CW\1997-01-21
AD HOC COMMITTEE MINUTES
JANUARY
21, 1997
CITY OF
KITCHENER
A joint ad
hoc committee appointed by Kitchener and Waterloo City Councils met this date
commencing at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Councillor J.
Ziegler (Kitchener); Councillor Jake Smola (Kitchener); Councillor B. Vrbanovic
(Kitchener); Councillor Craig Hoddle (Waterloo); Councillor Bruce Alexander
(Waterloo); Dr. G. Hess (K-W Humane Society); Ms. Nancy Hummitzsch (K-W Kennel
Club); Dr. Murray Smith (Waterloo Regional Veterinary Association); Constable
M. Mooney (Waterloo Regional Police Services).
Others
present: Ms. Lisa Pasternak (Assistant City Solicitor), Mr. Joe Johnson
(Counsel - City of Waterloo), G. Sosnoski
(Assistant City Clerk - Kitchener).
The purpose
of the meeting was to consider public input on the proposed by-law to prohibit
and regulate Pit Bulls in the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo. Also, to
discuss and make recommendations concerning the proposed by-laws which would
then be considered by the respective City Councils.
1. PROPOSED PIT BULL LEGISLATION -
KITCHENER/WATERLOO
The
Clerk called for nominations for the ad hoc committee Chair.
On
a motion by Councillor Jake Smola,
it
was resolved:
“That
Councillor J. Ziegler be appointed as the Chair of the joint ad hoc committee
dealing with the proposed prohibition and regulation of Pit Bull dogs in the
Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo.”
The
committee was in receipt of a staff discussion paper (appended hereto and
forming part of these minutes) outlining the proposed by-law provisions. In the
case of the City of Kitchener, these would comprise amendments to Chapter 530
(Dogs) of it’s Municipal Code. They were also in receipt of a written
submission from the Metro Dog Owners Umbrella Group submitted by Keiley Abbat,
Co-Chair.
Councillor
J. Ziegler assumed the Chair and Ms. Pasternak introduced the committee members
and provided a brief overview of the discussion paper which establishes two new
classes of dogs; namely, a “restricted dog” and “prohibited dog”. She referred
to the proposed licensing fee schedule and explained the grandfathering
provision. Ms. Pasternak also explained that the City’s Finance and
Administration Committee will consider a draft by-law at 10:00 a.m. on January
27, 1997 in the Council Chamber. She also advised that Waterloo City Council
would consider a companion by-law at it’s Council meeting to be held on
February 3, 1997 at 7:00 pm.
Ms.
Donna Lorentz, Waterloo, and Mr. Paul Zajac, Kitchener, previously registered
as delegations but were not in attendance this date.
Ms.
Heather Case, Kitchener, suggested that it is discriminatory to target specific
breeds of dogs, especially when it is often the owners who are to blame for the
animal’s behaviour. She advised that she is employed by a Veterinarian and has
worked with dogs all of her life, and offered the opinion that if the Humane
Society did ifs job properly there would not be a Pit Bull problem. Ms. Case
stated her view that no one has a right to end an animal’s life.
Councillor
Jake Smola rose on a point of order and took exception to comments by the
delegation directed personally toward Dr. Hess, and suggested that the ad hoc
committee is meeting here to hear comments on the provisions of the proposed
by-law. Councillor Ziegler acknowledged Councillor Smola’s point of order and
asked the delegation to confine herself to comments on the proposed by-law.
In
closing, Ms. Case indicated that she feels sorry for the victims of the most
recent Pit Bull attack, but pointed out that any animal can bite or attack if
provoked or abused by it’s owner or any other person.
Ms.
Natasha Sablic, Waterloo, appeared in opposition to the proposed Pit Bull
legislation. She pointed out that it is in the nature of dogs, and animals
generally, to be aggressive and referred to Pit Bulls as a “feisty breed”. She
suggested that the onus should be on the owner to understand the breed they own
and control it accordingly. She referred to a recent Pit Bull attack wherein
the owner was forced to kill the dog, and suggested that the animal was
reacting to a tone of voice, and that it is natural for dogs to become scared
and to bite if they feel threatened. Ms. Sablic suggested that media coverage
of Pit Bulls unfairly highlights the specific breed and suggested that a dog’s
behaviour is it’s owners responsibility, and that the community would be better
served by legislation which regulates animal owners.
Ms.
Sablic referred to clause "j” of the proposed by-law and questioned why
the offspring of a restricted dog would be disposed of based on a few instances
of the dog biting. She also questioned why a muzzle would be required for Pit
Bulls and not other breeds which are also considered dangerous. In closing, Ms.
Sablic expressed her concern over the precedent which would be set by the
proposed by-law which could be expanded to include prohibitions on other breeds
of dog.
Constable
Mooney agreed with comments that a dog is the responsibility of the owner;
however, he pointed out that the purpose of the by-law is to protect people
from dogs where owners do not take the proper steps to control the animal. He
added that notwithstanding the owner’s responsibility, Pit Bulls have
demonstrated a tendency toward unpredictable attacks. Councillor Vrbanovic
added that it is difficult or impossible to regulate owners and this is the
reason why the by-law takes the approach it does. He also pointed out that by
nature, a Pit Bull has a more powerful bite than other breeds and demonstrates
greater tenacity in this regard. Ms. Sablic questioned why Pit Bulls are
suddenly receiving so much attention, and Dr. Hess replied that there are more
of the dogs than in the past and their owners are using them for different
purposes. He added that the Humane Society is interested in controlling the
breed because the Pit Bull is an attack dog. Councillor J. Ziegler pointed out
that the municipality has had a problem with Pit Bulls over the past five
years.
Kristine
Little, Kitchener, appeared as the owner of an unregistered Staffordshire
Terrier, a photo of which she circulated to members of the Committee. Ms.
Little relayed the history of pit fighting and Pit Bull dogs and pointed out
that Staffordshires are intelligent and loyal dogs who are not viciously
inclined, but like other breeds, can be taught to fight.
Ms.
Little questioned why authorities are not cracking down on individuals selling
puppies as pure bred if they are not registered, noting that this is against
the law in Canada. In regard to the microchip requirement in the by-law, she
pointed out that tattoos are also a recognized form of identification and also
advised that she is not opposed to the muzzling requirement. Ms. Little offered
the opinion that the media has created a vendetta against any kind of dog which
resembles a Pit Bull. She suggested that though some provisions in the draft
by-law are suitable, it by and large amounts to owner discrimination and
violates the constitutional rights of a citizen to own whatever type of dog
they please. Ms. Little suggested that the City would be better served by
pursuing unscrupulous breeders.
Ms.
Little suggested that the term “Pit Bull” means a Staffordshire Terrier which
has been thrown in a pit to fight, and questioned how authorities would
differentiate between Staffordshire Terriers, and what are referred to as Pit
Bulls. She pointed out that Pit Bulls are one owner dogs and require strict
training, noting that she is a responsible owner and feels she is being
discriminated against as is the breed.
Saleem
Rehman, Cambridge, appeared in opposition to the proposed Pit Bull legislation.
Mr. Rehman also protested the 5 minute limit on public presentations, given the
impact the by-law would have on the breed. In reference to the proposed by-law,
Mr. Rehman questioned how a Poundkeeper could be considered an expert on Pit
Bulls, and asked how he/she would tell the difference between a Pit Bull and
other terriers. He stated that he has owned a Pit Bull for approximately 15
years and has never had a problem. He suggested that like people, any dog is
the product of it’s upbringing. He characterized Pit Bulls as loyal, and not a
vicious dog, pointing out that any dog with teeth has the potential to cause
damage. Mr. Rehman characterized the proposed by-law as jumping on the bandwagon
of media hysteria and encouraged Committee members to think long and hard
before making a decision. In closing, Mr. Rehman invited Committee members to
spend time with his Pit Bull dog in order to get to know the breed.
Councillor
Ziegler asked Ms. Pasternak to outline the appeal procedure in place in the
event there is a dispute with the Poundkeeper’s designation. Ms. Pasternak
advised that the same appeal procedure would be in effect as for potentially
dangerous and dangerous dogs. She advised that an owner has 5 days following
the application of a designation by the Poundkeeper to file an appeal with the
City Clerk, following which there is an appeal hearing which is held at no cost
to the owner. Ms. Pasternak briefly elaborated on the enabling legislation
provided by the Province which is broad and allows for the prohibition of other
breeds in addition to Pit Bulls. Councillor Vrbanovic pointed out that the
legislation gives Kitchener and Waterloo the same authority over Pit Bulls as
it has over other animals. He also pointed out that the enabling legislation is
similar to that of other Provinces such as Manitoba and Alberta.
Jeffrey
Wall, Kitchener, appeared and pointed out that the severity of a dog’s bite
depends on the strength of the jaws, the number of teeth, as well as the length
of the jaw, and added that a recent television program indicated that in terms
of severity of bite, Dalmatians are ranked #1, Rottweilers #3 and Pit Bulls #5.
He suggested that dogs are not born vicious, and should be properly trained
when as young as five weeks old. He added that Pit Bulls make terrible guard
dogs as they are too friendly and like people too much.
Councillor
Hoddle asked Dr. Hess to comment on the severity of the Pit Bull bite, as it
was his understanding that it is ten times greater than that of other dogs. Dr.
Hess replied that most other dogs bite and then back off; however, Pit Bulls
bite and then tear out a piece of flesh and bite again. This combined with
their strength and tenacity causes them to be more dangerous biters.
Linda
Cover, Kitchener, appeared as the owner of an American Staffordshire Terrier
which was recently in a Humane Society walk and was classified as a
“gentleman”. Ms. Cover advised that both she and her dog, who was then thirteen
weeks old, were attacked and bitten by a German Shepherd. The same dog, now
3-1/2 year old does not require muzzling and frequently plays with her
grandchildren. She invited Committee members to view a video cassette of her
dog.
Councillor
Alexander questioned whether Ms. Cover’s dog was registered, and she replied in
the negative, adding that she was told dogs bred by Phil Walker cannot be
registered. She characterized him as a very bad breeder and suggested that the
City should crack down on such individuals. Ms. Cover pointed out that she
found the biggest problem to be with dog owners, rather than with the Pit Bull
breed, and suggested that training and socialization should begin when a dog is
six weeks old. She stressed the need to stop unscrupulous breeders and
irresponsible owners. Ms. Cover referred to a recent incident when her dog was
attacked by another Pit Bull, during which her animal grabbed the other by the
throat and instantly let go when she called him off. Councillor Vrbanovic
enquired whether Ms. Cover believed the proposed bylaw is a reasonable way to
address the problem. She replied that in her view banning the breed is not an
appropriate response. Councillor Jake Smola suggested that individuals should
pass on to the Humane Society the names of any known, irresponsible breeders
for investigation.
Peter
Freer, Waterloo, appeared and advised that he is the World Lightweight
Kickboxing Champion, and can attest that fighting is a learned behaviour. He
defined a “Pit Bull” as a dog which fights in a pit for money, a definition
which does not apply in this City. He suggested that the problems encountered
are not with the breed as much as irresponsible owners and a lack of proper
training and socialization. He suggested that irresponsible owners should be
restricted, and that some sort of test should be undertaken to prove that
specific dogs are safe among people. Mr. Freer stated that his dog has not
learned how to attack and as a result doesn’t, but that he could through such
games as tug-of-war which indirectly incline a dog toward this type of
behaviour. Mr. Freer drew a parallel between dog and car ownership, noting that
cars have not been banned simply because people have accidents, but rather you
obtain a driver's licence by proving your ability to drive. He suggested that
no one has the right to force a dog owner to change their life after twenty
years of owning a particular breed.
Councillor
Vrbanovic enquired whether Mr. Freer’s dog has papers, and he replied in the
affirmative noting that his dog is an American Pit Bull Terrier and is
registered by the American Dog Breeders Association, the first organization to
apply papers to Pit Bulls. He added that his dog, which he has had since 1980
is purebred, and suggested that owners should have to prove they have papers
for their dog. He noted that paying the minimum value of $200.00 for a dog with
papers suggest that an owner cares for the dog very much. Mr. Freer suggested
that the real problem is indiscriminate breeding for profit.
Nick
Miter, Kitchener, appeared and advised that he has one American Terrier and one
Staffordshire Terrier. He advised that he loves his dogs and suggested that if
someone wants to be loved they should purchase a Pit Bull. Mr. Miter stated
that he has never had any problems with his dogs, and stated that he would not
allow anyone to take the animals away or implant microchips.
Tracy
Barlow, Kitchener, questioned why the fee was lower for neutered or spayed dogs
than those which are not and Ms. Pasternak replied that the aim of the by-law
is to discourage breeding. Ms. Barlow wondered why she would have to pay extra
money to have the dog spayed if she agreed not to breed it. She also expressed
concern over the possible cost of microchip implantation and enquired what
would happen if the microchip was not installed. Ms. Pasternak replied that she
could be fined or the dog reclassified. Councillor Ziegler clarified that the
City would first have to have received a complaint. Ms. Barlow asked why the
City was not planning to do anything to control owners, rather than the dogs
themselves. Councillor Jake Smola suggested that it may be appropriate to
consider putting an irresponsible dog owner under court control in order to
disallow ownership for a certain period of time. Ms. Barlow asked how her dog
would protect itself from other animals if it were muzzled, and Councillor
Ziegler replied that it would be necessary to report the person whose dog was
the aggressor or alternately to call Police. Constable Mooney clarified that
there is no provision in the Criminal Code to deal with one dog assaulting
another dog, but there is provision if a person sets his dog on another person,
which is the equivalent of assault. He explained that the Police are empowered
to carry out municipal by-law enforcement under the Provincial Offences Act and
can act as agents of the Humane Society and lay charges.
Councillor
Vrbanovic enquired as to the potential cost of a microchip implantation, and
Dr. Smith replied that this could be done either through a Veterinarian or the
Humane Society. Dr. Hess advised that the Society plans to install microchips
for approximately $25 - $30. Dr. Smith advised that Veterinarians would have to
charge approximately $60 as they do not have access to Humane Society
discounts. He also encouraged dog owners to consider spaying or neutering their
dogs in any case and suggested that this should be done when they are very
young. Councillor Vrbanovic advised that some degree of subsidization of the
cost involved could be discussed at the respective City Councils.
Jennifer
Schaefer, Waterloo, appeared and indicated her opposition to any legislation
that would give the City the right to euthanize her dog. She suggested that
other possible safety measures could include the posting of a sign warning that
the owner of a premises keeps a Pit Bull dog. She indicated that muzzling could
result in aggression and should only be used where an animal has a proven
history of attacks. Ms. Schaefer suggested that Pit Bull attacks have been
highly overrated, and suggested that a dog’s disposition is in part a result of
the owner’s behaviour, and that the City would be better served if it
considered licensing Pit Bull owners. In closing, Ms. Schaefer stated that the
Pit Bull breed should not be singled out for discrimination.
Donald
M. Christie, Kitchener, indicated that he is a Pit Bull owner, and suggested
that it is not the breed of dog which is at fault, but rather the owner. He
suggested that what Council is proposing is unfair to people who take care of
and love their dogs. Mr. Christie also pointed out that the dog responsible for
a recent attack on Westmount Drive was the father of one of his dogs, and he
noted that prior to the attack the children living above the dog were in the
habit of tormenting it.
Stewart
Dietrich, Waterloo, appeared and expressed the concerns of senior citizens with
regard to Pit Bull attacks. He noted that there are approximately 30,000
seniors in the City who are afraid of Pit Bulls. He suggested that it is wrong
to allow these dogs in the City, and also suggested that dog taxes should be
generally higher as they have not kept pace with increases in other taxes.
Andy
Sneddon, Kitchener, appeared and indicated that he is the owner of a 5 year old
Pit Bull, and questioned how authorities would track a dog after a microchip
was implanted. Dr. Smith replied that the technology is already in place as
many owners voluntarily install chips to allow recovery of lost or stolen dogs.
Mr. Sneddon enquired what the City’s position would be if his dog were attacked
and killed while it was muzzled, and suggested that the proposed by-law is
discriminatory. He suggested that the by-law should be directed toward the
people raising the dogs and not the breed. Mr. Sneddon acknowledged that
something should be done; however, it was his view that the proposed by-law is
unfair.
Gerry
Furlong, Kitchener, appeared and advised that he is the owner of a crossbreed
Pit Bull/Rottweiler, and expressed concern over the cost of a microchip
implantation. He suggested that it is an over reaction to want to kill all dogs
because of a handful of incidents.
Darren
Mullman, Waterloo, appeared and expressed sympathy for the victims of Pit Bull
attacks, but suggested that much of the fear of Pit Bulls is a result of lack
of knowledge. He also suggested that it is important to decide where blame for
such attacks can be appropriately levelled. Mr. Mullman questioned subsection
"j” of the restricted dog requirements as it relates to the disposal of
the offspring of such dogs, and suggested that his response and the response of
many others would likely be to give the dog away to someone in another
community rather than allow it to produce offspring that would later be
destroyed. He suggested that the proposed terms of euthanasia are too harsh.
Mr. Mullman also suggested that the proposed by-law could result in people
simply transferring their dogs to another community.
Councillor
Alexander asked Mr. Mullman whether he could suggest any other solution outside
of requiring that Pit Bulls be spayed or neutered. Mr. Mullman replied that dog
owners should feel the responsibility to implant a microchip or to spay or
neuter the dog; however, he suggested that it would be very hard to enforce the
spaying or neutering of puppies. Councillor Vrbanovic pointed out that the
purpose of subsection "j” is to allow people an opportunity to remove the
dog from the community, and noted that several other municipalities have
expressed interest in similar types of legislation.
Sandy
Dierstein, Fergus, appeared on behalf of the Rottweiler Club of Ontario, and
expressed concern over the possible application of the proposed by-law to the
Rottweiler breed. She advised that she is in support of the majority of the
proposals, but suggested an exemption or special designation for dogs which
have passed an obedience or canine good citizenship test.
Councillor
Jake Smola enquired as to how this could be administered, and Ms. Dierstein
advised that the Canadian Kennel Club has such tests, and in addition
recognizes certain obedience tests. She suggested that if an owner takes the
time to train a dog, he or she is demonstrating a commitment to the animal. She
also pointed out that some breeds cannot be registered with the Canadian Kennel
Club as they are not recognized. Councillor Vrbanovic enquired as to how
reliable the good citizenship designation is in assuring that a dog is
disciplined and will not pose a problem in the future. Ms. Hummitzsch pointed
out that in her experience if an owner takes the time to train an animal,
problem behaviour is less likely. Councillor Jake Smola suggested that it would
be necessary to constantly upgrade these tests or designations and enquired as
to the fee for obedience trials. Ms. Hummitzsch replied that the cost is
approximately $25 per trial and temperament tests can be had for approximately
$30. Constable Mooney enquired whether training could be done by the owner
leading to an evaluation, or whether this has to be done by a professional. Ms.
Hummitzsch replied that owners could probably train for the test themselves if
they were generally familiar with the breed.
Daryl
Enstone, Waterloo, appeared and indicated that she is a member of a purebred
club, and has taken her dog through a canine good citizenship course. She
suggested that the City should research the therapy dog program, as well as the
practices of German kennel clubs, which traditionally have very stringent
requirements. She pointed out that a lot of the people present this date are
concerned because they have pups affected by the by-law. Ms. Enstone suggested
that many dogs cannot be registered with the Canadian Kennel Club because the
breeders have not registered the names of the parents, and suggested that some
may have bought the dog thinking that it is a recognized breed. Ms. Enstone
advised that there are other registers other than the Canadian Kennel Club and
referred to the American Pit Bull Terrier Association registry, and similar
registries for Border Collies and Jack Russell Terriers.
Jennifer
Schaefer asked the Committee why it is necessary to microchip a dog if it is
already tattooed, and Dr. Smith replied that tattooing is unreliable as it
becomes illegible over time and can eventually disappear. Dr. Hess added that
tattoos can also be altered, but it is more difficult to tamper with a
microchip. Ms. Schaefer expressed her personal preference for tattooing, and
pointed out that if the tattoo fades, she can always return her dog to the
Veterinarian and have it reapplied.
Chris
Ford, Waterloo, appeared and suggested that evaluating suitability on a
dog-by-dog basis is a better alternative than banning a breed outright. He
urged caution in adopting and enforcing the proposed legislation on the basis
that Kitchener and Waterloo are the first communities to consider this type of
law, and it may be copied by other Ontario municipalities. Mr. Ford suggested
that the position could be taken that a dog is considered dangerous until it
passes a temperament test, and also that the by-law rather than restricting or
punishing, could offer an incentive to owners in the form of relief if they
undertake proper training and obtain a required designation. He expressed the
opinion that the by-law deals with a symptom rather than the problem itself,
and that the by-law should encourage responsible ownership.
Kristine
Little questioned what would happen if a responsible owner complied with all
requirements of the by-law and the dog bites and Ms. Pasternak replied that if
the attack is on another dog it is covered under the by-law, but if on another
person, the owner would have liability under the Dog Owner Liability Act. Andy
Sneddon asked whether, with regard to Pit Bull attacks, anyone has ever
considered the similarities between the people who own the dogs involved in
these incidents.
The
ad hoc committee then discussed the proposed by-law, and Councillor Alexander
enquired of Dr. Hess as to the Humane Society’s data on how many dog attacks
occurred in 1996 and the percentage by breed. Dr. Hess replied in order to
answer that you would have to look at the number of Pit Bulls and the number of
bites, pointing out that in one other municipality 45 per cent of the bites
were accounted for by 1 per cent of the population. He added that the severity
of bites inflicted by Pit Bulls is greater than most other dogs as the Pit Bull
has 10 times the jaw strength of a Rottweiler, and in addition will not back up
once it bites but will continue to attack until the other animal is dead. He
also pointed out that the jaw has a unique mechanism that allows it to lock on
it’s victim.
The
committee then reviewed the provisions in the proposed by-law in a
clause-by-clause basis.
Ms.
Hummitzsch explained that in her estimation, the definition of “registerable” is
meant to allow an animal which would be recognized by a Kennel Club but does
not have Canadian papers. She also questioned how recognizable Pit Bull dogs
would be on the street. Dr. Hess replied that recognition would in some cases
be a matter of judgement, and in this respect if an owner appealed the
designation, this would have to be considered by the appeal committee. Ms.
Pasternak clarified that the first judgement would be based on appearance, and
on appeal issues such as parentage would have to be addressed. Ms. Hummitzsch
enquired why the by-law could not allow a microchip and a canine good citizen
certificate as an alternative to spaying or neutering and in order to qualify
for a reduced licence fee. Constable Mooney acknowledged the value of the canine
good citizenship certificate, but pointed out the purpose of the by-law is to
deter propagation, and Ms. Hummitzsch’s suggestion may work against this
intention. Councillor Ziegler stressed the importance of encouraging
responsible dog ownership, and Councillor Jake Smola suggested that the Humane
Society should provide information concerning the most recent testing
locations. Councillor Vrbanovic pointed out that the good citizen certificate
is a way of recognizing that some of the restrictions in the by-law need not
apply to all dogs. Dr. Hess questioned whether when a dog is tested for
citizenship it will be identified by description or by microchip. He pointed
out that it is possible to have one or two Pit Bulls obtain the certificate on
behalf of any number of other dogs. Dr. Hess expressed his preference that
sterilization be the only alternative for restricted dogs. Councillor Alexander
acknowledged that Ms. Hummitzsch’s suggestion has merit; however, at the same
time it would open up opportunities to evade the intent of the by-law. He
expressed his personal preference that the suggestion apply only to a reduced
licence fee. Councillor Jake Smola suggested that microchips should be
mandatory before good citizenship certificate testing is undertaken. Mr.
Jackson suggested that it is disturbing to add the good citizenship requirement
at this time given the fact that the ad hoc committee has no idea what it
entails. He suggested that a broad definition in this regard could open the
municipality to liability and is contrary to the incentive to have the dog
spayed or neutered. He suggested that if the certificate deals only with
obedience, it is neither here nor there.
Dr.
Smith enquired whether the City had ever considered having a lower fee for all
spayed or neutered dogs, irrespective of breed, and Dr. Hess pointed out that
the Humane Society presently does this for cats, and is intending a $40 rebate
on the $100 purchase price of dogs upon presentation of a certificate attesting
that the animal has been spayed or neutered after it is sold.
Ms.
Pasternak pointed out a typographical error at the bottom of page 2 of the
discussion paper and asked that part “b” of the “prohibited dog” definition be
amended to remove the semi-colon and the word “or” from the end of that
sentence.
A
discussion took place on what constitutes an appropriate enclosure for a Pit
Bull when on the owner’s property, and Councillor Hoddle suggested that
specific criteria should be obtained from the Poundkeeper. Councillor Vrbanovic
advised that this was his concern as well and referred to the Winnipeg by-law
which goes further to define what constitutes a suitable enclosed pen,
alternately he suggested an enclose approved by the Poundkeeper. Councillor
Ziegler suggested that staff should work with Dr. Hess to develop specific pen
construction criteria, or alternately that the Poundkeeper approve an existing
structure.
Dr.
Smith suggested that it may be a bit excessive to require muzzling of the dog
at all times when off the owner’s property. Constable Mooney replied that the
six foot lead referred to in the proposed by-law would allow the dog to roam
for some distance and that a muzzle is included as a secondary precaution. Dr.
Hess also referred to complaints received by the Humane Society concerning
people who use the dogs, even when even on a leash, to frighten other people.
Councillor Ziegler suggested that a muzzle be required in all cases except when
the owner is walking the dog on his property from the pen to his dwelling or vice
versa. Councillor Vrbanovic enquired as to the Veterinarian Associations’
concerns over the muzzling provision, and Dr. Smith replied that the
Association sees this as a bias.
Councillor
Jake Smola suggested that an additional item be added under the restricted dog
requirements, requiring that the owner purchase a reflective sign advertising
that there is a Pit Bull at the residence. A discussion took place as to the
appropriate location for such a sign, especially as a relates to multiple
dwellings units. Ms. Pasternak suggested that there may be a problem in
regulating the owners of multiple family dwellings in order to require the
posting of signs at apartment entrances.
Councillor
Jake Smola stressed the importance of having both the Kitchener and Waterloo
by-laws be either duplicates or similar in nature, given the cross boundary
jurisdiction of the Regional Police, the Kennel Club and the Veterinarians’
Association. Councillor Alexander advised that this is Waterloo’s intention as
well. On separate motions, the ad hoc Committee directed staff to make the
following changes to the provisions of the draft by-law:
- that if an owner has implanted a microchip in their
dog, and subsequently obtains the canine good citizenship certificate, the
licence fee will be reduced and will be the same $15 amount as would apply to
restricted dogs which are spayed or neutered;
- that the restricted dog requirements outlined on
Page 3, clause (a) be amended to indicate that a restricted dog licence would
be required on a date following 60 days after the enacting of the Pit Bull
by-law;
- that under the restricted dog requirements, clause
(b)(i) be amended to reflect the requirement that where there is an existing
enclosed pen, the structure be evaluated against design and constructive
criteria to be outlined by staff working with the Humane Society; and, that any
existing structure that does not comply with said criteria be evaluated, and if
appropriate approved by the Poundkeeper;
- that a new subsection (iii) be added under clause
(b) relative to restricted dog requirements, indicating that it is the owner’s
responsibility to maintain the enclosed pen in a reasonable state of repair in
order to meet the intent of subsection (ii);
- that under the restricted dog requirements, clause
(d) be amended to reflect that “muzzle” is as defined in clause 530.5.8 of
Chapter 530 (Dogs) of the City of Kitchener Municipal Code; and further, that
said clause be amended to include a reference to a muzzle approved by the
Poundkeeper;
- that a further clause be added to the restricted
dog requirements to reflect a further requirement that some sort of appropriate
signage warning of a Pit Bull dog be placed in a conspicuous location at the
owner's residence and that Legal staff assess the feasibility of posting at
multiple family dwellings, and accordingly draft requirements in this regard to
include specifics relative to sign size and location.
On
a motion by Councillor Jake Smola,
it
was resolved:
“That
the summary of proposed provisions regulating and prohibiting Pit Bull dogs in
the Cities of Kitchener and Waterloo be recommended for enacting as submitted
in the discussion paper considered at the public meeting held January 21, 1997
and amended this date.”
On
motion, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
G.
Sosnoski
Manager
of Corporate
Records/Assistant
City Clerk