RDCO Dog Control Review

[juliatrops]

The review presentation by the consultant is happening on Monday Oct 22, at 7 pm at Kelowna City Chambers. I think it is brilliant that RDCO moved the meeting from District HQ on KLO to Kelowna City Chambers, as it indicates (to me) that they see there is interest, and they are trying to be accommodating for attendance.

Here are the links to what will be presented.

http://www.regionaldistrict.com/docs/boards_committees/agnd/2012%20Agenda/12_10_22%20-%20Kelowna%20City%20Hall%20Council%20Chamber/Item%206.1%20Dog%20Control%20Service%20Review.pdf

http://www.regionaldistrict.com/docs/boards_committees/agnd/2012%20Agenda/12_10_22%20-%20Kelowna%20City%20Hall%20Council%20Chamber/Item%205.1%20Consultant%20Report%20-%20Dog%20Control%20Service%20Review.pdf

If those links don't work, then follow through the Regional District Agenda page, to where the consultant report is listed. http://www.regionaldistrict.com/boards_committees/board_agenda.aspx


What are your thoughts?

[HonestBob]

three strikes and your out policy in regards to aggressive dogs? How is that fair for anyone or anything that falls victim to an aggressive dog after the first time! No more one bite rule, no more tolerance of aggressive dogs. Dog owners scream to hold the owners responsible, than do it, and do it the first time. I do like the consultant talking about Winnipeg though, which regulations do differ from Calgary's in one important way, do we dare start the conversation. People like the owners of Diesel are making it difficult for non aggressive dogs in this area, and before you yell about the his innocence, remember, there are two sides to the story, not just Dave's. Stand up for the sled dogs, stand up for Captain, but not for dangerous or aggressive dogs...it's not fair to their victims or the majority of dog owners who do the right thing.

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[juliatrops]

I am all for owner taking responsibility. However I am all for fairness in application of policies and procedures.

If someone is not trained or a department is not set up properly, it needs to be fixed. I don't care about excuses. I do care about positive motion forward, always making things better. There can be no ego when it comes to the animal services department or animal welfare. From what I can see, from recent cases, it is a *bleep* match between citizen and department, usually with the citizen losing, and that needs to stop.

For those who can not download the report, or who can not see pdfs, but have access to library computers, or facebook, I have uploaded the report in to a photo album on the paws page. It is 81 pages long, and looks on first glance to be fairly comprehensive.

ETA: There is a difference between aggressive dog and dangerous dog, which I never really understood til read the bylaw definitions. IMHO,there has been an overuse of these designations in the form of intimidation and threats for human behaviour modification. Not all, mind you, but enough that it is deeply concerning.

[HonestBob]

what is concerning is that there is a certain demographic of people who would put the "rights" of aggressive and dangerous dogs before public safety. What would you do with an ggressive dog silverstarqueen, put it on a satin pillow and try and line the pockets of some wanna be dog whisperer? People like you Silverstarqueen, and the guy who tied his dog up outside Good Life Gym and people like Diesel's owner need to really read page 14 of the review, under "sense of empowerment" - here it is...

The interviews revealed a growng sense of empowerment - some would say entitlement - on the part of dog owners in the Okanagan. The source of this sense is not entirely clear, but may be linked to the growing and well publicized recognition of the value of dogs in society. Put simply, dogs have the potential to enrich the lives of both their owners and the broader community in which they live. As member of the community, dogs have rights that are increasingly perceived by their owners to extend beyond expectations of humane treatment. Problems can occur when the rights that are ascribed to dogs conflict with the rights that are held to citizens.

Dogs are dogs folks, don't get me wrong, Iove my dog, but the anamorphic, Disneyfication of dogs in the Okanagan is pathetic, and it seems the consultant sees there is a problem as well. What happened to the sled dogs is horrible, abuse is wrong. Is Diesel being abused, no, he is getting humane treatment, that dog attacked at least a dog, and is waiting appeal. I watched the threads when Shadow's case was so heavily discussed, and people suggested that the victim should move in shame, and that Shadow's case should have been bumped to the head of the court line. Really, a dog should come before all else in the court system, give me a break. Sorry Diesel isn't able to run around dog parks, or live with an owner who has already proven to not be capable, but public safety shouldn't be compromised because a bunch of weirdos think the rights of dogs are the most important thing and the world needs to revolve around those rights. People who admit that their dogs are aggressive and have issues seem to think society has to "deal" with that, well, I don't want to anymore.

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[ifwisheswerehorses]

At this moment:
Kelowna SPCA has 41 'adoptable' pets not including the injured, sick or not ready for adoption.
South Okanagan SPCA has 56 'adoptable' pets not including the injured, sick or not ready for adoption.
Vernon SPCA has 36 'adoptable' pets not including the injured, sick or not ready for adoption.

Is it a realistic expectation for 2 employees to care for (feed, clean, medicate, and interact with the public) all within 8 hrs without burnout. I'd like to know what the wage calculations are in Silverstarqueen's proposal of "$120,000 (enough for two employees plus kennel costs), let's estimate that at 150-200 dogs per year".

Plus I've never seen a SPCA Shelter with just dogs. Not every animal is the same, their requirements for health are often quite different as are the prices to supply their needs.

Don't forget the livestock often rescued as well. They might not be housed at the SPCA but all their needs (medical, nutritional, bedding,) are still paid for. When you're talking about horses, goats, cattle etc the costs go up!

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[ifwisheswerehorses]

What about the repeat offenders? You know, the ones that have already been picked up and returned. The fine is incremental and for some, getting a new dog is better than paying for something that is already their fault. The dog will stay until the owner pays or it is considered abandoned. After that adoption or sent to the SPCA. Providing there is room of course. Sometimes they are full and cannot take anymore animals.
Also your budget didn't mention any costs for vehicles, maintenance, fuel and insurance. Both Dog Control and the SPCA need those if they are to go and pick up lost/stray animals

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[nala08]

Silverstarqueen, I have read this review in detail. I am shocked in what I see particularly on page 32. This page outlines the aggressive dog incidents, as well as comparison of aggressive dog incidents to other jurisdictions.
2010 to 2011 BITES on PEOPLE are up 100%, and peoples pets being killed by aggressive dogs were up nearly 100% in this same time. You want to take away the Dog Control Officers trucks and give them to the SPCA??? Did you miss the page that states there are 2 pound keepers that keep the pound open 7 days a week, and only 5 Dog Control Officers to cover 2,892 square kilometers (5 municipalities). That’s 1 Dog Control Officer per Municipality with only 2-3 working per, day as they work shift work. I am sure they are kept very busy dealing with violation, particularity traveling such a large service area.
I am quite shocked there is only 5 Officers I bet Kelowna alone could keep 5 busy all day every day from my observations of “responsible dog owners” in this city.
I believe if you re-read the Dog Control Service review, and then re-read your posts, they’ll seem quite ignorant.
http://www.regionaldistrict.com/boards_ ... genda.aspx

I’ll bet its not easy telling people who are already irresponsible there actions are wrong or their “child” is bad. Dog Control has been getting bad press from a select few after two cases were dogs had been seized and brought before the Court to be judged. After looking at these numbers in the review I would like to thank the 7 RDCO Dog Control staff for the service they provide to our communities 365 days a year!.

[ifwisheswerehorses]

When you run a business and Dog Control/SPCA do qualify you have to count every little penny. If not trouble soon follows. They are held accountable for every cent and would lose all gov't and public support if they did not.

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[nala08]

The cost of this service should be examined. 1 million dollars is a lot of money. However a lot of money compared to WHAT? Some of the cost stood out $64,264 in 2011 for legal fees, I see in the report this is a relatively new expense as the Provincial Government (Crown Counsel) stopped handling Dog matters and put the prosecution and cost on to the Local Governments to deal with.
$55,000 is given every year to the SPCA for their spay and neuter program, the report states only 30% of these funds went to altering dogs, 70% (or $38,500) was spent on cats? Should DOG owners pay to alter cats? Plus an additional $12,000 is given to the SPCA to help with the fees of adopting out dogs transferred from the pound. The report shows a total of 45 dogs were adopted in 2011.
$3,240 in 2011 was given to Okanagan small dog society to help them adopt out dogs.
$6,058 in 2011 went to the Okanagan Humane Society; the report stated most of these funds were spent on altering cats.
$31,350 was paid to venders for selling dog licenses on the RDCO’s behalf.

With some quick math the RDCO could save $91,148 per year if they only neuter DOGS, pay a reasonable amount for adoption, as the SPCA sell the dogs anyways, and sell their own dog licenses.

At the end of the day the question is: what’s the reasonable amount of tax dollars to spend on this service, and the quality of what the service is?

Dog Control comparison Net cost per capita:

Nanaimo $3.52
Prince George $5.28
Campbell River $3.98
RDNO $2.67
RDN $4.63
Comox Valley $5.00
CRD (Victoria) $5.80
RDCO $3.50

The quality of service delivered is hard to gauge when looking at enforcement, unfortunately it is typically based on the number or reason of dealings YOU have had. I was happy to see 6% of unclaimed dogs were adopted out by the RDCO; this was compared to 7.5% in Calgary.