RDCO Dog Control Review

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[nala08]

well said Nala...perhaps those that use "provokation" as a way to deflect owner responsibility can speak to what you have said. No matter what, in dog bite/attack cases, dog advocates always find a way to blame the victim, I have seen dog advocates blame the smell of formula on a baby as just cause for the dog killing a child. Also, your comparisson of the bike riding is a good one, I have also seen dog advocates blame thunder when a dog attacks. When will it end? You want to own a dog, you own all that comes with it, that includes being responsible when things go badly.

THere are clear instances when people have brought on an incident of dog aggression by provoking it. Some people clearly pick fights with dogs by acting aggressively and then cry foul. That is why the law usually includes that excuse for a dog's aggression. In the case of children, one has to wonder, where were the parents? They have a responsability not to bring their children near a dog when it is not safe, especially a dog they don't know.

It is always the DOG owner’s responsibility to ensure their dog does not negatively affect anyone. I am not talking about kids jumping into a dogs yard or abusing a dog. I am talking about dogs not effectively contained to their yard, left tied in public for any amount of time, or being walked by someone who does not have control. The rights I have to be in public place with my family are ABSOLUTE, and far exceed the rights of anyone’s dog, under any circumstance. An animal must be controlled at all times, or bad things happen. I have a dog who is a part of my family, I don’t expect anyone else to like her.

[nala08]

I don't think the review was about bylaws, it wasn't intended as a bylaw review but a review of department policy and procedures (which is also why it doesn't discuss dog owners much). Incidentally, why don't they have stated policies and procedures? could that be why the cost is so high, but effectiveness seems to be in question) As far as insurance, that is up to dog owners (or anyone with property) how much insurance they want to carry, and as far as victims there is nothing stopping them from suing if they have a case. The district shouldn't be taking on extra legal fees to sue for them. In fact there is nothing to stop someone from carrying "under insured" type of insurance such as car drivers get in case the person who injures them in an accident doesn't have sufficient insurance. I carry that myself for that reason.
It seems the public wants dog control to be everything and control everything in dog behavior. We are not quite at the point of a nanny state where no one has responsability for their own behavior. Dog control has clearly laid out bylaws that as we have noted already seem to keep them so busy with minor concerns they hardly have time to look after serious incidents. That is why I think they should clearly prioritize their activities (and in fact I'm pretty sure they do), so they are not running around after every little dog behavior that has nothing to do with pulblic safety. I actually think that's why a nearby district like the Noth okanagan gets good service and good satisfaction for less than half the cost of a district like RDCO, because they prioritize and therefore are far more effective for less than half the cost per capita. If news reports are any indication, the North okanagan also seems to have fewer bite incidents. Someone should look at why that is.

I would like to see more about the RDNO, I looked for their stats but could not find anything, you seem to know more about the way they do things any suggestions on how I could educate myself, or maybe you could post a link to support your claims. May be the RDCO could learn from the neighbours to the north.

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[nala08]

Right, so how effective do you think RDCO has been in acheiving that? How many serious bites has your family suffered? How many minor bites? And over how many years have you lived in RDCO? Because those are the best measure I can see. While we might be concerned with other behaviors, we need data that's measurable and start with something no one can deny has to be a concern for all.

I agree comparing data is very important, as I said in one of my first posts I was shocked at the costs, however I would like to think I am a rational person so I ask myself before jumping on the “RDCO needs change” band wagon compared to WHAT is this so expensive. The cost comparisons seem to be in line with other municipalities in the province, even much lower than most.
I take no issue with the Dog Control “service” as outlined in the report, I was alarmed by the number of aggressive dogs, and the increase in dog bites in the RDCO compared to other areas, this may be fixed with public education, and less tolerance for aggressive dogs as the consultant proposed. If RDNO has stats to back the costs they would be relevant, without data they are not.
My husband and I moved our family here 10 years ago and have never been bit by a dog. With that said I have had to walk around dogs tied in public, and have even had to leave the sidewalk on to the street to avoid people who have no control as we approached.
I think the review has great recommendations for some change as nothing is perfect, I think a select few thought this should have been a “personality review” as they have very opposing views for the current laws, the way they are enforced, or just disagree with the action of the RDCO. The one dog Diesel in the news is a great example of this personality issue, rather than the level of service.

[HonestBob]

Why it the RDCO's fault that the owners of these dogs that have been in the news and others like them have failed in containing and controlling their animals in a way that would constitute responsible dog ownership??? The legal costs have skyrocketed because these owners are unwilling to admit their own shortcomings as an owner, and the shortcomings of their chosen pets. In an effort to be right, they are willing to set aside the fact that the public should have to have their safety put in Column B over the rights of an animal. I should never have to cross the street due to a uncontrolled dog. I should never have to see a dog tied up outside a public place with the owner inside, not monitoring its behaviour. I should never have to walk out my front door to see an animal roaming freely to do as it pleases.

The buck should never be passed to any victim. If you want to take your animal outside, its you that should be prepared. You have accepted the responsibility of owning the dog. Its you that has to accept the responsibility of its actions. If you are unprepared to handle any situation that arises with your animal in a public place, maybe you should just stay at home, and spare the unsuspecting public, the potential victims the grief that goes along with damage that it can do.

Why is that concept so hard to grasp?

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[HonestBob]

There is no way that the taxpayer should ever be responsible financially for the shortcomings of a dog owner and their inability to control their animal. But one must remember that these dogs aren't seized because they are fine upstanding members of the pet community. They have been seized due to their actions, and the lack of preventative action by their owners. The owners, and no one else, should be held responsible for the costs incurred. Plain and simple. If you want to roll the dice then you should accept the losses.

[normaM]

agreed.

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[HonestBob]

Are you aware that the its not the RDCO, but the owners who chose to fight against them that bring these cases to our courts? The last thing I am sure that our dog control officers want to do is spend time in court fighting to uphold the tickets, fines, and seizure of animals whose actions have fallen outside the bylaws of the RDCO. It is a waste of time and money, and it all comes about due to a lack of care on the owners part. Bottom line.

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[juliatrops]

Victim responsibility ???? Really....sounds like a cop out and someone trying to push the blame on to the victims.

The victims in this area over the past year weren't out there "Looking for it". Why should any innocent bystander ever be held responsible for someone else's lack of care and attention when it comes to handling their dog?? A dog escapes its yard and attacks a child? How is that the victims fault? Please explain that to the child and its parents Ms.Trops.

Whether the dog owners like it or not, if you fail to take the neccesary precautions to control your animal at all times, it is your responsibility when it comes to attacks like these. If you can't handle the responsibility, maybe owning a dog is just a little too complicated for you to handle....

P.S. I was taught growing up that dogs were mans best friend. But I was also revered enough that if a dog did attack/bite me, that I was more important than the dog.

Nice assumption HonestBob ... but you know what they say I am sure, about assumptions...

I have a scar just below my nose. I got it when I was about 6. I was told about dogs and how they could bite. But, me being me, and loving animals, I did not listen. I remember walking down the street on the way home, and there was a dog laying so peaceful on someone's porch, and I thought how wonderfully sweet, I'm going to go say hi. I walked up and pressed my nose against the chain link fence. All I remember is that the dog lunged. I remember a bloody nose and the impact thud. I don't remember any pain, but I do have a scar.

Was that Fido's fault? He/she was on their own property. I approached. Was I a victim? Absolutely - but of my own stupidity.

Not all owners are irresponsible.
Not all dogs are bad.

It would be a better world imho if people looked to their own culpability first and lay blame to others, second.