RDCO Dog Control Review

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[Treblehook]

I am surprised there is little of no comment on the fact there is no effective enforcement to control the behavior of irresponsible dog owners who ignore bylaws in public parks. Rotary beach in West Kelowna is a prime example of a public park area, signed as an on leash park, yet any time you go to that beach there are irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to run free. There is no enforcement at this park... so what are we paying for here? These offenders disrespect others, disrespect public property and the laws that are enacted for dog control. They give dogs and dog owners a bad name and the absence of any attention to this problem by enforcement people certainly diminishes public support for funding of Dog Control in the area.

[Swoop]

I am surprised there is little of no comment on the fact there is no effective enforcement to control the behavior of irresponsible dog owners who ignore bylaws in public parks. Rotary beach in West Kelowna is a prime example of a public park area, signed as an on leash park, yet any time you go to that beach there are irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to run free. There is no enforcement at this park... so what are we paying for here? These offenders disrespect others, disrespect public property and the laws that are enacted for dog control. They give dogs and dog owners a bad name and the absence of any attention to this problem by enforcement people certainly diminishes public support for funding of Dog Control in the area.

...bylaw enforcement is in large part, complaint driven...have you contacted anyone and informed them of the issue?...they could be completely unaware there is an issue...

[Silverstarqueen]

I have been at a park when a specific complaint had been made. The officer observed carefully the way all the dogs and people were behaving/interacting and made a fair assessment of the situation. In that particular case they decided the complaint was not warranted, i.e. there was no problem behavior on the part of the dogs, and no tickets were given. I am not sure if they ticket every off leash infraction, or just if there seems to be a problem. If a lot of dogs are off leash, but most people don't see it to be a problem, that's probably why there were no complaints.

[nala08]

I am surprised there is little of no comment on the fact there is no effective enforcement to control the behavior of irresponsible dog owners who ignore bylaws in public parks. Rotary beach in West Kelowna is a prime example of a public park area, signed as an on leash park, yet any time you go to that beach there are irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to run free. There is no enforcement at this park... so what are we paying for here? These offenders disrespect others, disrespect public property and the laws that are enacted for dog control. They give dogs and dog owners a bad name and the absence of any attention to this problem by enforcement people certainly diminishes public support for funding of Dog Control in the area.

With 477 parks (to the best I could find) spread throughout the 2800 square KM enforcement jurisdiction I can’t see how they could effectively enforce park bylaws with the staff they have according to the service review numbers. There are 7 employees 2 of which are Dog Pound staff. The report says there is 5 field Officers 4 of which work a 4 on 4 off shift, and 1 that works five days per week. Providing 3 field Officers weekdays and 2 on weekends.
I think they should hire more bylaw officers just for parks with zero tolerance on park violations and dogs without licenses, I bet they could pay their wages.

Surly the 2-3 field dog control officers per day that are currently working are kept busy with aggressive/dangerous dogs, barking dogs, dogs at large, dogs in traffic, dog kennels.....

I was truly taken back by the cost of this service, as I have never used it I thought 1 million was a lot, however comparing it to what other municipalities pay, I guess its in line, still a lot of money. If you own a dog and think this is a lot of money ask yourself three simple questions
1 - Is Fido Licensed?
2 – How often has a Bylaw Officer been on my door set?
3 – Do I follow all the signage in the Parks, Schools, and walkways?

If the remaining 67% of Dog Owners licensed their dogs this million dollar service would free

P.S. if you answered NO to 1 & 2 you fail, and you should not have a say!

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[nala08]

Sorry - “P.S. if you answered NO to 1 & 2 you fail, and you should not have a say!” Should have read if you answer NO to 1 & 3. Not #2 as you are correct and just cause a Bylaw Officer comes to your house its not always a bad thing sorry for the typeo, you have been redeemed, at least in my book.

Frivolous or repeated no-valid complaints (like some barking I have read in other pages) should be dealt with, how I don’t know.

[Treblehook]

I believe my understanding of the law is correct in relation to the filing of false complaints. Anyone who files a false complaint, causing an officer to enter into an investigation, commits a criminal offence... that being public mischief. If there are significant costs, inconvenience and harm done to anyone as a result of a false complaint, I think the courts view it as a serious offence.

[HonestBob]

You people do realize this review just isn't for dogs right? What about the recent dog attack victims? Maybe some bylaws need to be tightened because some children in this area have almost had their faces ripped off? The fact that you Silverstarqueen and you Julia haven't even leaned toward suggesting that bothers me.

[juliatrops]

You people do realize this review just isn't for dogs right? What about the recent dog attack victims? Maybe some bylaws need to be tightened because some children in this area have almost had their faces ripped off? The fact that you Silverstarqueen and you Julia haven't even leaned toward suggesting that bothers me.

I am for fairness of bylaws and just application. I am also for owner responsibility. I am also for victim responsibility.

ETA: Owners are not off the hook imho. Owners need to act in good faith, and know their dog, and know what is "acceptable", and what is respectful. Deviations outside of that need to be addressed.

But, if someone did something to provoke, or because of lack of education in the area of dog behaviour, that is to be taken in to account too. When I was growing up, I was taught that all dogs will bite, I was "educated" in this. I took responsibility for my own behaviour.

Before anyone gets all uptight about anything, my philosophy is this. Each person is accountable for their own actions, for good or ill. That includes, dogs and humans... Owners and non owners.

What I do NOT agree with is that the STAFF are the ones who will decide what and how things are implemented. This should be public driven, as given directions to their Directors.

[HonestBob]

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.

[nala08]

You people do realize this review just isn't for dogs right? What about the recent dog attack victims? Maybe some bylaws need to be tightened because some children in this area have almost had their faces ripped off? The fact that you Silverstarqueen and you Julia haven't even leaned toward suggesting that bothers me.

I am for fairness of bylaws and just application. I am also for owner responsibility. I am also for victim responsibility.

ETA: Owners are not off the hook imho. Owners need to act in good faith, and know their dog, and know what is "acceptable", and what is respectful. Deviations outside of that need to be addressed.

But, if someone did something to provoke, or because of lack of education in the area of dog behaviour, that is to be taken in to account too. When I was growing up, I was taught that all dogs will bite, I was "educated" in this. I took responsibility for my own behaviour.

Before anyone gets all uptight about anything, my philosophy is this. Each person is accountable for their own actions, for good or ill. That includes, dogs and humans... Owners and non owners.

What I do NOT agree with is that the STAFF are the ones who will decide what and how things are implemented. This should be public driven, as given directions to their Directors.

I taught my kids not to speak to strangers, so if one of them is abducted whose fault is that? (in your world) I ask this because I also taught my kids not to pet strange dogs and not to run if a strange dog approaches, if my child is attacked while riding his bike, I have a feeling your going to say dogs like to chase things and dogs “just live in the moment” so the dog should not be destroyed, “lets rally”. Meanwhile my child is having reconstructive surgery, and is never the same. I don’t know why society holds dogs above the rights of our fellow humans. I am just glad the Court views them as property.

[nala08]

You people do realize this review just isn't for dogs right? What about the recent dog attack victims? Maybe some bylaws need to be tightened because some children in this area have almost had their faces ripped off? The fact that you Silverstarqueen and you Julia haven't even leaned toward suggesting that bothers me.

I thought that was odd, the review did not suggest any changes to the bylaw, or restrictions for any breeds or holding additional insurance so victims can sue when your dog rips their kids face off. I did notice a recommendation that a three strike rule be used for minor incidents, and all dogs that commit serious injures be dealt with through the Community Charter.

[Silverstarqueen]

yyy

[HonestBob]

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.