Back in 2005 the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities were given a bunch of recommendations - and they threw it all away

The Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities "is a not-for-profit organization mandated to represent the Provincial interests of municipal governments across Nova Scotia. Total membership is 411 elected officials representing all 54 municipalities. Municipal interests are represented through three caucuses - a Regional Caucus, Rural Caucus and Towns Caucus. The Board of Directors is comprised of twelve elected officials and one appointed non-voting member from the Association of Municipal Administrators."

They take care of the Municipal Government Act and oversee all the different bylaws across Nova Scotia. Every year someone takes a turn as president - and the notorious Lloyd Hines has been president a couple years - this year Russell Walker from Halifax is president.

In 2008 - a year when Lloyd Hines was president they had made it a priority to make dog owners more responsible for the actions of their dogs.

In 2005 - they had commissioned Westville's Police Chief Don Hussher to make recommendations in relations to Nova Scotia's dog bylaws - and he made 14 of them. Unfortunately they rejected them. For what reason nobody knows - but the recommendations are interesting.

Can you imagine if they would've accepted them? What kind of a province would we be living in today? It's almost 10 years later. We'd be living in a very different province, that's for sure.

Instead - the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities attempted to pass province wide breed specific legislation - banning certain types of breeds based solely on how they looked - luckily for all of us - they failed miserably.

Here are the recommendations Chief Hussher suggested:

In the report, Hussher offered 14 recommendations based on input from animal behaviour specialists. They include:
1. Partnership with other municipalities to ensure consistent laws.
2. Municipalities must have an accurate database of all dogs within their boundaries and any bylaw infractions link to the owner.
3. All fines for violations increased drastically to create a deterrent and increase with each repetition of the offence.
4. Laws and licences should include breeder categories with restrictions to encourage proper breeding practices.
5. Dogs that show aggression must be considered vicious and more restrictions will be required for ownership.
6. Dogs tied unattended should not be permitted for long periods – if it’s not kept in the house, a proper defined enclosure must be required.
7. Training dogs for attack or protection isn’t permitted except for police or security companies.
8. Restrictions on the owners to ensure they properly feed, shelter, train and socialize their dogs to prevent aggressiveness.
9. All dog bites will be investigated and charges laid if warranted. If the attack was unprovoked and the dog can’t be ordered destroyed, it will be declared vicious.
10. If the owner isn’t a breeder and the dog isn’t a show dog, spaying/neutering will be mandatory or increase the licensing fee drastically.
11. Dogs will be required to be micro-chipped by vets so owners of roaming animals can be identified.
12. Beware of dog signs will not be permitted – if the owner has a concern about the dog’s aggression it will be considered vicious.
13. SPCA needs more responsibility and authority to do their job.
14. A committee should be formed to look at these regulations and revamp current bylaws.

Questionnaire to the Political Parties in 2009

This questionnaire was sent out in 2009 - the last time we went to the polls - but I'm sure the answers would still be the same if we sent out the same questions today - I found this in my emails tonight, so I thought I'd post it here for whatever it's worth - there's not really time at this point to send another questionnaire out to the parties at this point - so here's some food for thought - (isn't it interesting though that every question we asked in 2009 we still have exactly the same problems in 2013?  TNR, funding for the SPCA, anti-cruelty laws, municipal bsl laws, etc. - and Lloyd Hines running for office!)



ARPO – Advocates for Responsible Pet Ownership is an organization that is working towards creating a companion animal friendly Nova Scotia where pet owners and non-pet owners can live together harmoniously. We educate the public about responsible pet ownership and advocate for strengthened anti-cruelty laws. We supply educational materials at pet events on responsible pet ownership. We support the efforts of provincially funded shelters as well as independent rescue organizations.

We respectfully request that you answer the following questions so that ARPO members can make an informed voting decision in the upcoming election.

1. Will your party strengthen the anti–cruelty laws of Nova Scotia by working with the Judicial Department to increase fines and sentences for those persons that are found guilty of animal cruelty and/or neglect?

Liberals said: they fought hard to strengthen the Animal Protection Act in 2008 – citing that Diana Whalen proposed changes including strengthening the definition of distress, outlining a standard of care and the ability to impose harsher fines.

PC’s – it is amazing the torture some people will put an animal through. Just last year the PC Gov’t introduced and passed a modernized Animal Protection Act. It is set to be proclaimed in the coming months. A number of changes and improvements have been made to the act to ensure the welfare of animals in the province. This updated law was in response to an incidence where dozens of dogs and cats were found living in squalor in CB.

NDP – YES

The Green Party supports the anti-cruelty laws currently in place, but believes they are insufficiently enforced. The Green Party will work with the department of Justice to ensure that those found guilty of cruelty and/or neglect to animals are properly punished and that fines and sentences reflect the seriousness of these cruelties .

2. Will your party work with the NS SPCA to build legislation that protects the quality of life of all companion animals in Nova Scotia - including those that are used for breeding and livestock purposes?

Liberal Party are open to meeting with the SPCA to further see how they may be able to improve existing legislation and support the organization.

PC’s - The new act will allow the SPCA to focus on the protection of non-farm animals. The Act also establishes an Animal Cruelty Appeal Board to hear appeals of animal seizures and investigation issues – an opportunity for individuals to have seizure of an animal reviewed by an independent board in a timely manner.

The NDP supported the passage of the Animal Protection Act in Nov. 2008. Once there is sufficient experiences with the Act and its regulations it will be possible for stakeholders to determine if further legislation is necessary to adequately protect companion animals.

Yes, The Green Party supports The Earth Charter which states in clause 15. “Treat all living beings with respect and consideration” and 15.a. “Prevent cruelty to animals kept in human societies and protect them from suffering." The Green Party believes it is necessary for government to develop a cooperative role with a broad range of non-governmental organizations and would work with the SPCA and other interested NGOs in order to ensure the quality of life of all animals kept in human society, including those for breeding and  livestock purposes.

3. Will your party push to have all municipalites enacting humane animal laws and require that BSL be rescinded in those municipalites that have enacted such legislation? ((breed specific legislation enacts punitive laws based on breed of dog rather then the actions of negligent owner’s regardless of breed or mix)

Liberals feel that the rights of municipalities to make and enforce their own bylaws should be respected and do not see a role for the provincial gov’t to lobby for changes at the municipal level. The Liberal Party believes that it can be most effective protecting animals and safe guarding the rights of animal owners by introducing changes within its jurisdiction. An example of this was the change to the Animal Protection Act our party put forward. ARPO further asked the Liberal party to elaborate as it is not clear what the Liberal policy is concerning BSL (breed specific legislation that applies punitive laws on breeds of dogs instead on irresponsible dog owners regardless of breed of dog or Mix.) - is the Liberal Party policy to advocate for BSL or is the party stance that BSL is not good legislation? The Liberal response was:

Thanks for following up regarding the Liberal responses to your survey. At the provincial level, we would not introduce legislation that would ban specific breeds of dogs but do recognize the municipality's right to introduce their own bylaws with respect to animal control/local issues. I hope this helps to clarify our position and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions.


Please scroll down to read all about Lloyd Hines and why you should be concerned that the Liberal Party has selected Hines to represent their party.

PC’s – The NS SPCA opposes the establishment of municipal by-laws that declare recognized breeds of dogs vicious or dangerous. As I said in a questionnaire responded to during the 2006 election I’m not entirely convinced that by banning certain breeds would prevent dog attacks from happening. Other breeds can demonstrate aggression towards people depending on the circumstances, how the dog was raised and treated itself. I think I’d be more supportive of legislation that addresses the causes of aggression rather than targeting the banning of specific breeds.

NDP- will work with the Union of Nova Scotia Municipalities to develop humane by-laws. The NDP does not support breed- specific legislation.

The Green Party is opposed to breed specific legislation and will work with municipalities to better define humane animal laws, including laws holding owners and breeders liable for any negligence on their part in cases of animal violence.

4. Will your party increase funding to the NS SPCA to facilitate the hiring and training of more cruelty investigators to adequately address the need? (currently other provinces are increasing funding ex. N.B. & Que.)

There are many not for profit organizations …the Liberals would strive to meet the needs of these organizations while recognizing that the gov’t must live within its means. To our knowledge there has been no formal request made to increase funding to the SPCA. Our party would be open to meeting with the SPCA and discussing its needs.

PC’s- announced $100,000.00 in funding to the SPCA. The funding is set in our budget to support the SPCA’s work implementing the new Animal Protection Act.

The NDP has called for adequate funding to address the problem of cruelty to animals…An NDP Gov’t will endeavor to increase funding to the NS SPCA during the term of its mandate, but with the context of balancing the budget.

The Green Party depends upon broad consultation with all interested NGOs, and a Green government would explore all avenues toward improving the enforcement of anti-cruelty laws, including the hiring and training of investigators.

5. Will your party support a province wide TNR (trap-neuter-release) program for feral cats?

Animal control issues fall under municipal jurisdiction and a Liberal gov’t would support local efforts to address this issue. Our party is concerned with the thousands of unwanted cats born each year and realizes the burden they place on the SPCA’s space and resources.

PC’s – Feral cats have always been an issue but it has been highlighted recently in the media – the efforts of some individuals have taken upon themselves to treat humanely these colonies in an effort to allow them to live freely but to help control the nuisance factor they may cause which often gives these animals negative attention …we also need more education for people to understand pets are not a throw away object, they are a part of your family and must be treated that way.

NDP – YES.

The Green Party recognizes the benefits of this program and would negotiate with municipalities about such a province wide program.

Please feel free to elaborate. ARPO looks forward to your response and all responses will be circulated province wide to like minded organizations with a media release.

Sincerely,
Janet Chernin
Director at Large,
ARPO – Advocates for Responsible Pet Ownership
www.arpolistens.ca

Lloyd Hines and the Provincial Election in June 2009 –
and what Responsible Dog owners need to know about him

In 1995 Lloyd Hines lobbied for and passed breed specific legislation in the district of the municipality of Guysborough – banning pit bulls, with no grandfather clause built in.

Because the media paid virtually no attention to this issue, most residents of Guysborough were unaware of the new law in 1995 . Apparently without public support or, to the contrary, outrage, the municipality amended the by-law in 2004 to ban Rottweilers (the amendment contained a grandfather section to exempt Rottweilers already living in the Municipality). The ban on Rottweilers was passed after the New Brunswick attack that led to the death of the four year old child. Warden Lloyd Hines was active in pushing for these bills, and he threatened to push a breed specific ban through the Union of Municipalities – which he almost successfully did in 2008 – but because people in other areas of Nova Scotia know what happens when breed bans become law – Lloyd Hines failed in his bid to pass breed restrictions throughout the whole province.

Lloyd Hines is currently running as a Liberal Candidate in the provincial election in the riding of Guysborough Sheet Harbour in the June 2009 Election.

When Lloyd Hines was Warden of the District of the Municipality of Guysborough he made it a priority in his mandate to first ban pit bull dogs, and then add rottweilers to that ban.

When Lloyd Hines was first Vice President, and then President of the Union of the Nova Scotia Municipalities he made it a priority of his mandate to have breed restrictions passed throughout the whole province of Nova Scotia.

If he is elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia – what do you think one of his major priorities will be when he gets there?

This is a quote that Lloyd Hines said in 2004 when he was attempting to have rottweilers banned in his municipality –
"I don't want to be the warden of the Municipality of Guysborough and have to go to the funeral of some kid who was eaten."


When Guysborough dog owners go to the polls in June – hopefully they will go to the voting booths with the knowledge that they are voting not just for themselves – they are voting for every dog owner in Nova Scotia.


And there's also the great "Panic Policy Making" document - where Lloyd Hines is talked about personally - which is at http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/faculty/BRISBIN/Papers/2007.%20Panic%20Policy%20Making.pdf]
- where they figure that the only reason he has been doing all his breed banning foolishness is because of his own personal fear of large dogs.

Take a moment to effect some positive political change in Nova Scotia, won't you?

Someone here in Nova Scotia has started a couple petitions on Change.org - the first one is about the wonderful Lloyd Hines - the petition reads in part -

Nova Scotia Liberal Party: 

Remove Candidate Lloyd P. Hines from the electoral ballot

Lloyd Hines has successfully and continuously lobbied for BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) throughout his entire political career. There is fear if Lloyd Hines is elected as an MLA, a provincial BSL ban could be on his bucket list.

- In 1995 Lloyd Hines lobbied for and passed breed specific legislation in the district of the municipality of Guysborough – banning pit bulls, with no grandfather clause built in.

-In 2004 Hines lobbied and passed a ban on Rottweilers in the municipality of Guysborough.

- Lloyd Hines threatened to push a breed specific ban through the Union of Municipalities – which he almost successfully did in 2008.

- Lloyd Hines continues to dodge questions surrounding his work lobbing for BSL; blocking facebook users / voters, and refusing to return telephone calls.

You can go to the petition to find out more - and also read my previous blog post about the topic - Nova Scotia does NOT need politicians like this coming into power!

You can sign this petition here - https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/nova-scotia-liberal-party-remove-candidate-lloyd-p-hines-from-the-electoral-ballot

The 2nd Change.org petition that would be wonderful for us all to sign regards the 24/7 tethering of dogs here in the province -

Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture: 

Create new legislature making it illegal for dogs to be tethered 24/7 in NS

The information there says -

The constant (24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year) tethering of dogs presents many problems that can be medical and psychological in nature. Dogs can be left outside in any and all weather conditions, a wide range of temperatures and are exposed to the elements - all of which can be detrimental to the health and quality of life of the dog. Dogs that are tethered in this manner can easily suffer from hypothermia, heat stroke, dehydration, parasitic infestations, and attack by wild animals, among many other things. Many dogs in this situation suffer from neglect and do not meet their daily requirements for exercise or social interaction; as a result some of these dogs can become restless, anxious, easily excitable, and in some cases fearful and aggressive. Current law states that if a dog has access to food, water and a shelter (defined as a structure with three walls and a roof with no required insulation/bedding) that it cannot be seized - in other words, in the eyes of the law these three basic things are all the dog needs. There are no requirements for socialization, veterinary care or enrichment. In today's society, knowing everything we know about canine health and behavior, as well as animal welfare, this is unacceptable. Laws need to be changed such that dogs cannot be tethered 24-7, subject to neglect and a poor quality of life. Dogs don't have a voice - we need to speak for them!

If this does not make you want to change the current laws, let me share with you the story of my dog Quinn, who was rescued from the end of a rope 17 months ago. I adopted Quinn last year from the Atlantic Small Dog Rescue, who had been tied outside by a nylon rope, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 8 years. And the worst part: he was only seized because his owner passed away. Had his owner not died, Quinn may still be tied outside to that nylon rope. When he was rescued he weighed about 30lbs, and at his healthy current weight he is 55lbs - he weighed almost half of what his healthy body weight should have been. Quinn was not neutered until he was rescued, and had a large tumor on one of his testicles that may have killed him had it not been removed. He had been infested with fleas for so long that he developed a flea hypersensitivity, resulting in intense itching, inflammation and hair loss. His skin was raw from the hypersensitivity and from him chewing/scratching at his skin, and to this day (more than 2 years after his being rescued) he is still bald and scarred on the hind end of his body, including his sides/back/legs/tail. His constant chewing as a result of the hypersensitivity also caused large quantities of hair to become embedded in his gums, causing severe gingivitis and tooth damage such that most of his front teeth had to be removed. In total since his rescue he has had 12 teeth removed due to this and previously poor dental care. The hypersensitivity and persistent inflammation of his skin required Quinn to be on prednisolone, a corticosteroid, for nearly 2 years after his rescue, which resulted in the development of steroid-induced hyperadrenocorticism. And that is not the worst of it - Quinn had been tied out on the same nylon rope for so long that it had become imbedded in his neck, and he still has a perfect one-two inch wide ring around his entire neck in which fur does not grow, and probably never will. Aside from the physical abuse and trauma that he suffered as a result of his constant tethering, Quinn was extremely wary of strangers, he was highly anxious, and would not allow people to touch him in most places. Because he had been starved he had developed food aggression. He was fostered for 9 months by the Atlantic Small Dog Rescue, and over that period of time he came to trust a few special people to touch him (although still not in most places) learned to walk on leash, was house trained and was socialized with other dogs (although he still didn't fully understand normal dog behavior, leading us to believe he had been isolated from other dogs from a young age.) In the past 17 months Quinn has become a new dog. With one-on-one attention he came to trust me enough that I can touch him anywhere on his body, including in his mouth and ears. He has gotten over his food aggression and if he has something he is not allowed I can remove it from his mouth without him biting me. He now knows basic obedience, goes off leash at the park, and helps my new puppy who is 100% blind get around. He even loves people. My point: this is an amazing dog, who almost didn't get a chance to be the amazing dog he was meant to be because there are no laws protecting dogs in this unfortunate and unfair circumstance. We need to strengthen our laws so that dogs should never have to suffer in this way. Had it not been for the death of his owner, Quinn may have died on the end of that rope, and that is not something that I will stand for. I urge you to help make the changes required to protect dogs throughout Nova Scotia from what Quinn and so many other dogs have had to endure.

You can go sign this petition at https://www.change.org/petitions/nova-scotia-department-of-agriculture-create-new-legislature-making-it-illegal-for-dogs-to-be-tethered-24-7-in-ns

Some information about Lloyd Hines, candidate for the Liberal Party in Nova Scotia

In 1995 Lloyd Hines lobbied for and passed breed specific legislation in the district of the municipality of Guysborough – banning pit bulls, with no grandfather clause built in.

Because the media paid virtually no attention to this issue, most residents of Guysborough were unaware of the new law in 1995 . Apparently without public support or, to the contrary, outrage, the municipality amended the by-law in 2004 to ban Rottweilers (the amendment contained a grandfather section to exempt Rottweilers already living in the Municipality). The ban on Rottweilers was passed after the New Brunswick attack that led to the death of a four year old child. Warden Lloyd Hines was active in pushing for these bills, and he threatened to push a breed specific ban through the Union of Municipalities – which he almost successfully did in 2008 – but because people in other areas of Nova Scotia know what happens when breed bans become law – Lloyd Hines failed in his bid to pass breed restrictions throughout the whole province.

Lloyd Hines is currently running as a Liberal Candidate in the provincial election in the riding of Guysborough Sheet Harbour in the October 2013 Election.

When Lloyd Hines was Warden of the District of the Municipality of Guysborough he made it a priority in his mandate to first ban pit bull dogs, and then add rottweillers to that ban.

When Lloyd Hines was first Vice President, and then President of the Union of the Nova Scotia Municipalities he made it a priority of his mandate to have breed restrictions passed throughout the whole province of Nova Scotia.

If he is elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia – what do you think one of his major priorities will be when he gets there?

This is a quote that Lloyd Hines said in 2004 when he was attempting to have rottweillers banned in his municipality –

"I don't want to be the warden of the Municipality of Guysborough and have to go to the funeral of some kid who was eaten."

Dog owners in Nova Scotia need to be aware of what the Liberal Party in Nova Scotia is putting forward as one of their candidates in this election.

When Guysborough dog owners go to the polls in October – hopefully they will go to the voting booths with the knowledge that they are voting not just for themselves – they are voting for every dog owner in Nova Scotia.

Here is Mr. Hines' Facebook page

and here is Mr. Hines' twitter]] page

If you want to read more about Lloyd Hines on this blog - click here

Why I wrote what I wrote in my submission to the Dept of Agriculture

It seems not too many people are liking what I wrote in my submission to the department of Agriculture regarding regulations for the Animal Cruelty Act.

It would seem that most people would have assumed that I would have just blatantly come out and said - ban the permanent tethering of dogs in Nova Scotia. Period. 

But life just isn't that easy, is it?  If we did that - what would happen to all the dogs who had been permanently chained the day after the ban came into effect? Is it better for them to die than it is for them to live? I don't know and I don't want to be responsible for that - and I really don't think Nova Scotia is ready for a ban on Tethering - we are way too rural for that. 

What I would much rather see is the people who go and visit the tethered dogs who have the power to remove the neglected ones actually have the power to remove them - and currently for some reason they don't feel like they do - so that's what I was trying to talk about in my submission. 

I was also not interested in talking about how to chain a dog more successfully - so I did not talk about things like what the gauge of the chain should be, what the minimum length of the chain should be, or talked about the dog house. 

Te only things I talked about were signs of neglect that would warrant removal of the dog -  that is what I wanted the regulations to focus on - not ways to make the dog more comfortable - but for ways to be able to remove the dog. 

They were looking for definitions of distress - and that's what I tried to provide. 

And then at the end I said what was needed was supervised tethering - just because I don't think a ban on permanent tethering is the answer does not mean I am a proponent of it. Anyone who would think that is either misreading what I wrote or reading something into what I wrote for their own agenda. 

I hope the government takes the welfare of our companion animals seriously - even the ones that aren't cared about by their owners. Especially when the rhetoric around this issue can get so ridiculous it can border on the sublime. 

My submission to the Dept of Agriculture re the Animal Protection Act

So I finally finished my submission to the Department of Agriculture about regulations around the Animal Protection Act - I stuck to the topics of tethering, breed specific legislation and puppy mills.  If I did anything else I never would've gotten it done in time.  If you want to look at my original submission you can look at it here - http://nochainsalllove.ca/regulations.pdf

So here is what I said -

Permanent tethering in Nova Scotia is not going to end and shouldn’t be included in any effort to enhance our animal cruelty legislation. It will only turn a lot of dog owners into criminals for no good reason and put animals into jeopardy because dogs who were minimally being cared for previously will now be either murdered or dumped in the woods or on neighbours properties – and the humane community will have a crisis on their hands trying to deal with the influx of previously unknown backyard dogs.

As well – a lot of dogs that were previously permanently tethered outdoors might be just moved indoors and kept in basements or somewhere else segregated from the family because the reason they were dumped outside was because of some behavioural issue that wasn’t dealt with – so just banning permanent tethering isn’t the answer – it’s the culture around it that’s the problem.

The real problem with tethering revolves around the issue of distress –what is distress – and that is something that is quantifiable that can be defined – and if a dog is permanently tethered – he will fall into certain categories so he can be removed from the home.

You would think that the current legislation that exists in Nova Scotia would allow must dogs that are permanently tethered in Nova Scotia to qualify as being distressed under our definition:
Animal Cruelty Prevention Act, 1996, c. 22, s.
1 (NS)
2. (2) An animal is in distress, for the purpose of this Act, where the animal is
a. in need of adequate care, food, water or shelter; or injured, sick, in pain, or suffering undue hardship, privation or neglect. 1996, c. 22, s. 2

Unfortunately that is not the case – only the constables of the NS SPCA know why this is so – the one’s I have spoken to say that the dog has to be in obvious medical distress at the time they are on scene. Just because their coat is completely unkempt, their nails are overgrown, there is no water, there is no food, there is feces everywhere, the dog is panting – none of this is good enough for the animal to be seized – unless the owner offers up the dog.

The NS SPCA say that in 2012 calls about dogs being tethered and in distress were their number 2 call – so this is a topic that the people of Nova Scotia care very much about. When the SPCA put forward that number though – they didn’t say how quickly they responded to them all – they only say that they had 336 calls that were about dogs being tied out. (http://spcans.ca/documents/about/DOA_YE-Report_2012.pdf  ) And it also doesn’t say how many of those ended in seizure of the dog – only that 780 of the total 1632 of their calls for the year were unfounded.

One would think that if the special constables had better guidelines – their unfounded calls statistics would become a lower number.

On the CVMA’s website they have a page that lists out what the provincial legislation is for each province when it comes to distress in every province - http://www.canadianveterinarians.net/programs/reporting-abuse-provincial-legislation.aspx#.UiDlLhuTiSo

Manitoba has perhaps the most succinct wording for the legislation that includes the buzzwords we hear today –

The Animal Care Act, C.C.S.M. 1996, c. 84
6(1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purposes of this Act, an animal is in distress if it is
a) subjected to conditions that, unless immediately alleviated, will cause the animal death or serious harm;
b) subjected to conditions that cause the animal to suffer acute pain;
c) not provided food and water sufficient to maintain the animal in a state of good health;
d) not provided appropriate medical attention when the animal is wounded or ill;
e) unduly exposed to cold or heat; or
f) subjected to conditions that will, over time, significantly impair the animal’s health or well-being, including
i. confinement in an area of insufficient space
ii. confinement in unsanitary conditions
iii. confinement without adequate ventilation,
iv. not being allowed an opportunity for adequate exercise, and
v. conditions that cause the animal extreme anxiety or distress.

You’ll notice that Manitoba’s legislation includes conditions that allow for being able to remove an animal so that it won’t be subject to future conditions – future distress – and it also includes the word “anxiety” – “conditions that cause the animal extreme anxiety or distress”.

There are some who believe that tethering a dog out at all causes anxiety – separation from family – subjecting the dog to conditions that they have no control over – and that in and of itself is cruelty.

The CVMA states outright that “Tethering of dogs (i.e., chains or ropes used to tie the animal to an immoveable object such as a stake or building) as a primary method of confinement is not acceptable.”

So as for specific regulations that could be written as having to do with tethering of dogs when they have to do with helping constables decide whether or not they are in distress:
• What are the sanitary conditions the dog is living in – is it gravel based or grass based – is it obvious that the dog has paced so much it’s created a rut in his living space;
• What is his body shape in – are his nails long and overgrown, is he emaciated under his fur, are his ears dirty;
• What is his demeanour – can you get close to him? No? Or is he over friendly like he never gets any attention – both states signal that he is permanently tethered;
• Is his water dish something other than a normal water dish you’d use inside for a water dish – ie a several gallon white bucket and the colour of the water is a colour other than normal drinking water?
• When you talk to neighbours does the dog bark a lot at odd hours?

In conclusion – tethering is not the enemy of dogs – it’s the unattended tethering that is deadly – not only to dogs, but to the communities that they live in. That’s when dogs – and the children around them – die.

Tying your dog out while you garden or attend to activities because you don’t have a fenced in yard – or while your dog does his business is not a problem. Abandoning your dog to your backyard because you don’t feel like dealing with him anymore – is a problem – and that’s what legislation should deal with. Those are the dog owners who are being negligent – and putting our communities at risk – and hurting their dogs. I hope your regulation process aids in that process.

I said earlier that tethering dogs out was part of a cultural problem – and that is what it is – a cultural problem – and we can’t change that through legislation – we can only do that through actions and changing people’s minds on how to live with our canine companions – all we can really do is help the dogs out there right now living lives of misery by removing them from where they are who are in distress – and adding regulations to the legislation is a first step.

Another area that can help dogs in Nova Scotia is regulations around the Municipal Government Act.

The scourge of breed specific legislation has to end – so therefore the Municipal Government Act has to be amended – under the dog bylaw – section 175 it says (1) Without limiting the generality of Section 172, a council may make by-laws
(e) defining fierce or dangerous dogs, including defining them by breed, cross-breed, partial breed or type;

That is breed specific legislation and belongs no where in Nova Scotia. We love dogs unconditionally here – and we should be treating dogs as individuals – which they are – and only have legislation that deals with dogs on a case by case basis – ie dangerous dog legislation that places liability square on the shoulder of the dog’s owner.

Studies are showing that breed specific legislation is on the decline – it is completely unnecessary and does not lower the incidence of dog bites – and Nova Scotia is much the poorer for implementing or maintaining it anywhere and only will hurt tourism. (http://animalfarmfoundation.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/bsl-trends/ )

This small line from the Municipal Government Act must be removed – if dogs are going to be protected in this province this is non-negotiable.

Also under the dog bylaw section 175 (4) 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 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.

It should be mandatory for all owners of dogs who own any unspayed or unneutered dogs that number over 2 of each to register their dogs as a kennel with the municipality that they live in and pay a kennel tax and register with said municipality – and be subject to inspection by NS SPCA. Kennels do not require registration with Canadian Kennel Club.

In this section there should also be a provision that no person who has been convicted of animal cruelty should be allowed to breed or sell domestic animals.

There could be a database of breeders developed provincially who can apply to be licenced through the Municipal Government Act through the Province’s website for an associated fee which accompanies a clause that they will be checked annually and/or frequently without any prior notice or warning.

Back yard breeders and puppy mills have been allowed to multiply around Nova Scotia unfettered – there are no regulations around them whatsoever – and I think the Municipal Government Act could stop that with section 175 section 4 – if any owner of any unspayed or unneutered dog had to register with their municipality – we would know very soon where all the back yard breeders and puppy mills were – and I don’t know if we could shut them down – but we could at least make them nervous.

It’s more than what we’re doing right now, anyway!

Joan Sinden
dogkisser@gmail.com