Monday, September 12, 2005 08:49 PM

The animal control bylaw has been passed, but not before it raised the hackles of more than one Councilor.
Councilor Sherry Sethen is against a breed specific by-law, which is pretty much what the new bylaw presents.
According to Sethen, studies by the city show that of the 63 bites recorded in 2003, only 9 were attributable to pit bulls or pit bull type dogs. The majority of those bites, involved German Shepherds, followed by Rottweilers (13) and pit bulls (9). She also noted that even the SPCA is not in favour of breed specific bylaws.
Shying from a court case, Councilors Dan Rogers and Skakun both wonder what success there would be given that court cases involving breed specific laws have been launched in Ontario.
According to Councilor Don Zarowski, the bylaw deserves to be tried. He is concerned about breed identification. The City has confidence that the animal control officer has enough expertise on animal identification to be comfortable in making a “call” on the dog’s type.
Councilor Scott wondered aloud just how bylaw officers are going to handle this bylaw when they seem to have difficulty enforcing existing bylaws. Since this bylaw would be acted upon by complaint, and was developed because of a perceived priority, the City is convinced it can enforce the new bylaw.
The bylaw outlines restricted dogs 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( defined as one which has bitten a human, or injured other animals) 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 age of 18 would not be allowed to have a license for the dog. 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
Return to Home
Poundkeepers, under the new bylaw can pick up animals at large and impound them. This now includes cats.
There are impounding fees for all other animals included under the bylaw. There are no license fees required for cats.
So, we have the situation now which allows people to rightfully call City Hall and complain about cats at large and expect the City to come out to trap those cats and remove them. In fact, since it is part of the control bylaw, it is the duty for the city to come out, just as it is if they receive a complaint about dogs at large.
And cat owners do not have to pay any service fee for that - no license, no impound fee.
Then, of course, there is the other view of the cat owners who choose to allow their cats to be "at large". They will not be happy campers when their cat does not come home.
Finally, there was absolutely no notice to people of this city that this would happen. We were notified of the breed specific issue which affects a very small number of people and animls in this community. That group was provided with an opportunity for public input.
That did not happen in the case of cats.
Is this poor draftsmanship by administration and poor minitoring of the written word by Councillors, or is this by intent?