I bought one of those little flip video recorders - I don't know if I'm impressed with it yet - this video seems really choppy - but the content is quite impressive - Buttercup at her absolute cutest - for those who love Buttercup - it's a not to be missed video! Enjoy!
Friday, April 29, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
A draft dog bylaw for Yarmouth, Nova Scotia
Yesterday I sent a letter to the Mayor of Yarmouth and each of their Councillors, asking them to consider a proposed draft bylaw that I had written - which is based on the draft bylaw they have proposed that they are going to be talking about at their May 9th Council meeting. I've pasted the letter I wrote to them and also the draft bylaw below.
Since I wrote the letter I've been told that the mayor is pro-bsl, which isn't good news. I hope that he is open to different points of view. I stated pretty plainly in my letter why I was writing to them and why I hoped they didn't pass bsl in their town - so I'll just paste what I wrote to them - I'll also paste their email addresses in case you want to write to them too.
These are their email addresses -
This is the facebook group for the town of Yarmouth -
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Yarmouth-NS/Town-of-Yarmouth-Nova-Scotia/165781640102452?ref=ts
Mayor Phil Mooney - Mayor.Mooney@townofyarmouth.ca
Deputy Mayor Byron Boudreau - DeputyMayor.Boudreau@townofyarmouth.ca
Councillor Esther Dares - Councillor.Dares@townofyarmouth.ca
Councillor Ken Langille - Councillor.Langille@townofyarmouth.ca
Councillor Daniel MacIsaac - Councillor.MacIsaac@townofyarmouth.ca
Councillor Neil MacKenzie - Councillor.MacKenzie@townofyarmouth.ca
Councillor Martin Pink - Councillor.Pink@townofyarmouth.ca
Dear Whomever:
I am hopeful that you will oblige me and take a look at some small revisions that I have made to your proposed new dog bylaw that you'll be debating on March 9, 2011.
I became involved with the writing of dog bylaws, and the politics around them back in 2005 when Halifax began to rewrite their bylaw A300 and I've had the opportunity to meet with Mayor Peter Kelly on a couple of occasions on this subject, as well as be part of a group of organizations that included the CKC, the NS SPCA, and the NS VMA that was struck to talk about revisions to A300 as well.
I am also an active participant in the long fought battle to keep breed specific legislation out of Nova Scotia because I passionately believe that there are many other much more viable alternatives that will keep our province so much more safer if only we will follow the lead of other areas who have already "invented the wheel" for us.
I noticed as well that you have used parts of another town's dog bylaw - Parrsboro Nova Scotia - a bylaw that I consider to be one of the best dog bylaws in all of Canada - and they have chosen to go with a "dangerous dog" bylaw instead of a "breed specific" section.
In my attachment - I have included "endnotes" that explain specifically why I have changed, or added to your proposed new bylaw.
If there is any way that you could include my "proposed bylaw" in your deliberations - I would most sincerely appreciate it.
Thank-you very much for any consideration you can offer. It's my belief that Nova Scotia is as close to shangri-la as you can find - and it's also my belief that every dog should be treated as an individual - just like humans. Breed specific legislation takes that option completely away.
In this age when tourism is so vital to our province - we should be looking to make our areas more inclusive - not archaic and ugly - judging our most loved companions on looks alone.
Sincerely,
Joan Sinden
***************
and this is the version of the bylaw that I'm proposing -
Title
1. This By-Law is entitled the “Dog Bylaw”.
Definitions
2. In this Bylaw:
“fierce and dangerous dog” is any dog that:
(a) is a Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier; Pit Bull, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Rottweiler or any dog of mixed breeding which includes any of the aforementioned breeds.
(b) has attacked or injured a person;
(c) has attacked or injured an animal;
(d) in a vicious or terrorizing manner, approaches any person in an apparent attitude of attack;
(e) is owned or harboured in whole or in part for the purpose of dog fighting; or trained for dog fighting; provided that no dog shall be deemed fierce or dangerous if it is a professionally trained guard dog while lawfully engaged for law enforcement.
(f) that is kept for the purpose of security or protection, whether residential, commercial or industrial, of persons or property.
1. "dangerous dog" means any individual dog:
i. that has killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property;
ii. that has bitten or injured a human being or domestic animal without provocation, on public or private property;
iii. that is attack trained;
iv. that is kept for the purpose of security or protection, whether residential, commercial or industrial of persons or property and
v. that has shown the disposition, tendency to be threatening or aggressive. Endnote 1
2. “destroy” means kill;
3. “dog" means any dog, male or female, or any animal that is the result of the breeding of a dog with any other animal;
4. "extraordinary expense" means any expense incurred by [Town] Staff in relation to a dog except for provision of food and shelter;
5. "Town Staff" means the person appointed by the Chief Administrative Officer or Council to act on the Town's behalf for the purposes of this Bylaw, and includes the dog control officer, pound keeper; inspector or police officer.
6. "owner" means the owner of a dog and any person who possesses, has the care or control of, or harbours a dog and, where such a person is a minor, includes a parent, guardian or custodian of such a person;
7. “Town” means Town of Yarmouth
Provision of Needs
3. Every person who keeps an animal within the Town shall provide the animal or cause it to be provided with:
a) clean, fresh drinking water available and suitable food of sufficient quantity and quality to allow for normal, healthy growth and the maintenance of normal, healthy body weight;
b) food and water receptacles kept clean and disinfected and located so as to avoid contamination by excreta;
c) the opportunity for periodic exercise sufficient to maintain good health, including the opportunity to be unfettered from a fixed area and exercised regularly under appropriate control; and
d) necessary veterinary medical care when the animal exhibits signs of pain, illness or suffering;
4. Every person who keeps an animal which normally resides outside, or which is kept outside unsupervised for extended periods of time, shall ensure the animal is provided with an enclosure that meets the following criteria:
a) a total area that is at least twice the length of the animal in all directions;
b) contains a house or shelter that will provide protection from heat, cold and wet that is appropriate to the animal's weight and type of coat. Such shelter must provide sufficient space to allow the animal the ability to turn around freely and lie in a normal position;
c) in an area providing sufficient shade to protect the animal from the direct rays of the
d) sun at all times; and
e) pens and run areas must be regularly cleaned and sanitized and excreta removed and properly disposed of daily.
5. No person may cause an animal to be hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object where a choke collar or choke chain forms part of the securing apparatus, or where a rope or cord is tied directly around the animal's neck.
6. No person may cause an animal to be hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object as the primary means of confinement for an extended period of time.
7 No person may cause an animal to be confined in an enclosed space, including a car, without adequate ventilation.
8 No person may transport an animal in a vehicle outside the passenger compartment unless it is adequately confined or unless it is secured in a body harness or other manner of fastening which is adequate to prevent it from falling off the vehicle or otherwise injuring itself.
Unsanitary Conditions Prohibited
9. No person shall keep an animal in an unsanitary condition within the Town of Yarmouth. Conditions shall be considered unsanitary where the keeping of the animal results in an accumulation of faecal matter, an odour, insect infestation or rodent attractants which endanger the health of the animal or any person, or which disturb or are likely to disturb the enjoyment, comfort or convenience of any person in or about any dwelling, office, hospital or commercial establishment.
Registration
10. On or before the 1st day of April in each year the owner of any dog shall register such dog with the Town and obtain from the Town a tag for such dog.
11. Every owner of a dog shall, within ten (10) days of having become owner, register such dog with the Town and obtain from the Town a tag for such dog.
12. In order to register a dog, an owner shall pay the annual registration fees in accordance with Schedule A of this bylaw and shall supply the Town with the following:
(a) Name, civic address, mailing address and telephone number of the owner;
(b) Name and breed of the dog;
(c) Description of the dog including whether the dog is male or female, spayed or unsprayed or neutered or unneutered as the case may be; and, at the discretion of the owner, the following additional information may be supplied:
(d) A photograph of the dog;
(e) Identification information such as micro-chip implants, tattoos or other special markings; and
(f) The name of the veterinary clinic frequented by the dog and veterinary file ID number.
13. Registration shall be effective until the first day of April in the year following the year of registration.
14. The registration fee shall be reduced by 50 percent in the year of acquisition where the owner acquires ownership of the dog after September 30.
15. The owner of every dog shall keep on the dog a collar with the tag issued for that dog by Town Staff at the time of registration. Such a tag shall be kept securely fixed on the dog at all times during the year until a replacement tag is issued. However, such a tag may be removed while the dog is being used for lawful hunting purposes in the presence and under the control of the dog’s owner and wearing a collar bearing the owner’s name and address.
16. The owner of a kennel of purebred dogs that are registered with the Canadian Kennel Club may, in any year, pay a fee set by the Council, by policy, as a tax upon the kennel for that year and, upon payment of the amount, the owner of the kennel is exempt from any further fee regarding the dogs for that year. Endnote 2
17. The owner of a dog shall deliver in writing to Town Staff a statement of the number of dogs owned or harboured, or that are kept upon the premises occupied by the owner within 10 days after having received notice requiring it to be provided.
Registration Exemptions
18. The following are exempt from registration:
(a) the Town Staff or the Yarmouth SPCA shall not be required to register a stray;
(b) a dog shall be exempt from registration and registration fees in the event the owner proves that the dog is under the age of three months; and,
19. A dog that is trained to assist and assists a person with a disability is exempt from paying a registration fee but not from registration.
Dog Control Provisions
20. If a dog defecates on any public or private property other than the property of its owner, the owner shall cause such faeces to be removed immediately.
21. No owner shall suffer, permit, allow or for any reason have his or her dog bark or howl excessively or in any other manner disturb the quiet of any person.
22. No owner of a dog shall permit his or her dog to, without provocation:
(a) chase, bite or attack any person or animal;
(b) behave in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or animals;
(c) damage public or private property; or
(d) run at large within the Town except in designated off-leash areas.
Number of dogs allowed
22. No more than two (2) dogs shall be permitted to remain upon or in any land, house, shelter, room or place, building, structure or premises within the Town unless:
(a) the premises are lawfully used for the care and treatment of dogs operated by a licensed veterinarian
(b) the premises are temporarily being used for the purpose of a dog show
(c) the owner is a not-for-profit association engaged in the provision of specialized dog services, including but not limited to guide dogs, police dogs and search and rescue dogs
23. This Section does not apply to offspring under 12 weeks of age. Endnote 3
Dogs Running At Large
23. Any dog which is off the premises occupied by the owner without being on a leash or harness, under the continuous restraint and control of some person is deemed to be running at large for the purposes of this bylaw. A dog which is tethered on a tether of sufficient length to permit the dog to leave the property boundaries of the premises occupied by the owner is deemed to be running at large, except that an unleashed and unharnessed dog that is under continuous human restraint and control shall not be deemed to be running at large if at the time the dog is:
(a) participating in an organized dog exhibition event or dog field trials;
(b) participating in a search and rescue operation or law-enforcement operation;
(c) assisting a person with a disability, provided the dog is trained for such purpose; or
(d) within a Town public park where the area is designated by signage as an area in which dogs are permitted to be without a leash subject to such limitations as are posted.
Fierce and Dangerous Dogs
24. The owner of a dangerous dog as defined in Section 2(1), or as declared by a judge, shall ensure that within ten (10) days:
a) such dog is registered with the Town as a dangerous dog in accordance with the fees outlined in Schedule A
b) such dog is spayed or neutered
c) they comply with the dog control provisions as outlined in Sections 20-22
d) at all times when off the owner's property, the dog shall be muzzled
e) at all times when off the owner's property, the dog shall be on a leash not longer than 1.2 metres with a tensile strength of at least 140 kilograms and under the control of a responsible person sixteen years of age or older
f) when such dog is on the property of the owner, it shall be either securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure, suitable to prevent the escape of the dangerous dog and capable of preventing the entry of any person not in control of the dog. Such pen or structure must have minimum dimensions of two metres by four metres and must have secure sides and a secure top. If it has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides must be embedded into the ground no less than thirty centimetres deep. The enclosure must also provide protection from the elements for the dog. The pen or structure shall not be within one metre of the property line or within three metres of a neighbouring dwelling unit. Such dog may not be chained as a means of confinement.
g) a sign is displayed at each entrance to the property and building in which the dog is kept warning in writing, as well as with a symbol, that there is a dangerous dog on the property. This sign shall be visible and legible from the nearest road or thoroughfare.
h) a policy of liability insurance, satisfactory to the Town, is in force in the amount of at least $500,000, covering the twelve month period during which licensing is sought, for injuries caused by the owner's dangerous dog. This policy shall contain a provision requiring the community to be named as an additional insured for the sole purpose of the community to be notified by the insurance company of any cancellation, termination or expiration of the policy Endnote 4
25. The Town shall have the authority to make whatever inquiry is deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions outlined in this section.
26. If the owner of a dog that has been designated as dangerous is unwilling or unable to comply with the requirements of this section after fourteen days, the said dog shall then be humanely euthanized by an animal shelter, animal control agency or licensed veterinarian. Any dog that has been designated as dangerous under this bylaw may not be offered for adoption.
27. The owner of a dangerous dog who is unwilling or unable to comply with the provisions of this section of the By-law, will have all current dog licenses revoked, and no future dog licenses will be issued for a period of 5 years.
Impounding
28. Town staff may, without notice to or complaint against the owner, impound any dog that:
(a) runs at large contrary to this bylaw;
(b) is not wearing a tag required by this bylaw;
(c) is not registered pursuant to this bylaw;
(d) is fierce and dangerous;
(e) Is rabid or appears to be rabid or exhibits symptoms of canine madness; or
(f) persistently disturbs the quiet of the neighbourhood by barking, howling or otherwise.
29. Owners seeking to redeem an impounded dog must pay an impoundment fee as outlined in Schedule A of this bylaw.
30. Subject to Section 28 of this Bylaw, except in the case where a dog is impounded for being dangerous, or is rabid or exhibits symptoms of canine madness, the owner of a dog which has been impounded, upon proof of ownership of the dog, may redeem the dog after payment to the Pound Keeper, or making arrangement for payment satisfactory to the Pound Keeper, of the Impounding Fee and the Daily Pound Fee(s), along with reimbursement for any Extraordinary Expenses incurred by the Town Staff in relation to the dog.
31. In the case of redemption of a dog which has not been registered pursuant to this Bylaw, the owner shall also be required to register the dog and pay the registration fee before being allowed to redeem the dog.
32. Any dog which has not been redeemed by its owner at the expiry of a period of 72 hours after being impounded may be given away, sold or destroyed in a humane way by the Pound Keeper and, if sold, the proceeds shall belong to the Town.
32. Any dog who has not been reclaimed after a period of seventy-two (72) hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays, may, after the expiration of that period, be offered to the local SPCA for adoption.
33. Whenever the 72 hours of impounding time expires on a weekend, the Pound Keeper shall hold such dog until the expiry of the first business day following the weekend to permit the owner to redeem the dog. Endnote 5
34. Upon any dog being impounded the Pound Keeper shall check for a tag and if a tag is found, the Pound Keeper shall make at least one attempt to contact the registered owner of the dog using the tag number on the records of Town Staff. Provided however that if a dog is missing, the onus is on the owner of the dog to ascertain within the time period provided for impounding under this Bylaw, whether the dog has been impounded, and neither the Pound Keeper nor the Town shall incur liability in the event of failure to give Notice to the owner, if the owner has not made inquiry of the Pound Keeper to determine whether the dog was impounded.
Destroying
34. Town Staff may, without notice to or complaint against the owner, destroy on sight or after capture any dog that:
(a) is fierce and dangerous;
(b) is rabid or appears to be rabid or exhibits symptoms of canine madness.
35. Town staff may, after one written warning, has been given to the owner that a dog has been running at large or eluding capture, destroy such dog on sight or after capture.
36. Town staff may, kill on sight any dog that is running at large and which he or she believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, to pose a danger to a person or a animal or to property of persons other than the owner. Endnote 6
Proceedings Against Dog Owner
35. A proceeding may be commenced in the Provincial Court against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that,
(a) the dog has bitten, attacked or injured a person or domestic animal;
(b) the dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or animals; or
(c) the owner did not exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from:
(i) biting, attacking or injuring a person or domestic animal; or
(ii) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or animals.
36. In exercising its powers to make an order under Section 35, the Provincial Court Judge may take into consideration the following circumstances:
(a) the dog’s past and present temperament and behaviour
(b) the seriousness of the injuries caused by the biting or attack
(c) unusual contributing circumstances tending to justify the dog’s action
(d) the improbability that a similar attack will be repeated
(e) the dog’s physical potential for inflicting harm
(f) precautions taken by the owner to preclude similar attacks in the future
(g) any other circumstances that the court considers to be relevant
37. If, in a proceeding under Section 35, the court finds that the dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal or that the dog’s behaviour is such that the dog is a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals, and the court is satisfied that an order is necessary for the protection of the public, the court may order,
(a) that the owner of the dog take the measures specified in the order for the more effective control of the dog or for purposes of public safety.
(b) that the dog be destroyed in the manner specified in the order; or
(c) prohibiting the dog’s owner from owning another dog for a specified period of time.
End notes:
1. Taken directly from Parrsboro, Nova Scotia’s dog bylaw - http://www.town.parrsboro.ns.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=173&Itemid=90
A “dangerous dog law” instead of a “fierce and dangerous dog” law is much preferred because it targets the correct demographic – individual dogs and their owner – not entire dog breeds, and mixed breed dogs simply because of the way that they look.
It has been suggested that “fierce and dangerous dog” laws prevent dog bites because they target the breeds who do the majority of the dog attacks – but that is a misnomer. Statistics show that where breed specific legislation has been enacted – dog bites have not been decreased.
BSL and breed restrictions give a false sense of security – the city of Denver Colorado is one of the most famous cities for having a breed ban on pit bulls – and they say that their pit bull bite stats went down from 77% down to 9% - but when you look at their actual numbers – that was over a three-year period from 2005 to 2007. To get this "success," Denver killed 1,776 pit bulls, many of them pets. Meanwhile, non-pit bull bites went down only 10 percent (from 465 to 420)—and the decrease seems to be merely reflecting local trends in dog bite numbers, not any concerted public safety actions on Denver's part.
Why isn't Denver interested in protecting the vast majority of dog bite victims (400+ victims per year)?
Almost every dangerous dog conversation the city has ever held revolves around pit bulls and how the city is dealing with pit bulls. Nothing is being done about all those other victims, all those other preventable injuries, all those other mishandled dogs.
Pit bull bites
39 to 9 - which is a 77% drop
Non pit bull bites
465 to 420 - which is a 10% drop
Total bites 504 to 429 - Shouldn't those 420 other dog bite victims be taken into consideration as well?
That's the false sense of security that bsl brings to legislation.
If Denver had dangerous dog legislation instead of breed specific legislation – 100% of the dog bite victims in their city would have justice for their injuries – and all the dogs there would be properly handled afterwards through their courts. ( from - http://stopbsl.com/bsloverview/the-injustice-to-victims/ )
2. Taken directly from Nova Scotia’s Municipal Government Act – Section 175(4) - http://nslegislature.ca/legc/statutes/muncpgov.htm
Allowing the registration of CKC breeders separately from single dog registrations is a good thing – a “win-win” scenario – it allows the town to keep track of how many “breeding operations” are within the town limits – and it also is a cost savings for the breeders because they don’t have to register each of their dogs individually. It is also an enticement to prospective breeders to aspire to becoming a “CKC registered” breeder instead of a simple non-registered breeder – which would be completely non-regulated.
3. Pet Limit Laws: Pet limit laws have been shown to punish responsible pet owners and rescue organizations like the NS SPCA because they lower the number of good homes that the rescue groups can adopt pets to, at the same time forcing otherwise responsible pet owners to surrender their “over the limit” pets to those same shelters – causing them to have to euthanize healthy, adoptable animals because they have no other options.
It also raises the chances of litigation for the Municipality when pet owners are caught with too many animals and they don’t want to give up their pets – there have been many, many cases of successful litigation against municipalities elsewhere when pet limit laws were challenged by individual pet owners – and they were allowed to keep all of their pets.
Pet limit laws do not prevent or punish hoarders – Animal hoarding is a mental disease and a crime whereby individuals keep large numbers of animals beyond their capacity to care for them resulting in neglect and cruelty and often death, and they are often marginalized and live well outside the confines of the law – and one individual may be able to responsibly care for an nurture several animals, another may be unable to care for even one.
It would also keep people from registering their animals for fear that if they register more than 2 of their pets they will be “flagged” as having more than the limit the town requires – so Yarmouth will be turning otherwise responsible owners into scofflaws simply through this one small aspect of their proposed bylaw.
The Yarmouth SPCA is very proud of their status as a “no-kill” shelter. If the 2 pet limit was instituted in the town of Yarmouth – it would be impossible for them to maintain their status as such. It is an unnecessary variance that punishes responsible pet owners – yet doesn’t touch the pet owners it’s meant to regulate. (from - http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/PetLimitLaws.pdf )
4. Mandating liability insurance for dogs who have been deemed dangerous does nothing but raise insurance premiums for all dog owners – and is almost impossible to get from any insurance carrier. You will find this item in any dangerous dog bylaw because it doesn’t protect dog bite victims and it hurts every person who holds house insurance – not just dangerous dog owners.
5. Taken from Windsor Nova Scotia’s dog bylaw - http://www.town.windsor.ns.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=42&Itemid=190
Taken from Windsor Nova Scotia’s newly revised dog bylaw where they worked directly with the provincial office of the NS SPCA – the Yarmouth SPCA, as well at the NS SPCA – both have a “no kill” philosophy – so Yarmouth Animal Control can safely proclaim that with this adoption pact that they also will have a “no kill” Animal Control policy as well.
6. The ability for Town Staff to shoot a dog on sight (or after capture) without notice to or complaint against the owner for infractions such as running at large, or eluding capture – and town staff being able to shoot on sight any dog is rabid or exhibits symptoms of canine madness:
We do not have rabies in Nova Scotia yet in any number to be aware of – about 3 or 4 cases in the last 10 years – and only 1 or 2 of those (maybe) have been in a dog – to allow the shooting on sight of any dog for the perceived case of rabies based on those statistics – is not a reasonable argument. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/disemala/rabrag/statse.shtml#a2010
On page 27 and 28 of the Westville Nova Scotia dog bylaw - http://www.westville.ca/images/stories/Bylaws/Dog.pdf - you will find an explanation as to why “shoot on sight” statutes are in dog bylaws – it is because at one time more rural areas inserted them into bylaws for their ability to be able to shoot dogs that were being a nuisance to wildlife – it chasing wildlife – indeed, the Nova Scotia Wildlife Act still has a section allowing the shooting of dogs running at large in their statutes when unattended by their humans.
It is perhaps appropriate when they are running at large in the woods after a deer – but not in the middle of a town when they are running down the middle of Main Street. If they are menacing and attacking a human – Police officers or another designated (armed) town official will obviously still be empowered through their other duties to shoot the dog – but a bylaw enforcement officer should not have the ability to shoot a dog on sight simply for a dog running at large in the 21st century.
Since I wrote the letter I've been told that the mayor is pro-bsl, which isn't good news. I hope that he is open to different points of view. I stated pretty plainly in my letter why I was writing to them and why I hoped they didn't pass bsl in their town - so I'll just paste what I wrote to them - I'll also paste their email addresses in case you want to write to them too.
These are their email addresses -
This is the facebook group for the town of Yarmouth -
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Yarmouth-NS/Town-of-Yarmouth-Nova-Scotia/165781640102452?ref=ts
Mayor Phil Mooney - Mayor.Mooney@townofyarmouth.ca
Deputy Mayor Byron Boudreau - DeputyMayor.Boudreau@townofyarmouth.ca
Councillor Esther Dares - Councillor.Dares@townofyarmouth.ca
Councillor Ken Langille - Councillor.Langille@townofyarmouth.ca
Councillor Daniel MacIsaac - Councillor.MacIsaac@townofyarmouth.ca
Councillor Neil MacKenzie - Councillor.MacKenzie@townofyarmouth.ca
Councillor Martin Pink - Councillor.Pink@townofyarmouth.ca
Dear Whomever:
I am hopeful that you will oblige me and take a look at some small revisions that I have made to your proposed new dog bylaw that you'll be debating on March 9, 2011.
I became involved with the writing of dog bylaws, and the politics around them back in 2005 when Halifax began to rewrite their bylaw A300 and I've had the opportunity to meet with Mayor Peter Kelly on a couple of occasions on this subject, as well as be part of a group of organizations that included the CKC, the NS SPCA, and the NS VMA that was struck to talk about revisions to A300 as well.
I am also an active participant in the long fought battle to keep breed specific legislation out of Nova Scotia because I passionately believe that there are many other much more viable alternatives that will keep our province so much more safer if only we will follow the lead of other areas who have already "invented the wheel" for us.
I noticed as well that you have used parts of another town's dog bylaw - Parrsboro Nova Scotia - a bylaw that I consider to be one of the best dog bylaws in all of Canada - and they have chosen to go with a "dangerous dog" bylaw instead of a "breed specific" section.
In my attachment - I have included "endnotes" that explain specifically why I have changed, or added to your proposed new bylaw.
If there is any way that you could include my "proposed bylaw" in your deliberations - I would most sincerely appreciate it.
Thank-you very much for any consideration you can offer. It's my belief that Nova Scotia is as close to shangri-la as you can find - and it's also my belief that every dog should be treated as an individual - just like humans. Breed specific legislation takes that option completely away.
In this age when tourism is so vital to our province - we should be looking to make our areas more inclusive - not archaic and ugly - judging our most loved companions on looks alone.
Sincerely,
Joan Sinden
***************
and this is the version of the bylaw that I'm proposing -
Title
1. This By-Law is entitled the “Dog Bylaw”.
Definitions
2. In this Bylaw:
1. "dangerous dog" means any individual dog:
i. that has killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property;
ii. that has bitten or injured a human being or domestic animal without provocation, on public or private property;
iii. that is attack trained;
iv. that is kept for the purpose of security or protection, whether residential, commercial or industrial of persons or property and
v. that has shown the disposition, tendency to be threatening or aggressive. Endnote 1
2. “destroy” means kill;
3. “dog" means any dog, male or female, or any animal that is the result of the breeding of a dog with any other animal;
4. "extraordinary expense" means any expense incurred by [Town] Staff in relation to a dog except for provision of food and shelter;
5. "Town Staff" means the person appointed by the Chief Administrative Officer or Council to act on the Town's behalf for the purposes of this Bylaw, and includes the dog control officer, pound keeper; inspector or police officer.
6. "owner" means the owner of a dog and any person who possesses, has the care or control of, or harbours a dog and, where such a person is a minor, includes a parent, guardian or custodian of such a person;
7. “Town” means Town of Yarmouth
Provision of Needs
3. Every person who keeps an animal within the Town shall provide the animal or cause it to be provided with:
a) clean, fresh drinking water available and suitable food of sufficient quantity and quality to allow for normal, healthy growth and the maintenance of normal, healthy body weight;
b) food and water receptacles kept clean and disinfected and located so as to avoid contamination by excreta;
c) the opportunity for periodic exercise sufficient to maintain good health, including the opportunity to be unfettered from a fixed area and exercised regularly under appropriate control; and
d) necessary veterinary medical care when the animal exhibits signs of pain, illness or suffering;
4. Every person who keeps an animal which normally resides outside, or which is kept outside unsupervised for extended periods of time, shall ensure the animal is provided with an enclosure that meets the following criteria:
a) a total area that is at least twice the length of the animal in all directions;
b) contains a house or shelter that will provide protection from heat, cold and wet that is appropriate to the animal's weight and type of coat. Such shelter must provide sufficient space to allow the animal the ability to turn around freely and lie in a normal position;
c) in an area providing sufficient shade to protect the animal from the direct rays of the
d) sun at all times; and
e) pens and run areas must be regularly cleaned and sanitized and excreta removed and properly disposed of daily.
5. No person may cause an animal to be hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object where a choke collar or choke chain forms part of the securing apparatus, or where a rope or cord is tied directly around the animal's neck.
6. No person may cause an animal to be hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object as the primary means of confinement for an extended period of time.
7 No person may cause an animal to be confined in an enclosed space, including a car, without adequate ventilation.
8 No person may transport an animal in a vehicle outside the passenger compartment unless it is adequately confined or unless it is secured in a body harness or other manner of fastening which is adequate to prevent it from falling off the vehicle or otherwise injuring itself.
Unsanitary Conditions Prohibited
9. No person shall keep an animal in an unsanitary condition within the Town of Yarmouth. Conditions shall be considered unsanitary where the keeping of the animal results in an accumulation of faecal matter, an odour, insect infestation or rodent attractants which endanger the health of the animal or any person, or which disturb or are likely to disturb the enjoyment, comfort or convenience of any person in or about any dwelling, office, hospital or commercial establishment.
Registration
10. On or before the 1st day of April in each year the owner of any dog shall register such dog with the Town and obtain from the Town a tag for such dog.
11. Every owner of a dog shall, within ten (10) days of having become owner, register such dog with the Town and obtain from the Town a tag for such dog.
12. In order to register a dog, an owner shall pay the annual registration fees in accordance with Schedule A of this bylaw and shall supply the Town with the following:
(a) Name, civic address, mailing address and telephone number of the owner;
(b) Name and breed of the dog;
(c) Description of the dog including whether the dog is male or female, spayed or unsprayed or neutered or unneutered as the case may be; and, at the discretion of the owner, the following additional information may be supplied:
(d) A photograph of the dog;
(e) Identification information such as micro-chip implants, tattoos or other special markings; and
(f) The name of the veterinary clinic frequented by the dog and veterinary file ID number.
13. Registration shall be effective until the first day of April in the year following the year of registration.
14. The registration fee shall be reduced by 50 percent in the year of acquisition where the owner acquires ownership of the dog after September 30.
15. The owner of every dog shall keep on the dog a collar with the tag issued for that dog by Town Staff at the time of registration. Such a tag shall be kept securely fixed on the dog at all times during the year until a replacement tag is issued. However, such a tag may be removed while the dog is being used for lawful hunting purposes in the presence and under the control of the dog’s owner and wearing a collar bearing the owner’s name and address.
16. The owner of a kennel of purebred dogs that are registered with the Canadian Kennel Club may, in any year, pay a fee set by the Council, by policy, as a tax upon the kennel for that year and, upon payment of the amount, the owner of the kennel is exempt from any further fee regarding the dogs for that year. Endnote 2
17. The owner of a dog shall deliver in writing to Town Staff a statement of the number of dogs owned or harboured, or that are kept upon the premises occupied by the owner within 10 days after having received notice requiring it to be provided.
Registration Exemptions
18. The following are exempt from registration:
(a) the Town Staff or the Yarmouth SPCA shall not be required to register a stray;
(b) a dog shall be exempt from registration and registration fees in the event the owner proves that the dog is under the age of three months; and,
19. A dog that is trained to assist and assists a person with a disability is exempt from paying a registration fee but not from registration.
Dog Control Provisions
20. If a dog defecates on any public or private property other than the property of its owner, the owner shall cause such faeces to be removed immediately.
21. No owner shall suffer, permit, allow or for any reason have his or her dog bark or howl excessively or in any other manner disturb the quiet of any person.
22. No owner of a dog shall permit his or her dog to, without provocation:
(a) chase, bite or attack any person or animal;
(b) behave in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or animals;
(c) damage public or private property; or
(d) run at large within the Town except in designated off-leash areas.
Dogs Running At Large
23. Any dog which is off the premises occupied by the owner without being on a leash or harness, under the continuous restraint and control of some person is deemed to be running at large for the purposes of this bylaw. A dog which is tethered on a tether of sufficient length to permit the dog to leave the property boundaries of the premises occupied by the owner is deemed to be running at large, except that an unleashed and unharnessed dog that is under continuous human restraint and control shall not be deemed to be running at large if at the time the dog is:
(a) participating in an organized dog exhibition event or dog field trials;
(b) participating in a search and rescue operation or law-enforcement operation;
(c) assisting a person with a disability, provided the dog is trained for such purpose; or
(d) within a Town public park where the area is designated by signage as an area in which dogs are permitted to be without a leash subject to such limitations as are posted.
24. The owner of a dangerous dog as defined in Section 2(1), or as declared by a judge, shall ensure that within ten (10) days:
a) such dog is registered with the Town as a dangerous dog in accordance with the fees outlined in Schedule A
b) such dog is spayed or neutered
c) they comply with the dog control provisions as outlined in Sections 20-22
d) at all times when off the owner's property, the dog shall be muzzled
e) at all times when off the owner's property, the dog shall be on a leash not longer than 1.2 metres with a tensile strength of at least 140 kilograms and under the control of a responsible person sixteen years of age or older
f) when such dog is on the property of the owner, it shall be either securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure, suitable to prevent the escape of the dangerous dog and capable of preventing the entry of any person not in control of the dog. Such pen or structure must have minimum dimensions of two metres by four metres and must have secure sides and a secure top. If it has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides must be embedded into the ground no less than thirty centimetres deep. The enclosure must also provide protection from the elements for the dog. The pen or structure shall not be within one metre of the property line or within three metres of a neighbouring dwelling unit. Such dog may not be chained as a means of confinement.
g) a sign is displayed at each entrance to the property and building in which the dog is kept warning in writing, as well as with a symbol, that there is a dangerous dog on the property. This sign shall be visible and legible from the nearest road or thoroughfare.
25. The Town shall have the authority to make whatever inquiry is deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions outlined in this section.
26. If the owner of a dog that has been designated as dangerous is unwilling or unable to comply with the requirements of this section after fourteen days, the said dog shall then be humanely euthanized by an animal shelter, animal control agency or licensed veterinarian. Any dog that has been designated as dangerous under this bylaw may not be offered for adoption.
27. The owner of a dangerous dog who is unwilling or unable to comply with the provisions of this section of the By-law, will have all current dog licenses revoked, and no future dog licenses will be issued for a period of 5 years.
Impounding
28. Town staff may, without notice to or complaint against the owner, impound any dog that:
(a) runs at large contrary to this bylaw;
(b) is not wearing a tag required by this bylaw;
(c) is not registered pursuant to this bylaw;
(d) is fierce and dangerous;
(e) Is rabid or appears to be rabid or exhibits symptoms of canine madness; or
(f) persistently disturbs the quiet of the neighbourhood by barking, howling or otherwise.
29. Owners seeking to redeem an impounded dog must pay an impoundment fee as outlined in Schedule A of this bylaw.
30. Subject to Section 28 of this Bylaw, except in the case where a dog is impounded for being dangerous, or is rabid or exhibits symptoms of canine madness, the owner of a dog which has been impounded, upon proof of ownership of the dog, may redeem the dog after payment to the Pound Keeper, or making arrangement for payment satisfactory to the Pound Keeper, of the Impounding Fee and the Daily Pound Fee(s), along with reimbursement for any Extraordinary Expenses incurred by the Town Staff in relation to the dog.
31. In the case of redemption of a dog which has not been registered pursuant to this Bylaw, the owner shall also be required to register the dog and pay the registration fee before being allowed to redeem the dog.
32. Any dog which has not been redeemed by its owner at the expiry of a period of 72 hours after being impounded may be given away, sold or destroyed in a humane way by the Pound Keeper and, if sold, the proceeds shall belong to the Town.
33. Whenever the 72 hours of impounding time expires on a weekend, the Pound Keeper shall hold such dog until the expiry of the first business day following the weekend to permit the owner to redeem the dog. Endnote 5
34. Upon any dog being impounded the Pound Keeper shall check for a tag and if a tag is found, the Pound Keeper shall make at least one attempt to contact the registered owner of the dog using the tag number on the records of Town Staff. Provided however that if a dog is missing, the onus is on the owner of the dog to ascertain within the time period provided for impounding under this Bylaw, whether the dog has been impounded, and neither the Pound Keeper nor the Town shall incur liability in the event of failure to give Notice to the owner, if the owner has not made inquiry of the Pound Keeper to determine whether the dog was impounded.
Proceedings Against Dog Owner
35. A proceeding may be commenced in the Provincial Court against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that,
(a) the dog has bitten, attacked or injured a person or domestic animal;
(b) the dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or animals; or
(c) the owner did not exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from:
(i) biting, attacking or injuring a person or domestic animal; or
(ii) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or animals.
36. In exercising its powers to make an order under Section 35, the Provincial Court Judge may take into consideration the following circumstances:
(a) the dog’s past and present temperament and behaviour
(b) the seriousness of the injuries caused by the biting or attack
(c) unusual contributing circumstances tending to justify the dog’s action
(d) the improbability that a similar attack will be repeated
(e) the dog’s physical potential for inflicting harm
(f) precautions taken by the owner to preclude similar attacks in the future
(g) any other circumstances that the court considers to be relevant
37. If, in a proceeding under Section 35, the court finds that the dog has bitten or attacked a person or domestic animal or that the dog’s behaviour is such that the dog is a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals, and the court is satisfied that an order is necessary for the protection of the public, the court may order,
(a) that the owner of the dog take the measures specified in the order for the more effective control of the dog or for purposes of public safety.
(b) that the dog be destroyed in the manner specified in the order; or
(c) prohibiting the dog’s owner from owning another dog for a specified period of time.
End notes:
1. Taken directly from Parrsboro, Nova Scotia’s dog bylaw - http://www.town.parrsboro.ns.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=173&Itemid=90
A “dangerous dog law” instead of a “fierce and dangerous dog” law is much preferred because it targets the correct demographic – individual dogs and their owner – not entire dog breeds, and mixed breed dogs simply because of the way that they look.
It has been suggested that “fierce and dangerous dog” laws prevent dog bites because they target the breeds who do the majority of the dog attacks – but that is a misnomer. Statistics show that where breed specific legislation has been enacted – dog bites have not been decreased.
BSL and breed restrictions give a false sense of security – the city of Denver Colorado is one of the most famous cities for having a breed ban on pit bulls – and they say that their pit bull bite stats went down from 77% down to 9% - but when you look at their actual numbers – that was over a three-year period from 2005 to 2007. To get this "success," Denver killed 1,776 pit bulls, many of them pets. Meanwhile, non-pit bull bites went down only 10 percent (from 465 to 420)—and the decrease seems to be merely reflecting local trends in dog bite numbers, not any concerted public safety actions on Denver's part.
Why isn't Denver interested in protecting the vast majority of dog bite victims (400+ victims per year)?
Almost every dangerous dog conversation the city has ever held revolves around pit bulls and how the city is dealing with pit bulls. Nothing is being done about all those other victims, all those other preventable injuries, all those other mishandled dogs.
Pit bull bites
39 to 9 - which is a 77% drop
Non pit bull bites
465 to 420 - which is a 10% drop
Total bites 504 to 429 - Shouldn't those 420 other dog bite victims be taken into consideration as well?
That's the false sense of security that bsl brings to legislation.
If Denver had dangerous dog legislation instead of breed specific legislation – 100% of the dog bite victims in their city would have justice for their injuries – and all the dogs there would be properly handled afterwards through their courts. ( from - http://stopbsl.com/bsloverview/the-injustice-to-victims/ )
2. Taken directly from Nova Scotia’s Municipal Government Act – Section 175(4) - http://nslegislature.ca/legc/statutes/muncpgov.htm
Allowing the registration of CKC breeders separately from single dog registrations is a good thing – a “win-win” scenario – it allows the town to keep track of how many “breeding operations” are within the town limits – and it also is a cost savings for the breeders because they don’t have to register each of their dogs individually. It is also an enticement to prospective breeders to aspire to becoming a “CKC registered” breeder instead of a simple non-registered breeder – which would be completely non-regulated.
3. Pet Limit Laws: Pet limit laws have been shown to punish responsible pet owners and rescue organizations like the NS SPCA because they lower the number of good homes that the rescue groups can adopt pets to, at the same time forcing otherwise responsible pet owners to surrender their “over the limit” pets to those same shelters – causing them to have to euthanize healthy, adoptable animals because they have no other options.
It also raises the chances of litigation for the Municipality when pet owners are caught with too many animals and they don’t want to give up their pets – there have been many, many cases of successful litigation against municipalities elsewhere when pet limit laws were challenged by individual pet owners – and they were allowed to keep all of their pets.
Pet limit laws do not prevent or punish hoarders – Animal hoarding is a mental disease and a crime whereby individuals keep large numbers of animals beyond their capacity to care for them resulting in neglect and cruelty and often death, and they are often marginalized and live well outside the confines of the law – and one individual may be able to responsibly care for an nurture several animals, another may be unable to care for even one.
It would also keep people from registering their animals for fear that if they register more than 2 of their pets they will be “flagged” as having more than the limit the town requires – so Yarmouth will be turning otherwise responsible owners into scofflaws simply through this one small aspect of their proposed bylaw.
The Yarmouth SPCA is very proud of their status as a “no-kill” shelter. If the 2 pet limit was instituted in the town of Yarmouth – it would be impossible for them to maintain their status as such. It is an unnecessary variance that punishes responsible pet owners – yet doesn’t touch the pet owners it’s meant to regulate. (from - http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/PetLimitLaws.pdf )
4. Mandating liability insurance for dogs who have been deemed dangerous does nothing but raise insurance premiums for all dog owners – and is almost impossible to get from any insurance carrier. You will find this item in any dangerous dog bylaw because it doesn’t protect dog bite victims and it hurts every person who holds house insurance – not just dangerous dog owners.
5. Taken from Windsor Nova Scotia’s dog bylaw - http://www.town.windsor.ns.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=42&Itemid=190
Taken from Windsor Nova Scotia’s newly revised dog bylaw where they worked directly with the provincial office of the NS SPCA – the Yarmouth SPCA, as well at the NS SPCA – both have a “no kill” philosophy – so Yarmouth Animal Control can safely proclaim that with this adoption pact that they also will have a “no kill” Animal Control policy as well.
6. The ability for Town Staff to shoot a dog on sight (or after capture) without notice to or complaint against the owner for infractions such as running at large, or eluding capture – and town staff being able to shoot on sight any dog is rabid or exhibits symptoms of canine madness:
We do not have rabies in Nova Scotia yet in any number to be aware of – about 3 or 4 cases in the last 10 years – and only 1 or 2 of those (maybe) have been in a dog – to allow the shooting on sight of any dog for the perceived case of rabies based on those statistics – is not a reasonable argument. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/disemala/rabrag/statse.shtml#a2010
On page 27 and 28 of the Westville Nova Scotia dog bylaw - http://www.westville.ca/images/stories/Bylaws/Dog.pdf - you will find an explanation as to why “shoot on sight” statutes are in dog bylaws – it is because at one time more rural areas inserted them into bylaws for their ability to be able to shoot dogs that were being a nuisance to wildlife – it chasing wildlife – indeed, the Nova Scotia Wildlife Act still has a section allowing the shooting of dogs running at large in their statutes when unattended by their humans.
It is perhaps appropriate when they are running at large in the woods after a deer – but not in the middle of a town when they are running down the middle of Main Street. If they are menacing and attacking a human – Police officers or another designated (armed) town official will obviously still be empowered through their other duties to shoot the dog – but a bylaw enforcement officer should not have the ability to shoot a dog on sight simply for a dog running at large in the 21st century.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Happy Easter
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Yummy - a new book!
Mostly I only read dog stuff that's utilitarian - my attention span is way too short to handle anything that doesn't have something to do with getting something practical done. You could call it an eccentric quirk.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
I got an awesome comment from someone who actually lives in Yarmouth. He thinks that the problem with dog bites and maulings is actually with pit bulls and not with dog owners - and he wants me to prove otherwise - so I'm going to try and do it. And I hope that he checks back with this blog so that he reads it, and I hope that he actually reads and thinks about what I say. So here is what he wrote -
First off, I'm not going to post a list of breeds that kill dogs every year - because those lists are meaningless - a lot of times those lists are compiled by people or groups that want to make pit bull type dogs look bad and or they're compiled non scientifically ie through media reports - and I don't know if you've noticed - but just about every time you hear a negative story in the news it starts out as having been caused by a "pit bull" - but once the story progresses - then the truth starts to leak out and it ends up being a "bulldog" or a "boxer mix" or a "mastiff" - or some very non pit bull type dog in the end - so statistics tend to be meaningless.
I can only give you my personal reasons for owning a pit bull type dog - or one of the other breeds that Yarmouth town council is looking at banning, and that is rottweillers - and that is the type and intensity of love that they are legendary for giving. They are very much known as being a very loving breed of dog - and once my very elderly current crop of dogs has passed on - I have plans on acquiring a pit bull type dog for that very reason - because I want to experience that level of devotion. I can't wait for it actually and am very much local forward to it.
And in today's world - that's the only real reason for dogs - companionship - I don't have any sheep that need coralling, or cows that need bringing in for milking. I'm not blind, well not completely - so the only thing I need a dog for is love - and a pit bull type dog gives that to you 110% - compared to some other breeds which can be quite aloof.
I feel bad that the area you live in is rife with drugs and thugs - and I hope that you are taking an active part in making your community better and turning it into a good place for you and your family to live in.
I guess maybe you're thinking that the first and easiest thing to do is by working to get this dog bylaw passed with the breed specific legislation in it so that the thugs can't own their breed of choice so that they can threaten you with their scary, uncontrolled pit bulls - and you say that even people who aren't thugs - even normal people who own pit bulls, tend to also be shitty dog owners. That's too bad.
I have bad news for you though. If this dog bylaw passes with the breed specific legislation in it - the pit bulls in your neighbourhood will go away - because the thugs won't feel like dealing with the hassle of having to get $500,000 in liability insurance, and having to muzzle their dogs whenever they leave their house - but I have to tell you - the thugs will still be living in your neighbhourhood - and those thugs are still going to want to have scary dogs of some type - they just won't be dongs of the 5 types that Yarmouth has put restrictions on - and I have to tell you - there are a lot of breeds of dogs out there that will fit their bill.
There are some breeds of dog - like this Mioritic from Romania - that all he has to do basically is sit on you, he's so huge - that you'd be a goner. Can you imagine this guy being walked down the main street of Yarmouth and you not feeling intimidated?
I can guarantee you that if bsl passes in Yarmouth that nothing will change - you will still have the thugs with scary dogs - they might just be diffrent looking scary dogs - what WILL change is that the Yarmouth SPCA is going to get a lot more dogs come into their rescue that they will have a hard time placing because RESPONSIBLE dog owners will be afraid of adopting them because they know that they will have to get $500,000 of liability insurance and they will have to muzzle them in public - which would be too much to bear for them - so those dogs will have no choice but to be put to sleep - so it's not the thugs who will suffer - it will be the DOGS and the RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS and the RESCUES who will suffer.
And I'm sorry - I do have to disagree with you when you say that "A pitbull under the best circumstances is still a dangerous animal and if you are a pro pitbull person you have to admit that to yourself" - I am a person who believes that dogs are like humans and that every dog is an individual - and that breeds are like races and cultures in humans - a "Pit bull type dog" may have certain characteristics like other pit bull type dogs in that they may tend to be more attentive to their humans and have a higher tolerance for being able to take pain, and border collies are famous for being able to herd anything - and in humans Canadians are known for their friendliness and Asian people are known for people smart.
But I'm sure you know some Canadians who are proper assholes and some Asians who are butt-fuck stupid.
Any dog can bite - just this week a shih-tzu bit the end off a woman's nose in a Home Depot - his owner was fined and issued a muzzle order - which is the proper thing to do - but no onw would say that all shih-tzu's are inherently dangerous, would they? That would be ridiculous - but they're so ready to do that to pit bulls whenever a story is in the news.
I don't know if I've said anything that will change that commenters opinions - but I do know one thing - if bsl is passed in Yarmouth - it will do nothing but give the town a false sense of security - especially since the new bylaw would have done absolutely nothing to stop the mauling that instigated this whole process.
In the bylaw - all the restricted breeds will have to be muzzled and leashed whenever off the owners property - but the pit bull type dog who mauled the woman was inside his own home when the attack started - which is where almost all dog bites happen - 61% of dog bites happen in the home and 77% of bite victims are family members.
This new bylaw would do nothing to stop that attack from happening again - the only thing that will stop it is by holding bad dog owners accountable - and that's what dangerous dog bylaws do - and I've already gone through that, so I won't bore you again.
I want to finish off with a super article from Ian Dunbar - the world's best dog trainer - called "Breedism" - and he talks about everything that I've talked about in this blog post, only 100 times better.
I'll copy here what he says at the end of the article - what he says is the "solution" -
"Actually, the breeds are the problem.
Give me a list of breeds that kill people every year.
Post it.
I'm going to guess what the "top dog" is......
What is the point of owning a pitbull?
Give me a real good reason other than because I want one.
I live in Yarmouth in the south end....you have no idea what you are talking about.There is an unbelievable amount of these animals in a 5x5 block area.
In this area, the people are poorer,less educated,there is violence and drugs,drugs,drugs.
Most owners in Yarmouth of pitbulls are thug idiots.....it's true.Come here and tell me it's not.Even the owners who aren't thugs are...well...horrible dog owners let alone pitbull owners.
A pitbull under the best circumstances is still a dangerous animal and if you are a pro pitbull person you have to admit that to yourself."
First off, I'm not going to post a list of breeds that kill dogs every year - because those lists are meaningless - a lot of times those lists are compiled by people or groups that want to make pit bull type dogs look bad and or they're compiled non scientifically ie through media reports - and I don't know if you've noticed - but just about every time you hear a negative story in the news it starts out as having been caused by a "pit bull" - but once the story progresses - then the truth starts to leak out and it ends up being a "bulldog" or a "boxer mix" or a "mastiff" - or some very non pit bull type dog in the end - so statistics tend to be meaningless.
I can only give you my personal reasons for owning a pit bull type dog - or one of the other breeds that Yarmouth town council is looking at banning, and that is rottweillers - and that is the type and intensity of love that they are legendary for giving. They are very much known as being a very loving breed of dog - and once my very elderly current crop of dogs has passed on - I have plans on acquiring a pit bull type dog for that very reason - because I want to experience that level of devotion. I can't wait for it actually and am very much local forward to it.
And in today's world - that's the only real reason for dogs - companionship - I don't have any sheep that need coralling, or cows that need bringing in for milking. I'm not blind, well not completely - so the only thing I need a dog for is love - and a pit bull type dog gives that to you 110% - compared to some other breeds which can be quite aloof.
I feel bad that the area you live in is rife with drugs and thugs - and I hope that you are taking an active part in making your community better and turning it into a good place for you and your family to live in.
I guess maybe you're thinking that the first and easiest thing to do is by working to get this dog bylaw passed with the breed specific legislation in it so that the thugs can't own their breed of choice so that they can threaten you with their scary, uncontrolled pit bulls - and you say that even people who aren't thugs - even normal people who own pit bulls, tend to also be shitty dog owners. That's too bad.
I have bad news for you though. If this dog bylaw passes with the breed specific legislation in it - the pit bulls in your neighbourhood will go away - because the thugs won't feel like dealing with the hassle of having to get $500,000 in liability insurance, and having to muzzle their dogs whenever they leave their house - but I have to tell you - the thugs will still be living in your neighbhourhood - and those thugs are still going to want to have scary dogs of some type - they just won't be dongs of the 5 types that Yarmouth has put restrictions on - and I have to tell you - there are a lot of breeds of dogs out there that will fit their bill.
I can guarantee you that if bsl passes in Yarmouth that nothing will change - you will still have the thugs with scary dogs - they might just be diffrent looking scary dogs - what WILL change is that the Yarmouth SPCA is going to get a lot more dogs come into their rescue that they will have a hard time placing because RESPONSIBLE dog owners will be afraid of adopting them because they know that they will have to get $500,000 of liability insurance and they will have to muzzle them in public - which would be too much to bear for them - so those dogs will have no choice but to be put to sleep - so it's not the thugs who will suffer - it will be the DOGS and the RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS and the RESCUES who will suffer.
And I'm sorry - I do have to disagree with you when you say that "A pitbull under the best circumstances is still a dangerous animal and if you are a pro pitbull person you have to admit that to yourself" - I am a person who believes that dogs are like humans and that every dog is an individual - and that breeds are like races and cultures in humans - a "Pit bull type dog" may have certain characteristics like other pit bull type dogs in that they may tend to be more attentive to their humans and have a higher tolerance for being able to take pain, and border collies are famous for being able to herd anything - and in humans Canadians are known for their friendliness and Asian people are known for people smart.
But I'm sure you know some Canadians who are proper assholes and some Asians who are butt-fuck stupid.
Any dog can bite - just this week a shih-tzu bit the end off a woman's nose in a Home Depot - his owner was fined and issued a muzzle order - which is the proper thing to do - but no onw would say that all shih-tzu's are inherently dangerous, would they? That would be ridiculous - but they're so ready to do that to pit bulls whenever a story is in the news.
I don't know if I've said anything that will change that commenters opinions - but I do know one thing - if bsl is passed in Yarmouth - it will do nothing but give the town a false sense of security - especially since the new bylaw would have done absolutely nothing to stop the mauling that instigated this whole process.
In the bylaw - all the restricted breeds will have to be muzzled and leashed whenever off the owners property - but the pit bull type dog who mauled the woman was inside his own home when the attack started - which is where almost all dog bites happen - 61% of dog bites happen in the home and 77% of bite victims are family members.
This new bylaw would do nothing to stop that attack from happening again - the only thing that will stop it is by holding bad dog owners accountable - and that's what dangerous dog bylaws do - and I've already gone through that, so I won't bore you again.
I want to finish off with a super article from Ian Dunbar - the world's best dog trainer - called "Breedism" - and he talks about everything that I've talked about in this blog post, only 100 times better.
I'll copy here what he says at the end of the article - what he says is the "solution" -
"The solution is not to ban specific foreign makes of automobile. Instead we ban cars that are not road-worthy, we teach people how to drive and we penalize irresponsible drivers. Similarly, banning specific foreign breeds of dog will not prevent dog bites. Instead, as a short-term solution to protect the public from dangerous dogs, it is only common sense to confine and/or muzzle dogs that have nipped or bitten (i.e., keep them off the streets) and although I love dogs, I really think it is kindest to all concerned to euthanize dogs that have maimed or killed."
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Town of Yarmouth - the best of dog bylaws - the worst of bylaws
There is also a section in the proposed bylaw - banning the continual chaining of dogs - that if they pass this bylaw as it's proposed - would make this one of the most progressive bylaws - in all of North America - on that front. And that is why I'm so amazed.
On the one hand it has bsl - and on the other hand - it bans chaining of dogs and bans keeping your dog in a hot car - it's full of dichotomies.
If they would take out the one paragraph of bsl - and put in the one paragraph about dangerous dogs - that Parrsboro DOES have - which is what actually DOES work - then Yarmouthh would actually have the BEST DOG BYLAW IN ALL OF NORTH AMERICA - with no question.
It would have -
- a rock solid dangerous dog bylaw
- it would ban the continuous chaining of dogs (No person may cause an animal to be hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object as the primary means of confinement for an extended period of time.)
- it would ban allowing to keep your dogs in hot cars (No person may cause an animal to be confined in an enclosed space, including a car, without adequate ventilation.)
- Proceedings against dogs owners would be handled in provincial courts - not by the dog catcher
- it would ban dogs from being allowed in the back of pickup trucks unless they are properly harnessed (No person may transport an animal in a vehicle outside the passenger compartment unless it isadequately confined or unless it is secured in a body harness or other manner of fastening which is adequate to prevent it from falling off the vehicle or otherwise injuring itself)
Right now the proposed bylaw says that a “fierce and dangerous dog” is any dog that:
(a) is a Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier; Pit Bull, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Rottweiler or any dog of mixed breeding which includes any of the aforementioned breeds.
(b) has attacked or injured a person;
(c) has attacked or injured an animal;
(d) in a vicious or terrorizing manner, approaches any person in an apparent attitude of attack;
(e) is owned or harboured in whole or in part for the purpose of dog fighting; or trained for dog fighting; provided that no dog shall be deemed fierce or dangerous if it is a professionally trained guard dog while lawfully engaged for law enforcement.
(f) that is kept for the purpose of security or protection, whether residential, commercial or industrial, of persons or property.
I've already talked before about why dog's trained for dog fighting shouldn't be included in municipal dog bylaws at all, so I'm not going to talk about it again here - but Parrsboro's bylaw doesn't talk about "fierce and dangerous" dog's at all - they get right to the core of the matter - and that is - dangerous dogs.
They classify them as -
"dangerous dog" means any individual dog:
i) that has killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property;
ii) that has bitten or or injured a human being or domestic animal without provocation, on public or private property;
iii) that is attack trained;
iv) that is kept for the purpose of security or protection, whether residential, commerical or industrial of persons or property and
v) that has shown the disposition, tendency to be threatening or aggressive.
So a dangerous dog is classified as an individual dog - not by a whole breed. If the town of Yarmouth is willing to use so much of Parrsboro's dog bylaw - why can't they use this other little bit as well?
The whole section about liability insurance, placing a sign on your house, and everything else - about once your own dog has been deemed dangerous - is still there - in section 7 of the Parrsboro bylaw - as it should be if your individual dog has been deemed dangerous - but to deem EVERY dog of a certain breed dangerous simply because of the way they look is preposterous - and I hope that the town Council of Yarmouth will understand that.
If they look at Parrsboro's bylaw and Yarmouth's bylaw next to each other - and blend the best parts of the 2 together - I think that Yarmouth would have an amazing bylaw - and it would be a boon for them - to turn this tragedy into the best bylaw in North America - they would get SO much positive press about this - I really hope they make the right decision.
I know that I will be making the trip down to Yarmouth on May 5th for their Council meeting to bear silent witness to see if bsl passes there. I really hope that it does not.
I can't believe that a part of this province that I love SO much would put a muzzle on a dog that I also love more than life itself - my own Daisy doodle - a beautiful, non-violent, love bug who has never harmed anything in her whole life - but she just happens to be a rottweiller.
My "PROSPOSED" Yarmouth Dog BYlaw -
Title
1. This By-Law is entitled the “Dog Bylaw”.
Definitions
2. In this Bylaw:
(1) "dangerous dog" means any individual dog:
i) that has killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property;
ii) that has bitten or or injured a human being or domestic animal without provocation, on public or private property;
iii) that is attack trained;
iv) that is kept for the purpose of security or protection, whether residential, commerical or industrial of persons or property and
v) that has shown the disposition, tendency to be threatening or aggressive.
(2) “destroy” means kill;
(3) "dog" means any dog, male or female, or any animal that is the result of the breeding of
a dog with any other animal;
(4) "extraordinary expense" means any expense incurred by [Town] Staff in relation to a
dog except for provision of food and shelter;
(5) "Town Staff" means the person appointed by the Chief Administrative Officer or Council
to act on the Town's behalf for the purposes of this Bylaw, and includes the dog control officer,
pound keeper; inspector or police officer.
(6) "owner" means the owner of a dog and any person who possesses, has the care or
control of, or harbours a dog and, where such a person is a minor, includes a parent, guardian or
custodian of such a person;
(7) “Town” means Town of Yarmouth
Provision of Needs
3. Every person who keeps an animal within the Town shall provide the animal or cause it to be provided with:
(a) clean, fresh drinking water available and suitable food of sufficient quantity and quality to allow for normal, healthy growth and the maintenance of normal, healthy body weight;
(b) food and water receptacles kept clean and disinfected and located so as to avoid
contamination by excreta;
(c) the opportunity for periodic exercise sufficient to maintain good health, including the
opportunity to be unfettered from a fixed area and exercised regularly under appropriate
control; and
(d) necessary veterinary medical care when the animal exhibits signs of pain, illness or
suffering;
4. Every person who keeps an animal which normally resides outside, or which is kept outside
unsupervised for extended periods of time, shall ensure the animal is provided with an enclosure that
meets the following criteria:
(a) a total area that is at least twice the length of the animal in all directions;
(b) contains a house or shelter that will provide protection from heat, cold and wet that is
appropriate to the animal's weight and type of coat. Such shelter must provide sufficient space
to allow the animal the ability to turn around freely and lie in a normal position;
(c) in an area providing sufficient shade to protect the animal from the direct rays of the
sun at all times; and
(d) pens and run areas must be regularly cleaned and sanitized and excreta removed and
properly disposed of daily.
5. No person may cause an animal to be hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object where a choke
collar or choke chain forms part of the securing apparatus, or where a rope or cord is tied directly
around the animal's neck.
6 No person may cause an animal to be hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object as the primary
means of confinement for an extended period of time.
7 No person may cause an animal to be confined in an enclosed space, including a car, without
adequate ventilation.
8 No person may transport an animal in a vehicle outside the passenger compartment unless it is
adequately confined or unless it is secured in a body harness or other manner of fastening which is
adequate to prevent it from falling off the vehicle or otherwise injuring itself.
Unsanitary Conditions Prohibited
9. No person shall keep an animal in an unsanitary condition within the Town of Yarmouth.
Conditions shall be considered unsanitary where the keeping of the animal results in an accumulation of
faecal matter, an odour, insect infestation or rodent attractants which endanger the health of the
animal or any person, or which disturb or are likely to disturb the enjoyment, comfort or convenience of
any person in or about any dwelling, office, hospital or commercial establishment.
Registration
10 On or before the 1st day of April in each year the owner of any dog shall register such dog with
the Town and obtain from the Town a tag for such dog.
11 Every owner of a dog shall, within ten (10) days of having become owner, register such dog with
the Town and obtain from the Town a tag for such dog.
12. In order to register a dog, an owner shall pay the annual registration fees in accordance with
Schedule A of this bylaw and shall supply the Town with the following:
(a) Name, civic address, mailing address and telephone number of the owner;
(b) Name and breed of the dog;
(c) Description of the dog including whether the dog is male or female, spayed or unspayed
or neutered or unneutered as the case may be; and, at the discretion of the owner, the
following additional information may be supplied:
(d) A photograph of the dog;
(e) Identification information such as micro-chip implants, tattoos or other special
markings; and
(f) The name of the veterinary clinic frequented by the dog and veterinary file ID number.
13 Registration shall be effective until the first day of April in the year following the year of
registration.
14 The registration fee shall be reduced by 50 percent in the year of acquisition where the owner
acquires ownership of the dog after September 30.
15 The owner of every dog shall keep on the dog a collar with the tag issued for that dog by Town
Staff at the time of registration. Such a tag shall be kept securely fixed on the dog at all times during the
year until a replacement tag is issued. However, such a tag may be removed while the dog is being used
for lawful hunting purposes in the presence and under the control of the dog’s owner and wearing a
collar bearing the owner’s name and address.
16 The owner of a dog shall deliver in writing to Town Staff a statement of the number of dogs
owned or harboured, or that are kept upon the premises occupied by the owner within 10 days after
having received notice requiring it to be provided.
Registration Exemptions
17. The following are exempt from registration:
(a) the Town Staff or the Yarmouth SPCA shall not be required to register a stray;
(b) a dog shall be exempt from registration and registration fees in the event the owner
proves that the dog is under the age of three months; and,
18. A dog that is trained to assist and assists a person with a disability is exempt from paying a
registration fee but not from registration.
Dog Control Provisions
19 If a dog defecates on any public or private property other than the property of its owner, the
owner shall cause such faeces to be removed immediately.
20 No owner shall suffer, permit, allow or for any reason have his or her dog bark or howl
excessively or in any other manner disturb the quiet of any person.
21 No owner of a dog shall permit his or her dog to, without provocation:
(a) chase, bite or attack any person or animal;
(b) behave in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or animals;
(c) damage public or private property; or
(d) run at large within the Town except in designated off-leash areas.
Dogs Running At Large
24 Any dog which is off the premises occupied by the owner without being on a leash or harness ,
under the continuous restraint and control of some person is deemed to be running at large for the
purposes of this bylaw. A dog which is tethered on a tether of sufficient length to permit the dog to
leave the property boundaries of the premises occupied by the owner is deemed to be running at large,
except that an unleashed and unharnessed dog that is under continuous human restraint and control
shall not be deemed to be running at large if at the time the dog is:
(a) participating in an organized dog exhibition event or dog field trials;
(b) participating in a search and rescue operation or law-enforcement operation;
(c) assisting a person with a disability, provided the dog is trained for such purpose; or
(d) within a Town public park where the area is designated by signage as an area in which
dogs are permitted to be without a leash subject to such limitations as are posted.
25. The owner of a dangerous dog as defined in Section 2(1), or as declared by a judge, shall ensure
that within ten (10) days:
a) such dog is registered with the Town as a dangerous dog in accordance with the fees outlined
in Schedule A
b) such dog is spayed or neutered
c) they comply with the dog control provisions as outlined in Sections 19-21
d) at all times when off the owner's property, the dog shall be muzzled
e) at all times when off the owner's property, the dog shall be on a leash not longer than 1.2
metres with a tensile strength of at least 140 kilograms and under the control of a responsible
person sixteen years of age or older
f) when such dog is on the property of the owner, it shall be either securely confined
indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure, suitable to prevent the escape of
the dangerous dog and capable of preventing the entry of any person not in control of the dog.
Such pen or structure must have minimum dimensions of two metres by four metres and must
have secure sides and a secure top. If it has no bottom secured to the sides, the sides must be
embedded into the ground no less than thirty centimetres deep. The enclosure must also
provide protection from the elements for the dog. The pen or structure shall not be within one
metre of the property line or within three metres of a neighbouring dwelling unit. Such dog may
not be chained as a means of confinement.
g) a sign is displayed at each entrance to the property and building in which the dog is kept
warning in writing, as well as with a symbol, that there is a dangerous dog on the property. This
sign shall be visible and legible from the nearest road or thoroughfare.
h) a policy of liability insurance, satisfactory to the Town, is in force in the amount of at
least $500,000, covering the twelve month period during which licensing is sought, for injuries
caused by the owner's dangerous dog. This policy shall contain a provision requiring the
community to be named as an additional insured for the sole purpose of the community to be
notified by the insurance company of any cancellation, termination or expiration of the policy.
26 The Town shall have the authority to make whatever inquiry is deemed necessary to ensure
compliance with the provisions outlined in this section.
27 If the owner of a dog that has been designated as dangerous is unwilling or unable to comply
with the requirements of this section after fourteen days, the said dog shall then be humanely
euthanized by an animal shelter, animal control agency or licensed veterinarian. Any dog that has been
designated as dangerous under this bylaw may not be offered for adoption.
28 The owner of a dangerous dog who is unwilling or unable to comply with the provisions of this
section of the By-law, will have all current dog licenses revoked, and no future dog licenses will be
issued for a period of 5 years.
Impounding
28. Town staff may, without notice to or complaint against the owner, impound any dog that:
(a) runs at large contrary to this bylaw;
(b) is not wearing a tag required by this bylaw;
(c) is not registered pursuant to this bylaw;
(d) is fierce and dangerous;
(e) is rabid or appears to be rabid or exhibits symptoms of canine madness; or
(f) persistently disturbs the quiet of the neighbourhood by barking, howling or otherwise.
29 Owners seeking to redeem an impounded dog must pay an impoundment fee as outlined in
Schedule A of this bylaw.
30. Subject to Section 28 of this Bylaw, except in the case where a dog is impounded for being
dangerous, or is rabid or exhibits symptoms of canine madness, the owner of a dog which has been
impounded, upon proof of ownership of the dog, may redeem the dog after payment to the Pound
Keeper, or making arrangement for payment satisfactory to the Pound Keeper, of the Impounding Fee
and the Daily Pound Fee(s), along with reimbursement for any Extraordinary Expenses incurred by the
Town Staff in relation to the dog.
31 In the case of redemption of a dog which has not been registered pursuant to this Bylaw, the
owner shall also be required to register the dog and pay the registration fee before being allowed to
redeem the dog.
32 Any dog which has not been redeemed by its owner at the expiry of a period of 72 hours after
being impounded may be given away, sold or destroyed in a humane way by the Pound Keeper and, if
sold, the proceeds shall belong to the Town.
32 Whenever the 72 hours of impounding time expires on a weekend, the Pound Keeper shall hold
such dog until the expiry of the first business day following the weekend to permit the owner to redeem
the dog.
33 Upon any dog being impounded the Pound Keeper shall check for a tag and if a tag is found, the
Pound Keeper shall make at least one attempt to contact the registered owner of the dog using the tag
number on the records of Town Staff. Provided however that if a dog is missing, the onus is on the
owner of the dog to ascertain within the time period provided for impounding under this Bylaw,
whether the dog has been impounded, and neither the Pound Keeper nor the Town shall incur liability in
the event of failure to give Notice to the owner, if the owner has not made inquiry of the Pound Keeper
to determine whether the dog was impounded.
Destroying
Proceedings Against Dog Owner
37. A proceeding may be commenced in the Provincial Court against an owner of a dog if it is
alleged that,
(a) the dog has bitten, attacked or injured a person or domestic animal;
(b) the dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or
animals; or
(c) the owner did not exercise reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from:
(i) biting, attacking or injuring a person or domestic animal; or
(ii) behaving in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or animals.
38. In exercising its powers to make an order under Section 37, the Provincial Court Judge may take
into consideration the following circumstances:
(a) the dog’s past and present temperament and behaviour
(b) the seriousness of the injuries caused by the biting or attack
(c) unusual contributing circumstances tending to justify the dog’s action
(d) the improbability that a similar attack will be repeated
(e) the dog’s physical potential for inflicting harm
(f) precautions taken by the owner to preclude similar attacks in the future
(g) any other circumstances that the court considers to be relevant
39. If, in a proceeding under Section 37, the court finds that the dog has bitten or attacked a person
or domestic animal or that the dog’s behaviour is such that the dog is a menace to the safety of persons
or domestic animals, and the court is satisfied that an order is necessary for the protection of the public,
the court may order,
(a) that the owner of the dog take the measures specified in the order for the more
effective control of the dog or for purposes of public safety.
(b) that the dog be destroyed in the manner specified in the order; or
(c) prohibiting the dog’s owner from owning another dog for a specified period of time.
Penalties
1 Any person who contravenes any provision of this bylaw is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to a penalty as set out in Schedule B.
2 A Provincial Court Judge, in addition to the penalties provided in this bylaw, may, if he or she considers the offence sufficiently serious, direct or order the owner of a dog to prevent such dog from doing mischief or causing the disturbance or nuisance complained of, or have the animal removed from the Town, or order the animal destroyed.
3 Where any person contravenes the same provision of this bylaw twice within one twelve month period, the specified penalty payable in respect of the second contravention is double the amount specified in Schedule B of this bylaw.
4 Where any person contravenes the same provision of this bylaw three or more times within one twelve month period, the specified penalty payable in respect of the third or subsequent contravention is triple the amount specified in Schedule B of this bylaw.
5 Any person in default of payment may be imprisoned for a term not exceeding ninety (90) days.
Schedule A - Licence, Registration and Impoundment Fees
Registration Fees
Registration Type Cost
Dog registration (male or female) $50
Dog registration for neutered male or spayed female $25
Dog registration for neutered male or spayed female that is implanted with a microchip or tattooed
$10
Fierce and Dangerous Dog registration $250
Kennel registration $100
Impoundment Fees Penalties
First impoundment in any calendar year Cost
Neutered male or spayed female dog $25
Non-neutered or unspayed dog $50
Fierce and Dangerous dog $250
Second impoundment in any calendar year
Neutered male or spayed female dog $250
Non-neutered or unspayed dog $100
Fierce and Dangerous dog $500
Third impoundment in any calendar year
Neutered male or spayed female dog $75
Non-neutered or unspayed dog $150
Fierce and Dangerous dog $1000
Offence Section Penalty
Provision of Needs $100
Unsanitary Conditions $100
Harbouring more than two dogs $100
dog barking or howling excessively $100
Failure to immediately remove a dog’s defacation on private or public property $100
Dogs at Large
Fierce and Dangerous $1000
Unlicensed $150
Licensed $100
Dog:
chase, bite or attack a person $500
chase, bite or attack a domestic animal $350
Fierce and Dangerous Dogs:
chase, bite or attack a person $1000
chase, bite or attack a person causing physical injury $2500
chase, bite or attack a domestic animal $500
chase, bite or attack a domestic animal causing physical injury or death $1000
damage public or private property $500
failure to keep vicious dog confined $1000
Improper pen or structure $1000
Failure to keep dog muzzled, harnessed or leashed properly $1000
Failure to notify Town Staff if dog is sold, gifted, transferred or dies $200
Failure to show proof of liability insurance $1000
Failure to post “fierce and dangerous dog” signage $100
contravenes the same provision of this bylaw twice within one twelve month period double the above
contravenes the same provision of this bylaw three or more times within one twelve month period
triple the above
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Blog Posting
So my blog posting is going to have to wait for one more day I guess. My long term vision will probably thank me.
Check back tomorrow night or Monday morning and there will probably be a bunch of junk that really, is just nonsense.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Bella has been found! Lost Greyhound in North End Halifax - Bella/Passport
Bella has been found!! She has hypothermia but otherwise is fine - she was found by a fire fighter and is at the vet now - yay!!!! She's got some torn pads and is receiving fluids and is staying there overnight - so she was missing almost exactly one week.
GPAC has announced that - There will also be a Meet and Greet and BBQ for Bella and for all the volunteers, searchers, social media members, GPAC members, and all the media participants in the near future. As soon as Bella is all better, and her Mom Anna says it's OK, we will schedule a date and send out invitations. This will be announced on the Greyhound Pets of Atlantic Canada facebook page.
So stay tuned for that!
*********************************
There is a very large search going on tonight for a greyhound in the Hydrostone area of Halifax - her name is Bella - but she might answer to the name of Passport - she has been missing since Monday - and was last seen Devonshire at around 2pm.
She still has her collar and lead on her. Please call her owner at 292-3314 or her cell phone at her cell is 483-2975 if you find her or even see her.
The urgent thing is that this rescue Greyhound came in on this past Saturday so she's absolutely NEW to the area - she is probably completely afraid and shell-shocked.
She is listed on the Nova Scotia Lost Dog Network - and also has an ad on Kijiji if you need more information - here's hoping that she gets home safely - quickly.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Revised: I think the CKC is facing some very tough decisions with their future direction and NCAC and PIJAC
I wrote the bulk of this post before I went to the Urban Animal Summit on April 14th - and before I went - I thought that the Canadian Kennel Club was involved with the writing of the "Breeder Code of Practice" that we were going to be talking about - but as it turned out - when I showed up in the morning - there was no representation at the Summit from the CKC - which was odd, because at every previous summit I'd attended - there HAD been someone there from the CKC - and when you look at who the sponsors are of the event - the CKC is listed - so you'd expect that there would be representation there.
So it was a surprise when I arrived - and it seemed that no involvement of the CKC was going to be happening with this new "Breeder Code" - it was going to be geared towards another level of "responsible breeder" who wanted to attain a "seal of approval" and "certification" - and if indeed a "CKC breeder" ALSO wanted to achieve this certification as well - they could certainly apply to get it as well - they weren't precluded from getting it if they wanted - even though I was quick to point out that their bylaws made it impossible for them to sell their puppies to a pet store.
So it seems that the "National Companion Animal Coalition" will be the ones mentoring and marketing this program - which is why I say that the CKC is going to have some tough decisions to make - because they are a member of that coalition - are they going to want to be part of "certification" program of breeders that they don't deign to include in their own club? I don't know. That's for them to figure out.
Below is my blog post from last night - when I talked about what had previously been released by the Summit organizers - and my thoughts about PIJAC - of which I've got a lot of ideas - and end of the end of the summit today - my thoughts haven't changed too much about PIJAC. I'll be writing a new post about what happened at the Summit today - you'll just have to wait a bit for me to type it all out.....
Tomorrow I'm going to the "Urban Animal Summit" for the Atlantic Region - "The Regional Summits promotes industry collaboration, provides continuing education for industry management and expands the number of collaborators working toward common goals and urban animal strategies."
On April 8th - they "released the first iteration of the Breeder Codes of Practice" - you can go read it here.
They read exactly word by word - except that ONE SENTENCE has been REMOVED.
Can you guess what that one sentence is?
"No breeder shall sell or donate dogs for the purpose of their being auction, raffled or to pet stores".
In the NEW Breeder Codes of Practice it reads -
"No breeder shall sell or donate dogs for the purpose of an auction or raffle."
Do you see something missing?
It looks to me like someone wants it to be okay for CKC registered dogs to be sold in pet stores.
There was another email that came out April 4th from the Urban Animal Summits - talking about how "The Industry Drives to Eliminate Illegimate Breeding Practices" - and it was a link to a blog post where they were saying -
What is the definition of a "compliant retail establishment"? I have never heard that term before, have you? Is that a term that PIJAC has newly created so that pet stores can now sell CKC puppies?
If that's the case - then the puppymill world has just gotten a lot muddier in Canada - that's for sure. And the Canadian Kennel Club has got a lot of questions that need answered.
Because we all know that 99% of the puppies sold in pet stores come from puppy mills.
This conflict of interest has to stop between the Canadian Kennel Club, PIJAC, and Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies.
So it was a surprise when I arrived - and it seemed that no involvement of the CKC was going to be happening with this new "Breeder Code" - it was going to be geared towards another level of "responsible breeder" who wanted to attain a "seal of approval" and "certification" - and if indeed a "CKC breeder" ALSO wanted to achieve this certification as well - they could certainly apply to get it as well - they weren't precluded from getting it if they wanted - even though I was quick to point out that their bylaws made it impossible for them to sell their puppies to a pet store.
So it seems that the "National Companion Animal Coalition" will be the ones mentoring and marketing this program - which is why I say that the CKC is going to have some tough decisions to make - because they are a member of that coalition - are they going to want to be part of "certification" program of breeders that they don't deign to include in their own club? I don't know. That's for them to figure out.
Below is my blog post from last night - when I talked about what had previously been released by the Summit organizers - and my thoughts about PIJAC - of which I've got a lot of ideas - and end of the end of the summit today - my thoughts haven't changed too much about PIJAC. I'll be writing a new post about what happened at the Summit today - you'll just have to wait a bit for me to type it all out.....
Tomorrow I'm going to the "Urban Animal Summit" for the Atlantic Region - "The Regional Summits promotes industry collaboration, provides continuing education for industry management and expands the number of collaborators working toward common goals and urban animal strategies."
On April 8th - they "released the first iteration of the Breeder Codes of Practice" - you can go read it here.
It based complete - pretty much word for word on the Canadian Kennel Club's Bylaws - which you can read by going to the CKC's website where they have their bylaws online.
Can you guess what that one sentence is?
In the NEW Breeder Codes of Practice it reads -
Do you see something missing?
It looks to me like someone wants it to be okay for CKC registered dogs to be sold in pet stores.
THIS is why the National Companion Animal Coalition is a very bad idea - and a horrible conflict of interest for both the CKC and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies having anything whatsover to do with PIJAC.
I have been saying it for a long time on this blog - and it has finally come to fruition.There was another email that came out April 4th from the Urban Animal Summits - talking about how "The Industry Drives to Eliminate Illegimate Breeding Practices" - and it was a link to a blog post where they were saying -
According to the 2008 and 2009 National Urban Animal Surveys there are more than a million cats and dogs being placed into Canadian homes each year. Of these homing episodes it appears that adoptions from legitimate animal welfare organizations account for 11%, registered breeders account for 8% and compliant retail establishments are thought to add another 16% of these placements. Only these 35% of placements come from inside the industry system of compliant homing organizations.What do they mean by a "compliant retail establishment"?
If these numbers are accurate, almost 65% of the cats and dogs placed into Canadian homes may come from breeders who could fly under the radar for business licenses and taxes, whose litters are not identified in any industry system and whose operations may not be compliant with accepted industry standards. It is these irresponsible breeder activities the industry wishes to elminate for the good of pets and pet families.
What is the definition of a "compliant retail establishment"? I have never heard that term before, have you? Is that a term that PIJAC has newly created so that pet stores can now sell CKC puppies?
If that's the case - then the puppymill world has just gotten a lot muddier in Canada - that's for sure. And the Canadian Kennel Club has got a lot of questions that need answered.
Because we all know that 99% of the puppies sold in pet stores come from puppy mills.
This conflict of interest has to stop between the Canadian Kennel Club, PIJAC, and Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, and the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies.
This week I also got CFHS Spring 2011 "Animal Welfare in Focus" Newsletter in the mail - and in there is an article about how the society is using social media to show how heartbreaking it is to buy pets from an irresponsible source like pet stores and back yard breeders - and at the same time - they've partnered with PIJAC - who ARE pet stores. It just does NOT make sense. And it's got to stop if the organization is going to have any credibility whatsoever.
This is a letter on the PIJAC website - and it talks about the possibility of legislation happening in British Columbia - which thankfully DID happen - the city of Richmond outlawed petstores from selling animals - but what did PIJAC think about that?
They said that "no pets to sell will significantly affect your bottom line" - no shit sherlock! I guess that stores that have historically sold puppy mill puppies would now have to be like other - may I say - highly successful pet stores that don't peddle such misery - and only sell pet SUPPLIES?
This letter on the PIJAC website alone shows what the organization is truly about.
They said that "no pets to sell will significantly affect your bottom line" - no shit sherlock! I guess that stores that have historically sold puppy mill puppies would now have to be like other - may I say - highly successful pet stores that don't peddle such misery - and only sell pet SUPPLIES?
This letter on the PIJAC website alone shows what the organization is truly about.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Spay-ghetti = Yum!
Vetcetera Animal Hospital is a proud supporter of Spay Day Nova Scotia 2011! Dr. Raghavan is donating her time and the facility and all of our staff are donating thier time so we can contribute to this worthy cause. PLEASE SPAY AND NEUTER YOUR PETS!
I think that's amazing - I have noted before what a great vet hospital Vetcetera is to the local rescue community is - and they are proving their mettle once again - they are definitely a company that should be supported with our hard earned dollars in my humble opinion.
The official "spay day" is May 1st - you can download an application form on the Spay Day's website - and also find out what the initiative is all about. It's fabulous that a group is trying to actually do proactive things in our community about what is perceived as the cat problem - and whatever we can do to support them - we should definitely do - now if the NSVMA would allow low cost spay and neuter, I think that we might actually start to get somewhere - but I think that will be in our grandchildren's lifetime!