|
Comments? |
|
Prince Rupert Regional Information Site |
||||
NATURESea, land, river PEOPLESCommunity
|
Power Point
presentation |
|
|
|
|
Gave
Power Point Presentation to Council |
|
Here
is the National web site http://www.communitiesinbloom.ca/
And
the BC site http://www.bccommunitiesinbloom.ca/
|
|
|
What was this
Bylaw intended to do?—Issues that
came up during discussions previous meetings |
|
1
Kinney concern: excrement on street 2
Kinney: dogs tied & left on downtown streets 3
Kinney: safety children & elderly 4
Cote’ – dog attack while bicycling – on leash 5
Other: putative drug dealer’s Pit Bulls etc 6
Postal carriers: dog attacks while on property 7
Other ‘Off leash areas’ |
Thorkelson
found few supporters on Council:
|
‘Restricted
breeds’ = pit bulls of various kinds
|
Debate/ discussion
mainly over ‘restricted breeds’ and the amounts to be charged licenses and
pound etc |
|
|
Joy wanted to revisit the discussion from public input where several suggested there were no ‘bad’ dogs just ‘bad owners’ – contrast this with the intent of ‘restricted breeds’ where some dogs seen as genetically predisposed to biting, attacking etc. The background
material in Agenda package easily refuted ‘only bad people’ argument using
court cases etc – essentially pit bulls have been bred for over 100 years to
be aggressive – and it has worked – See this web site for
examples of the legal, ethological literature --- |
|
|
|
|
How much to Pay? |
|
Again
Thorkelson made several suggestions to reduce or gradually enact the various
rates – all failed to gain support; the agenda package listed 15 BC
municipalities – and all 15 made some provision for restricted breeds or
Dangerous dogs |
|
|
Joy won this
one |
|
Person
buying one of the more expensive licenses won’t have to pay extra 15$ for
sign, but it will come along with the 200$ license |
|
No
Debate of issue by Council |
‘Dangerous
dog’ vs ‘Vicious dog’ |
|
As
Stated in my previous, the
Community Charter defines dangerous dogs and leaves to municipalities to
refine the concept by defining ‘vicious dogs’ (if they so wish)--- The
definition above may or may not be adequate—but it
was not debated --- ‘Records
of Municipality’ --- presumably
in a written complaint or a bylaw officer report Who
knows what import of ‘to the knowledge of owner’? – I can see it now – an
owner comes in and says ‘my dog has just harassed someone and I would like to
report it so I can pay 150$ more license fee’ --- Still
there has to be some process here as a complaint of ‘harassment’ should not
trigger ‘vicious dog’ label until all sides of incident(s) heard |
|
|
Does the Bylaw meet its
‘objectives?
|
|
1
Excrement is a no no when off ones own property |
|
|
|
2,
3, 4 – Article # 402 seems to say no dog may be off owners property without a
leash and the owner ‘attached’ – thus no tying up while in stores; etc |
|
|
5,
The most effective part of this Bylaw is aimed at Pit Bulls (putative drug
dealers) – thus Rotweilers, Wolf hybrids, etc not mentioned |
|
|
6
– it is not clear if the list of dogs that postal carriers have will become
part of ‘vicious dog’ list of city – if it does then they will be protected –
if it requires to be ‘proven’ in each case—then prospects dim |
|
Too bad
there was not more discussion at Council |
|
|
Over next
few days will report on OCP, etc And later
provide over view of meeting |
|
Created by LG on 16/1/2008
Last updated on Friday, January 18, 2008