Friday, December 19, 2008

Even non-dog owners have a clue about bylaw enforcement

This letter was in the Chronicle Herald Community Herald this week - and for some reason I could not find it online anywhere - so I scanned it and am putting it here.

This lady is so completely right - bylaw enforcement seems to be completely inept - not just from the Animal Services component - but right across the board - their enforcement of fines is spotty at best in any aspect of the city's bylaws - that it makes sense that they'd be just as uneven in their relationship with the city's tax paying dog owners. Her mentioning the fact that they've done nothing to increase compliance for dog licencing but spent months and months trying to hammer out cat licencing is pure brilliance - because it's true. And completely pathetic on the part of the city. Someone should send this letter to every newly minted HRM Councillor.

It just seems so stupid the blyaws they do decide to enforce - the dogs who actually are not dangerous - they decide to seize (without any charges being filed) - and destroy. I read some minutes from a November 8, 2008 Chebucto Community Council meeting where they're talking about the merits of insisting on removing a clothesline that goes over municipal property - that had in fact been there for THIRTY YEARS. Why all of a sudden did bylaw enforcement feel the need to issue a violation and demand the clothesline be removed? Deputy Mayor (at the time) Steve Adams and Debbie Hum ordered the enforcement order termporarily stopped they thought Bylaw Enforcement was being so ludicrous.

1 comment:

  1. Hi there
    I just had to comment on your mention of dogs being seized with no complaints.
    I happened to work with the wife of the man who was walking the dog that Brindi attacked. He was walking his small dog and his mother's Service dog. They were walking in the street, not her property as she claims. Brindi saw them, and ran past her owner, out the open door and attacked these dogs with no provocation. This is not the first time it happened, though she seems to forget other instances of this. He picked up the small dog, however the service dog was then bitten and locked in Brindi's jaws. Her owner claims there was no damage, that it didn't matter because Brindi did not break skin. This is not true, and even if it were, this is not acceptable behavior. The man had to kick at Brindi several times to get her to let go of the dog, to which her owner had the gall to yell "stop kicking my dog." This man is a dog lover, his own dogs are exercised well, loved and cared for very well and he did not want this dog to be put down. However, what would have happened if it was his elderly mother out with her service dog, and Brindi attacked? Just because the dog was not killed, does not make the behavior acceptable. The issue here is Brindi should not have been put to sleep. However she should NOT have been returned to the owner, who repeatedly did not follow the stipulations put on her, based on previous complaints of her dog attacking. Brindi should go to someone who will ensure the dog has a healthy, safe place to live, and will do all they can to make sure the dog will be allowed to live as long as naturally possible, without threat of being put down. If I had a dog that attacked others and I had a muzzle order, I would be putting the muzzle on the dog before I even opened the door, not using the excuse that she "got by me" and "was defending her proerty" and "caused no damage."
    I just wanted to clear some things up because this lady likes to leave out some rather important facts, and has had these issues before.