Follow okanaganlakebc.ca on Twitter

Online petition - Noise law needs to change

Source - RDCO's Whats New

Regional Dog Control Service Review

The Regional Board has received a report from the consultant that has thoroughly reviewed the Regional Dog Control Service. The Board has directed staff to provide it with an implementation plan including opportunity for public comment with the goal of rolling out changes within the next year. Consultant Allan Neilson recommends many actions to shift to a new model for Dog Service delivery, similar to one developed over the past 20 years in Calgary. It would see more focus on incentives and rewards for responsible dog owners, while providing zero tolerance for those not supporting their responsibilities to their dogs and the community at large. The model encourages a more positive public education and compliance function, while increasing the number of dog licenses purchased to both reduce taxpayer funding of the service and bylaw violations. He also recommends steps designed to increase public education and awareness about responsible dog ownership, while encouraging and enlisting the support of volunteers to help in a region-wide effort to improve compliance.

-------------------------------

October 22, 2012 audio of entire RDCO Board meeting - .mp3 (265 MB)

October 22, 2012 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about Item 5.1 Consultant Report - Dog Control Service Review and only about Item 6.1 Dog Control Service Review - .wma (64.9 MB)

October 22, 2012 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about Item 5.1 Consultant Report - Dog Control Service Review and only about barking Item 6.1 Dog Control Service Review - .wma (2.59 MB)

October 22, 2012 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about Item 7.4 North Westside Ratepayers Association - Water Rates Bylaw Petition - .wma (5.73 MB) (Also speaks about Diesel the dog on death row in RDCO Pound)

Item 5.1 Consultant Report - Dog Control Service Review.pdf

Item 6.1 Dog Control Service Review.pdf

Item 7.4 North Westside Ratepayers Association - Water Rates Bylaw Petition.pdf

Southern Interior Bylaw Notice Program pg 66 of the Consultants Report (81 pages)

It is recommended that the Board lobby the provincial government to amend the Local Government Act so that regional districts, in addition to municipalities, have the authority to use the cost recovery mechanism in section 48 of the Community Charter.

-------------------------------

October 22, 2012 audio of entire RDCO Board meeting - .mp3 (265 MB)

October 22, 2012 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about Item 5.1 Consultant Report - Dog Control Service Review and only about Item 6.1 Dog Control Service Review - .wma (64.9 MB)

October 22, 2012 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about Item 5.1 Consultant Report - Dog Control Service Review and only about barking Item 6.1 Dog Control Service Review - .wma (2.59 MB)

October 22, 2012 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about Item 7.4 North Westside Ratepayers Association - Water Rates Bylaw Petition - .wma (5.73 MB) (Also speaks about Diesel the dog on death row in RDCO Pound)

RDCO Board minutes are not usually posted to RDCO's website until after being adopted at the following Board meeting, which the next Regular Board meeting will be held November 26, 2012.  If the minutes are not posted here yet, you can check to see if they are posted on RDCO's website.

-------------------------------

October 22, 2012 audio of entire RDCO Board meeting - .mp3 (265 MB)

October 22, 2012 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about Item 5.1 Consultant Report - Dog Control Service Review and only about Item 6.1 Dog Control Service Review - .wma (64.9 MB)

October 22, 2012 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about Item 5.1 Consultant Report - Dog Control Service Review and only about barking Item 6.1 Dog Control Service Review - .wma (2.59 MB)

October 22, 2012 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about Item 7.4 North Westside Ratepayers Association - Water Rates Bylaw Petition - .wma (5.73 MB) (Also speaks about Diesel the dog on death row in RDCO Pound)

RDCO CONSOLIDATED DOG BYLAW #366

PART 1- GENERAL
2. In this by-law unless the context otherwise requires:

Hobby Kennel means a house or property where 3 to 20 dogs are kept or are intended to be kept.

Kennel Operation Permit means written approval by the Regional District of Central Okanagan for a person to have a hobby kennel or a service kennel on a specific lot.

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.

Service Kennel means a facility or property on which more than 20 dogs are kept or are intended to be kept.

=======================================================================

PART III - CONTROL OF DOGS
21.1 Dogs are to be held within the kennel building between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

21.2 No person being the owner or occupant of any private premises shall permit, allow or suffer the noise of barking, yelping or howling sounds from a dog(s) to be caused or made at the private premises owned or occupied by that person, in a manner that can easily be heard or otherwise perceived by an individual who is not at the same private premises.

==========================================================

Please read the part in red above. I spoke with the person at Dog Control who usually answers the phone when I call there (Theresa) today July 7, 2012 and she told me she believes that Kennel building could mean your house. So I take it that a dog house could mean a kennel building as well? There is nothing in RDCO dog bylaw definitions saying what a kennel means and when I look up the definition on the net it says a shelter for a dog (the following is what I read about the definition).

Kennel means - A shelter for a dog.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kennel

A kennel is the name given to any structure or shelter for dogs. A kennel is a doghouse, run, or other small structure in which a dog is kept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennel

RDCO Dog Advisory Committee Minutes of June 22, 2011 on page 1 of 5 it states quote: "The Local Government Act indicates a noise complaint pertains to a neighborhood or persons affected, not one person." THIS IS NOT TRUE!

We were at the June 22, 2011 Dog Advisory Committee meeting and heard Chief Bylaw Enforcement Officer Rhoda Mueller state the above (in red).

Chief Bylaw Enforcement Officer Rhoda Mueller has spread misleading information to the Dog Advisory Committee and most likely the Regional District of Central Okanagan Board Members if they read the Dog Advisory Committee minutes or are given the same information.  

The letter dated April 24, 2012 from the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development (below) has a contrary statement we underlined in red.

Letter from the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development states it is not necessary for more than one person to complain about a barking dog.

click letter for a larger copy

Section 28(3) of the Interpretation Act states that "In an enactment, words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular."  The Local Government Act and the Community Charter are both considered enactments so this means, for example, that it is not necessary for more than one person to complain about a barking dog.

Lefebvre v. The Corp. of the District of Maple Ridge et al, 2006 BCSC 326 (CanLII)
Date: 2006-02-27
Docket: S88856

In nuisance one is concerned with the invasion of the interest in the land; in negligence one must consider the nature of the conduct complained of.

Suzuki v. Munroe, 2009 BCSC 1403 (CanLII)
Date: 2009-10-14
Docket: S107052

[70] The Fact Sheet indicates that the W.H.O.’s Guidelines for Community Noise was the outcome of a W.H.O. task force meeting in London, England, in March 1999. The W.H.O. Guidelines contain the following table:

Bedrooms - Sleep disturbance - 30dB(A)

[72] In Dr. Oduwole’s report of July 5, 2007, he referred to the W.H.O. Guidelines. He states:

According to the WHO Guidelines for good sleep, sound levels should not exceed 30 decibels for continuous back ground noise and 45 decibels for individual noise event. (Birgitta Burglund et al 1995. Stockholm University and Karolinka Institute.)

[73] In Dr. Oduwole’s July 13, 2009 report, he stated as follows:

Noise pollution is environmental noise that is annoying, distracting and/or physically harmful. The Sources may be human, non human or machines.

The effects can be immediate and can be accumulative. The immediate effect is annoyance and other negative affects like anger, helplessness and anxiety.

The cumulative effects include problems with relationships.

Problems with concentration and fatigue.

Decreased working capacity.

Physical health problems due to increased autonomic and hormonal activation such as hypertension, increased heart rates, irregular heart beat, sleep problems characterised by problems falling asleep, frequent awakenings, alterations in sleep stages especially a decrease in deep sleep and alteration in sleep depth.

Emotional or mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, emotional stress, nervous complaints. Emotional instability, increased use of psychotropic medication as well as consumption of sleeping pills.

The magnitude of these changes is determined by individual characteristics and they can be temporarily [sic] but they may also become more permanent with prolonged and continuous exposure.

The effects can also be affected by the severity as well as the duration of exposure.

Those who are most vulnerable are usually the ill, the depressed and the elderly.

[100] Acts done with the intention of annoying a neighbour and actually causing annoyance will be a nuisance, although the same amount of annoyance would not be a nuisance if done in the ordinary and reasonable use of the property: A.M. Dugdale & M.A. Jones eds., Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 19th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006) at 11782. In my view this is the natural corollary of the principle that the social utility of the activity complained of may be considered in deciding whether the activity is unreasonable. Activities designed to annoy one’s neighbours and having little or no redeeming social utility are unreasonable and should be discouraged by the law.

[106] Dr. Oduwole noted that the chronic stress disorder from which Mrs. Suzuki has been suffering for now in excess of three years, stems from two factors, the air conditioning noise itself, and the conflict with the Munroes.

[107] The damage she has suffered is indivisible as between the two causes. The noise itself has been the major contributing factor. It is not necessary that the tortious conduct of the defendants be the sole cause of the injuries sustained. It is enough if the tortious conduct is a materially contributing cause of the injury. In such circumstances the defendants are liable for the whole loss. There is, therefore, no room for apportionment of the loss or reduction of the damages based upon the fact some of the injury results from the dispute itself rather than the nuisance; see Athey v. Leonati, 1996 CanLII 183 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 at 467-468.

[108] I will award $4,000 to Mrs. Suzuki and $2,000 to Mr. Suzuki as damages for nuisance. If I were not granting an injunction, the damages awarded would be significantly higher.

Mynott v. British Columbia (Ministry of Transportation),
2011 BCSC 258
Date: 20110302

[61] The overriding public policy consideration motivating the defendant is the conservation of government resources: it does not want to spend money. This is manifest not only in its answer to the plaintiffs’ claim on its face – an assertion that there is no duty on the government to control “trespassers” and a suggestion that the plaintiffs look to law enforcement – but even more obvious in its highly developed defence at the second line – that the Mynotts cannot expect help from law enforcement, because the police lack the resources. Catch-22 comes irresistibly to mind.

[62] It is utterly foreseeable that in one place or another, the implications of the government policy on access to public water might attract a pattern of use that requires more than benign neglect. That is all that has happened in Creston. The presence of the itinerant workers has led to obnoxious and illegal behaviour which is a nuisance to the Mynotts. There can be no immunity for “policy making” that amounts to setting a chain of events in motion and completely ignoring the predictable consequences. The standard of what is reasonable is objective. It cannot be altered by the circular notion that government spending is policy, so under-pending is “reasonable”, because spending decisions are policy.

Vl

[63] Courts do not enjoin or mandate government action. In our theory of government it is not necessary. Governments are expected to act in accordance with what the Court declares the law to be. I do not hesitate to say that the defendant has permitted a nuisance to emanate from premises it controls and that it has a duty to effectively abate that nuisance. It has, to date, failed to take reasonable steps to do so.

[64] The defendant has expressed a reluctance to act positively, even in the face of this outcome, and has submitted that, in the event of such a declaration, the Court should simply assess damages in a lump sum allowing for past and future harm to the Mynotts. This is clearly inappropriate. The Court should not be invited to implicate itself in the defendant’s neglect of duty by effectively licensing it.

[65] The proper course, in my view, is to adjourn this matter to await the defendant’s abatement during the next summer season. If an effective end has been put to the activities, it will then be possible to estimate the Mynotts’ damages on a one-time basis. I emphasize that it is completely up to the defendant to work out the means by which a remedy is effected.

[66] If an effective remedy has not been implemented, the question of damages will have to be revisited in light of those circumstances. The matter is put over for this purpose to September 19, 2011, at Cranbrook, to fix a date for continuation.

[67] The plaintiffs are entitled to special costs throughout to date.

R. v. Awde, 1997 CanLII 71 (BC SC)
Date: 1997-12-18
Docket: CC970654

This case discusses the distinction between wilful blindness, recklessness, and negligence.

[24] The appellant was charged that he did commit mischief by, "wilfully obstructing, interrupting or interfering with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of the property of" the alleged victims.

[26] .... "Willfully means not merely to commit an act voluntarily but to commit it purposely with an evil intention, or in other words it means to do so deliberately, intentionally and corruptly and without justifiable excuse."

----------------

also on the Huffington Post

From Health Canada's website about NOISE

Closing Comments

When Canadians were asked whether they were bothered, disturbed or annoyed by noise outside your home, about half indicated that they were bothered by noise and half were not.

When asked which type of noises bothered them most, two-thirds of respondents identified a noise from outside their home that bothered them. More than 51% of those sampled were bothered by one type of noise. Another 15% were bothered by two or more types of noise.  The most common noises that bothered Canadians were road traffic, animals outside, other people, off road traffic and children outside.

These findings indicate that between half and two-thirds of Canadians are bothered by noises outside their homes. Differences in the extent that they were bothered by noise were found by community size, age, education and whether or not they had a partner.

References
1.Environment Canada, Health and the Environment, 2001
2.World Health Organization, http://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/guidelines2.html
3.Health Canada, Health and the Environment - The Built Environment, 1997.
4.Health Canada, Health and the Environment - The Built Environment, 1997.

Source: Health Canada - Noise: HealthInsider No. 7, 2002 - Table of Contents

RDCO Board meeting of August 22, 2011 discussed charging $1,000 to license a Pitbull and/or banning some breeds of dogs as well.  In the Central Okanagan they had more dangerous German Shepherds than other dog types.  Director Jim Edgson suggested RDCO not attend to barking dogs anymore and that they focus on Dangerous Dogs.  RDCO spent $940,000 on dog control in one year, and the dog control dept is stretched to its limits.  Director Findlater suggested that they have larger penalties for delinquent dog owners because taxpayers are paying most of the bill for dog control, and that he does not support allowing 3 dogs versus the existing bylaw that permits only 2 dogs per household.  The rational for allowing 3 dogs as recommended by the Dog Advisory Committee was to increase licensing revenue.  Listen to the Dangerous Dog audio for more information.  There are stats in the audio.

For more info review August 22, 2011 RDCO Board Meeting Agenda and Minutes on okanaganlakebc.ca dog control minutes webpage.

-------------------------------

August 22, 2011 audio of entire RDCO Board meeting - .mp3 (307 MB)

August 22, 2011 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about letter from dog bite victims Mother - .wma (1.47 MB)

August 22, 2011 audio of RDCO Board meeting only in regards to staff report about dangerous dogs and banning some breeds - .wma (26.2 MB)

August 22, 2011 audio of RDCO Board meeting only in regards to dog committee recommended amendments to allow 3 dogs - .wma (1.57 MB)

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.

Source: RDCO Board Agenda August 22, 2011 - Item 11.1 Staff Report on Dangerous Dogs.pdf

If you can't stop your dogs from spewing noise that creates a problem for the unlucky people who live next to you, you probably can't control them at all and should not be allowed to own them.

Under specific circumstances, the Right to Quiet Society (RQS) offers loans or grants of up to $1,000 toward the cost of a legal action against a party(s) responsible for a noise nuisance, where all reasonable alternatives have failed. To apply, fill out the attached application form and send it to RQS.

Does the RDCO have enough bylaw amendments about dogs or what?

Please be sure to check RDCO's website to see if there are any newer bylaws or amendments since these below.

Consolidated Dog Bylaw 366 Schedules.pdf

Consolidated Dog Bylaw 366.pdf - This would be the latest consolidated dog control bylaw.  There have been many amendments to bylaw #366.  Please check RDCO's dog control webpage to make sure the bylaw hasn't changed since this posting.  There is a link to the bylaw on RDCO's dog control webpage so it should tell you what the current bylaw is.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Animal Control Bylaw No. 880, 2000 - Repeals Bylaw No. 398

Animal Control Extended Service Establishment Bylaw No. 769, 1998

Animal and Bird Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 621, 1995 - Amends Bylaw No. 398

Animal and Bird Regulation Bylaw No. 398, 1998 - Amended By Bylaw No. 621, Repealed By Bylaw No. 880

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Dog Control Extended Service Establishment Amendment Bylaw No. 1017, 2003 - Amends Bylaw No. 425

Dog Control Extended Service Establishment Amendment Bylaw No. 733, 1997 - Amends Bylaw No. 425

Dog Control Extended Service Establishment Bylaw No. 425, 1990 - Amended By Bylaw Nos. 733 &1017

----------------------------------------------------

Dog Pound Temporary Borrowing Bylaw No. 367, 1988

Dog Pound Authorization Bylaw No. 359, 1988

------------------------------------------------------

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 1018, 2003 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 1024, 2003 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 922, 2001 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 837, 1999 - Amends Bylaw No, 366 - Amended by Bylaw No. 922

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 732, 1997 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 654, 1995 - Amends Bylaw No, 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 608, 1994 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 563, 1993 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 531, 1992 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 483, 1991 - Amends bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 444, 1990 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 391, 1989 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 386, 1989 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 366, 1988 - Repeals Bylaw No. 292, Amended By Bylaw Nos. 386/391/444/483/531/563/608/654/732/837/922/1018

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 346, 1987 - Repealed by Bylaw No. 366, Amends Bylaw No. 292

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 292, 1985 - Repeals 239, 242, 284 - Repealed by 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 284, 1985 - Repealed by Bylaw No. 292

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 242, 1982, Repealed by No. 292

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 239, 1982 - Repealed by Bylaw No. 292

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 224, 1981 - Repealed by No. 239

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 177, 1979 - Repealed by Bylaw No. 239

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 156, 1978 - Repealed by No. 239

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 153, 1978 - Repealed by No. 239

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 110, 1975 - Repealed by Bylaw No. 239

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 77, 1974 - Repealed by Bylaw 110

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 55, 1972

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Prohibited Animal Amendment Bylaw No. 1073, 2004

Prohibited Animal Bylaw No. 1028, 2003

Prohibited Animal Control Service Area Establishment Bylaw No. 1027, 2003

What will it cost to have your pet spayed or neutered through the
SPCA's discounted spay and neuter program in 2009?

The SNIF Program has proven to be so successful over the years, that it is quickly oversubscribed. In conversation with the Veterinarians in our community, they reinforce the importance of this program.

PROGRAM BUDGET:

SNIF Portion of Grant: $40,000.00
Education Portion: $ 3,000.00
Investigations Portion: $12,000.00
TOTAL: $55,000.00

Paid to Veterinarians to Subsidize Spays/Neuters: $40,000.00
Expenses for Education Program: $3,000.00
Portion of Special Constable Wages: $12,000.00
TOTAL: $55,000.00

In addition to the above, we also receive $12,000.00 annually from the District to cover the projected costs of taking in stray dogs on behalf of Dog Control, which we would like to include in the budget.

RDCO Governance & Services Committee Agenda March 19, 2009
2.1 SPCA - Annual Review.pdf

RDCO Governance and Service Committee Minutes March 19, 2009

Click for a larger copy.
Click link above 2.1 SPCA - Annual Review.pdf for entire contents

Determine Eligibility:
If your gross household income exceeds $35,000 per year and you have no dependants, you likely do not qualify for assistance, although you are welcome to apply.
To determine your eligibility, please fill out the following "Statement of Need"
Statement of Need:
Please state the yearly income of your household. Include income from employment, EI, Income Assistance, WBC, Old Age or Disability pensions, support payments, Child Tax Credit, and any other regular income.
Proof of income will be necessary to determine eligibility.
Number of dependants (include spouse and children): _______________
Why do you need SNIF assistance? (Reason for applying): ____________

Community Charter

[SBC 2003] CHAPTER 26

Part 8 — Bylaw Enforcement and Related Matters

Division 1 — Bylaw Enforcement


Enforcement powers

260 (1) A council may make bylaws for the purposes of enforcing the bylaws of the municipality.

(2) Subject to subsection (5), without limiting the available remedies, the authority of a municipality to deal with a contravention of a bylaw includes the following:

(a) prosecution of the offence in accordance with the Offence Act;

(b) proceeding under Division 3 [Ticketing for Bylaw Offences] of this Part;

(b.1) subject to the regulations under the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act, proceeding by bylaw notice under that Act;

(c) court action under Division 4 [Enforcement by Civil Proceedings] of this Part.

(3) If a bylaw establishes a regulation or requirement to be observed in a municipality, a person who contravenes the regulation or requirement commits an offence that is punishable in the same manner as if the bylaw had expressly forbidden persons from doing or refraining from doing the act.

(4) Section 12 (1) [authority to establish variations] does not apply in relation to bylaws imposing fines and other penalties under this Part.

(5) If a matter is prescribed for the purpose of section 4 (2) of the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act, a council that adopts or has adopted a bylaw in relation to the matter may only enforce the bylaw by bylaw notice under that Act.

RDCO's Consolidated Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 366 is enforced on both a complaint and proactive basis.

We are concerned about the following in regards to RDCO's dog bylaw #366

- dogs being tethered for extended periods on a chain or run. 
RDCO's original Dog Regulation and Impounding bylaw #366, 1988 contained tethering limitations.
Section 15. No owner shall tie, secure, or tether any dog for a period longer than 1 hour at anyone time and no more than 3 hours for each 24 hour period.
20. On receipt of a complaint on a dog running at large, a dog owner shall be required to erect a secure fence or pen as described in Schedule D of this by-law, within fourteen (14) days maximum. If the fence is not built within the fourteen (14j days, a charge may be laid pursuant to the provisions of this by-law.
RDCO's Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment bylaw #391, 1989 amended bylaw #366 as follows:
To amend Section 20 to read as follows:
"On receipt of a complaint of a dog running at large or a dog tied, secured or tethered for a period longer than three (3) hours for each twenty-four (24) hour period, a dog owner shall be required to erect a secure fence or pen as described in Schedule 'D' of this Bylaw, within fourteen (14) days. If the fence is not built within the fourteen (14) days, a charge may be laid pursuant to the provisions of this Bylaw."
RDCO's Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment bylaw #444 in 1990 amended the tether regulations
Section 15 to read as follows: 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 (10 ft.) radius.
RDCO's Consolidated Dog Regulation and Impounding bylaw #366, in 2010
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 (10 ft.)
Section 20. Upon notification, a dog owner shall be required to erect a secure fence or pen as described in Schedule "D" of this by-law within fourteen (14) days. If the fence is not built within the fourteen (14) days, a charge may be laid pursuant to the provisions of this by-law.
Since Bylaw #444, 1990 there has been no stipulated time limit for a dog to be tethered?  The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (BC SPCA) has launched a provincewide education campaign to raise awareness about the plight of chained, backyard dogs. The SPCA's website has some excellent educational material about chained backyard dogs, click the link called “Download our information sheet of tips on what to do and how to recognize neglect or abuse of these animals”.  Passive cruelty. Neglect. Ignorance. These are all terms that can be used to describe the act of leaving a dog on a rope or chain, or even in a yard alone and isolated, for long periods.  Source of this last statement is the SPCA's website, click the link to learn more.  In my subdivision its the dogs that are tethered or left in their back yards all day with nothing to do that are the ones barking all day.  The dogs are complaining about RDCO's dog bylaw which the bylaw officer must be very busy.  Its not just this cookie complaining, read some of the comments about dogs in Castanet.nets forum ... for instance this one by TunaChick.  The dog is carrying on because it wants in the house and its owner is ignoring it.
- dogs in pens and runs RDCO's Consolidated Dog Regulation and Impounding bylaw #366, in 2010 Schedule D states quote, "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.
Again there is no time limit stipulated of how long a dog can be stuck in a 3' x 5' space or in a dog run 4' x 12'.  Do you feel that a space 3' x 5' is large enough for a large dog, and for how long?
- backyard dogs as horribly described on the SPCA’s website, click on “ A day in life of a backyard dog” to read how lonely and sad some dogs lives can be.
- dogs barking before 9am and you can’t call anyone. Dogs bark sometimes as early as 6:00am and sometimes overnight too.  RDCO's Consolidated Dog Regulation and Impounding bylaw #366, in 2010 states quote, "Dogs are to be held within the kennel building between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m."
But what about dogs in subdivisions?  There is nothing in RDCO's dog bylaw #366 that says a dog should not be out barking at 6:00am.  You will have to go to small claims court for that.
- dogs barking after 5pm and you can’t call anyone. Dogs barked from approx. 6:30pm until 12:20am last night pretty steady and nobody to call.  Can't call the dog catcher and can't call the RCMP.  Sorry but you can't sleep tonight, maybe tomorrow night you can sleep.  Guess if your a pilot of a jet liner or your an air traffic controller, and your tired when you need to go to work, you should call in sick?  What if its every day?

- RCMP won’t attend to a noisy dog and said that dog control is the Regional District of Central Okanagan's dog control officers job and that I would have to wait until morning if the dog is barking all night.
- There is nothing in RDCO's Consolidated Dog Regulation and Impounding bylaw #366, in 2010 that stipulates times dog control may be open or contacted, just the pound.
RDCO's Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw #55, 1972
The pound shall be kept open to the public for the transaction of business from eight (8) o'clock a.m. to five (5) o'clock p.m., Monday through Saturday of each week (provided that this shall not apply on any legal holidays).

- NO impound fee?  RDCO's Consolidated Dog Regulation and Impounding bylaw #366, in 2010
Section 27. Where a dog observed to run at large by a Dog Control Officer is apprehended on private property, the Officer shall attempt to contact the occupant of the property. Where no person is at the building premises, the Dog Control Officer shall post a notice at the building premises advising that the described dog has been impounded for running at large. The notice shall include the 24-hour Dog Control telephone number and a description of the dog. Where the dog, other than a dangerous dog or aggressive dog lives at the property from which it was impounded, the owner may be served an appropriate violation ticket and the dog will be returned without an impound fee being charged. Where the impounded dog does not live on the premises from which it was impounded or is a dangerous dog or an aggressive dog the appropriate impound fee will be charged when the dog is retrieved from the pound.
- no instruction on RDCO's website of what is needed to make a dog complaint if court action is a possibility or not. ie: Does a person need to take a picture or video of the dog barking or see the dog bark, or is it good enough to just know what dog is barking from the direction the barking is coming from without actually seeing it bark?
- better communication between dog control and the person/s complaining. Dog control said when I first made a complaint that she needed pictures of the dog so I tried taking pictures but felt awkward and a bit scared and confused at the same time. I was desperate so I tried to take audio/video and still photos. I don't believe that people should have to go through that and dog control should be able to figure out what the time line is when the barking occurs and attend at that time, but dog control works hours that dogs don't bark as much.  I have found that dogs bark first thing in the morning sometimes as early as 6am and after people get home from work which is the opposite of what dog controls hours are.  One dog control officer told me she doesn't start work until 8am, so I suppose that means she may only work until 5pm?
- dog control officer hasn't given out any tickets yet.  The noisy dog owner usually only gets a warning the first offence.  Shouldn't the owner get a smaller ticket the first offence?  To charge nothing for RDCO's time is ludicrous.  People do know their dog should not bark for extended periods you would think, and RDCO should try to recover costs.  One Saturday day I listened to dog/s barking all afternoon sporadically 2-4 barks per minute for over 5 minutes and twice in 72 hours as RDCO’s bylaw stipulates is too much barking. Because there are two dogs living on back to back properties it is hard to tell which one is barking and so no fine for either one.  I think it was both dogs barking. How is a person suppose to tell every bark if the dog is not within sight distance and they sound alike sometimes depending on the direction they are facing.  Its more than likely that both dogs were barking and if the neighbour that lives back to back next to a barking dog doesn't or won't complain about his neighbours dog barking too much then that must mean their dog is also barking. I am talking about 1/2 acre properties that are back to back with lots of trees around.  Here is how RDCO handled complaints about this one dog we know of.
- why can't dog control go out at hours between 6am to 11pm to catch barking dogs? Dogs are barking here early in the morning sometimes as early as 6am and late at night and into the early morning, one time in particular from 6:38pm until 12:20am.  RDCO dog control officer told me she doesn’t start work until 8am. Why can’t she start work some days at 5am (so she can come out to check for barking at 6am) for even a day or a week or part week and then start at 5pm other days in order to vary hours? I am not saying longer hours just varied hours. How about work Saturday and Sundays with Mondays and Tues off one week, or one week work the weekend and then the next week work weekdays?  Or how about varying hours when needed?  Say if dogs are barking for over a year, then dog control could vary the hours for that dog in order to be of assistance.
- there should always be an answer from dog control during business hours, if not the same time the call is being made, at least within the same day.  I am upset that dog control would not return my calls when I left 5 messages 5 days in a row. I still have not received a call back from RDCO dog control supervisor.  After 5 days I gave up trying.
- when I called dog control I heard a message but I could not leave a message.

The message machine said not to leave a message or my complaint might be seriously delayed?  Who is delaying who here?  What happened with dog controls wireless technology?
- when I called RDCO dog control phone number I heard a message to call back during business hours and it was Friday afternoon at 1:35pm.  The message said do not leave a message about a dog complaint.  I wanted to leave a message for dog control to return my call but there was no answering machine.  Did you know the dog control officer starts work at about 8:00am but RDCO doesn't answer the phone until 9am?
- when I called RDCO main phone line the phone just kept ringing and nobody answered. I double checked what day it was and it was Friday Dec 3. 2010.  We were informed later that sometimes RDCO's phone doesn't work and to try again but by then it was Friday after hours.  On Saturday Dec 4, 2010 dog control showed up in my yard asking me again if I didn’t have a dog claiming they were here to talk about my dog complaint.  RDCO won't even return a phone call unless its weeks later and the dog control officer is finally working on your complaint about a barking dog that you complained about a week or so ago for instance.  If you make a complaint be aware that dog control may try to catch your unlicensed dog and that it is a $100 fine for having an unlicensed dog.  But then again this is most likely just a threat because as you can see here RDCO Dog Control doesn't give out fines.
- if the dog already has a tag with the owners phone number why does it need to be tagged again?  I believe problem dog owners need to pay for licensing and not responsible pet owners, but that all dogs need the owners contact information attached to them by way of a tattoo or tag.  If there is no tag or tattoo with contact information, only then should a fine be levied.  I am not so sure about tattooing a dog though either.  When my Moms dog received his tattoo he didn't look so good after, but he was neutered at the same time.  He was registered and his tattoo was fading so they redid his tattoo on his ear.  The first tattoo was on his stomach before Mom got him, and so the poor dog was tattoo'd twice and his testicles were removed at the ripe old age of 8 years old.  He is now going on 11.  The vet said he had a lump in his testicle and that is the only reason why he was neutered at age 8.  It was very hard on him at that age, the poor little guy.

These are his puppies before he was neutered
- why is there such a difference in licensing costs if you have a spayed or neutered dog or not?
- RDCO's Consolidated Dog Regulation and Impounding amendment bylaw #1265, in 2009 states
2. In Part II - Licensing of Dogs, delete Section 8 (a), (b), (e), and (h) in their entirety and replace with the following:
8. (a) For each spayed female or neutered male dog, where proof is
provided that the dog has been spayed or neutered $20.00
(b) For each unspayed female or unneutered male dog $60.00
- dog control needs an unmarked vehicle for my subdivision so that they can come and sit somewhere without being too noticeable and so they themselves can catch the culprits instead of having me walk in front of my neighbours house on the road with the barking dogs so I can actually see the dog barking and having my neighbour chase after me down the road when he sees me and scaring me to death wondering what he is going to do. Then me having to phone the police and get them involved (true story).  Now I am scared to go for a walk.  And before that my house was egged and I was scared to leave my house alone then too.  I actually hired someone to look after my house so I could go shopping. I suppose B.C. small claims court is available for dog disputes.
- RDCO claims you can remain anonymous? How can you remain anonymous when you have to walk your subdivision to catch and see the dog when its barking for more than 5 minutes twice in 72 hours or you have to go to court?  What if you don't want to go to court, does that mean you have to keep listening to the dog barking?
- RDCO denying delegation requests about the barking dog bylaw after several letters being sent back and forth.  RDCO's delegation policy pretty much states that the only time delegation requests are denied is if it were a second delegation request about the same subject with no new information.  I have never made a barking dog bylaw delegation request before this, so why was I denied?  This is the 8th subject I have been denied to be a delegate about at RDCO's Regional Board meetings.  Not once have I ever been permitted to be a delegate out of 8 delegation requests?  If you have been denied a delegation request, please contact us here.  Just wondering how many people are denied and for what?
- a dog can bark 4 minutes out of every 15 minutes several times in 24 hours and not receive a fine.  If there is more than one dog barking, that means you may have to listen to 8 minutes of barking out of a 15 minute period and not be able to do anything about it.  A fine will only be served if a dog has barked more than 5 minutes twice in a 72 hour period.
- there is no increase in fine for a second or subsequent noisy dog offence.  The fine for a noisey dog stays at $100 for the first offence and each subsequent offence.
- only a $25.00 fine for a first impound?  These fees have not been amended since March 1989 with RDCO's dog amendment bylaw #386, 1989. $25.00 doesn't even cover the cost of the gas, bylaw enforcements time to catch the dog, food, shelter, attendants time at the shelter, etc.  RDCO's Consolidated Dog Regulation and Impounding bylaw #366, in 2010 states quote, "For dogs other than dangerous dogs or aggressive dogs, an impounding fee of $25.00 for the first impoundment, $50.00 for the second impoundment, $150.00 for the third impoundment and increasing $100.00 more for each subsequent impoundment plus applicable license fees and an additional $50.00 fee if the dog is not currently licensed."  We think it should be more like $100 for the first impound offence.  Why are residents subsidizing neglectful dog owners through taxes, shouldn't the dog owners be paying in full what it cost to impound their dog?
- there is nothing in RDCO's dog bylaw #366 where RDCO can order a dog removed from its owners neglect and be adopted out. If an RDCO dog control officer would like to remove a dog from its owner for neglect, RDCO's dog bylaw does not give dog control officers the authority to remove a dog that is neglected.  RDCO bylaw #366 only gives authority to impound a dog at large or a dog that is aggressive or dangerous that I can see.
- no fine for dogs riding in the open box of a pickup truck without being properly secured.  The SPCA has a campaign against dogs riding in the back of an open vehicle unless PROPERLY secured.
- no fine for owners who take their dog for a walk or run using their vehicle.  It is easy enough to run over your own dog.  I know someone who did run over their own dog by letting their dog run beside their vehicle and the poor dogs eye popped out. I was the one who ran to her and popped her eye back into its socket by cupping my hand and pushing it back in.  We rushed Tia to the vet where she had her eye removed.  Here are a couple of pictures of poor Tia missing her eye.  I am crying writing this and posting her photos because I loved her so much. I was her care giver while she healed after her owner ran her over with a load of wood in the back of his truck.  The vet said she didn't know if Tia was going to be blind but luckily Tia's sight returned in her one remaining eye the poor girl.  I was so happy when I saw she tried to bite a fly not long after she came home from her operation that cost $900.  I knew then that Tia wouldn't be blind.  Not long after Tia was home her tooth broke off .. guess it must have been from being run over.  The vet said that I didn't want to know what it cost to have a tooth pulled on a young dog.  Apparently teeth are not easy to pull.  Photos of Tia missing her eye.  Tia is a brindle pitbull.  Tia had tire marks across her chest and the truck must have run over her head a bit too.  She was young and flexible otherwise things may have been worse.  Luckily she didn't get any broken bones on top of it all.  Amazing she survived at all.

Click photos for larger image.

Dog Seatbelts

- Education is a nice word but it would be totally naïve to think that it works for everybody.

RDCO's Consolidated Dog Regulation and Impounding bylaw #366, in 2010 Please refer to RDCO's dog control webpage to see if there are any amendments to RDCO's dog bylaw #366 or any newer dog bylaw as this information was posted here Dec 25, 2010 and may not be current anymore when you read this.

The Regional Dog Advisory Committee is appointed by the Regional Board to advise it on dog related matters. City of Kelowna Director Charlie Hodge has been appointed by the Board as the committee Chair. Terms of Reference.

Contact Regional District of Central Okanagan - Contact RDCO Directors and Chair

RDCO's delegation policy

If you want to contact this person who had these problems and whom made up this list of concerns, please click here and fill out our feedback form.  You will receive a reply, we promise.

If you have anything to add to this list please use the same form and we will add your concern here on this webpage.

21.2 No person being the owner or occupant of any private premises shall permit, allow or suffer the noise of barking, yelping or howling sounds from a dog(s) to be caused or made at the private premises owned or occupied by that person, in a manner that can easily be heard or otherwise perceived by an individual who is not at the same private premises.

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.

Person shall mean and include any individual, household, corporation, partnership or party and the heirs, executors, administrators or other legal representatives of the same, to whom the context can apply according to law.

REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL OKANAGAN ANIMAL CONTROL BYLAW NO. 880, 2000

Being a Bylaw to Control Animals

Pet means a domesticated animal kept for pleasure as opposed to being kept for a utilitarian purpose.

2.4 Subject to the requirements of the Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control Bylaw, pets may be kept in a reasonable number on all parcels in the Regional District of Central Okanagan provided that they are kept primarily within the household to which they are associated and their keeping does not create a nuisance to persons on adjacent parcels.

2.5 Dog Kennels shall conform to the regulations of the Zoning Bylaw, the Joe Rich Rural Land Use Bylaw and the Dog Control Bylaw. Please refer to the Dog Control Bylaw for regulations regarding dogs.

Look up your municipality in the SPCA's 2008 review of B.C. animal bylaws to see what they have in place or are lacking.

Source SPCA website

The SPCA is asking people to recommend their model animal control bylaw to Regional Districts and Municipalities who's dog bylaws are lacking.

Below are tidbits of the SPCA's model animal control bylaw

* The Five Freedoms is a concept first developed in 1965 by The Brambell Committee, formed by the UK government to examine the conditions on commercial farms. Now internationally recognized, the Five Freedoms are considered applicable to all animals. The BC SPCA’s Five Freedoms (adapted from the original list) are:

1. Freedom from hunger and thirst;
2. Freedom from pain, injury and disease;
3. Freedom from distress;
4. Freedom from discomfort;
5. Freedom to express behaviours that promote well-being.

The BC SPCA’s Five Freedoms form the basis of the Society’s Charter and describe conditions that must be fulfilled in order to prevent the suffering of all animals in human care.

------------------------------------

4. Responsibilities of Owners -- Animal Control 1, 4, 6

(4) An owner shall ensure his or her animal does not vocalize excessively or in any manner which might reasonably disturb any person.

------------------------------------

5. Responsibilities of Owner -- Animal Care 2, 5, 6, 7

(1) An owner shall ensure his or her animal is provided with:

(c) the opportunity for regular exercise sufficient to maintain good health, including daily opportunities to be free of a confined area and exercised regularly under appropriate control; and

(2) An owner shall not keep an animal which normally resides outdoors, or which is kept outdoors for extended periods
of time, unless such animal is provided with an outdoor shelter:

(a) which has a total area that is at least twice the length of the animal in all directions and that also allows the animal to turn around freely and adopt normal resting postures;

(b) which ensures protection from heat, cold and dampness that is appropriate to the weight and type of protective
outer coat of such animal.

(4) No person may cause an animal to be hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object for longer than 6 hours within a 24 hour period.

(6) No person may transport an animal in a vehicle outside the passenger compartment or in an uncovered passenger compartment unless it is adequately confined or unless it is secured in a body harness or other manner of fastening which is adequate to prevent it from falling off the vehicle or otherwise injuring itself.

I am in desperate need of some help. I am hoping by exposing the truth about the dog barking bylaw that people will be outraged, because I sure am.  Let me explain.

I have to sit here and listen to my neighbours dog bark through my homes walls all day long and as early as 6 am.  Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control won't do anything about it.

I first tried talking to my neighbours before calling dog control about this dog but the owner of the dog told me that we live in the country (we live in a rural area subdivision of 147 - 1/2 acre lots) and that the dog can bark whenever it wants. Just after this my house was egged with 6 eggs. After my house was egged I called dog control. This was in Feb 2010 and the dog is still barking.

Sept 1 2010 the neighbours dog started barking at 6 am. Apparently the noise bylaw does not pertain to dogs and that only the dog bylaw pertains to dogs.  Where the noise bylaw talks about animals, apparently the noise bylaw only pertains to other animals and not dogs and the dog bylaw has to be used.

Did you know a dog has to bark for at least 5 minutes in a 15 minute period and twice in 72 hours for dog control to do anything about it. The dog I want to complain about usually only barks every few minutes or so for under 5 minutes. The dog barks at most noises including me when I am working in my own yard.  It barks at every car that drives by and every person that walks by on the road. But it doesn't usually bark for 5 minutes in a row or 5 minutes in a 15 minutes period. Most of my neighbours have one or two dogs, so after listening to the one dog I still have to listen to all the others.

And did you know that more than one person has to complain about a barking dog? I guess that is if the dog doesn't bark for 5 minutes in a row twice in 72 hours.  A sole complaint from one household is not enough. The Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog control supervisor Rhoda Mueller asked me to find another neighbour to help me make a complaint so that my neighbours can find out who is doing the complaining and I can be egged some more! On the Regional Districts website it says that complainers can remain anonymous, but how can you remain anonymous trying to recruit neighbours? Unbelievable.

Here is a link I found about how barking dog bylaws don't work and it describes my predicament in a nutshell. http://www.barkingdogs.net/lawneighdogindex.shtml

Please let me know if you don't think this dog is barking too much.

Here is a .wma audio file of the barking dog I want to complain about.  (57.2 MB - 1 hour and 22 minutes of audio of the dog barking) and here is the way the barking went on the tape.

12:32 - one bark
12:40 - one bark
13:09 - two barks
13:29 - one bark
13:34 - two barks
-----------------------------
20:28 - one bark
20:34 - one bark
------------------------------
15 minute span barked for over 5 minutes but barely.
30:06 - 32:20
39:00 - one bark
39:16 - one bark
39:26 - one bark
40:01 - 43:57
---------------------
48:30 - 48:48
51:17 - one bark
55:42 - 56:14
56:41 - 57:07
57:21 - 58:09
---------------

Also, if you think that the Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control Bylaw #366 posted here on the Regional District's website does not address barking dogs adequately enough, could you please phone the Regional District of Central Okanagan front desk at 250-763-4918 and ask for Bylaw Enforcement Supervisor Rhoda Mueller or email Rhoda.Mueller "at" cord.bc.ca and let her know what you think. It may be easier to email because they never answer and you have to leave a message on their answering machine. My Regional District has forbidden me from emailing them anymore because they know I only have a cell phone and I ask too many questions. I feel my Regional District only frustrates people and I am not the only one to notice.

I did try playing music all day long for 5 daytime days straight, but Rhoda Mueller bylaw enforcement supervisor showed up and was going to warn me about my music. Luckily I turned the music off the day before she showed up. That is how long it took for bylaw enforcement to show up.  I asked Rhoda Mueller how many complaints she had received about my music and she told me only 1 person made a complaint..... but I have to find a neighbour to help me complain about the barking dog that is still barking??

If you have ever had to put up with a ridiculous Dog Control bylaw before, please let everyone know how you feel by filling out the form below, and maybe the Dog Control Bylaw can be changed and be more suitable.

There are 40 homes in my subdivision, and most of these homes have a dog or two.  I could technically be listening to dogs barking every minute.

http://www.regionaldistrict.com/departments/inspections/inspections_dc_complaints.aspx

Item 6.1 Update - Cat Bylaws.pdf (28 pages mostly about CritterAid, SPCA, and others)

*This is only a snippett*

BYLAW ENFORCMENT STAFF RATIONALE: (from page 3)
With consideration to current budget limitations within the RDCO Dog Control Function, a cat bylaw is not timely or necessary. Revenues from dog licensing, impounds and ticketing only contribute approximately 35% to the annual dog control budget.

Costs to carry out a cat bylaw and cat license program including staff resources, equipment, administration & technical requirements, shelter requirements and addressing cat health concerns, will be significant and substantial. For example, the current Dog Pound facility does not have space available to house other animals or cats.

If the Regional Board requests staff to move forward, further investigation of precise costs will be required and a consultant would be commissioned.

Cats are not perceived to be a problem in our RDCO Electoral Areas which are primarily rural areas. The Municipalities experiencing nuisance cat problems may wish to investigate service alternatives and options on their own behalf. Cats are elusive in their behaviour and character and are difficult to capture except by trapping, making it difficult to prove ownership.

Reclaiming by owners is anticipated to be extremely low, as indicated by the SPCA, resulting in dramatic fees to care for and sterilize cats waiting to be adopted to new homes.

Government protects people from animals. Animal welfare protects animals from people.

Education efforts and work by our Central Okanagan cat and animal welfare agencies are proving successful in cat overpopulations, feral cats and cat colonies. Continued or enhanced funding towards a united education effort by all
the cat/animal welfare agencies will help strengthen their continued success.

The RDCO provides $55,000 annually to the SPCA towards their spay and neuter and education programs through a Memorandum of Understanding which expires on December 31, 2011. An additional $12,000 each year, is meant to offset the dogs that are diverted to SPCA but is not linked to any specific statistic. This funding is carried in the Dog Control budget.

A cat bylaw that targets licensing, at large and spay/neuter issues will not effectively deal with nuisance complaints from neighbours. Cat attacks do not have the same potential harm as dog attacks.

Animal welfare agencies have long supported a cat bylaw, particularly for spay & neuter requirements. A bylaw that targets spay & neuter can effectively protect cats from harm through overpopulation and abandonment.

The internet carries numerous suggestions on how people can deal with nuisance cats.
Examples of these suggestions are motion sensor sprinklers & ultrasonic devices, orange peels, cayenne pepper, cat repellent and communicating with neighbours.

A castanet poll on March 6, 2010 asked whether cats should be licensed just the same as dogs are. The results of 2412 votes were Yes: 1314 and No: 1098.

A citizen letter was received in March 2010 speaking against a cat bylaw in the City of Kelowna. The writer suggested that a cat bylaw would cause undue stress for cat owners and that it would lead to too many cats being euthanized.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a snippet that was interesting from page 5 about the legal opinion RDCO received about a Cat Bylaw.

(From page 5)

Authority to Regional Districts to regulate licensing and keeping of cats:
A legal opinion on whether a Regional District's authority to regulate animals includes cats was obtained in June, 2010. The opinion concluded that Regional District authority from the Local Government Act (LGA) does not include authority to regulate cats because the definition of "other animals" in the LGA does not include any animal that the Board did not have authority to regulate under Section 703 of the LGA as it existed immediately before the enactment of the Community Charter.
This interpretation is also strengthened by the fact that the Capital Regional District (CRD) has been given specific animal control authority in relation to domestic cats by BC Regulation 245/2009.

If the Regional District of Central Okanagan wishes to regulate cats, a request to the Province for the granting of that additional power by way of Regulation is required.

For historical reference, in 1990, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) endorsed a resolution to license cats using a microchip implant. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture acknowledged the surplus cat population as a growing problem in BC but were concerned with the viability of the proposal and concluded that the SPCA programs would address the UBCM's concerns. In 1997, another resolution was put forward to the UBCM regarding cat licensing. A petition was forwarded to the Ministry for changes to the Municipal Act to allow municipalities to require licensing of cats. This resolution was not endorsed.

RDCO Animal & Dog Bylaw Regulations:
The Regional District of Central Okanagan Animal Control Bylaw No. 880 applies only to the RDCO Electoral Areas and does not include cats. Animals, such as small and large livestock, are not permitted to run at large and owners are subject to a $50 fine but there are no RDCO resources or equipment designated to impound them or house them.

The Mandate of the RDCO Dog Control Function is to increase the safety and protection of the public from the negative impacts caused by dogs.

Other Municipal Cat Bylaws:
Staff conducted a review of Cat Bylaws in BC as shown on the attached chart. Because the authority to regulate cats is granted by the LGA, the review for this report was limited to BC except for the City of Calgary whose successful animal program has captured recent notice.

Summary of BC Municipal Cat Bylaws:
- 20 Municipalities with cat regulations were investigated. Of those:
- 11 require identification.
- 4 require sterilization.
- 10 limit the number of cats per parcel.
- 4 out of 10 that prohibit cats from running at large do not have tickets associated with the charge, or there are no designated resources to enforce the cat bylaws at this time.
- Fines for cats that run at large range from $50-100.
- One offers a $15 rebate for proof of sterilization.
- Impound fees range from $6 to $250 for an unsterilized cat.
- The most recent amendments are regulations that require sterilization.

Facilities to house cats in a shelter require several rooms such as an intake area, examination, adoption, isolation, nursery and communal area.

Almost all impounded cats receive vaccinations when they arrive at shelters and all cats are sterilized before they are adopted to new owners. Most Shelters report low reclaim rates ranging from 1% to 11 %, and continuous efforts are put into adopting all impounded cats to new homes rather than euthanize them. Traps are used for feral or stray cats and cat colonies, not for nuisance neighbour cats.

(from page 7)

The SPCA supports a bylaw that would improve the welfare of cats.

In 2009, 1400 cats were received at the Kelowna SPCA. 68 were reunited with owners, 890 were adopted out and 389 were euthanized (53 other). The low number of owners claiming their cats are due to avoidance of boarding fees, vaccinations and deworming.

Four-five years ago, there were up to an additional 1000 cats arriving at the Kelowna shelter and the SPCA believes the drop in numbers is attributable to spay & neuter programs.

Regional District of Central Okanagan Noise Control Bylaw

Regional District of Central Okanagan Noise Bylaw states that noise is only permitted between the hours of 7am - 10pm.  Some people believe its 7am - 11pm and not 10pm.  The noise bylaw does not apply to dogs because RDCO has a dog bylaw that contains a noise section.

*This is only snippetts, please click links at bottom for entire contents*

From page 1 Consolidated Noise Control Bylaw No. 403, 1989

Being a by-law to regulate and prohibit the making or causing of noises and sounds within the Regional District of Central Okanagan

WHEREAS by Section 932 (c) of the Municipal Act and Supplementary Letters Patent, the Regional Board, may by by-law, regulate or prohibit the making or causing of noises or sounds in or on a highway or elsewhere in the Regional District which disturb or tend to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort, or convenience of the neighbourhood, or of any persons in the vicinity, or which in the opinion of the Regional Board are objectionable or liable to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort, or convenience of individuals or the public, and may make different regulations or prohibitions for different areas of the Regional District;

AND WHEREAS it is the opinion of the Regional Board that regulations and prohibitions must be instituted to control objectionable sounds or sounds liable to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of individuals or the public;.

-----

from page 2 Consolidated Noise Control Bylaw No. 403, 1989

II GENERAL REGULATIONS
1. No person shall make or cause, or permit to be made or caused, any noise in or on a highway or elsewhere in the Regional District which disturbs the peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort, or convenience of the neighbourhood, or of persons in the vicinity.

3. No person shall play or operate any radio, stereophonic equipment or other instrument or any apparatus for the production or amplification of sound either in or on private premises or in any public place in such a manner as to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort, or convenience of the neighbourhood, or of persons in the vicinity.

4. No persons shall own, keep or harbour any animal or bird which by its cries unduly disturbs the peace, quiet, rest, tranquillity of the surrounding neighbourhood or the public at large.

5. No person in the Regional District shall on any day before 0700 hours or after 2200 hours (7am - 10pm) construct, erect, reconstruct, alter, repair or demolish any building, structure or thing or excavate or fill in land in any manner whatsoever which makes, causes noises or sounds in or on a highway or elsewhere in the Regional District which disturb, or tend to disturb, the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of the neighbourhood, or of persons in the vicinity.

----------------

from page 3 Consolidated Noise Control Bylaw No. 403, 1989

IV PENALTIES
1. Every person who violates any of the provisions of this by-law or who suffers or permits any act or thing to be done in contravention or in violation of any of the provisions of this by-law who neglects to do or refrains from doing anything required to be done by any of the provisions of this by-law, or who does any act which violates any offence against this by-law is guilty of an offence against this by-law and liable to the penalties hereby imposed. Each day that the violation continues to exist shall constitute a separate offence.

2. Every person who commits an offence against this by-law is liable to a fine and penalty of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) and not less than Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for each offence, and in default of payment thereof, forthwith or within such time as the presiding Provincial Court Judge or Justice of the Peace shall direct, the fine imposed shall be recoverable under the provisions of the "Offence Act", Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1979, Chapter 305 and all amendments thereto.

------------------------

RDCO Noise Control Amendment Bylaw No. 1071, 2004 - Amends Bylaw No. 403

RDCO Noise Control Amendment Bylaw No. 968, 2002 - Amends Bylaw No. 403

RDCO Noise Control Bylaw No. 403, 1989 - Amended by Bylaw No. 968, Repeals Bylaw No. 219

The latest addition to the Regional Dog Control fleet provides added mobility for patrols of waterfront and other park areas.

Dog Control officers are now using a newly equipped and brightly painted green Gator vehicle as another tool to assist with enforcement duties along more than 60 kilometers of roads linking lakeshore parks and linear corridors within the City of Kelowna.

Chief Bylaw Enforcement Officer Rhoda Mueller says the department purchased the Gator from Parks Services.

"Our innovative mechanic shop staff have revamped it, equipping it with storage and even a mobile kennel area in case we have to transport dogs picked up while on patrol. The Gator gives us increased flexibility to ensure people using parks are able to enjoy their experience, especially along the popular waterfront corridor. By being more visible more often in such high-use, off road locations, we’ll have a greater opportunity to raise public awareness and education about responsible dog ownership,” says Mueller.

During the summer months, Dog Control officers also conduct patrols in park areas and trails using bicycles in addition to the traditional truck vehicle fleet.

Regular enforcement of the Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 366 resumed in late June throughout the region and member municipalities after an appeal was filed in connection with a June 10th Supreme Court ruling related to Section 17.5 of the bylaw.

"This section requires dog owners to control their dog to ensure that it doesn’t without provocation, aggressively pursue, inflict minor injury, harass, chase or approach a person on public or private property in an attitude of attack."

Pending a decision on the case from the BC Court of Appeal, in order to ensure continued public protection and safety, Dog Control Officers will continue to enforce all other applicable sections of the bylaw throughout municipalities in the region.

In the event of a serious dog attack, offending animals can be seized under the authority of the Community Charter.

Residents should also be aware that any dog-related tickets issued for violations within the Regional Park system are made either under the Regional Parks Regulation Bylaw No. 1105 or Bylaw 366.

The Regional Parks bylaw requires dogs to be on leash and on designated trails only within designated Regional Parks.

The latest addition to the Regional Dog Control fleet provides added mobility for patrols of waterfront and other park areas.

Dog Control officers are now using a newly equipped and brightly painted green Gator vehicle as another tool to assist with enforcement duties along more than 60 kilometers of roads linking lakeshore parks and linear corridors within the City of Kelowna. Chief Bylaw Enforcement Officer Rhoda Mueller says, “Our department purchased the Gator from Parks Services and our innovative mechanic shop staff have revamped it, equipping it with storage and even a mobile kennel area in case we have to transport dogs picked up while on patrol. The Gator gives us increased flexibility to ensure people using parks are able to enjoy their experience, especially along the popular waterfront corridor. By being more visible more often in such high-use, off road locations, we’ll have a greater opportunity to raise public awareness and education about responsible dog ownership.”

During the summer months, Dog Control officers also conduct patrols in park areas and trails using bicycles in addition to the traditional truck vehicle fleet.

Regular enforcement of the Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 366 resumed in late June throughout the region and member municipalities after an appeal was filed in connection with a June 10th Supreme Court ruling related to Section 17.5 of the bylaw. This section requires dog owners to control their dog to ensure that it doesn’t without provocation, aggressively pursue, inflict minor injury, harass, chase or approach a person on public or private property in an attitude of attack. The Regional District believes the Statutory Authority to enter in Service Agreements with member municipalities for the delivery of bylaw enforcement services does include Bylaw No. 366, which has applicability throughout the Regional District of Central Okanagan and City of Kelowna, along with other member municipalities. The District believes the authority for these working relationships between local governments comes from the Local Government Act and is available and applicable to all local governments in British Columbia.

Pending a decision on the case from the BC Court of Appeal, in order to ensure continued public protection and safety, Dog Control Officers will continue to enforce all other applicable sections of the bylaw throughout municipalities in the region. In the event of a serious dog attack, offending animals can be seized under the authority of the Community Charter.

Residents should also be aware that any dog-related tickets issued for violations within the Regional Park system are made either under the Regional Parks Regulation Bylaw No. 1105 or Bylaw 366. The Regional Parks bylaw requires dogs to be on leash and on designated trails only within designated Regional Parks.

For more information about the Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control program, follow this link.

(August 17, 2010)

Source - RDCO "Whats New"

The Regional District of Central Okanagan will appeal a Supreme Court ruling related to its Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 366.

In a judgment handed down on June 10th, the Honourable Mr. Justice Dley ruled in favour of the appellant Andy Visinski who challenged the validity of the Regional District bylaw and its authority to provide Dog Control enforcement within the City of Kelowna.

The Regional District believes the Statutory Authority to enter in Service Agreements with member municipalities for the delivery of bylaw enforcement services does include Bylaw No. 366, which has applicability throughout the Regional District of Central Okanagan and City of Kelowna, along with other member municipalities. The District believes the authority for these working relationships between local governments comes from the Local Government Act and is available and applicable to all local governments in British Columbia.

The Regional District will approach the Union of B.C. Municipalities for funding assistance for the appeal process as the ruling could affect the working relationship of other regional district’s and their member municipalities. Regional District Legal Counsel is clarifying whether the ruling invalidates the entire bylaw or only applicable identified sections as well as determining the appropriate course of legal procedures to ensure continued public protection and safety and restore full regular region-wide enforcement and ticketing until the higher court clarification is determined.

In the interim, Regional District Dog Control Officers are continuing to issue warning tickets for bylaw violations within the member municipalities of the City of Kelowna and District’s of Lake Country, Peachland and West Kelowna. These tickets could be considered for regular violation tickets within six months. Officers are still taking and responding to complaints, conducting investigations, interviewing witnesses and impounding dogs. In the event of any severe attack the Regional District will continue to seize offending dogs under authority of the Community Charter.

(June 18, 2010)

Source - RDCO What's New

Owners of unruly dogs in the Central Okanagan will only be given warning tickets as the regional district appeals a court decision which ruled the regional district’s dog bylaw was invalid in the City of Kelowna.

Those warning tickets could turn into regular violation tickets in six months, the regional district warns.

The changes follow a Supreme Court decision made June 10 which found that the regional district’s dog bylaw didn’t apply in Kelowna, and that the City of Kelowna effectively had an enforcement body in the form of the regional district’s bylaw staff, but no bylaw to enforce.

“The regional district believes the statutory authority to enter in service agreements with member municipalities for the delivery of bylaw enforcement services does include Bylaw No. 366, which has applicability throughout the Regional District of Central Okanagan and City of Kelowna, along with other member municipalities,” said CORD spokesman Bruce Smith in a news release.

“The district believes the authority for these working relationships between local governments comes from the Local Government Act and is available and applicable to all local governments in British Columbia.”

The regional district will approach the Union of B.C. Municipalities for funding assistance for the appeal process as the ruling could affect the working relationship of other regional districts and their member municipalities.

Smith added that regional district’s lawyer is clarifying whether the ruling invalidates the entire bylaw or only identified sections.

They are also seeking to determine the appropriate course of legal procedures to ensure continued public protection and safety and restore full regular region-wide enforcement and ticketing until the appeal is dealt with.

In the interim, regional district dog control officers are continuing to issue warning tickets for bylaw violations within the member municipalities of the City of Kelowna and Districts of Lake Country, Peachland and West Kelowna.

These tickets could be considered for regular violation tickets within six months, Smith noted.

He added that officers are still taking and responding to complaints, conducting investigations, interviewing witnesses and impounding dogs.

cweirda "at" kelownacapnews.com

-------------------------------------------------------

Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog control extended service bylaw #1017

---------------------------------------------

Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control Bylaw #366, 1988 says nothing about Letters Patent or anything like that and our guess is that the Regional District of Central Okanagan was issued a letters patent for it to have a dog control function but not the City of Kelowna but who really knows... might be able to find more about this in RDCO's letters patents.  We looked in the provincial court database and didn't find anything.  It says in amending Bylaw 391, 1989 that bylaw 391 was approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and Recreation and Culture (Approval No. 900301) under the provisions of Section 203 Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act so maybe its the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act you would need to look at.

7. Development Services

7.1 Dog Control Service Update

As requested by the Regional Board, R. Mueller, Bylaw Enforcement Officer, presented an overview of the dog control service including:

• Location of the Dog Pound.
• Staffing requirements including full-time, relief and summer students.
• How the service is provided to all areas of the Regional District including Westbank First Nation.
• The role of staff in the service including an example of a recent court trial.
• Education and training requirements.
• Review of expenditures related to the function.
• Going forward staff will continue to investigate an online renewal licensing program, efforts to increase compliance in dog licensing, continue to review how other jurisdictions manage their dog control function, and continue a review of staff shifts for efficiencies.

Discussion:
Is there a way to recover costs for court cases, impounded dogs over long periods of time? Civil court proceedings would likely be required and it is believed that may not be particularly successful.

Nuisance complaints are always investigated. If a violation occurs, tickets may be issued but officers work to inform first.

Fees have been increased in 2010 for licensing and containment but the resulting increases are not yet known.

Bylaw adjudication is not functional with dog control ticketing. Bylaw infractions are sometimes long and are not meant for quick bylaw adjudication. Court cases are long, sometimes drawn out procedures.

By taking over the barking complaints within the City of Kelowna, will there be a fiscal change required? Staff will continue to review.

Could a municipality lower the level of service within their jurisdiction, would that lower their costs? Likely not, as staff still need to be 'on call'. The RDCO does not 'bill' for the number of complaints in a municipality.

It was noted that Calgary's dog control program supposedly has a very high rate of licensing and return of animals. Staff briefly reviewed how Calgary's program works.

The question was raised regarding the bylaw adjudication system. Staff noted they previously noted to the Board that the system would not be suitable for the Regional District as the only ticketing the Regional District is responsible for is dog control. It was confirmed that staff will be meeting with the municipal staff and will report back to the Committee regarding the bylaw adjudication system.

BAKER/SHEPHERD
THAT the Dog Control Service presentation be received;

AND THAT a follow-up report on the bylaw adjudication program be completed by staff and reported to the Governance and Services Committee;

AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to follow-up on Calgary's dog control model.

CARRIED

Jim Clapp
Wills & Estates
Lawyers

http://www.dogchannel.com/dog-news/2007_03/2007_03-17news001.aspx

046 - Dog Control
- The increase in funding for the service was reviewed.

ACTION: Staff to report back in March on the revenue increase with a detailed analysis on what partners receive for the level of service. It was noted that a review of the Dog Control Service was completed in 2009 and the Board decided to maintain the current level of service.

From time to time, your little friend will exercise its vocal chords by barking. A helpful way to manage this is through commands which encourage when to bark versus when not to. For example, command your small dog to "Speak" and once your special friend begins to bark show praise. Conversely, if your small dog barks unprompted, simply ignore the action. Be firm, since any acknowledgement will be considered "attention received" and the meaning of the speak command will be lost.

Source: Cesar

4.3 Dog Control Service Review and Recommendations from the Dog Advisory Committee

In follow-up to a service review of dog control, staff were asked to have the Dog Advisory Committee review the recommendations for fee increases and provide their feedback. As a result, the Committee has recommended various increases to fees and fines as presented in the amendments of the dog control bylaw.

An educational program will be developed to encourage individuals to get their dogs licensed focusing particularly on individuals who do not license their dogs which is believed to be two-thirds of dog owners. Revenues will increase due to the rise in fees and increase in dog licensing. Discussion ensued regarding the need for increase in fees noting the last fee increase was in 1994. It was noted the cost of service has increased over this period and licensing needs to help cover the costs.

a) Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 1265, 2009, 1st , 2nd and 3rd
readings and Adoption (All Directors - Unweighted Vote)

#283/09
HODGE/EDSON
THAT Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 1265, 2009 be given first, second and third readings, and adopted this 14th day of December 2009.

CARRIED (Shepherd/Rule opposed)

The Regional Board has adopted amendments to the bylaws affecting dog license fees and fines for violating the Dog Control Bylaw. Starting January 1st the cost of a license for a dog that’s been spayed or neutered will be $20, up from $16. Licenses for dogs that haven’t been spayed or neutered will cost $60, a ten dollar increase. Most common fines levied for dog bylaw violations will be $100, up from the present $75. This marks the first time in more than 10 years that license fees have been adjusted and 20 years since most of the common fines have been adjusted.

Source: Highlights of the Regional Board Meeting - Dec 14, 2009

For the first time in more than a decade, the Regional Board has approved higher fees affecting dog owners.

Starting in January, a license for a dog that’s been spayed or neutered will cost $20, up from $16 in 2009. Those dog owners with a pet that hasn’t been spayed or neutered will pay $60 for a license compared with the 2009 license fee of $50.

Also as of January 1st most fines will increase for violations of the Dog Control Bylaw. The fines for the most commonly ticketed offenses will increase from $75 to $100 and marks the first increase in these rates since the late 1980’s.

Communications Coordinator Bruce Smith says, “As a result of a review of the dog control service, the Regional Board directed staff to look at options to increase revenues and get more dogs licensed. It’s been over ten years since the last license fee increase and almost 20 years since the majority of our common fines went up. Meanwhile, the costs associated with providing the service across the Central Okanagan have continued to grow. Staff and the Regional Dog Advisory Committee believe the new 2010 dog licensing and ticket rates will encourage responsible dog ownership and licensing, bring the Regional District in line with other similar sized jurisdictions and will contribute more towards the cost of providing the service.”

The benefits of a dog license are very clear. Smith says, “Having a dog tag on your pet’s collar makes it very easy for our dog control officers and pound staff to re-unite stray pets with their owners. No one expects that their pet will get loose, but if it does, a dog license number will expedite getting the family pet back home. And purchasing a dog license could also save you money. Two-thirds of the dogs we see at the pound every year don’t have a license, so their owners will have to pay an additional $100 fee, on top of the regular impound and licensing fees, before their pet is released.”

Dog owners that don’t renew a license before February 28th will be subject to a higher late fee. Those renewing after the end of February will be subject to a $20 late charge rather than the five-dollar fee that’s been charged in the past.

Renewal notices reflecting the new 2010 dog license fees will be mailed in mid-January to the more than 10,000 registered dog owners reminding them that licenses must be purchased by February 28th. Licenses renewed after that will be subject to the $20 late fee.

Also during 2010, the Regional District plans to raise public awareness about responsible dog ownership by encouraging the owners of previously unlicensed dogs to purchase a dog tag for their pet. Smith says, “Buying a license costs much less than the additional fees charged when retrieving an unlicensed dog from the pound. We have almost two dozen convenient locations across the Central Okanagan for people to purchase their dog license and we will continue to find ways to make it easier for dog owners to purchase or renew their pet’s license.”

A list of license agents is printed on the license renewal notice but is also available in the Dog Control section of the Regional District website. That’s where you’ll also find other information about the Dog Control service, bylaw and licensing details and what to do if you lose or find a dog.

Dog owners are reminded that the Dog Control Bylaw only requires the Regional District to hold a dog at the pound for up to 72 hours. Smith says, “That’s why we encourage the owners of dogs that unfortunately do get away to contact our Dog Control staff as quickly as possible so that we can facilitate a happy reunion.”

(December 15, 2009)

Source:  Regional District of Central Okanagan - Whats New

4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

4.1 Memorandum of Understanding - SPCA (All Directors - Unweighted Vote)

Continued funding for the Kelowna Branch of the SPCA in the amount of $55,000 was approved in the 2009 budget. As agreed in 2006, a three year Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the two parties and now requires the parties to resign.

BAKER/SHEPHERD
THAT the Regional Board approves the Memorandum of Understanding with the SPCA (Kelowna Branch) for a three year period (2009-2011).

CARRIED

Inspection/Bylaw

4.4 Update report on Bylaw Dispute Adjudication Program

Staff report dated October 22nd highlighted that a bylaw adjudication program is intended for enforcement of minor bylaw matters, particularly traffic and parking.

The Regional District does not have a traffic bylaw and does not govern roadways within its boundaries. Bylaw matters in relation to Dog Control can be submitted to an outside collection agency and the Regional District participates in the provincial court system for disputed tickets (there are no costs to the Regional District associated with this system). Estimated costs through a screening process and adjudication hearing based on previous Regional District statistics could reach over $24,000 annually. It is estimated that an adjudication system would cost the Regional District approximately $400 per disputed ticket.

The question was raised whether the Regional District could participate in the setup of the program for purposes of interest only. Staff noted that the adjudication program for the entire region is planned for one day a month and % hour per case;
some dog cases take over 4 hours in court. Staff believe there is no benefit for the Regional District to participate.

#GS109/0 SHEPHERD/FIELDING
THAT the Regional District of Central Okanagan DEFER the decision to not participate in the Okanagan Valley Bylaw Dispute Adjudication Program;

AND FURTHER THAT staff continue to attend the information meetings, reconfirm costs for setup and participation in the program and confirm whether it makes sense for the Regional District to participate in the program.

CARRIED

6. Finance

6.1 Quarterly Program Measures Report, Year-to-date September 30, 2009

Staff report dated November 2, 2009 outlined the quarterly measures report, year-to-date September 30, 2009. Marilyn Rilkoff highlighted results in the executive summary including:

• Revenues for Westside landfill are lower than expected. Staff are waiting for a decision from West Kelowna before moving forward with a future plan for the landfill. There is currently a deficit for this program.

• West Kelowna has not paid the full sewer user fees-they have withheld a 10% administrative fee. Staff to get additional information.

• Dog control bylaw is being challenged.

Dog Advisory Committee Appointment

The Regional Board has appointed Director Charlie Hodge as Chair of the Central Okanagan Dog Advisory Committee. He fills the position previously held by Director Brian Given who passed away earlier this year.

2. DELEGATION

2.1 Peter Adams, Victoria Consulting Network Ltd. Re: report - Regional District Service Review

It was noted that Peter Adams was contracted to provide a review of the following services: dog control, planning (regional and electoral area fringe) and regional parks. The Board was asked to consider whether there is any additional information to be gathered before the final report is provided. Mr. Adams addressed the Board providing an overview of the service review: Terms of Reference included: participation, governance and cost allocation as well as operational issues (contracting out, efficiencies and revenue sources) which are not typical of a service review.

Dog Control
Trend shows expense growing but revenue has not grown at the same pace.

Observations reviewed including governance, trends in activities and budgets. It was noted that the SPCA grant was transferred from grants in aid to the budget in 2006 and that current dog license fees are at the low end of the provincial-wide rates.

Further questions to be addressed include:

• How many court cases are there each year? What are the costs associated with the court cases? What costs are recovered from the court cases, if any?

• Is there a comfort level for fees? The Board will have to answer that.

• Is it possible to do an analysis for a contracted service? Qualitative analysis is difficult-how would one judge. A history on why the Regional District went back in-house could be provided. In addition, it was suggested a review of Penticton's service may be worthwhile as they contract out their dog control service.

• How are costs allocated, and what is the cost impact for each municipality? What would the impact be to raise licensing fees and/or fines?

 Item 6.7 Bylaw Enforcement Officer Appointments.pdf

DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT

For the Regional Board September 21, 2009

TO: Chair & Members of the Regional Board
FROM: Rhoda Mueller, Chief Bylaw Enforcement Officer
DATE: September 1, 2009
SUBJECT: Bylaw Enforcement Officer Appointments

RECOMMENDATION:
That Wendy Leskosek and Frans Pynappels be appointed as Bylaw Enforcement Officers and Dog Control Officers for the Dog Control Bylaws and dog related issues of the Parks Bylaws.

BACKGROUND:
Board Appointment is required to enforce and administer bylaws of the Regional District of Central Okanagan. Wendy Leskosek has been employed as Relief Employee in the Dog Control Service since October 2008.

Frans Pynappels has been employed as Relief Employee in the Dog Control Service since April 29,2009.

Respectfully submitted,
Rhoda Mueller
Chief Bylaw Enforcement Officer

6.7 Bylaw Enforcement Officer Appointments (All Directors - Unweighted Vote)

SHEPHERD/RULE
THAT Wendy Leskosek and Frans Pynappels be appointed as Bylaw Enforcement Officers and Dog Control Officers for dog control bylaws and dog related issues of the Parks Bylaws.

CARRIED

----------------

6.8 City of Kelowna Bylaw Enforcement Officer Appointments (All Directors Unweighted Vote)

SHEPHERD/OPHUS
THAT the following City of Kelowna bylaw enforcement officers be appointed as Regional District of Central Okanagan bylaw enforcement officers for the purpose of enforcement of Regional District of Central Okanagan Smoke Control Regulatory Bylaw No. 773 within the jurisdiction of the City of Kelowna:

1. Ken Black
2. Kevin England
3. Tracey Krenn
4. Len Ingvarsson
5. Robert Schewe
6. Greg Wise

CARRIED

New agenda items

Dog Control
It was noted that dog control is part of the Regional District's current service review and that the Board will review the service and policies in the future. Peter Adams is completing the service review and will present his findings to the Board in October.

Bylaw Dispute Adjudication System
It was noted that member municipalities are considering implementing the bylaw dispute adjudication system within their boundaries and questioned whether the Regional District should implement the system as well. The Administrator reviewed the system used for disputing tickets noting that as the Regional District generally only prosecutes dog enforcement issues the system may be too costly.

FIELDING/SHEPHERD
THAT staff be directed to investigate the bylaw dispute adjudication system including costs and an analysis of whether it would feasible for the Regional District to be involved and report back to the Regional Board.

CARRIED

6. DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Inspection:

6.1 Bylaw Enforcement Officer Appointments (All Directors - Unweighted Vote)

SHEPHERD/JAMES
THAT Wendy Brown be appointed as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer for all Regional District of Central Okanagan bylaws;

AND THAT Leah Giesbrecht be appointed as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer and Dog Control Officer for the dog control bylaws and dog related issues of the Parks bylaws;

AND FURTHER THAT Bob Schmidt, Whitney Siegmann and Annie Lucas be appointed as Bylaw Enforcement Officers and Dog Control Officers for the dog control bylaws and dog related issues of the Parks bylaws.

CARRIED

SPCA Memorandum of Understanding

The Regional Board has approved a new Memorandum of Understanding with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).

Under the terms of the three year agreement, the Regional District will provide $55,000 in 2009, 2010 and 2011 to the Society which will use the funds to provide an animal education program, a spay and neuter program and assist in controlling the pet population in the Central Okanagan. The previous three year agreement expired at the end of 2008.

2. Delegation

2.1 Karen Stirling, Assistant Manager SPCA

Karen Stirling introduced the SPCA's new Manager Dr. Jim Inglis. Dr. Inglis reviewed their funding request allocation education saying that in order to maintain the zero population growth they require 83% compliance of spay/neutering. There
was discussion about associated costs of spay/neutering.

The cost of service for the Dog Control function was discussed. The Board will have an opportunity to review cost recovery and appropriate level of service at the upcoming strategic review.

16) Okanagan Humane Society

Louvin Schon was in attendance and addressed the Committee on the grant application:

• Registered charity, run 100% by volunteers.

• Assists financially in spay and neutering of dogs and cats for families in need.

• Have recently helped with spay/neutering of rabbits, as well as education.

• 230 animals were assisted in 2008. The need was more but no funds were available.

• Amount of animals being surrendered due to financial hardships is very high.

• Not a shelter but works cooperatively with SPCA to spay/neuter animals.

Have any of you encountered the “doggy-bylaw” justice system?

It’s small wonder that there might be injustices in that system, with front-line bylaw officers, who do not have the benefit of formal police training and no system of justice beyond lodging a dispute and showing up in “doggy” court.

Perhaps a bigger wonder is why I would bother writing about something as apparently insignificant as the canine bylaw system.

It’s a whole lot more significant than you might think.

Many, if not most, dog owners have a strangely strong affection for their pets.

Put a dog owner’s pet at risk and it’s serious business.

The old “switch the fishy” trick, that works well when a four-year-old’s goldfish does the upside down float doesn’t work well with a puppy.

The enforcement of dog bylaws can put a pet at risk. The risk itself can be stressful. Perceived blatant unfairness in the system, leading to a risk that should never have arisen, can be maddening.

Good friends of mine are the owners of a rottweiler cross.

Their neighbour also owns a dog, a shepherd cross.

When the shepherd walked past my friends’ yard, it routinely ran up to the fence and yapped away at the rottweiler. The shepherd was never on a leash.

To avoid the ritual racket, my friends typically tied their rottweiler behind their house during the time of day the shepherd was taken for a walk. One day, my friends forgot to close the gate and the rottweiler was roaming loose in their yard.

Before I tell you what happened, keep in mind that there is no bylaw against letting your own dog wander inside your own yard without a leash, even with a gate open.

Along comes the yappy shepherd. With no gate to stop it, the leashless shepherd walked into my friends’ yard and went after the rottweiler.

The shepherd got the raw end of the deal and suffered some injury.

One problem with the dog bylaw system is that it is complaint-driven.

Bylaw enforcement officers don’t patrol neighbourhoods looking for bylaw infractions. The enforcement mechanism comes into play only when a complaint has been lodged.

It takes a fair amount of “bad blood” before a complaint is lodged. You don’t tattle on your neighbour if their dog gets out once or twice. I have direct experience in this regard because my dog happens to be an escape artist.

A problem with a complaint-driven system is that there is always a concern about the accuracy of allegations when bad feelings are involved.

If very rudimentary steps are taken to investigate the complaint, though, unfounded complaints should not proceed to enforcement.

This is where police officers, with their extensive training, have a leg up on bylaw enforcement officers.

The rudimentary investigation didn’t happen in my friend’s situation.

The shepherd’s owner lodged a complaint. The bylaw enforcement officer didn’t interview my friend, the owner of the alleged offender, who witnessed the event and who would have been able to give the bylaw enforcement officer the full background necessary to consider whether enforcement steps were warranted.

A $200 fine was assessed. Big deal. The problem was that the rottweiler was labelled an “aggressive” animal, such that if another such incident occurs, it could have to be put down.

My friends filed a dispute to the alleged infraction and the matter was scheduled for “doggy” court.

Court is a stressful place for those who are not used to being there. Add to that the prospect that your pet is facing “dangerous offender” status and the stakes are raised even further. Then add a lack of investigation and my friends were fit to be tied.

The hearing lasted an hour. In the bylaw court, the enforcement officer is the prosecutor. His witness didn’t show up.

That could have been the end of the matter. Without a witness, there is no way the bylaw enforcement officer could prove the allegation. But the judge who presided over the hearing recognized my friends’ need to tell their story. In the end, justice prevailed. The rottweiler “walked.”

I don’t think, however, that justice wasn’t well-served. My friends should not have had to go through the months of stress stretching victimized by a lack of investigation. This incident may not have resulted in a complaint being lodged had the shepherd owner talked with my friends.

Our actions can have significant impacts on others. Thinking a little bit before jumping to action and approaching every situation with due diligence will go a long way to preventing justice from being poorly served.

This column is intended to provide general information. It is not a substitute for retaining a lawyer to provide legal advice specifically pertaining to your case. Paul Hergott is a lawyer with Hergott Law on the Westside. If there are particular issues you would like discussed in this column, please e-mail Paul directly at:

paul"at"hlaw.ca.

• 550 cruelty complaints in 2007

• two full time officers cover the whole Okanagan Valley

• you can obtain assistance for spay/neutering if your income is less than $35,000 (permitted two animals per household per year)

• 5 to 6 families a week ask for assistance with the spay and neuter program

March 12, 2008 minutes of the Governance and Services Committee
(from page 2)

Dog owners in Spallumcheen will soon find it more expensive to deal with problematic pooches.

Spallumcheen council gave three readings to an amendment to its dog control bylaw that will result in higher fines for existing offences and adds hefty penalties for more serious offences.

The move was initiated by Coun. Lorna Bissell after council was presented with a series of reports spanning a few days regarding a vicious dog.

Bissell said the existing fines are too low to be an incentive to keep a problem dog under control.

She suggested that more offences be added to the bylaw and the fines be increased significantly.

Coun. Carolyn Farris acknowledged the need to be more proactive in protecting people from such animals but said council also needs to be aware that rules for dogs are different in cities than in rural communities.

Farris did not agree with adding the entire list of offences provided by Bissell because ticketing for something like not having a dog tag would not work in Spallumcheen where licencing is not mandatory.

Several councillors expressed frustration with dog control’s lack of power when it comes to getting rid of an aggressive dog and the need for a bylaw with more teeth.

Dog control officer Pat Ellis, of K-9 Dog Control, said an investigation and warrant are required before a dog can be seized, a process that can take up to six months and cost about $2,000.

Ellis said costly fines are more effective because the owner is more likely to give up the animal than pay hundreds of dollars in fines.

Council agreed to increase all existing fines to $50 from $25; these include having a dog at large, dog disturbing surrounding neighbourhood, dog not under control of and in custody of owner or agent, and more than three dogs on a property of less than five acres (except kennels).

New penalties added to the bylaw are: interfere, obstruct or impede the poundkeeper in lawful performance of duties, $250; dog has bitten or attempted to bite, $500; and failure to destroy or permanently confine a vicious or diseased dog, $500.

*This is only a snippet, please click link for entire contents*

The mandate of the Dog Advisory Committee is to periodically review issues related to dogs and make recommendations to the Regional District of Central Okanagan and City of Kelowna about possible policy changes.

The committee will meet a minimum of one time each year and at the call of the Chair as required.

Terms of Reference of Dog Advisory Committee Revised (approved by Board June 12, 2006)

The Membership of the Dog Advisory Committee shall be as follows:
• Chair: Regional District of Central Okanagan director or alternate.
• The veterinarian who provides service to Regional Dog Control.
• A Dog Owners Association nominee.
• A Humane Society nominee.
• The Kelowna area S.P.C.A. Manager.
• Four members of the public, the selection of which will be based on factors that result in cross sectional representation of the community.
• Membership roster shall be by appointed by the Regional District of Central for the period of two years.
• Members of the public nominated by and resident of the Districts of Peachland (1), the District of Lake Country (1), Regional District of Central Okanagan (1) and the City of Kelowna (2).

Consolidated Dog Bylaw 366.pdf - This would be the latest bylaw as of Dec 2009

Animal and Bird Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 621, 1995 - Amends Bylaw No. 398

Animal and Bird Regulation Bylaw No. 398, 1998 - Amended By Bylaw No. 621, Repealed By Bylaw No. 880

Animal Control Bylaw No. 880, 2000 - Repeals Bylaw No. 398

Animal Control Extended Service Establishment Bylaw No. 769, 1998

Dog Control Extended Service Establishment Amendment Bylaw No. 1017, 2003 - Amends Bylaw No. 425

Dog Control Extended Service Establishment Amendment Bylaw No. 733, 1997 - Amends Bylaw No. 425

Dog Control Extended Service Establishment Bylaw No. 425, 1990 - Amended By Bylaw Nos. 733 &1017

Dog Pound Temporary Borrowing Bylaw No. 367, 1988

Dog Pound Authorization Bylaw No. 359, 1988

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 1018, 2003 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 1024, 2003 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 922, 2001 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 837, 1999 - Amends Bylaw No, 366 - Amended by Bylaw No. 922

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 732, 1997 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 654, 1995 - Amends Bylaw No, 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 608, 1994 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 563, 1993 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 531, 1992 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 483, 1991 - Amends bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 444, 1990 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 391, 1989 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 386, 1989 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 366, 1988 - Repeals Bylaw No. 292, Amended By Bylaw Nos. 386/391/444/483/531/563/608/654/732/837/922/1018

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 346, 1987 - Repealed by Bylaw No. 366, Amends Bylaw No. 292

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 292, 1985 - Repeals 239, 242, 284 - Repealed by 366

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 284, 1985 - Repealed by Bylaw No. 292

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 242, 1982, Repealed by No. 292

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 239, 1982 - Repealed by Bylaw No. 292

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 224, 1981 - Repealed by No. 239

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 177, 1979 - Repealed by Bylaw No. 239

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 156, 1978 - Repealed by No. 239

Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 153, 1978 - Repealed by No. 239

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 110, 1975 - Repealed by Bylaw No. 239

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 77, 1974 - Repealed by Bylaw 110

Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 55, 1972

Prohibited Animal Amendment Bylaw No. 1073, 2004

Prohibited Animal Bylaw No. 1028, 2003

Prohibited Animal Control Service Area Establishment Bylaw No. 1027, 2003

Comment Form

Make a comment by filling out this form and your comment will be posted here to okanaganlakebc.ca