Who ya gonna call?
It was revenge of the tax paying pet owners at city council Monday night, as Rupertites went to the barricades over proposed animal control bylaw regulations.
From cat to dog owners, each group provided their case for exemption or reconsideration of the proposed plans to licence pets and limit the amount of those pets that an owner could have inside city limits.
In what at times seems to have been a debate over which animal should have the most controls placed upon it, the council was left to pick up the pieces of a bylaw that appeared to resemble that old couch in the basement that has been scratched apart by a nervous kitten, or chewed up by a skittish dog.
It made for one of the feistiest of city council sessions in a long time, indicative of the wide swath of residents that the changes would have a direct impact on.
From suspicions of the moves being a cash grab by the city, to thoughts that the city hasn’t really thought the issue out very much, council was faced with the vision of angry taxpayers riled up by an issue that could cause misery for the current council come the next election.
Budget miscounts of some five million dollars may be one thing that might be forgiven, but get in the way of a pet owner and their homebound accomplices, well that’s just playing with fire for an elected official.
The Daily news covered the story with two stories one of which claimed front page status in Wednesday’s paper.
OWNERS VENT ABOUT CITY’S PROPOSED ANIMAL BYLAW
By Patrick Witwicki
The Daily News
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Pages one and three
Prince Rupert cat owners were scratching and clawing their way to the front podium to have their say during a packed house in council chambers Monday night regarding the controversial proposed animal control bylaw.
The problem that has haunted Rupert for a few years now has been the feral cat issue, but the majority of residents who attended Monday's public meeting didn't believe the new bylaw properly addressed any of those concerns. In fact, many cat owners took offence at the possibility of having to licence their cat, especially by having to put their pets in a collar.
"To tell me I have to put a collar on my cats to make them law-abiding citizens is wrong," said Arnold Nagy.
"And how are they going to enforce it? How are they going to catch these cats? Yes, there is a feral cat problem, but I'm not going to pay for it all on my own."
Nagy also pointed out that the proposed bylaw would only punish the responsible cat owners, and could also make the feral cat problem worse through the licencing of cats.
"For many of the unemployed people in this town, a pet is the last luxury they have," he said. "If they have to fork out the extra 50 or 60 bucks, those cats are going to be abandoned.
"You're going to have more money wasted trying to enforce this bylaw than dealing with the issue of feral cats."
Unlike dogs, cats can jump, climb and roam, which makes wearing a collar very dangerous for the felines, according to several Rupert residents.
"I have reservations about putting a collar on a cat," said Dave Fisher. "You're going to hang a cat."
Sterling Langille added: "When you see a cat with a collar hanging there ... we need a lot more sensible thinking here."
Coun. Joy Thorkelson agreed that putting a collar on a cat isn't a good idea, but she asked aloud what residents might suggest as a better option.
"It's trying to determine the difference between a feral cat and a pet," she said. "The city needs to be able to identify what is a feral cat and what is a house pet."
Resident Karen Faith suggested that noticing the difference between a house cat and a feral cat isn't necessarily that difficult.
"If you get a cat that's truly vicious or totally wild, that's a feral cat," she said.
However, Faith said the main problem is that sometimes house cats go missing for long periods of time, and she voiced concerns about the bylaw's proposed 96-hour time period for someone to claim a lost pet at the SPCA.
"That disturbs me," she said. "There are problems with miscommunication with identifying animals. I don't think you can have someone identify an animal in 96 hours."
Other residents disagreed with council's proposal to limit a residence to three pets per household - although those currently with more would be grandfathered in.
"I don't think you want to stop people from moving here because they have four pets," said Chad Cunningham.
Faith added: "A restriction on three animals should be revisited. You're punishing the people who are the most responsible."
Both Kim St. Pierre and Chantal Cornwall had issues with the language of the bylaw, which stated that the funds collected from licencing and enforcement "may be used" to fight the feral cat problem.
"'May be' helped? No, that needs to be changed," said St. Pierre.
Cornwall added: "It has to be addressed. We can't have a situation like we had at Atlin Terminal this summer when feral kittens were getting ripped apart by ravens right in front of the tourists."
Many of the residents said that council should instead be trying to come up with a spay and neutering program because, currently, many pet owners can't afford to have it done, while the responsible owners have already done it.
"In the U.S., every dollar spent on neutering and spaying ends up saving $10," said Cynthia Spillstead.
Mayor Herb Pond said that this part of the bylaw regarding cats had also come up via various complaints from Rupert residents, and while he agreed it is very difficult to keep a cat out of someone's yard, coming up with some sort of system to police it would help.
"We're not going to have bylaw squadrons running around chasing cats," he said. "But it gives you something where you can say you need to neuter or spay your cat."
Coun. Ken Cote added: "You have to find bad owners. It's not the animals, it's the people.
"And as people of Prince Rupert, we need to be good owners."
Find out in Thursday's edition of the Daily News about what happens next for the proposed bylaw.
Dog owners get their teeth into bylaw debate
By Patrick Witwicki
The Daily News
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Page three
Prince Rupert dog owners are convinced that city council is barking up the wrong tree when it comes to the new animal control bylaw.
And the overwhelming sentiment shared by many at this week's public hearing into the proposed bylaw was that the only people who are going to be punished by the bylaw are the responsible pet owners.
"There are bad people who train bad dogs," said Kelly McCrae, who owns a pitbull cross. She was one among many showing her displeasure that city council had come up with a "restricted dog" list that included pitbulls, while other breeds like doberman pinscher and rottweiler, were not included on that list.
"There are lots of dogs who attack who aren't those breeds," she said.
Doug Mackereth, another pitbull-cross owner, added: "I think putting money out there to discriminate against one person or another just isn't right."
Other residents asked how council had come up with the dangerous dogs list, and Doug Jay said it was based on lists that other communities around the province have accumulated.
But Coun. Ken Cote had a hard time believing that pitbulls are not a vicious breed.
"(Saying that) a pitbull is the same as a lap dog ... you would have a hard time convincing me that pitbulls aren't vicious," he said.
Donna Russell said that specific breeds are not the problem, but the problem comes from how dogs are being brought up by owners.
"A dog who has been properly socialized is fine," she said. "I can't say my dog will never bite, because I don't know how it's being provoked.
"But how come the city doesn't have applications for owners?"
Dan Russell added: "Any dog can be vicious. As a dog owner, I feel this is unfair to a lot of people."
But there were also letter carriers present at the meeting, who suggested that council should not weaken on the issue, and change the bylaw regarding dogs.
"You can't enforce something you don't have," said Kathleen Palm, a long-time local letter carrier. "Any dog can be a problem if it has teeth.
"Even the little yappers can startle a child."
Palm also said that specific breeds are not the problem, but the general size of a dog.
"I would rather be attacked by a jack russell than a golden retriever, because I can't be knocked down by a jack russell," she said.
Edith Michael, a superintendent with Canada Post, agreed with Palm.
She cited 20 incidents in 2007 where a local letter carrier has either been bitten or unable to deliver due a loose dog either in the street or in a yard.
"Most owners don't think dogs will bite, but they're wrong," she said.
Michael added that tying up a dog in the yard all day is not a good idea either, because it simply makes that canine more stressed.
"One of the worst things a dog owner can do is tie the dog up all day," she said. "It makes it more aggressive.
"That's what we need - more responsible owners."
Dave Fisher, one of the Fourth Avenue West residents who initially started the process that led to the proposed bylaw following concerns about pitbulls in his area, sided with Cote.
"I applaud (council) for taking this action and moving forward," he said. "I believe those breeds should be registered with the RCMP.
"RCMP are first responders ... it would be terrible if they're going in to save a life, and they're attacked by a dangerous dog."
Even concerns regarding the off-leash issue were discussed.
"I'm worried about Moresby," said Larry Golden, regarding one of the proposed off-leash areas for dogs. "There are kids going there.
"A (better) area would be one where everyone can see it from a block away, so it's safe."
Cote reminded people that the reason the bylaw had been drafted in the first place was due to the numerous complaints councillors receive on a daily basis from upset residents regarding dogs.
"This has evolved from complaints from citizens about unruly dogs," he said.
Mayor Herb Pond added: "If a neighbour and a neighbour end up in a dispute, we have something here we can work with.
"If only you knew how much money is going in to deal with neighbours fighting with neighbours ... right now, we have nothing we can do about that, and we don't want it to come to where someone says, 'I'm going to take care of this myself.'
"It's the owners that should be licensed ... that's an interesting comment."
Find out what is in store for the bylaw in Thursday's edition of the Daily News.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment