I believe that McClymont Park and Moresby Park are proposed off leash dog parks.
Just to let you guys know, Herb Pond replied to my e-mail. I won’t post his e-mail here (since I don’t think it would be appropriate to post a private e-mail without first getting his permission or at least letting him know it would be posted).
He basically asked me to be specific in what I didn’t like about the bylaw, and expressed the opinion that the bylaw was a response to daily complaints he was receiving about animals.
Here’s what I wrote back:
I’m not sure why you think there’s a need to license indoor cats in order to prevent stray cats – they have very little to do with each other.
The animal excrement problem isn’t going to be solved by fines – the fines exist now, and the problem persists. If they are stray animals doing the excrement, this can’t address it at all. Enforce the current bylaw.
If you could explain to me what “concern expressed by citizens nearly everyday” is addressed by dramatically raising licenses fees for dogs, it would be enlightening. I doubt you’re getting people calling you “nearly every day” to complain that you’re not charging enough for licenses. What problem does raising the fees solve?
Stray dogs and cats can be dealt with without raising fees for owners who register their pets. I pay my license fee every year, how does making me pay a lot more money help address those who don’t pay a license fee?
There is nothing at all useful in the bylaw. The inclusion of “dangerous dogs” in this bylaw is just an attempt to leverage fear to pass the fee increase and the other useless restrictions. If you have a “dangerous dogs” bylaw to pass, then let’s have a community debate about that and leave the rest of the bylaw off the table.
So in short, you’re punishing those who are responsible pet owners in a misguided attempt to deal with those who are not responsible. Unfortunately, this bylaw will do nothing about irresponsible owners.
Thanks for taking the time to repond, Herb. I hope you’ll seriously consider dropping this bylaw.
I encourage every responsible pet owner to e-mail the councilors (at least the ones whose addresses actually work) and the mayor. Let them know your thoughts on the bylaw, and hold them accountable.
I voted for Herb, but I certainly won’t be voting for him (or the others) if this bylaw is passed.
It’s using fear of pitbulls to push through a huge cash-grab. I agree with you.
my child and g/f will be going to the meeting Monday I have talked to alot of people who are also going…
Yes pitbulls can be just as tame as anyother dog!!!
[original attachment deleted after 2 years]
Theres no such thing as a bad dog, only a bad owner. Most dogs who would be considered bad or dangerous have owners who are fucking idiots. And, with a dog like a pit bull, when it decides to ‘act out’, the results can, and probably will be tragic, particularly if the victim is a young person.
any dog can be agressive with the wrong owner.
but pittbulls have agression bred into them. dont get me wrong i dont have anything against pittbulls. but they were bred for dogfights…
i dont see that as any reason to iradicate them completely. but people have to start getting more educated about being pet owners. not that it will ever happen that way
its stupid when an owner gets a dog for a status symbol as opposed to a companion or work partner depending on the dog.
Great letter to Herb MIG!
On the practical side of things I can’t see myself putting on those license tags attached to collars on my 3 cats.
In the past we had several attempts to put so called quick qiuck-release collars with bells on them to prevent the cats from catching birds. They worked for about a week before the cat would lose it in the woods behind our house.
I will not risk killing my cats by putting regular non-release collars on them to keep that stupid tag on them. They can get caught on branches etc. and trap and consequently kill them
I’ve had much the same experiance with attempting to keep collars on my cats when they were able to go outside years ago, by the time I’d lost five collars I gave up. When you mentioned the non-release collars, I know of at least one Rupert cat who strangled to death trying to get through a fence and the collar got caught.
As for my dogs, they only wear some kind of collar when they are out for a walk anyhow, so even if you saw them in my yard they would not be wearing a tag- any kind of regular collars wear off their very short fur too easily and the last thing I want to see is bald patches around their necks. (I use integrated collar/leashes that are fleece lined for walks) My big dogs are micro-chipped so they do have ID at all times but they don’t wear a liscense 24/7 either.
I would like to see EVERY dog evaluated by a professional prior to being lic. With the proposed new lic. fees the professionals fee could easlily be covered. Of course this is not hundred percent proof that a dog is never going to have an issue but at least it will help to identify the red zone cases. At the same time the dog owners will have a better idea of where their dog may have issues and to watch out for them. Labs are not considered dangerous but again the large black lab I met would have been classifed as major danger by a professional dog trainer. The owner of that black lab appeared to not realize or perhaps not care that his dog has the potential to major damage as he was laughing at us while his dog was in attack mode. He shouldn’t even own a dog and perhaps a fee of 500.00 or more would discourage these dangerous dog owners.
You are ridiculous.
And why??? Or do you own that black lab I spoke of???
its kind of sad when people continue to blame the dog…
how bout we evaluate the OWNER!
lets have OWNERS obtain liscences for owning their dogs before they aquire one.
that way we wouldnt have any agressive dogs because there wouldnt be retarded owners who dont know how to properly train their animals.
i wonder if youd pass the test beth?
I do not currently live in prince rupert nor do I own a dog. I have however owned many dogs in my past all of which were well behaved.
The “program” you propose is over the top, ridiculous, and would be far too costly and irritating. I lived in rupert for over 20 years and never heard of a problem with vicious dogs. Maybe something has changed in the past few, if not why are you trying to solve a problem that doesnt exist?
I have known dog owners whose dogs were consistently mean and we are talking breeds who are not known for being biters, these would be the kind of people who should be banned from owning pets or be monitored for how their dogs are being handled to make them such miserable creatures in the first place. It’s just not possible to screen every dog out there but I know the animal control officers and others involved with the dog scene around town know of owners who should probably not be allowed to own dogs.
As for pit bulls, I’ve never known a mean one. Nearly every large dog who has tried to attack me over the years has been a mixed breed, usually a Shepherd X or the like, dogs who have been mistreated to the point where they handle their frustration /fear with their teeth. The exception was the dogs owned by the guy I’m thinking of in the first paragraph-they were purebreds and obviously were being abused in some manner by their owner.
I would pass the test. I agree that it is the owners of these dogs that are to blame not the dog. I didn’t say shoot the dog did I? The only way tp educate the owners though is to hit their pocket book. My friend has a pitbull that is one of the most friendly dogs in town. Why should she, as a responsible dog owner, have to pay more than the black lab owner?
why should i have to pay to own a dog in the first place?
unless its a problem animal… who is costing our city money with police or animal control calls then there should be no need for it…
proper identification ie. name tag and collar should be all the dog needs… none of this fee bull…
Letter sent. Should’ve noted my feelings that the Bylaw comes across as a blatant cash-grab as well. Here is the body of e-mail
Re: Proposed Animal Control Bylaw 3241
After looking over proposed Animal Bylaw 3241 I would like to note that I do not support this proposed bylaw. I do not agree with most sections of the bylaw and I believe it will only further harm pet owners, stray animals and pets alike. Furthermore it would do little to prevent the issues it was drafted to address.
My thoughts are that enforcing higher licensing fees(especially yearly licensing fees) and introducing licensing fees for cats upon caring pet owners of both cats and dogs to address the feral cat and vicious dogs issues will only serve to have people abandon, destroy or cease to care for feral animals and/or their pets. Responsible pet owners are in no way responsible for persons who treat their animals in a harmful manner; creating hostile animals or those who harbour dogs that could be deemed “dangerous.” Nor are responsible pet owners responsible for the feral cat situation in Prince Rupert.
Under Section 700, this bylaw would also allow the Bylaw Officer immediate access to citizens of Prince Rupert’s properties to quote: “at all reasonable times, enter onto any real property within the City for the purposes of ascertaining whether the provisions of this Bylaw are being complied with.” I, as a long time resident of Prince Rupert, find this provision in the case of “animal control” completely totalitarian. Further to this, merging the issues of licensing and viscious animals into one sweeping bylaw can only serve to polarize the public.
While I applaud the efforts to address animal cruelty and viscious animals - licensing fees have no relevance with either issue for responsible pet owners. If you would care to seperate the licensing fees, from the dangerous dogs and animal cruelty sections and provide a forum for debate on the three issues and seperate bylaws to address the issues - you would have my voting support.
I will not support this nor those who would pass such a bylaw. I sincerely hope you will reconsider passing Animal Control Bylaw 3241.
Thank you for your time,
I too, would encourage all responsible pet owners to send an e-mail about this bylaw excercising diplomacy. Instead of allowing this type of thing to pit Rupertite against Rupertite on the issues with one sweeping bylaw, perhaps we can stand together and they’ll reconsider ammending many issues into one bylaw. Everyone has a voice - let it be heard.
I believe you shouldn’t have to pay for owning any animal. They’re already costly enough. Food, vet bills, spayed or nutored etc. By enforcing such fees on pet owners I believe it will only serve to make people think twice about owning any animals. Of course, money makes everyone do funny things when they stand to gain, or lose it.
Pretty sure that violates privacy laws and could be considered illegal trespass should they attempt to force their way onto your property.
Might want to contact the privacy commissioner heres the form:
So what’s next? Licensing children so the vandalism problem can be dealt with?