Local residents will be allowed to keep one more dog per household, but will pay more for the privilege under an updated bylaw.
Bylaw enforcement officer Cam Forbes reported at the May 3 meeting that the town’s bylaw regulating kennels and the number of dogs allowed at a single residence was last updated in 2005. Current updates address some issues identified with the existing by-law, as well as some proposed changes due to trends over the past 11 years, he noted.
One such trend involves people wishing to keep more dogs as pets. The town’s existing bylaw allowed only two dogs per residence without a kennel license. The updated bylaw allows three.
“A lot of people in town have three dogs so we’ve changed it to allow for three,” Forbes told council.
“What’s rational from moving from two to three?” asked councillor Judy Dirksen. “You make it sound like ‘they’re doing it anyway so let’s just allow it.’”
“People like their dogs. There’s lot of people that have three dogs, so you could write a lot of tickets if you stick at two,” Forbes explained.
“So now that it’s three, people will want four?” suggested Dirksen?
“Will they?” Forbes replied.
“I don’t know, it’s been two for a long time,” Dirksen responded.
“Being flexible, going from two to three dogs because that’s what your customers want – that’s a good thing,” stated councillor Dave Turton.
“I think moving to three dogs makes sense … it comes down to the control of your dogs. If we have a nuisance situation we have bylaws,” said Mayor George Bridge.
“We had a lot of people moving into the municipality with three dogs, so we don’t feel its appropriate to ask them to get rid of one,” added CBO Terry Kuipers.
The bylaw also specifically makes it an offence if a dog bites a person or domestic animal, even if the attacking pet is leashed. “We’ve had some instances before where someone is walking their dog on a leash, and they don’t have adequate control,” Kuipers explained. “Before it wasn’t an offense because the animal wasn’t technically at large.”
Dirksen asked how provisions in the bylaw about allowing dogs to run at large affect rural residents.
Forbes said dogs were always required to be leashed, fenced, chained “or otherwise controlled.”
“I wouldn’t want that to mean that all farm dogs have to be leashed or tied, or chained to the garage,” said Dirksen.
“Running at large is off your property,” Forbes explained.
Dirksen also questioned the town’s practice on returning stray dogs. She said she has previously “run into a brick wall” when trying to get municipal staff to assist in returning a stray animal, wearing town-issued tags, to its owner.
“My first call is not going to be to the bylaw control officer because I want to get that dog back to his people without all that fuss and bother.”
Kuipers explained that in some situations, depending on the dog’s “history,” staff will contact the owner if provided with the tag number of a stray. He said they couldn’t provide the name or phone number to the person finding a dog because of privacy legislation.
“We keep track of people who constantly let their dogs run around loose,” said Kuipers. “A hit in the wallet usually makes people keep their dogs under control a little more,” he added. Persistent offenders, he said, could face a fine in addition to pound costs.
The bylaw raises the cost for dog tags from $12 per year to $20 and $35 for owners who wait until after April 1. The pound fee format was also amended to simplify paperwork by moving to a flat rate plus a daily pound fee, rather than four differing fees per impounded dog. Fines for violations of the bylaw were also increased.
Forbes noted current fees generate about $12,000 which covers the expense for animal control officer Jim Renwick and part of the town’s costs to administrate/enforce the bylaw. The increase in fees is expected to generate over $7,000 “which will cover more of the town’s costs including planning for long-term service options.” Fees in other municipalities are more than the $20 proposed for Minto, he pointed out.
The report and updated bylaw were approved unopposed.
