RDCO dog bylaw is stupid

[western_star]

I am more than bummed because I got a warning ticket for having my dog tied to a long closeline run in my 100ft front yard without a fence. I am permitted to have a dog tied to a closeline run in my backyard without a fence (I made a mistake here, you are not permitted to have your dog on a run or in a fenced yard at your front door due to mail carriers and emergency people needing access), but not the front yard. I don't have a big enought backyard because my backyard is a steep hill against an easement road. There is no house across the road from my front yard, just a very large metal building on an empty lot which is against RDCO bylaw to build a garage before a house, but yet the building has been there since at least 2002. My side yard is in full sun all day and the only shade is in my front yard. What a stupid bylaw. My dog jumps a fence so if I build a fence in my front yard I will have to put a roof on the fence I suppose. The only way I can have my dog in the front yard because I can't afford to build a fence, is to be outside with him in visual sight distance the entire time. RDCO bylaw states the following:

RDCO dog bylaw #366
13.1 Where a dog, other than a dangerous dog or an aggressive dog is outside at its owner's premises and is not in a fenced area or pen as required in Section 13, the dog shall be in visual sight of and under the care, custody and control of an owner.
http://www.regionaldistrict.com/docs/by ... %20366.pdf

14. Except as provided for in Section 16, no owner shall tie, secure, tether or pen any dog in a front yard or within 5 feet (1.5m) of any side or backyard property line.

15. No owner shall tie, secure, or tether any dog except in the backyard and the tethering system shall allow adequate freedom of movement, with a minimum of 3m (10ft.) radius.

16. Notwithstanding Section 14 hereof, where a rear yard of a property is fully enclosed with a secure fence and a gate which will effectively prevent any dog from escaping therefrom, a dog may be allowed to roam free anywhere therein.

If you disagree with the dog bylaw, do you mind telling RDCO that 250-469-6284 otherwise I will have to get rid of my dog.

[strwbrrydvl]

That is ridiculous. Your dog is secured, what difference does it make which area of your property he is?

[western_star]

That is ridiculous. Your dog is secured, what difference does it make which area of your property he is?

Thanks Strwbrrydv.. that is what I think too. I sent an email to RDCO Dog Advisory Committee Chair asking what the purpose is to not allow a dog on a run in a front yard without a fence, but yet allow the dog in a back yard without a fence. Some laws just don't make sense. Hpefully section 13.1 of the dog bylaw #366 will be amended sooner than later.

[western_star]

I wonder if RDCO's dog bylaw #366 even allows a dog to be in a fenced front yard. I am am not sure how to read the dog bylaw.. what do you think the dog bylaw means ... do you think a dog is permitted in a fenced front yard according to the dog bylaw? How do you read section 16?

13.0 Except as provided in Sections 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 17.1, or 17.2 any dog while outside a building premise shall be kept in a fenced area or pen, constructed in accordance with Schedule "D" of this bylaw.

13.1 Where a dog, other than a dangerous dog or an aggressive dog is outside at its owner's premises and is not in a fenced area or pen as required in Section 13, the dog shall be in visual sight of and under the care, custody and control of an owner.

13.2 Where a dog, other than a dangerous dog or an aggressive dog is away from its owner's premises and in a public place, the dog shall be on a leash held by an owner unless the dog is in park area designated for dogs to be off leash or participating in a dog show or trial recognized by the appropriate local government jurisdiction.

13.3 Where a dog, other than a dangerous dog or an aggressive dog, is away from its owner's premises on other's private property, the dog shall be in visual sight of and in the care, control and custody of an owner who shall also be with the dog on the same private property.

13.4 No owner shall allow or suffer his dog to leave or deposit any feces on any public or private property or any park, boulevard or road allowance other than the property of the owner of the dog, unless the owner immediately removes such feces and disposes of same in a sanitary fashion.

14. Except as provided for in Section 16, no owner shall tie, secure, tether or pen any dog in a front yard or within 5 feet (1.5m) of any side or backyard property line.

15. No owner shall tie, secure, or tether any dog except in the backyard and the tethering system shall allow adequate freedom of movement, with a minimum of 3m (10ft.) radius.

16. Notwithstanding Section 14 hereof, where a rear yard of a property is fully enclosed with a secure fence and a gate which will effectively prevent any dog from escaping therefrom, a dog may be allowed to roam free anywhere therein.

17.0 Notwithstanding Section 12, no owner shall allow a dangerous dog or an aggressive dog into any public beach, swimming area, park or school grounds at any time.

17.1 The owner of every dangerous dog shall, when the dog is outside of its owner's building premises and not kept within a closed vehicle, keep the dog on a short leash controlled and effectively muzzled or keep the dangerous dog within a locked enclosure.

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL OKANAGAN DOG REGULATION & IMPOUNDING BY-LAW NO. 366
SCHEDULE "D"
STANDARDS FOR FENCES/PENS

1. Minimum standards for outdoor fences/pens for dogs in the Regional District of Central Okanagan shall be as follows.

(a) Sizes: Pens - 3' x 5' per dog
Runs - 4' x 12'

(b) Fences shall be of adequate height to contain the dog(s) or shall be covered and all gates shall be capable of being locked.

[dodgerdodge]

They should come round our way they would make a killing handing out tickets to people who use their sprinklers at the wrong times and wrong days and every other house puts their bins out the night before, in fact many have their bins outside their garage 24/7. Oh and the neighbours dog that roams around the street as they seem to forget to keep a leash on it when it's outside and they have no fence.

[vinnied]

They should come round our way they would make a killing handing out tickets to people who use their sprinklers at the wrong times and wrong days and every other house puts their bins out the night before, in fact many have their bins outside their garage 24/7. Oh and the neighbours dog that roams around the street as they seem to forget to keep a leash on it when it's outside and they have no fence.

Funny thing about bylaws, for the most part they don't usually get enforced,... that is until one person complains.

[western_star]

I made a mistake in my initial post. You are not allowed to have your dog on a run [by your front door] without being in visual sight of it. Damb bylaw is too hard to understand, and they should reword it so dumb people like me can understand it

We don't get mail delivered to our homes here because we have group mailboxes outside the subdivison alongside Westside Road. I have a 100 foot hill of bush with no access off the paved road to my house from the front. I use the easement road that runs the entire length of my back yard which is pretty close to my house that is up the hill a bit from the easement road. Even if I had a fenced back yard, anyone could stick their hand through the fence to pet my dog and be bitten. I believe I am a responsible dog owner and I wouldn't want to see my dog bark at every vehicle on my easement road due to the dog feeling like the vehicle is coming to my house. My front door is at the side of my house and so is my driveway.

I think people should be able to apply for a variance, just like they do for zoning. Dog control could stop by to view the layout of the property and dog control could make the decision to allow for a variance. [ADDED Aug 24th - on second thought I don't think a dog owner needs a variance if RDCO would just reword the bylaw]

[xjeepguy]

I think people should be able to apply for a variance, just like they do for zoning. Dog control could stop by to view the layout of the property and dog control could make the decision to allow for a variance.

Come on man , thats way to simple
Its local Gov. , it has to be complicated and make no sense !

[western_star]

One more thing is that dog control told me that if I accept the warning ticket, the warning ticket could not be brought up in the future in regards to my dog which is not necessarily true from what I just read. According to RDCO Board agenda August 22, 2011 staff report about dangerous dogs on page 2 at the top it states the following:

Tickets are held to one specific incident only and the burden of proof is upon the prosecution (RDCO) to prove every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas destruction applications include all allegations to date and witnesses will receive a subpoena.

http://www.regionaldistrict.com/docs/bo ... 20Dogs.pdf

[western_star]

I think people should be able to apply for a variance, just like they do for zoning. Dog control could stop by to view the layout of the property and dog control could make the decision to allow for a variance.

Come on man , thats way to simple
Its local Gov. , it has to be complicated and make no sense !

GOOD ONE, xjeepguy !!!!

[western_star]

I talked to the dog control officer this morning. He said I was OUT ON THE ROAD when a car drove by and that my dog barked and pulled on the leash at the car ... and that is why I got the warning ticket section 13.1 warning me to be under care custody and control of my dog on MY PROPERTY. I asked if I could have a copy of the incident report and he said he would have to ask his suprervisor. Couple days ago I talked to the supervisor and she told me I would have to go through Freedom of Information to get a copy. I think that a person should be automatically given a copy of the incident report when dog control pays them a visit no matter if a warning ticket or a fine is issued or no warning ticket or fine is issued.

After I got off the phone I realized that section 13.1 is in regards to a dog on its own property and not about a dog being off its property. I WAS NOT ON MY PROPERTY when the incident occured and I was on the public road, the dog control officer told me.
Section 13.1 states the following:

13.1 Where a dog, other than a dangerous dog or an aggressive dog is outside at its owner's premises and is not in a fenced area or pen as required in Section 13, the dog shall be in visual sight of and under the care, custody and control of an owner.

So really section 13.2 should have been applied which states the following:

13.2 Where a dog, other than a dangerous dog or an aggressive dog is away from its owner's premises and in a public place, the dog shall be on a leash held by an owner unless the dog is in park area designated for dogs to be off leash or participating in a dog show or trial recognized by the appropriate local government jurisdiction.

My dog was on leash and I had my hand on the buckle that attaches to his collar until after the vehicle passed by. I want the warning ticket retracted because my dog didn't do anything wrong. He was on leash and I was in control of my dog. I left a message asking for such .. now just waiting to hear back which I probably won't hear back from the dog control officer today I am guessing.

Sure wish I had a copy of the dog incident report when the dog control officer first showed up so that I wasn't so confused about what I was being warned about.

[western_star]

I talked to a different dog control officer today after I talked to the first officer and he told me that the reason why they don't want dogs tied up or in a fenced year near a front door is for the postal carrier and emergency people who need access to the front door, which makes sense if the dog is aggressive when the owner is not there trying to protect their property. He told me he won't ticket me if my main door is at my side yard and I tie my dog up in my front yard where there is nobody coming to my house. Just wish the bylaw would be worded like that instead of the way its worded.

He also told me that pen means fence too and it doesn't mean just a pen or cage.

[western_star]

I sent RDCO Dog Advisory Committee and email saying the following:

Should add the words I have highlighted in red below to section 13.1 of RDCO's dog bylaw #366

13.1 Where a dog, other than a dangerous dog or an aggressive dog is outside at its owner's premises and is not in a fenced area or pen (and not on a leash or securely tied) as required in Section 13, the dog shall be in visual sight of and under the care, custody and control of an owner.

I also asked the Dog Advisory Committee if they could suggest to RDCO Board that

dog bylaw #366 section 15. No owner shall tie, secure, or tether any dog except in the backyard and the tethering system shall allow adequate freedom of movement, with a minimum of 3m (10ft.) radius.

can be reworded so that people can tie their dog in the front yard if their dog is not tied near the front door so that other people don't have to go through what I have been through about my dog with dog control and can understand the bylaw. I am sure there are probably many who won't understand it either.

[western_star]

Today I am told that RDCO does not retract warning tickets. I want to blow up RDCO offices which would blow up the warning ticket to get rid of it, but I know I can't do that .. too bad!

[western_star]

Today I called dog control to report that a dog barked for a cumulative duration of 11 minutes within a 15 minute period. The girl on the phone told me I have to have another complaint about the same dog barking again for 5 minutes or more in a 15 minute period within 72 hours to be able to complain about the dog barking for 11 minutes.

The dog bylaw states the following:

Noise means continuous barking, howling or yelping sounds lasting more than 5 minutes or the sound of barking, howling or yelping sporadically or erratically for a cumulative duration of 5 minutes or longer in any 15 minute period which sounds are repeated again within 72 hours.

I offered to read the bylaw about Noise to the girl on the phone and she said she has worked there for 12 years and that she knows what the dog bylaw says and she refused to take my complaint. I asked to talk to her supervisor Rhoda Mueller and left a message. I am now waiting to hear that I can't complain about the dog by the supervisor too, is my best guess. What do you think? Do you think I am misinterpreting the dog bylaw or do you think RDCO has a vendetta against me?