COW ELECTION 2014

LIVE CAM HWY 97 @ WESTSIDE RD

CHBC TV News

Carr's Landing

Joe Rich Community

Trepanier

Kelowna Capital News
Issuu

Kelowna Daily Courier

Penticton Herald

Penticton Western

Summerland Review

Sumrlnd.myezrock

Vernon Morning Star
Issuu

Vernon Daily Courier

Castanet.net

Bennett Bridge Cam

Interior Highway Cams

Kelowna Airport

Regional District of Central Okanagan

RDCO's Facebook

Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen

District of Lake Country

District of Peachland

City of Penticton

District of Summerland

City of Vernon

District of West Kelowna

--------


Kelowna's Best Rock

RDCO Board Calender
RDCO Meeting Schedule

RDCO Board Reports

RDCO Board Agenda

RDCO Board Minutes

Gov Service Agenda

Gov Service Minutes

NWCA Minutes

SILGA - Board

UBCM

RDCO GIS Map

For sprinkling and watering days, click here.

-------

Westside Rd. Maps

C.O.W. Links

NW Ratepayers

Edgson News

NWCA

Westside Rd Interchange

Westside Road Updates

Westside Rd COMPLAINT FORM

Westside Residents Association

Jobs in Vernon

Jobs in Kelowna

Report Email Spam here.

Report Bad Links Here

Food Action Society

JOKES

WolframAlpha
Calculator/Answers

WikiLeaks.org

Datadotgc.ca

OpenDataBC

ProactiveDisclosure

BCGov FOI form

BC Forest Fire Info
Twitter
Facebook

BC Wildfires of Note
EmergencyInfoGovBC
Sound Cloud

Scan BC

Kelowna Yacht Club Wind Direction/Speed

MissingKids.ca

Follow okanaganlakebc.ca on Twitter

Follow OkanaganLakeBC on Twitter

Okanagan Lake community directory; okanaganlakebc.ca; okanagan community directory for kelowna, vernon, westbank, westside, winfield, kaleden, naramata, summerland, peachland, penticton, and oyama.

Exposing the TRUTH about barking dog control bylaws

COMMENT FORM NEAR BOTTOM

Last update August 08, 2014

Blue Divider Line

CAUTION !

The Regional District of Central Okanagan will only hold your dog for 72 hours before its put out for adoption or maybe put down.  You have 72 hours to come up with all the money.

Blue Divider Line

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated"
--Mahatma Gandhi

Blue Divider Line

Did you know there is nothing in the Regional District of Central Okanagan's dog control bylaw restricting dogs from barking overnight?

Blue Divider Line

Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control webpage.
1450 K.L.O. Road
Kelowna, B.C.
V1W-3Z4

RDCO Dog Pound
890 Weddell Place
Kelowna, B.C.
(between Richter Street and Gordon Drive)
link to map.pdf

Kelowna Branch of the SPCA
3785 Casorso Road
Kelowna, B.C.
V1W-4M7

.pdf icon 2011 List of RDCO Committee Appointments

.pdf icon Regional District of Central Okanagan Organization and Responsibilities

.pdf icon Feb 12, 2007 Protocol Agreement between RDCO and WFN for dog and cat control services
(received through FOI Dec 2011)

Blue Divider Line

NEW.pdf icon RDCO's NEW DOG BYLAW ADOPTED FEB 24, 2014

.pdf icon FEBRUARY 24, 2014 ADOPTED DOG BYLAW Agenda and still only allow 2 dogs per household

.pdf icon JANUARY 16, 2014 NEW PROPOSED DOG BYLAW

Blue Divider Line

IN THE REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL OKANAGAN YOU NEED AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT A BARKING DOG OR THE DOG DOESN'T GET A TICKET, BECAUSE THE REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL OKANAGAN SAYS IT'S A HE SAID SHE SAID NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTE AND MORE EVIDENCE IS NEEDED.  IF ONLY ONE PERSON IS COMPLAINING, THE RDCO WILL ONLY EDUCATE THE DOG OWNER AND WILL NOT ISSUE A TICKET.

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files January 16, 2014 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about Mueller - RDCO needs to involve your neighbors about the barking - .wma (900 KB)

Blue Divider Line

Regional District of Central Okanagan Letters Patents

* NOTE - When reading the bylaws and letters patents please be aware that the Municipal Act has been replaced with the Local Government Act and Community Charter(*NOTE the Community Charter applies more to Municipalities while the Local Government Act applies more to Regional Districts although there are some sections of the Community Charter that do apply to Regional Districts.)

.pdf icon LP DIV XII 1972-Dog Control Areas A to G-I July 27.pdf
WHEREAS by section 766 (1) of the Municipal Act it is provided, interalia, that, in addition to the functions conferred by that Act, a regional district has such functions as are provided by Letters Patent or supplementary Letters Patent, and for this purpose the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, provide in the Letters Patent or supplementary Letters Patent such further objects, powers, obligations, duties, limitations and conditions in respect to any or all functions requested pursuant to this section:
AND WHEREAS the Regional Board of the Regional District of Central Okanagan has requested that the function of dog control be granted the regional district under the provisions of section 766 (4a) of the Municipal Act:
AND WHEREAS, under the provisions of subsection
(4b) of section 766 of the Municipal Act, the annual net cost;
of any function granted pursuant to subsection (4a) shall not exceed the product of one-half mill on the assessed value referred to in subsection (1) of section 782 within participating municipalities, and the annual net cost of all functions granted pursuant to subsection (4a) shall not exceed the product of one mill on such assessed values:
1. Electoral Areas A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and I, participate and share in the cost of the function of the regional district provided by this Division.
2. The Regional Board may in the participating member municipalities, exercise the powers contained in section 458k, section 458L, clause (t) of section 870, and subsections (2) and (4) of section 871 of the Municipal Act.
3. The annual cost attributable to this function shall be apportioned among the participating member municipalities on the basis of one hundred percentum of the assessed value of land and seventy-five percentum of the assessed value of improvements as 'fixed for taxation for school purposes in the current year, excluding property that is taxable for school purposes only by special Act.
4. No debt other than temporary current borrowing shall be incurred by the regional district for the purposes of this function."

.pdf icon LP DIV XII 1973-Dog Control Area H Feb 6.pdf

.pdf icon LP DIV XX 1977-Noise control Areas A G H June 9.pdf
WHEREAS the Regional Board of the Regional District of Central Okanagan has requested the function of Noise
Control with Electoral Areas A ,G and H as participating member municipalities:

.pdf icon LP DIV XX 1978- Noise control amend Area I incl Mar 9.pdf
"1. Electoral Areas A, G, H and I participate and share in the cost of the function of the regional district provided by this Division."
WHEREAS the Regional Board of the Regional District of Central Okanagan has requested the function of
.pdf icon Division XX - Noise Control granted by supplementary Letters Patent dated the 9th day of June, 1977 be amended to include Electoral Area I as a participating member municipality:

.pdf icon LP DIV XII 1982-Dog Control Amend Ticketing May 5.pdf
AND WHEREAS the Regional Board of the Regional District of Central Okanagan has requested that the function of Division XII -  Dog Control be further amended to empower the Regional Board to exercise the powers contained in sections 933(1)(d) and 934 of the Municipal Act:
The function of
.pdf icon Division XII - Dog Control granted by supplementary Letters Patent dated July 27, 1972, as amended by
.pdf icon supplementary Letters Patent dated February 6, 1973, be further amended by striking out section 2 in its entirety and substituting the following therefor:
"2. The Regional Board may, in the participating member municipalities, exercise the powers contained in section 524, section 525, clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 933, clause (s) of section 932, subsections (2) and (4) of section 933, and section 934 of the Municipal Act."

.pdf icon LP DIV XII 1987-Dog control Amend Dec 4.pdf
AND WHEREAS by Supplementary Letters Patent dated July 27, 1972, as amended, the Regional District of Central Okanagan
was empowered to undertake the function of Division XII - Dog Control with all the electoral areas of the Regional District as participating member municipalities:
AND WHEREAS the Regional Board of the Regional District of Central Okanagan has requested that the function of Division XII - Dog Control be further amended to authorize borrowing in the amount of $125,000. for the purpose of constructing a Dog Pound Facility:
The function of Division XII - Dog Control granted by Supplementary Letters Patent dated July 27, 1972, as amended by
Supplementary Letters Patent dated February 6, 1973 and Supplementary Letters Patent dated May 5, 1982 be further amended
by striking out section 4 in its entirety and substituting the following therefor:
"4. The debt incurred by the regional district for the purposes of this function shall not exceed -in the aggregate the sum of $125,000."

.pdf icon LP DIV XXVII 1988 Animal Control Apr 7.pdf
AND WHEREAS the Regional Board of the Regional District of Central Okanagan has requested that the regional district be empowered to undertake the function of animal control:
AND WHEREAS the function is being granted under the provisions of subsections (5) and (5.1) of section 767 of the Municipal Act and the annual net cost of the function shall not exceed the limitations imposed under Subsections (6) and (6.1) of section 767:
"1. Electoral Areas G, H and I shall participate and share in the cost of this function of the regional district.
2. The Regional Board of the Regional District of Central Okanagan may, with respect to Electoral Areas G, H and I exercise the powers contained in clauses (d) and (e) of subsection (1) of section 933 of the Municipal Act. The Livestock Protection Act continues to apply to the electoral areas of the regional district except those sections which are declared not to apply by an order made under subsection (3) of section 2 of that Act.
3. The annual net cost attributable to this function shall be apportioned among the participating member municipalities on the basis of the net taxable value of land and improvements for regional hospital district tax purposes and shall not exceed the product of 50 cents per thousand dollars on the assessed value.
4. No bylaw shall be adopted by the regional board under the authority of this function unless the bylaw has received the approval of the Minister of Municipal Affairs."

Blue Divider Line

Health Canada's website about noise
Community Noise Annoyance

Blue Divider Line

Proving your case in court

Blue Divider Line

Help change NOISE legislation

 

Blue Divider Line

The Council Animal Advocacy (CLAW) Mission, B.C., Canada
Anti-Noise Pollution Program

Blue Divider Line

From Click Law - Neighbour Law
Many of us have had occasional problems with neighbours involving noise, untidy premises, dogs, fences, trees and hedges, secondhand smoke, water damage, or trespass. This script describes the laws that deal with these types of problems and what you can do.

Blue Divider Line

On CanLII website - Court cases about Barking Dogs

Blue Divider Line

Your ignorance is their power
Your ignorance is their power

Blue Divider Line

Imagine a world where dogs took bad owners to the pound...

Imagine a world where dogs took bad owners to the pound...

Blue Divider Line

RDCO Dog Control Facebook group started by a community member

Blue Divider Line

Did you know that your local government doesn't have to investigate a barking dog complaint and enforce its dog bylaw if it doesn't want to, even if you make a complaint or several complaints about a barking dog?

No we didn't either!!!

Bylaws mean nothing, and they don't have to be enforced!!!

Its a sick system we have to live with!!!

Blue Divider Line

http://www.spca.bc.ca/outdoordogs

Blue Divider Line

NOISE Pollution From Wikipedia

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

Noise pollution affects both health and behavior. Unwanted sound (noise) can damage psychological health. Noise pollution can cause trouble, hypertension, high stress levels, tinnitus, hearing loss, sleep disturbances, and other harmful effects.[5][6][7][8] Furthermore, stress and hypertension are the leading causes to health problems.[6][9]

Sound becomes unwanted when it either interferes with normal activities such as sleeping, conversation, or disrupts or diminishes one’s quality of life.[10]

Chronic exposure to noise may cause noise-induced hearing loss. Older males exposed to significant occupational noise demonstrate more significantly reduced hearing sensitivity than their non-exposed peers, though differences in hearing sensitivity decrease with time and the two groups are indistinguishable by age 79.[11] A comparison of Maaban tribesmen, who were insignificantly exposed to transportation or industrial noise, to a typical U.S. population showed that chronic exposure to moderately high levels of environmental noise contributes to hearing loss.[5]

High noise levels can contribute to cardiovascular effects and exposure to moderately high levels during a single eight-hour period causes a statistical rise in blood pressure of five to ten points and an increase in stress,[5] and vasoconstriction leading to the increased blood pressure noted above, as well as to increased incidence of coronary artery disease.

Noise can have a detrimental effect on wild animals, increasing the risk of death by changing the delicate balance in predator or prey detection and avoidance, and interfering the use of the sounds in communication, especially in relation to reproduction and in navigation. Acoustic overexposure can lead to temporary or permanent loss of hearing.

An impact of noise on wild animal life is the reduction of usable habitat that noisy areas may cause, which in the case of endangered species may be part of the path to extinction. Noise pollution has caused the death of certain species of whales that beached themselves after being exposed to the loud sound of military sonar,[13] (see also Marine mammals and sonar).

Noise also makes species communicate more loudly, which is called Lombard vocal response.[14] Scientists and researchers have conducted experiments that show whales' song length is longer when submarine-detectors are on.[15] If creatures do not "speak" loudly enough, their voice will be masked by anthropogenic sounds. These unheard voices might be warnings, finding of prey, or preparations of net-bubbling. When one species begins speaking more loudly, it will mask other species' voice, causing the whole ecosystem eventually to speak more loudly.

Blue Divider Line

RDCO's New Proposed Dog Bylaw

January 13, 2014 RDCO has published its new proposed dog bylaw on its website ... have a look and see what you think. This bylaw will have 1st and 2nd reading January 16th, 2014 and then RDCO will permit public comment on it.

Do you like the idea of an owner not having to pay an impound fee the first time a dog is impounded (saving $25) when it probably costs more than $25 to impound a dog? Dog Control Officers make close to $28.00 per hour and are paid double time for overtime.  Should dog owners pay the actual cost of impounding a dog?

======

Below is only a snippet of the new proposed dog bylaw, click link above for entire content.

23. No Owner shall tie, secure, or tether any dog except in the backyard of the Owner's property with a tethering system that allows the dog's adequate freedom of movement with a minimum of 3 meter radius and a minimum of 1.5 meters from any backyard property line.

24. No Owner shall cause or permit his or her dog to be tied, secured, tethered or fastened to a tethering system in excess of 4 consecutive hours in a 24-hour period.

29. No Owner shall cause or permit his or her dog to cry, bark, howl, or yelp continuously for a period of more than 5 minutes or sporadically for a period of more than 15 minutes or in a manner that tends to disturb the peace, quiet, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of persons in the neighbourhood.

Enclosures & Pens
2. Minimum standards for outdoor pens and/or runs for  dogs shall be as follows.
(a) Sizes: Pens - 3' x 5' per dog
              Runs - 4' x 12' per dog
3. An Enclosure means a structure:
a) at least 1.83m (6 ft.) in height, 1.22m (4 ft.) in width, and 2.44m (8 ft.) in length;
b) constructed with secure sides, top and bottom and suitable for the size and strength of the dog to prevent it from escaping;
c) provided with impervious surfacing (for instance, concrete slabs) for the bottom of the enclosure to prevent digging and to facilitate cleaning and sanitizing;
d) locked to prevent entry of young children or other unauthorized persons;
e) provided with shelter suitable for the size of the dog and to provide shade from the sun and to protect it from varying weather conditions; and
f) used for the temporary confinement of a dog for no longer than 12 hours in every 24 hour period.

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

Lions Bay
20. (c) No chaining or tethering of unattended dogs.

Richmond BC Animal And Bird bylaw 7932, April 8, 2013
1.1 General Prohibition – All Animals and Birds
1.1.1 A person must not cause any animal or bird:
 (a) to be hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object:
    (i) where a choke collar forms part of the securing apparatus;
    (ii) where the securing apparatus is less than 3 metres in length; or
    (iii) for a period longer than 1 hour in any 6 hour period;

Blue Divider Line

DID YOU KNOW THAT BARKING FARM DOGS IS NOT A RIGHT TO FARM PRACTICE?

Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act

7. IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR STAFF OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries

FACTS
British Columbia’s new Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act benefits farmers and residents who live in or near farming communities by supporting farmers who use normal farm practices, establishing a new process to resolve complaints about farm practices, and encouraging local governments to support farming in their local plans and bylaws.

This new legislation represents a new partnership between local governments and the province to work together to strengthen farming in communities throughout B.C. Local governments and their staff should be aware of the important changes
brought about by the new legislation.

What does the act say?
The act says that farmers have the “right to farm” in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) provided they use “normal farm practices” and follow other legislation listed in the act. The act defines farm operations as activities undertaken by a farm business
- in general, all of the activities or practices needed to grow, produce, raise or keep animals or plants.

When a farmer has the “right to farm,” it means that noises, odours, dust or other disturbances that result from normal farm practices are not subject to nuisance lawsuits or to a local government’s nuisance and miscellaneous bylaws.

Why is the province bringing in this new legislation?
The ALR has been very successful in protecting the agricultural land base but it does not extend to protection of farming. Some farmers have found it difficult to farm because of a variety of constraints placed on their activities by local government bylaws. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Agricultural Land Commission will help local governments plan for farming so that the potential for conflicts about farm practices can be reduced.

When do nuisance or miscellaneous bylaws apply to farmers?
Farm operations which use normal farm practices are protected under the new legislation, but any activities unrelated to the business of farming continue to be subject to nuisance or miscellaneous bylaws. For example, harvesting crops, managing
manure, irrigating, and feeding or moving livestock are within the definition of farm operation. However, loud parties on a farm or barking farm dogs are not farm operations and can be controlled with these bylaws.

What about farming operations outside of the ALR?
The right to farm outside of the ALR protects farmers from nuisance lawsuits only. While the right to farm does not over-ride nuisance and miscellaneous bylaws for farming operations outside of the ALR, the ministry is still available to assist local government staff with information and resolution of concerns. Complaints about farm practices can also be made to the Farm Practices Board.

What about weed control bylaws or the management of farm animals at large?
Some provisions of nuisance or miscellaneous bylaws can still be used to control farm activities when normal farm practices are not used on a farm. For example, the failure of a farmer to control noxious weeds or to contain livestock in established
pound areas are situations where a weed-control bylaw or animal-control bylaw could be enforced.

How will local government staff know when to enforce a bylaw?
When staff are not sure if a farm practice is a “normal farm practice” or part of a “farm operation,” they may contact the local office of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries for assistance. If the farmer claims the right to farm, and thus
protection from the bylaw, the ministry can help determine the status of the practice.
If the matter cannot be resolved quickly or satisfactorily, the Farm Practices Board can rule on whether the farmer is using normal farm practices or not.

What do local government staff do when complaints come in about farm practices?
Local governments have long been the point of first contact for complaints about farming practices. The new legislation offers two new avenues for handling of concerns or complaints about farm practices.

The ministry has established an informal process, designed to be an inexpensive and efficient alternative to the more formal Farm Practices Board. Concerns are addressed using regional and district ministry staff or farmers’ peers - people who have expertise in farm practices and who have specific training in solving these types of problems.

If the ministry office is unable to resolve a complaint, it may be filed with the Farm Practices Board. The board will determine whether the farmer is using normal farm practices. The board can order the practice stopped or changed to conform with normal farm practice. If necessary, public hearings are held so that all parties to the complaint can be involved.

What about complaints about a practice similar to a farmer’s, but not on a farm?
The new legislation only applies to farm operations as part of a farm business.

Source downloaded to OkanaganLakeBC.ca

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

Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act

The Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act (FPPA) applies to farmers who operate in the ALR, in other areas where farming is permitted by local zoning bylaws, or in areas licensed for aquaculture. When farmers operate under "normal farm practices", the Act protects the farmer against nuisance actions, court injunctions, or specific nuisance bylaws related to the operation of the farm.

The FPPA established the Farm Practices Board (now called the Farm Industry Review Board) as the tribunal that considers complaints from persons aggrieved by odour, noise, dust, or other disturbances resulting from farm operations, and encourages settlement of the complaints. In the case of complaints that are not settled, the Board will hear the complaints and determine whether the disturbance in question results from normal farm practices.

BC Ministry of Agriculture staff throughout the province may also work with persons concerned about a farm practice in an attempt to resolve the concern before the complaint reaches the Board.

The Board, on its own initiative, upon the request of a local government or as directed by the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, may study any matter related to farm practices and report its findings and recommendations.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/keylegisl.htm

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

Farm Practices Protection
(Right to Farm) Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 131

Local Government Act
Right to Farm Regulation
Note: Check the Cumulative Regulation Bulletin 2013 and 2014
for any non-consolidated amendments to this regulation that may be in effect.
[includes amendments up to B.C. Reg. 187/2001]

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon April 16, 2007 Highlights of the Regional District of Central Okanagan Board Meeting

Intensive Agricultural Nuisance Bylaw

The Regional Board has given two readings to a proposed nuisance bylaw that would help manage intensive agricultural operations that may affect urban residential areas. The bylaw would address possible noise, odour and other complaints not associated with normal farm practises at intensive farm operations such as livestock and poultry feedlots.
The bylaw provides a local mechanism for enforcement and would support the existing requirements under the Farm Practises Protection (Right to Farm) Act and Agricultural Land Commission Act. The bylaw will be advertised for public input prior to final reading.

.pdf icon April 16, 2007 Regional District of Central Okanagan Board Meeting Agenda

.pdf icon Item 6.5a Intensive Agricultural Operations Nuisance Bylaw

*Note* This is only a snippet, please click links above for entire content

RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Intensive Agricultural Operations Nuisance Bylaw No. XXXX, 2007 be given first and second readings, and advertised prior to the Regional Board's reconsideration and adoption.

PURPOSE:
To provide the RDCO Board with a tool to manage "non-normal" intensive agriculture operations.

POLICY:
The legislative context for intensive agriculture falls under the following key pieces of legislation: the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act (FPPA); the Agricultural Land Commission Act (ALCA), and; the Local Government Act (LGA). Public health and safety, and waste disposal matters, however, supersede the above legislation and are administered and enforced under the Environmental Management Act, the Health Act and the Pesticide Control Act.

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

The proposed nuisance bylaw addresses the prohibition, prevention and abatement of "nonnormal" intensive agricultural operations within the Regional District. This bylaw outlines for the RDCO Board, staff and members of the public, the RDCO's role in the complaint and enforcement process addressing "non-normal" intensive agricultural operations, as determined by the Farm Industry Review Board (FIRB).
Currently, should an RDCO staff member receive a nuisance complaint about an intensive agricultural operation, the complainant is advised to contact the local MAL office, triggering the Ministry's complaint process outlined above. Upon review of the complaint, should the FIRB determine that the nuisance is the result of a "non-normal" farm practice, enforcement via a local government nuisance bylaw could ensue. Staff outline, however, that if a complaint is due to a "normal" farm practice, then that activity would be protected from a nuisance bylaw, and that the only form of recourse would be through the Provincial court system.

.pdf icon April 16, 2007 Regional District of Central Okanagan Board Meeting Minutes

6.5 Bylaws: (First & Second Readings and Advertise) (Unweighted Vote)

a) RDCO Intensive Agricultural Operations Nuisance Bylaw No. 1209, 2007 for the Regional District of Central Okanagan, Westside & Central Okanagan East Electoral Areas (All Directors) Planning Services staff report dated March 30, 2007 reviewed the rationale for an Intensive Agricultural Operations Nuisance Bylaw. It was noted that Section 3. Exception should read section 2, not 3. Concern was expressed that there is no definition for ‘non-normal farming practices’. Staff were requested to check references in legislation regarding the use of the wording, non-normal versus normal farm practice.

HANSON/BAKER
THAT Regional District of Central Okanagan Intensive Agricultural Operations Nuisance Bylaw No. 1209, 2007 be given first and second readings this 16th day of April 2007; AND FURTHER THAT the bylaw be advertised prior to third reading and the Regional Board’s reconsideration and adoption.

CARRIED

Blue Divider Line

This is a BC Ombudsman case about a person making complaints about a neighbor and then being informed they couldn't make anymore complaints.  The BC Ombudsman reversed this decision of the Regional District.

The right to raise concerns 10/11

City of Campbell River

Fern was an elderly woman being driven to distraction by the activities of her neighbour. She told us she had complained repeatedly to the local government about her neighbour skinning animals in his back yard and leaving dead animals and animal parts lying around. She said that the smells and view from her property were intolerable and that the local government would not do anything.

In investigating Fern’s complaint we looked at the local government’s policy regarding complaints and bylaw enforcement. We confirmed that there was a nuisance bylaw to deal with unsightly properties and that the local government had several ways to enforce the bylaw. We learned that Fern had complained several times about her neighbour and that her complaints were documented and investigated by bylaw enforcement officers. The neighbour was fined once under the nuisance bylaw but most of the investigations since had shown that the neighbour was not breaking the bylaw. Of the complaints that were found to be in violation, the bylaw enforcement officers were able to gain the neighbour’s cooperation in fixing the problem. The local government met with Fern to talk to her about her continuing concerns and the bylaw requirements and to explain why no action would be taken if the person’s actions were not breaking the bylaw. The neighbour’s property was inspected again and determined to be in compliance at that time.

In reviewing the records we learned that the local government had written to Fern to tell her that no further complaints about the neighbour’s property would be investigated. When we spoke to a senior official about the letter he explained that it had been written because several of the complaints about her neighbour’s property turned out to be unfounded. The local government was concerned that the complaints were taking up scarce resources unnecessarily, and the neighbour was complaining of being harassed by staff. The official explained that the local government had to balance the needs of all residents, including the neighbour’s need to be free from excessive visits by enforcement officers. He told us that the intent of the letter was to reduce unnecessary complaints but that it had gone further than intended. The official agreed to write another letter to Fern reassuring her that she had the right to make complaints about activities she believed to be in violation of the City’s bylaws.

The letter confirmed Fern’s right to make complaints about alleged bylaw infractions and also explained the local government’s duty to be responsive to the needs of all residents. While it would have been preferable if the initial letter had not denied Fern the right to complain, the action was corrected by writing the second letter to her and inviting Fern to call if she was unsure whether an activity was allowed under the current bylaw.

Blue Divider Line

Why court orders forcing residents to sell their condos may become more common
James Keller, The Canadian Press - Sunday, October 27, 2013

VANCOUVER -- When Toronto resident Robert Jerome celebrated his 30th birthday by purchasing a unit in a low-rise condo development about 15 years ago, he was welcomed into a quiet, close-knit community of red-brick townhouses a few blocks east of Queens Park.

He quickly came to see his neighbours as his extended family, often meeting up to chat in their shared courtyard, which would be filled with children in the summer. Every August, they'd all get together for the yearly community barbecue.

And then Natalia Korolekh moved in.

What happened next were five years of frequent verbal and physical abuse that overshadowed the community, ending with a judge issuing an order in 2010 for Korolekh to sell her condo and move.

The case is similar to one currently playing out in British Columbia, where a woman is appealing an order to sell her condo due to neighbour complaints. While rare, it's a scenario some experts predict will only become more common as the number of Canadians choosing the close-quarters of condo living increases.

In the Ontario case, Korolekh frequently hurled racist and homophobic obscenities at her neighbours, according to affidavits written by Jerome and other residents. A judge accepted those as accurate accounts of the woman's behaviour, though Korolekh has always denied any wrongdoing.

In one instance, she hit one of her neighbours in the neck, the affidavits said. In another, she tampered with another neighbour's cable TV service. She appeared to encourage her Rottweiler's aggressive behaviour, including when children were around, according to the documents.

It took a lawsuit filed by the condo board and a court order to finally put a stop to it.

"It was very simple to me: it was right versus wrong, and what she was doing was wrong," recalls Jerome, who says normalcy quickly returned once Korolekh was gone.

"Kids are laughing and playing in the back again. You can actually have your windows open and not just hear loud screaming or this non-stop dog barking."

Three years later, the Korolekh judgment is heavily influencing a court case in B.C.

In that case, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ordered Rose Jordison to move out of their condo in Surrey after years of complaints about her son, Jordy, who neighbours claimed stomped around their unit and harassed other residents by screaming obscenities, making rude gestures and spitting at them.

Jordison has suggested her son's behaviour is related to autism, though the court hasn't heard any medical evidence to support that. Her lawyer couldn't be reached for comment.

The case, believed to be the first of its kind in the province, has bounced between the Court of Appeal and the B.C. Supreme Court, and Jordison is appealing yet again. The Appeal Court heard the case earlier this month but has yet to issue its ruling.

Peter Roberts, a lawyer who specializes in commercial and property law in Vancouver, says it's incredibly rare for a dispute about a condo owner's behaviour to result in a court-ordered sale.

He says courts typically attempt to modify an owner's behaviour before resorting to what he described as "the nuclear option," but condominium laws -- which vary between provinces -- allow for evictions if that doesn't work.

He says whatever happens in the B.C. case will undoubtedly influence other judges the next time a problem neighbour ends up in court, which he predicts will happen with increasing frequency.

"The law of averages tells you that the more people that are living in them (condos) and the smaller the units are, there are going to be more conflicts," he says.

"And more of those conflicts are going to be of the more serious variety."

Currently, one in eight Canadian households lives in a condo, either as an owner or a renter, according to Statistics Canada, with condos representing a larger share of new housing starts compared with a decade ago.

Another condo law expert, Ottawa lawyer Nancy Houle, says there's been five or six cases in Canada in the past 10 years in which a judge has ordered the sale of a condo.

Before that, Houle is aware of only one case in the preceding three decades.


"There's no question that the higher-density living is resulting in more cases," she says.

Every province has its own laws governing how stratas and condo boards operate, but they each make it clear that condo owners must follow the rules and bylaws they agree to when they move in.

Houle says life in condos is different than living in detached homes with space between neighbours.

"In essence, you're signing a contract to behave," she says.

"There is definitely a recognition that in order to have successful communal living, you're going to have to have some sort of infrastructure to make sure everyone is contributing to harmonious living."

Tony Gioventu, executive director of the Condominium Home Owners' Association of British Columbia, says high-profile cases such as the Jordison one underscore the need for easier ways for owners and condo boards to settle disputes outside of court.

Some provinces, including B.C., provide arbitration and mediation in some circumstances, but even then, decisions that require someone to pay damages often end up in court anyway.

Gioventu says the situation could improve in B.C. with a provincial Civil Resolution Tribunal, which is expected to be up and running next year as part of a series of reforms to the justice system.

The tribunal aims to keep many civil cases, whether they involve property disputes or family law, out of the court system, allowing participants to save money and time.

Ontario, which has seen several cases in which condo owners have been ordered to sell, is currently reviewing its condominium laws, including considering changes to how disputes are resolved.

Still, Gioventu concedes that if a condo owner isn't interested in changing his or her behaviour, arbitrators or tribunals won't be the answer.

"Tribunals are about problem solving and finding some consensual solution," he says.

"When it comes down to the ultimate situation where someone has to be evicted from a home they own, that is going to have to go back to the court."

Blue Divider Line

Surrey Council wants BC ban on dog tethering
News 1130 - Jesse Johnston - August 30, 2013

Surrey SPCA says the current language wouldn’t give them any new power

SURREY (NEWS1130) – Surrey councillors want the province to get tough on people who leave their dogs tied up in the yard for long periods of time.

The BC SPCA appreciates the gesture, but questions whether the language being used goes far enough.

What Surrey is proposing is a change to BC’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act so that people who tether their dogs can be subject to punishment. The issue goes to the Union of BC Municipalities convention next month.

But Marcie Moriarty with the BC SPCA says the problem is wording that’s used wouldn’t actually mean much for animal cruelty investigators.

“There is some tweaking [that needs to be done] and I’d like to see a comment that it’s not acceptable as a primary means of confinement because what they’re suggesting right now, we actually do have that power.”

Several municipalities have brought in their own rules to crack down on tethering. Moriarty has been hoping for a province-wide ban for some time now.

The current wording of the proposed change:

WHEREAS the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 372, includes a definition for “animal in distress” that specifies, among other things, that an animal that is being deprived of space or exercise or is being neglected is in distress;

AND WHEREAS the tethering of dogs is not specifically referenced under provincial legislation;

AND WHEREAS such restraint can cause distress and suffering to dogs:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that UBCM request that the Government of British Columbia amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 372 (the “Act”) to specifically reference “tethering of dogs” and to permit enforcement actions under the Act in situations where tethering causes a dog(s) to be “in distress” within the meaning of the Act.

Blue Divider Line

UBCM Resolutions 2013

B126 TETHERING OF DOGS - Surrey
WHEREAS the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 372, includes a definition for “animal in distress” that specifies, among other things, that an animal that is being deprived of space or exercise or is being neglected is in distress;
AND WHEREAS the tethering of dogs is not specifically referenced under provincial legislation;
AND WHEREAS such restraint can cause distress and suffering to dogs:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that UBCM request that the Government of British Columbia amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 372 (the “Act”) to specifically reference “tethering of dogs” and to permit enforcement actions under the Act in situations where tethering causes a dog(s) to be “in distress” within the meaning of the Act.

ENDORSED BY THE LOWER MAINLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION
UBCM RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: No Recommendation
UBCM RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE COMMENTS:
This was submitted to UBCM in 2012 as a late resolution, but did not meet the criteria to be admitted for debate as an emergency resolution. In keeping with UBCM policy, the resolution has been forwarded to the Area Association for consideration as part of the 2013 resolutions cycle.
The Resolutions Committee advises that the UBCM membership has not previously considered a resolution calling on the Province to amend the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to include reference to “tethering of dogs” and to permit enforcement actions under the Act in situations where tethering causes a dog to be “in distress” within the meaning of the Act.
Conference decision: _____________________________________

Blue Divider Line

Better protection for tethered dogs under amended CRD bylaws
August 21, 2013

Better protection for tethered or chained dogs is one of the key improvements for animals under bylaw amendments recently adopted by the Capital Regional District. At the urging the BC SPCA, the CRD strengthened its existing bylaws to include specific recommendations on standards of care for local pet guardians.

“The previous bylaws stated that ‘the owner of an animal shall ensure that it is kept, housed and fed in a manner conducive to its good health and well-being’,” says Erika Paul the BC SPCA’s animal protection officer in the capital region. Earlier this year, the BC SPCA asked the CRD to enhance existing animal control bylaws by adding prescriptive guidelines for acceptable animal care standards. These recommendations mandated:
•Access to clean potable drinking water and sufficient food;
•Regular, at least daily, exercise to maintain good health;
•Veterinary care when animal exhibits signs of pain, injury, illness or suffering;
•Adequate outdoor shelter that is kept clean and provides the animal with protection from heat, cold, dampness;
•Precautions around animals in vehicles (e.g. mandating proper; ventilation in cars and appropriate securing of animals in pick-up trucks); and
•Limits on the length of time and ways dogs can be tethered.

Constable Paul is optimistic about the positive impacts of the bylaw amendments. “We applaud the CRD for making this progressive step for animals. There is a huge benefit for animals when bylaw officers have the ability to educate members of the pubic if they see animals living in less than ideal conditions,” she says. “Once people learn more about acceptable standards, most will quickly take action to improve the welfare of animals in their care. This goes a long way in preventing the situations of abuse and neglect that the SPCA is called in to deal with.” Constable Paul says the BC SPCA is urging all CRD municipalities and electoral districts to update their bylaws to reflect the changes adopted by the CRD.

Don Brown, chief bylaw officer for the CRD, adds, “I am very pleased that the CRD board approved the recommended changes to our animal control bylaw. This will enhance the welfare of animals and give our animal care officers a definitive tool to use when dealing with animal neglect.”

The CRD bylaw amendments also provide an opportunity for members of the public to take action, either by educating themselves or their neighbours. “For example, many people don’t realize that it can be very damaging to a dog to be tethered for long periods of time,” says Constable Paul. Members of the public can also contact their local bylaw office, which can follow up on complaints and help protect the welfare of animals in the CRD. For more information, visit crd.bc.ca/animal.

Background on Tethered Dogs

Humane animal care and control bylaws benefit community members and animals while also protecting public safety.

When it comes to animal welfare and public safety, the BC SPCA is particularly concerned about the welfare of dogs who spend their life tethered outside with no access to exercise or ability to socialize. The BC SPCA, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association and the Association of Shelter Veterinarians all agree that tethering – leaving a dog alone on a rope or chain for long periods of time – is an unacceptable method of confinement for animals. Dogs who are permanently tethered suffer psychological damage and may become fearful, aggressive, anxious and desperate, putting anyone who comes close at risk. A tethered dog can also become tangled and choke to death.

A number of other B.C. municipalities, including Port Hardy, Pemberton, Valemont, Sechelt, Oliver, Delta, Lions Bay, New Westminster, Burnaby, Sooke, Qualicum Beach, Chilliwack and Dawson Creek, have all taken steps to ensure that dogs in their communities do not suffer physically and psychologically from permanent tethering. The goal is to have all B.C. municipalities adopt a similar approach.

For more information, access our 2012 review of B.C. municipal bylaws.


The BC SPCA is a non-profit organization funded primarily by public donations. Our mission is to prevent cruelty and to promote the welfare of animals through a wide range of services, including cruelty investigations, emergency rescue and treatment, sheltering and adoption of homeless and abused animals, humane education, advocacy, farm animal welfare, spay/neuter programs, and wildlife rescue and rehabilitation.

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

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

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

Valemont
35. 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.

Sechelt
(10) 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.

Oliver
12. No person may cause an animal to be hitched, tied, or fastened to a fixed object for longer than 6 hours in a row and no longer than 9 hours within a 24 hour period.
14. 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 injure itself.

Delta
(c) cause, an animal to be tethered, tied or fastened to a fixed or heavy object for more than 4 hours within a 24 hour period while it is on the property of the person responsible for the animal;

Lions Bay
20. (c) No chaining or tethering of unattended dogs.

New Westminster
602. No person shall cause an animal to be tied or fastened to a fixed object where a choke collar or choke chain forms part of the securing apparatus, or where a rope, chain or cord is directly tied around the animal’s neck.

Burnaby
“tether”, when used as a noun, means a leash, rope, chain, line, cord or other similar device by which an animal is attached to a stake or other stationary object or to a pulley run or running line, and, when used as a verb, means to attach an animal by means of a leash, rope, chain, line, cord or other similar device to a stake or other stationary object or to a pulley run or running line; (BYLAW #12015)
===========
9. (1) The pound keeper may seize and impound
(g) any dog tethered contrary to section 15A(8). (BYLAW #12015)
=============
15.A (BYLAW #10387)
(8) No person shall: (BYLAW #12015)
(a) keep a dog tethered while unattended for more than one hour in any day;
(b) keep a dog tethered for more than one hour in any day, whether attended or not, on property used for any purpose other than residential use;
(c) tether a dog with a choke collar, training collar, or studded collar or otherwise than with a collar that is properly fitted to that dog and attached in a manner that will not injure the dog or enable the dog to injure itself by pulling on the tether; or
(d) tether a dog except with a tether of sufficient length to enable the full and unrestricted movement of the dog.

Sooke
50. No person shall keep any animal hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object as the primary means of confinement for an extended period of time.

Qualicum Beach
50. No person shall keep any animal hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object as the primary means of containment for an extended period of time.

Chilliwack
Every real property is limited to five (5) household pets (except for licensed kennels), with a maximum of three (3) dogs or three (3) cats.
http://www.chilliwack.ca/main/page.cfm?id=2044
49. No person shall keep any animal hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object as the primary means of confinement for an extended period of time.

Dawson Creek
7.5 No person shall keep any animal hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object where a choke collar or choke chain forms part of the securing apparatus, or where a rope or cord is tied directly around the animal’s neck.
7.6 No person shall keep any animal hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object as the primary means of confinement for an extended period of time.

Richmond BC Animal And Bird bylaw 7932, April 8, 2013
1.1 General Prohibition – All Animals and Birds
1.1.1 A person must not cause any animal or bird:
 (a) to be hitched, tied or fastened to a fixed object:
    (i) where a choke collar forms part of the securing apparatus;
    (ii) where the securing apparatus is less than 3 metres in length; or
    (iii) for a period longer than 1 hour in any 6 hour period;

Blue Divider Line

Board Supports Regional Dog Service Review Report

At its meeting Monday night at Kelowna City Council Chamber, the Regional Board received and unanimously supported 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.

View the entire Dog Control Service Review Report and Consultant's Presentation. Listen to Presentation Audio (2hour, 20minutes)

(updated October 25, 2012)

Source - RDCO's Whats New

.pdf icon October 22, 2012 Highlights of the Regional District of Central Okanagan Regular Board Meeting

Regional Dog Control Service Review

The Regional Board has received a .pdf icon 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.

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

.mp3 file icon - click here for help with audio October 22, 2012 audio of entire RDCO Board meeting - .mp3 (265 MB)

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files 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)

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files 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)

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files 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)

.pdf icon October 22, 2012 Regional District of Central Okanagan Regular Board Meeting Agenda Kelowna City Hall Council Chamber 1435 Water Street

.pdf icon Item 5.1 Consultant Report - Dog Control Service Review.pdf

.pdf icon Item 6.1 Dog Control Service Review.pdf

.pdf icon 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.

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

.mp3 file icon - click here for help with audio October 22, 2012 audio of entire RDCO Board meeting - .mp3 (265 MB)

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files 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)

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files 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)

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files 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)

.pdf icon October 22, 2012 Regional District of Central Okanagan Regular Board Meeting Minutes

5. DELEGATION
5.1 Neilson-Welch Consulting Inc. re: RDCO Dog Control Service Review Allan Neilson of Neilson-Welch Consulting Inc. was contracted in early 2012 to perform an independent service review of the region's dog control service. Mr. Neilson addressed the Board and provided a summary of service review including:
• Existing dog control service function
• Assessment of service
• Key elements of a new model
• Recommendations for Board consideration: vision & mandate; dog licensing; education; bylaw enforcement; engagement

The Terms of Reference for the assignment were reviewed, including:
Assessment of existing service:
Scope very broad, comprehensive review
Impetus for project was threefold - increase cost recovery, deal with dog aggression and find a way to bring the community on side with service.
Spoke with directors, stakeholder groups, comparative research, RDCO staff, and literature of dog control from the past.
Nature of service reviews: tend to focus on what's wrong with the service.
That is not the intent of this report, some of what the RDCO does is good.
Not the 'end of the story'. Going to need an implementation plan going forward, financial review, and change to a service takes time and refinement will be ongoing.
Service needs more direction from the top-has not been treated as a priority service.
Level of licensing is not good. 2/3 dog owners are choosing to break the law by not licensing their dog(s).
Need to recognize the value of education.
Cost recovery approximately 31 % (not significantly below other jurisdictions). Has the potential for higher cost recovery. Key is licensing.
Service does not have the staffing level to provide local government partner expectations regarding enforcement of dog access in, for example, municipal parks.
Need to build stronger relations with dog owner's community.
Need common philosophy amongst staff - enforcement related, recognize need for education and a more community approach.
Need to build on existing efforts aimed at dog aggression.
Less euthanasia, but euthanasia will be a required service

Foundation of new service model:
New vision - responsible dog ownership is at the centre of the model
  o Criteria for good dog ownership outlined
    Increase licensing compliance - greater cost recovery
    Need fewer dog aggression incidents
    Greater community support
    Increase in adoption rates
    Fewer impounds

Key elements of new service model:
How do we make it work? Educate, hold dog owners accountable, promote and reward efforts.
Education: target dog owners; target elementary schools with instruction on dog safety.
Dog licensing - remove barriers to purchase, review need for 3rd party agents, do not yet have the ability to purchase on-line, develop a rewards program, introduce new licensing categories (ie: spay/neuter, service dogs) include two new categories: issue a responsible dog owner license; aggressive dog license.
Zero tolerance policy with respect to dog licensing with high fines for nonlicensing.
Charge significant fee to return unlicensed dog.
Extensive use of volunteers (possible 'ambassador program').
Produce various information materials (do not reinvent the wheel, the information is already out there in other jurisdictions).
Bylaw enforcement - collaborate enforcing dog regulations in parks (compliance instead of enforcement)
Adopt low tolerance for most regulations except penalties for dog aggression and failure to have a license.
Communicate changes clearly and ahead of implementation.
Join adjudication bylaw program for various ticketing enforcement.
Community engagement: create dog service resource group which would meet with staff, not elected officials; host annual open house to speak to changes; get feedback (what is failing, succeeding); develop volunteer program for service (Dog Ambassador Program); hold annual meetings with service providers (ie: vets, dog businesses, etc).
Survey responsible dog owners - how are we succeeding, what other changes are required, what is the satisfaction with the service.
Dog Aggression: retain two tiers of aggression (aggressive and dangerous dogs); sharpen dividing line. Dangerous dogs are seized under the Community Charter (use consent order whenever possible or through the courts for destruction).
Adopt three strikes policy - it provides the opportunity to identify dogs before they become more aggressive ie: owner education, dog behavioural training.
Continue efforts to deal with long stay dogs. Avoid where we can.
Constrained on some issues particularly in regard to Community Charter actions. SPCA has done an assessment on the pound for long stay dogs and has made recommendations which have been implemented.
Seek Section 48 Authority - cost recovery dealing with long stay dogs.
Provides opportunity for a local government to take action on dog and cost recovery. Section 49 allows seizure of dogs.
Explore opportunity to recover costs through Consent Orders
Take advantage of Province's offer to assist with possible cost recovery.
In-house delivery: keep redesigned service in-house-this maintains control of the service.
Fees: keep imposed fees for responsible dog owners at minimum. Impose high fees for aggressive/dangerous dogs.
Other: invest in better communication technology for staff; no longer respond to drug busts with RCMP; develop formal practices and procedures; continue to use SPCA for adoptions; support other SPCA efforts (spay/neuter, education programs, etc).

Implementation:
It is not possible for all dog issues to be addressed: dog barking, kennels not key issues in the service.
Recommendations fit together as a package. Patience is critical.
Changes take time to implement, possibly over a year.

Discussion:
- Challenge to do this with current resources. Additional resources may be needed in the implementation phase.
Is any change in the title of the service being considered? Prefer: Dog Services and responsible dog ownership bylaw.
Dog owners need to be paying for the service.
There is the potential to be a self-funded program but it will take work and dog owners to be responsible with licensing.
Take what is successful in other areas and build from there. None of the recommendations reinvent 'the wheel'.
Clear procedures and guidelines are required to assist enforcement officers.
Public safety issues in the top category of consideration.
Does the RDCO have the staff to write the implementation plan? A consultant may be required to assist.
Has consideration been given to risk rated breeds? There is mixed evidence throughout jurisdictions regarding banning certain breeds of dogs. The trend is to move away from that model--different breeds are not necessarily the problem.
Every breed has the potential to be destructive. It's about responsible dog ownership.
Education is vital to a new model and it won't happen overnight.
Rewarding good dog ownership will be important.
Bylaw adjudication plan would be for minor ticketing offenses - not for dangerous/aggressive dogs. Those will require consent orders or court action.
The largest complaints received relate to barking. RDCO needs to 'marshall' resources. Barking is not a risk to life and limb and should be considered a low priority and not all investigated. RDCO does not have the staff to investigate the numerous complaints currently received.
Not everyone is going to embrace the new model.
Shouldn't vendors be one of the biggest advocates for licensing?
Was any analysis done for the 'size' of the fine for zero tolerance? At what point would people not be able to afford to pay the fine to get their dog out of the pound?
The model is a 'package' and should not be considered as 'one off' recommendations. Only time will tell if all recommendations will work.
Transition may require some leeway on the fines. It will be important to communicate far in advance what the 'drop dead' date is for fines.
What would you feel is a sense of expectation in the community to 'see something' occurring? The Board is more anxious than the broader community to get something in place. Community is close behind.

- Implementing the model will likely take a year or more.
- Education is an important component of the new model.
- Consistent policy and procedures in place is critical.
- Should public input be considered as part of the implementation plan? Various approaches may be considered ie: online polls, possible delegations at Governance & Services meeting. Concern was expressed that if a public process is to be considered, that the public not be left to choose which part they like or do not like-it is important to be aware that all parts work together, it is a comprehensive package. The Board needs to be clear what input is required from the public. Don't want emotional 'stuff' to change the focus of the report. Comments should relate to what is it about the report that they don't like or believe that wouldn't work.

- Timing: It will take at least two to three months to develop an implementation plan.
Staff will report back to the Board later this year with an update on the process.

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

6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6.1 Dog Control Service Review (All Directors - Unweighted Vote)

FINDLATER/OPHUS
THAT the Regional Board receive for information the Dog Control Service Review report presented by Neilson-Welch Consulting Inc.;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to review the proposed recommendations and Board input and develop an implementation plan, including consulting assistance, and report to the Board at a future date for consideration.

CARRIED

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

.mp3 file icon - click here for help with audio October 22, 2012 audio of entire RDCO Board meeting - .mp3 (265 MB)

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files 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)

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files 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)

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files 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)

Blue Divider Line

**PLEASE NOTE THESE ARE ONLY SNIPPETS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BYLAW NOTICE ENFORCEMENT ACT AND REGULATIONS**

Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act

Bylaw notice
4 (1) Subject to the regulations, a local government may designate bylaw contraventions which may be dealt with by bylaw notice under this Act.
(2) If a matter is prescribed by regulation as only enforceable by bylaw notice, a local government bylaw in relation to the matter may only be enforced by bylaw notice.
Hearings must be open to the public

19 (1) A dispute adjudication must be open to the public unless the determination is to be based on written materials.
(2) If a determination is based on written materials, the local government must make those materials available to the public.
(3) Public access to an oral hearing or to the materials submitted for an adjudication in writing may be provided by the local government in any reasonable manner, which may include by electronic means.

Offence Act
27 The Offence Act does not apply in respect of a bylaw contravention if a bylaw notice is issued in respect of the contravention.

Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act Bylaw Notice Enforcement Regulation

I notice at the bottom of the page (link above - Regulation) there is a long list of local governments who have signed up for the Bylaw Dispute Adjudication Process.

Blue Divider Line

DOGS ARE NOT TO BE OUTSIDE BARKING BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8PM AND 7AM IN THE REGIONAL DISTRICT OF CENTRAL OKANAGAN OUTSIDE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND RESERVE AND IN AN "R" PLANNING ZONE.  RDCO Consolidated Zoning Bylaw #871

.pdf icon 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

Blue Divider Line

Kelowna mayor suggesting banning motorcycles from downtown
AM 1150 - 6/6/2012

The mayor of Kelowna says the downtown will be much quieter in the future if he has anything to say about it.

Many residents have complained about the noise motorcycles make while cruising along Bernard Avenue.

Walter Gray suggested that if 14 million dollars is being spent to make the area more pedestrian friendly, why not ban motorcycles all together.

"I'm wondering if we should just push this envelope for Bernard Avenue as a start and simply ban motorcycles from it".

Gray says the province is dragging its heels on legislation allowing municipalities to enforce a noise bylaw.

Gray has written the premier expressing his concern.

Blue Divider Line

Mulgrew: B.C.'s hefty civil court fees struck down as unconstitutional
By Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun - May 22, 2012

B.C. Justice Mark McEwan severely stomps the practice of making civil litigants pay thousands of dollars for their day in court

After two years of deliberation, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Mark McEwan has struck down Victoria’s hefty civil court hearing fees as unconstitutional.

In the landmark 178-page ruling released Tuesday, Justice McEwan declared “some things cannot be for sale” and slammed the provincial government for its approach to legal funding.

“The court is an essential forum of that common life, and cannot perform its necessary function if it, like so much else, is subject to the values of the marketplace the government has used to justify the fees,” he wrote.

The government charges litigants $500 a day starting on day four of a trial and $800 a day after day 10.

This constitutional throw-down arose from a typical family custody matter and the ruling could have far-reaching effects.

In this instance, a single woman pleaded that she should be spared the fees after losing a custody trial.

The legal tug of war with her ex-partner started in 2008 when the 43-year-old woman decided to return to Europe with her five-year-old daughter.

It cost her more than $20,000 in lawyer’s fees just to get to the eve of trial.

She then was forced to litigate herself because she couldn’t pay the lawyer to appear in court.

Her husband, a University of B.C. instructor, also represented himself at the 10-day trial. Neither is happy: This expensive system failed them both.

At the end of the proceedings, the woman asked Justice McEwan to waive the $3,600 she owed in court fees.

But the judge said that unless she was declared indigent, he had no power to give her a break without declaring the fees unconstitutional.

At that point, he decided to hear arguments about their legitimacy.

“A person who cannot afford a fee of $100 or $200 may properly be described as indigent, that is, as being ‘destitute,’ ‘needy,’ ‘in want,’ ‘poor’ or ‘necessitous’ as the dictionaries define the term,” Justice McEwan said.

“It is an awkward word to use to describe a middle class family’s inability to pay a month’s net salary for the two-week ‘rent’ of a courtroom.”

Ironically, the three-day constitutional debate would have added $1,872 in fees.

Justice McEwan’s decision means the woman will not have to pay the hearing fees and puts in jeopardy the revenue the government reaps from them — about $2 million a year — if it does not appeal.

At the time of this litigation, the fees started at $156 for a half-day hearing and rose to $624 a day after 10 days.

Justice McEwan said this amounted to the government imposing a barrier to access to the judiciary and “this creates a constitutionally untenable appearance of hierarchy.”

He went on to say: “It is evident from the sources presented that in the last two decades the government of B.C. has lost its enthusiasm for supporting the courts at a level required to fulfil their purposes.”

Justice McEwan added that the breadth and implications of the economic and constitutional material he considered led to the “unusual delay” in producing the impassioned ruling that reviewed centuries of legal history.

The decision’s effects will be substantial — lawsuits over the tragic 2006 sinking of the Queen of the North ferry, for instance, were abandoned in part because of the hurdle posed by $40,000 in fees and jury costs.

The public may not be an active participant in a private dispute between litigants, but Justice McEwan said it has an abiding and important interest in every case.

The outspoken jurist called the fees a “bad idea” during 2010 proceedings.

But no one expected him to so severely stomp the practice of making civil litigants pay thousands of dollars for their day in court — controversial levies that Victoria vigorously defended.

“Wow!” said lawyer Darrell Roberts, of the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. who made submissions in the case.

“This is wonderful. I was never expecting this. He’s done a great job. We won.”

The Canadian Bar Association’s B.C. branch, which also participated in the case, celebrated too.

“Justice McEwan has declared hearing fees unconstitutional and in so doing found that the fees, which escalate to over $600 per day, are an impediment to the courts for all but those who are well-to-do,” said Stephen McPhee, past president.

“This decision reaffirms that the courts exist for both the rich and the poor, those with small cases and those with large cases.”

Reasonable fees may be charged for services, but Justice McEwan said civil litigants don’t have to pay the exorbitant hearing-day costs that Victoria argued had been a part of British justice for half a millennium.

He said the attorney-general’s approach to financing the courts revealed “a significant misunderstanding by the government of its responsibilities under, and the limitations on, its constitutional mandate …”

Fees for time in court that put a price on or acted as a barrier to justice could not be allowed to stand nor could any “legislative constraints designed to limit access.”

“Support for the civil courts is not seen as a cost of good government but as a discretionary expense to be minimized, amateurized (no legal aid), or privatized, wherever possible,” Justice McEwan archly wrote.

He pointedly quoted from the recent book — What Money Can’t Buy, the Moral Limits of Markets — saying the “marketization of everything” is not good for democracy, “nor is it a satisfying way to live.”

Given the current tension between the judges and the executive branch, his much-anticipated decision is even more pertinent and germane than when the arguments occurred.

The government had argued that the English and Welsh civil systems today are completely financed by user fees.

In this province, Victoria said, court fees predate Confederation.

But B.C. hadn’t collected hearing-day fees since before the First World War and the present levies were imposed only in 1998.

The only other Canadian jurisdictions imposing hearing fees (though at much lower levels) are Saskatchewan, Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

Victoria insisted the fees were intended to make the court more efficient and trials less lengthy.

But the Trial Lawyers criticized the exorbitant and escalating tariffs, saying Victoria was robbing the needy.

Roberts, who represented the lobby group, said the fees were abhorrent.

The bar association said the fees made it impossible for people of modest means to have their day in court, and disproportionately blocked first nations, the disabled, immigrants, lone parents and women from access to justice.

At the end of the last century, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court found similar hearing fees that increased with the length of the trial were unconstitutional.

That decision was never appealed.

imulgrew "at" vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Blue Divider Line

 

Local Government Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 323
This Act is Current to April 25, 2012
Division 3 — Sundry Powers
Part 22 — Miscellaneous Powers

Noise control

724 (1) If a regional district provides a service referred to in section 797.1 (1) (d), the board may, by bylaw, do one or more of the following:

(a) regulate or prohibit the making or causing of noises or sounds in or on a highway or elsewhere in the regional district

(i) that disturb, or tend to disturb, the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of the neighbourhood, or of persons in the vicinity, or

(ii) that the board believes are objectionable or liable to disturb the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of individuals or the public;

(b) prevent or prohibit persons from shouting, using megaphones and making other noise in, at or on streets, wharves, docks, piers, steamboat landings, railway stations or other public places;

(c) prevent charivaries and similar disturbances of the peace.

(2) Regulations and prohibitions under subsection (1) (a) may be different for different areas of the regional district.

 

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.

 

Interpretation Act
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 238
This Act is Current to April 25, 2012

Use of forms and words

28 (1) If a form is prescribed under an enactment, deviations from it not affecting the substance or calculated to mislead, do not invalidate the form used.

(2) Gender specific terms include both genders and include corporations.

(3) In an enactment words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular.

(4) If a word or expression is defined in an enactment, other parts of speech and grammatical forms of the same word or expression have corresponding meanings.

 

Blue Divider Line

Letter dated March 15, 2012 (2 pages) from RDCO Chair Robert Hobson in regards to complaints about barking dogs and RDCO canvassing the neighborhood.

Page 1 of 2 pages - Letter dated March 15, 2012 from RDCO Chair Robert Hobson in regards to complaints about barking dogs and RDCO canvassing the neighborhood.
Page 2 of 2 pages - Letter dated March 15, 2012 from RDCO Chair Robert Hobson in regards to complaints about barking dogs and RDCO canvassing the neighborhood
click each of the two pages to read a larger copy

For one thing, if RDCO listened to the evidence submitted on audio tape which was not taped while standing in front of the dog owners home, RDCO would realize that the person video taping the dogs does not have the stamina to stand there for 5 1/2 hours to video tape the dogs and antagonize them the entire 5 1/2 hours the dogs barked, for the dogs to stop barking after video taping for a couple minutes and then leaving.  This letter from Chair Robert Hobson is so full of it!!  I guess the video tape evidence of the barking taken from different locations around the subdivision (street signs we video taped) means we were standing in front of the dog antagonizing it the entire 5 1/2 hours it was barking?  Did anyone at Dog Control even view the video or listen to the audio tape?  Robert Hobson really needs to loose his job!!  Its not like several complaints over 2 years were not made to Robert Hobson directly about dog control?  And if RDCO is believing the barking dog owners (more than one) its because the neighbors RDCO talked to were either friends of the barking dog owners or family who live next door to the barking dogs.

Its not like RDCO hasn't caught the dogs barking themselves either!!!

This letter from RDCO Chair Robert Hobson makes us livid!!!

Blue Divider Line

This letter dated January 18, 2011 is from RDCO Chief Administrative Officer Harold Reay and it states that RDCO will no longer investigate barking dog complaints unless its a different dog.

Notice that the letter states that RDCO does not have enough resources.  Then read the case Mynott v. British Columbia Ministry of Transportation below in favour of the plaintiff.

Blue Divider Line

Below is an article about barking dogs that was published in the Westside Road Community News Dec 2011 edition

Article about barking dogs that was published in the Westside Road Community News Dec 2011 edition
click article for larger copy

Did you know that the Regional District of Central Okanagan has $50,000 of your money to hire a consultant to advise RDCO dog control manager Dan Plamondon how to change the dog control function so that it actually works??  We have been trying to tell RDCO what it needs to do about its dog control dept for ages, but RDCO won't listen.  We could save taxpayers $50,000 and it, if RDCO would just use some common sense!!

We tried to call Dog Control Supervisor Rhoda Mueller again December 22, 2011 and she hung up on us because she didn't want to hear how bad of a job she is doing.

Blue Divider Line

A Dog Barking case is also known as a "nuisance" case.

*Note* This is only a snippet, please click link for entire content of this case.

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.

 

*Note* This is only a snippet, please click link for entire content of this case.

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.

 

*Note* This is only a snippet, please click link for entire content of this case.

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.

See the following cases for examples of dog nuisance cases:

http://canlii.ca/t/fnvtt

http://canlii.ca/t/2196b

*Note* This is only a snippet, please click link for entire content of this case.

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."

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon January 10, 2008 Governance & Services Committee Meeting Minutes (Pg. 4)

5. Development Services

5.1 Hobby Kennels
Staff reviewed the report of October 3rd regarding hobby kennels and a complaint which was received in 2007. Staff noted that the noise bylaw would have been in affect for this complaint but was never followed through. Staff confirmed that up to 20 dogs can be in a hobby kennel. Beyond this it would be considered a service kennel. The individual that was operating the facility was a dog breeder with 30 years experience but has since relocated. It was noted that the 15 meter setback has no affect with a hobby kennel.
Director Hanson noted her support for the recommendation.

HANSON/EDGSON
THAT no change be made to the Joe Rich Rural Land Use Bylaw and the RDCO Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw regarding dog kennel facilities.
CARRIED

Blue Divider Line

Woman kills man over her barking dog
UPDATED: 2009-04-01 - By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SYDNEY — A woman was convicted of fatally stabbing a neighbour who complained about her barking dog in Australia’s biggest city.

A New South Wales Supreme Court jury found Katrina Megan Whitmore, 26, guilty of murder after two days of deliberations.

Joseph Durrant, 47, of Sydney, was on his way home from Australia Day celebrations Jan. 27, 2007, when he argued with Whitmore in her yard about her dog.

Prosecutors said Whitmore threatened Durrant then attacked him with a knife.

Whitmore has acknowledged there was a struggle but denied wielding a knife.

She will be sentenced May 29.

“She does say that she told people not to speak to her dog like that,” prosecutor Chris Maxwell told the court Wednesday.

A witness, Adam Duncan, told the court he was at a party next door when he saw Whitmore run down her driveway brandishing a knife, adding that he was “pretty sure Katrina stabbed him in the neck.”

Co-accused Steven Spiro Sotiropoulos, who was involved in the fight and charged alongside Whitmore, was found not guilty of murder.

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

also on the Huffington Post

Blue Divider Line

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

Blue Divider Line

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.

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

.mp3 file icon - click here for help with audio August 22, 2011 audio of entire RDCO Board meeting - .mp3 (307 MB)

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files August 22, 2011 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about letter from dog bite victims Mother - .wma (1.47 MB)

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files 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)

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files August 22, 2011 audio of RDCO Board meeting only in regards to dog committee recommended amendments to allow 3 dogs - .wma (1.57 MB)

Blue Divider Line

RDCO's Chief Bylaw Enforcement Officer Job Description

FOI Request

The role of the Chief Bylaw Enforcement Officer is to provide oversight, coordination and enforcement of all RDCO bylaws and programs, for the purpose of maintaining quality of life, health and safety, enjoyment of neighborhoods, decreasing negative impacts from violations and supporting responsible environmental protection.

The role of the Chief Bylaw Enforcement Officer is to provide oversight, coordination and enforcement of all RDCO bylaws and programs, for the purpose of maintaining quality of life, health and safety, enjoyment of neighborhoods, decreasing negative impacts from violations and supporting responsible environmental protection.

Blue Divider Line

Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control Bylaws

The Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control Bylaws also apply to the City of Kelowna, District of Lake Country and District of Peachland

RDCO dog control told us their noise bylaw does not apply to dogs, and that only the dog bylaw applies to dogs.

.pdf icon R.D.C.O. Consolidated Dog Regulation and Impounding bylaw #366,
 in effect Dec 2010 and still in effect Nov 2012

.pdf icon R.D.C.O. Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 366 Schedules

.pdf icon R.D.C.O. Consolidated Ticket Information Utilization Bylaw 435.pdf

.pdf icon R.D.C.O. Ticket Information and Utilization Amendment Bylaw No. 1266, 2009 - Amends Bylaw No. 435 (in effect Dec 2010)

.pdf icon R.D.C.O. Ticket Information and Utilization Amendment Bylaw No. 1299, 2011 - Amends Bylaw No. 435

.pdf icon R.D.C.O. Ticket Information and Utilization Amendment Bylaw No. 1302, 2011 - Amends Bylaw No. 435

please check to see if there are newer bylaws implemented since this information was posted Dec 2010

Bylaws on RDCO's Website

Ticket Information and Utilization Amendment Bylaw No. 1266, 2009 - Amends Bylaw No. 435
Click image to read larger print.

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon Dog Regulation and Impounding Amendment Bylaw No. 1265, 2009 - Amends Bylaw No. 366

section 32.4 A maintenance fee of $20.00 for each overnight detention.

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon RDCO Letters Patent div xxvii Animal Control Apr. 7, 1988

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

.pdf icon Animal Control Extended Service Establishment Bylaw No. 769, 1998

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

.pdf icon Prohibited Animal Amendment Bylaw No. 1073, 2004  Amends Bylaw No. 1028

.pdf icon Prohibited Animal Bylaw No. 1028, 2003 - Amended by Bylaw No. 1073

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

Blue Divider Line

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

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

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

Blue Divider Line

RDCO Dog Advisory Committee Agenda

RDCO Dog Advisory Committee Minutes

NEW Permanent Dog License

RDCO finally posted the Dog Advisory Committee Agenda and Minutes to its website end of 2011

.pdf icon 2011 List of RDCO Committee Appointments

.pdf icon 2011 Terms of Reference of the Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Advisory Committee

.pdf icon Regional District of Central Okanagan Organization and Responsibilities

.pdf icon RDCO Development Services Director Dan Plamondon is responsible for the following:
Inspection Section
Responsibility Areas
Business Licenses
Building Inspection & Permits
Paid On-call Fire Departments
Regional Rescue
Dog Control
Noise Bylaw
Smoke Control Bylaw
Untidy Premises
Insect & Weed Control
Sign Bylaw
General Bylaw Enforcement

.pdf icon Dog Control Officer I Job Description

.pdf icon RDCO - Barking Dog Log Complaint form

CONTACT RDCO

Blue Divider Line

Local Government Act - Division 1 - Regulation of Animals
Division 1 — Regulation of Animals
702.1 Application in relation to regional district animal control service
703 Animal control authority
704–706 Repealed
707 Animal pounds
707.1 Dangerous dogs

Community Charter
[SBC 2003] CHAPTER 26
Division 6 — Animal Control

Blue Divider Line

Don't let Dog Control tell you like were told by dog control, that a warning ticket cannot be brought up in a future court case because the dog control officer that told us this is wrong.  Please see RDCO's Dangerous Dog report of August 22, 2011 Board Agenda at the link below.

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

Blue Divider Line

From wikipedia

Statistical analysis has revealed that barks can be divided into different subtypes based on context and that individual dogs can be identified by their barks.

While there is not a precise, consistent and functional acoustic definition for barking, researchers may classify barks according to several criteria. University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers identified volume, pitch, tonality, noise, abrupt onset and pulse duration are amongst the criteria that can be used to define a bark.

Canine barking can be a nuisance to neighbours, and is a common problem dog owners or their neighbours may face. (Many dogs can bark at 100 dBA. Even at 17.5 yards away and with the dog outside a closed window, the noise level of a barking dog can be well over the level that causes psychological distress.[4])

Blue Divider Line

Failure to control dog barking is a sign of animal neglect. I would be concerned as to the mental and physical health of any dog that barks to the point it creates a disturbance in any neighbourhood. It is cruel to expect your neighbours to tolerate your dogs barking. It is also rude and far from polite community living.

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.

Blue Divider Line

The Right to Quiet Society for Soundscape Awareness and Protection

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.

Blue Divider Line

RDCO Dog Control Officer receiving DOUBLE TIME PAY ???

4 of the Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control Officer bi-weekly pay periods that show the dog control officer receiving DOUBLE TIME PAY.

Blue Divider Line

The current animal control system - how and why it is failing

Noise-related information provided by the World Health Organization

Explanation of why some people are traumatized by noise while others are not

Blue Divider Line

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

Blue Divider Line

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): ____________

Blue Divider Line

Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control Bylaws

.pdf icon R.D.C.O. Consolidated Dog Regulation and Impounding bylaw #366, in effect Nov 2012

.pdf icon R.D.C.O. Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 366 Schedules

.pdf icon R.D.C.O Ticket Information and Utilization Amendment Bylaw No. 1266, 2009 - Amends Bylaw No. 435 (in effect Dec 2010)

Ticket Information and Utilization Amendment Bylaw No. 1266, 2009 - Amends Bylaw No. 435
Click image to read larger print.

.pdf icon R.D.C.O. Ticket Information and Utilization Amendment Bylaw No. 1299, 2011 - Amends Bylaw No. 435

.pdf icon R.D.C.O. Ticket Information and Utilization Amendment Bylaw No. 1302, 2011 - Amends Bylaw No. 435

Blue Divider Line

EMAIL FROM THE SPCA

Dec 29, 2010 we sent an email to the BC SPCA with a copy of the concerns we have about the Regional District of Central Okanagan RDCO's dog bylaw #366 listed below.  We mentioned it would be nice to be able to read the SPCA recommendations in their model bylaw but that we didn't have $20 to purchase it.  The SPCA sent us an email back on Dec 30, 2010 with a copy of their model bylaw.  Thank you for that, SPCA!  In the email we received from the SPCA it said quote, "We wrote to the RD of Central Okanagan earlier this year to provide them with a copy of our Model Bylaw, but have not seen any signs that they are interested in implementing it. Perhaps some public pressure from concerned citizens like yourself will help. "

Blue Divider Line

Please note that the Community Charter may have changed since this information was posted, so please check the latest version of the Local Government Act for up to date info

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.

 

We asked one dog control dispatcher working on Sunday Jan 23, 2011 how many dog control officers are usually on duty during a weekday and how many during a weekend.  We were told that usually 3 officers and 1 dispatch person during a weekday and 2 officers and 1 dispatch person during a Saturday or Sunday, that's if nobody is sick.  Apparently there was only one dog control officer on duty January 23, 2011 and she was going all the way to Crystal Mountain.

 

Concerns Regarding RDCO's Dog Control Bylaw

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. 
.pdf icon 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.
.pdf icon 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."
.pdf icon 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.
.pdf icon 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 .pdf icon 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.  .pdf icon 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 .pdf icon RDCO's Consolidated Dog Regulation and Impounding bylaw #366, in 2010 that stipulates times dog control may be open or contacted, just the pound.
.pdf icon 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).

- People should be able to contact dog control officers directly instead of playing phone tag if dog control officers have wireless technology.

2003 Annual Report (Page 13 of the document or pg 14 of the .pdf)
Incorporated wireless technology into dog control bylaw enforcement.


- NO impound fee?  .pdf icon 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.

2003 Annual Report (Page 13 of the document or pg 14 of the .pdf)
Incorporated wireless technology into dog control bylaw enforcement.

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.

Poor dog with a freshly done tattoo.

He is sticking his tounge out at us LOL!!


These are his puppies before he was neuteredToy poodle puppiesToy poodle puppy
- why is there such a difference in licensing costs if you have a spayed or neutered dog or not?
- .pdf icon 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 .pdf icon 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.  .pdf icon 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.

Tia missing an eye after being run over by her owner taking her for a run beside his pickup truck.     Tia with her one eye missing after being run over by her owners pickup truck when he was letting her run with his pickup truck.

Dog Seatbelts

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

.pdf icon 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. .pdf icon 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.

Blue Divider Line

Section 21.2 of the Regional District of Central Okanagan dog control bylaw means nothing according to Dog Control Supervisor Rhoda Mueller at RDCO unless a dog barks for a continuous or cumulative duration for 5 minutes of longer in any 15 minute period and twice in 72 hours!  Here is how the bylaw reads.  You have to read the definition of noise in the bylaw for the meaning of section 21.2

Regional District of Central Okanagan CONSOLIDATED Dog Control Bylaw No. 366

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.

Read the story I was told, below.

Blue Divider Line

Here's Regional District of Central Okanagan Bylaw No.366 Noise Bylaw (barking bylaw)
Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control Bylaw No. 366 - 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.
click .pdf icon  Consolidated Dog Control Bylaw No. 366

Blue Divider Line

How to Handle Nuisance Barking

From Cesar the Dog Whisperer

Blue Divider Line

HOW TO STOP THE BARKING

If the barking occurs in the presence of "intruders," which may include the mail carrier, children walking to school and other dogs or neighbors in adjacent yards this is a good read.

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon Regional District of Central Okanagan Animal Control Bylaw No. 880, 2000

*Note - This is only a snippett, please click link above for entire contents

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.

Blue Divider Line

RDCO's barking bylaw in a nutshell

A Nutshell Description of the Most Common Types of Barking Laws

Blue Divider Line

How much barking is too much barking?

Read the consensus on Castanet.net Forum

LivinginKelowna said, "There is no doubt in my mind that there should be more bite to the bylaw officer's bark"

tunachick said, I've called bylaw control many times (after trying to deal with the dog's owner) and each time the officer goes to the neighbour's house and warns her. Again. No fine is ever levied. Last time the animal landed at the pound there was no charge for running at large, just an impound fee.  We not only need a barking control bylaw with teeth, we need bylaw control officers to follow through on their threats instead of the perpetual "If I have to come out here one more time blah blah blah."

Blue Divider Line

Re: Dog attacks while camping??
StraitTalk said, Just remember. It's our fault and has nothing to do with the dogs.

Re: Dog attacks while camping??
xjeepguy said, 3 times it stole your food ? I think I would have hit it with bear spray after the hot dog incident. Now, that being said, with dogs like THAT one, it's usually accompanied by an owner(s) of the same level of intelligence . Ignorant dogs usually have ignorant owners.

Blue Divider Line

BC Court Judgement Database

[63] The defendants must know that the plaintiffs could easily bring a similar action with better evidence as to noise disturbance. Some reasonable additional measures should be taken by the defendants to avoid this possibility. Firstly, the defendants should commit to maintaining the dogs in kennel buildings from the hours of 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM.

[64] Additionally, the kennel structures should be enhanced to prevent sound emanating from them. This is clearly possible to do. Such limited restrictions would allow the neighbours a reasonable period of quiet time to use and enjoy their properties. Additionally, further steps should be taken by the defendants to monitor the dogs while they are outside in the dog runs. It is simply not acceptable to let dogs bark with only limited verbal commands being given for them to be quiet.

Blue Divider Line

RDCO's noise bylaw and dog control bylaw do not have a decibel level for control.

Technically you could listen to several dogs barking all day and nothing can be done.

There is no restriction on the time of day or night for barking or not barking mentioned in RDCO's dog control bylaw.

The noise bylaw uses the words persons and neighbourhood which mean more than one person has to complain about noise.

The noise bylaw is not used for barking dogs because there is a dog bylaw.

Blue Divider Line

Here is a bird house bark control device they sell at Home Hardware for approx. $80 that works up to 50 feet away.

Blue Divider Line

Look up your municipality in the .pdf icon 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.

Blue Divider Line

The Barking Dog Bylaw is not working for me.

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.

Here is 41 minutes of this big dog barking while tied to a chain on a run in his yard probably soaking wet from the rain.

Blue Divider Line

This is what it says on the Regional District of Central Okanagan's website about staying anonymous.

When you file a complaint with us, your personal information is kept confidential and is not revealed to the dog owner. It is important for us to have your information on file to give validity to the complaint and to assist our officers in effectively dealing with your concerns.

The exception to this confidentiality is if there is court action as a result of your complaint. In this case, the accused is entitled to full disclosure of the file for the purpose of preparing his/her defence. Then your personal information must be revealed along with the officer's notes and findings to the accused or his/her counsel as required by law.

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

Blue Divider Line

August 12, 2010 Governance & Services Committee Meeting Agenda

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.

Blue Divider Line

RDCO Noise Control Bylaw #403 for animals

(does not pretain to dogs because there is a Dog Control Bylaw)

Useless bylaw if only one person is complaining, because neighbourhood and/or persons mean more than one person needs to complain.

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

I guess a dog is not considered an animal???

Blue Divider Line

Link to RDCO's dog control website

Link to RDCO's dog complaint webpage

Blue Divider Line

RDCO - Barking Dog Complaint form
http://www.regionaldistrict.com/docs/inspections/barking log form - to complainant.pdf

Blue Divider Line

2005 Regional District Annual Report States (page 18)
Initiate a system for attaching dog control impound photos to the dog control database.
http://www.regionaldistrict.com/docs/boards_committees/Annual%20Report.pdf

Blue Divider Line

2003 Annual Report (Page 13 of the document or pg 14 of the .pdf)

Developed dog control policy amendments that were adopted by the board and area municipalities that created a seamless dog control service in the area. Stricter regulations for dangerous dogs were also implemented.

Incorporated wireless technology into dog control bylaw enforcement.

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon 2003 Annual Report - (pg 13 of the report or pg 14 of the .pdf)
Dogs Licensed 8,793
Dog Complaints 3,151
Dogs Impounded 1,229
Dogs Euthanized 306
Dog Bylaw Violation Tickets 367

.pdf icon 2004 Annual Report - (pg 18 of the report or pg 20 of the .pdf)
Dogs Licensed 9,046
Dog Complaints 2,990
Dogs Impounded 1,186
Dogs Euthanized 292
Dog Bylaw Violation Tickets 330

.pdf icon 2005 Annual Report - (pg 17 or 19)
Dogs Licensed 9,224
Dog Complaints 2,892
Dogs Impounded 1,111
Dogs Euthanized 259
Dog Bylaw Violation Tickets 324

.pdf icon 2006 Annual Report - (pg 17 or 19)
Dogs Licensed 9,476
Dog Complaints 2,524
Dogs Impounded 1,128
Dogs Euthanized 219
Dog Bylaw Violation Tickets 218

.pdf icon 2007 Annual Report - (pg 20 or 22)
Dogs Licensed 9,833
Dog Complaints 2,403
Dogs Impounded 874
Dogs Euthanized 113
Dog Bylaw Violation Tickets 338

.pdf icon 2008 Annual Report - (pg 8)
Dogs Licensed 10,457
Dog Complaints 2,164
Dogs Impounded 886
Dogs Euthanized 91
Dog Bylaw Violation Tickets 401

.pdf icon 2009 Annual Report - (pg 7)
Dogs Licensed 10,487
Dog Complaints 1,993
Dogs Impounded 774
Dogs Euthanized 108
Dog Bylaw Violation tickets 401

.pdf icon 2010 Annual Report - (pg 7)
Dogs Licensed 11,275
Dog Complaints 2,286
Dogs Impounded 774
Dogs Euthanized 81
Dog Bylaw Violation tickets 254
Dog Non Compliant Responses 923

http://www.regionaldistrict.com/regional-board-committees/annual-report.aspx

Blue Divider Line

New addition to dog control
Castanet.net - by Contributed - Story: 56401 - Aug 23, 2010

Regional District of Central Okanagan (RDCO) bylaw enforcement Gator
Castanet.net Photo

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.

Blue Divider Line

RDCO's barking bylaw in a nutshell

A Nutshell Description of the Most Common Types of Barking Laws

You won't want to miss this if you have enough time to read down to here!  This website has some great information and gave me the inspiration to post my complaint to Facebook.

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon March 26, 2010 Regional District of Central Okanagan Regional Board Meeting Agenda

.pdf icon Item 1.3 2010-2014 Financial Plan Bylaw 1272

In 2009 there were 310 barking complaints

Item 1.3 2010-2014 Financial Plan Bylaw 1272 - Dog Control

Blue Divider Line

If you live in the Regional District of Central Okanagan you make dog complaints to the Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control Dept. 

If you live in the City of Kelowna you make dog complaints to City of Kelowna Bylaw Enforcement Department at (250) 469-8686 (City of Kelowna's website July 20, 2010 still says contact RDCO but that is incorrect now since RDCO's bylaw was unenforceable in the City of Kelowna). Here is the District of West Kelowna Bylaw Enforcement Dept.

If your dog was picked up in the North Westside Road area, it is most likely in Kelowna and not Vernon. The Regional District of Central Okanagan is responsible for dog control in the North Westside Road area.

Okanagan Dog Owners Association

Blue Divider Line

Gator Aids Dog Control Presence

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"

Blue Divider Line

Regional District to Appeal Supreme Court Ruling

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

Blue Divider Line

CORD to appeal dog bylaw ruling
Kelowna Capital News - By Cheryl Wierda - June 18, 2010

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.

Blue Divider Line

  The Dog Pound is located at 890 Weddell Place, Kelowna (between Richter Street and Gordon Drive) Link to Map. 250-469-6284. Click here for link to Dog Pound page.

The SPCA Animal Shelter is located at 3785 Casorso Road (near Benvoulin Road in Kelowna) and you can phone 250-861-7722.
 

Blue Divider Line

THEIR SOLUTION
A True Story

One very large dog in the neighborhood was so out of control, its owners could not catch it this one night and left the dog roaming the neighborhood to chase vehicles.  This dog was known to chase vehicles, when it is wasn't tied up.  And guess what, it was hit by a vehicle.  The people didn't find their poor dog until two days later when they finally heard their dog wimpering from across the road unable to walk and laying on the ground.  They took a stretcher to get the dog into their house they told me.  Luckily the dog lived, but with a broken rear leg.  They didn't have any money so they didn't take the poor dog to the vet but instead let it heal on its own.  It was amazing how this dogs broken leg healed, and that the dog can now walk on it, the poor thing.  I know of another dog (Rottweiler) who fell out of the back of a truck and received nerve damage in its leg.  The Rotties leg had no feeling so he could not walk on it and its leg was just hanging.  After a month or so this Rottweiler dog started to chew its own leg off, and so it had to have its leg amputated.  Lucky story is that this dog that was hit by a vehicle didn't have any nerve damage or other damage that would have required his leg to be amputated.  It's really too bad for that poor dog that the owners didn't take any time to train it better before it was hit, and it had to endure its owners ignorance.

The solution to these people is to tie the unruly dog up so it can't take off from them, and/or let it bark chained up and/or let it have the runs in their house.

I had complained to these people a few times about their barking dog and this one day that I complained, they told me that their dog had the runs and would poop in the house, and that was why their dog was outside barking so much.  I don't know how many times I was in their house (I use to be friends with these people until they told me I wasn't welcome in their yard anymore due to my complaint) and there was liquid poop on the floor that they hadn't cleaned up, but left it laying on the floor with some type of powder or something dumped on it, until they did clean it up.  It was obvious to me that this dog doesn't even know how to be let outside when it needs to go to the bathroom, that is how well trained and ignored this poor dog is!!  My dog has gotten the runs too at one time or another, but he doesn't do it in the house, so in my mind this was no excuse.  And this wasn't the first time there was runny poop on the floor over there either.  If my dog does it in the house, its because I ignored him when he tried to tell me he needed out.

The owners of this poor dog have done nothing for it, but feed it, clean up its runny poop, and chase after it!

THAT IS THEIR SOLUTION!  LET THE DOG RUN AROUND TO BE HIT BY A VEHICLE, LET IT BARK, AND THEN EGG THE NEIGHBOUR's HOUSE LATE AT NIGHT BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOUR COMPLAINED TO THEM PERSONALLY ABOUT THEIR DOG BARKING INSTEAD OF CALLING DOG CONTROL!

And that is why this story is now posted to the internet.

Let this be a lesson to myself and others!

LESSON #1  Whatever you do ... don't try to be nice to your neighbours about their barking dog or your house may just get egged like mine.  Because I said something to my neighbour (whom I use to be friends with) instead of calling dog control, I was egged for it.  I would recommend that you stay anonymous and try some other tactic like staying anonymous and call dog control instead.  It really wasn't worth trying to be nice to who I thought was my friend, and then having the house egged with 6 eggs.  Out of 4 neighbour's, only one tried to do something about their barking dog.  The other three either did nothing, wrote a nasty note on the bulletin board, or egged my house.  The lesson I learned is that 3 out of 4 people are not very nice when it comes to their barking dogs.

Dogs do bark, but they don't bark every 5 minutes at the neighbour's who make a noise, or a car driving by on the road, etc..  Nor do they bark for 80 minutes straight.  There are vehicles coming in and out of my subdivision all the time and if these people lived in town, does that mean their dog can bark at every vehicle that drives by?  I don't think so, do you?  It may be different if these people didn't live in a rural area but lived on a farm with acreage to let their dog run wild or bark all the time, but not in a subdivision of 1/2 acre lots.

If your dog is constantly barking, it may mean it is not content.  It may mean it is scared, hungry, lonely, wants off its chain, needs exercise, needs training, etc.  If your dog needs to be chained up all the time to control it, then it definitely needs some training!  it most likely also needs to be taken off its chain for some exercise.

LESSON # 2 If you happen to live at VOS and your dog is barking at everything, there will be no notice to anyone from me anymore because of the egg incident!  You can blame the people whom egged my house.  More than one person obviously did the egging, since 6 eggs landed almost at one time.  I believe it was three people with an egg in each hand.

LESSON # 3 Next time the security cameras will be armed when I am at home.  I didn't think I had anything to worry about when I was home, but obviously I do, especially when I more than suspect it was my neighbour whom egged my house in the dark.  Imagine the mess they would be in if they were caught on video!  They are lucky is all I can say.

House at Valley of the Sun that was egged.

LESSON # 4 Listen to warnings, if you are so lucky.  Don't let your dog bark for 80 minutes straight or Dog Control will be called!  One couple didn't pay attention to two anonymous written warnings they received before Dog Control showed up in their yard because they let their dog bark steady non stop for 80 minutes.

LESSON # 5 If you egg someone's house, you better keep your dog quiet after that, or it will be definitive that dog control will be showing up and without any notice whatsoever.

LESSON # 6 Don't screw yourself by throwing eggs at your neighbour's house.

LESSON # 7 Fines don't wash off, but eggs do.

LESSON # 8 Instead of paying out money for dog fines, pay out money for toys and training instead.

For me, its a relief to know that over 6 eggs, I don't have to listen to that damn dog bark so much anymore.  WRONG!  Those eggs pissed me off at first, but now those eggs are making me smile knowing that these people will have to clean up and endure their dogs runny poop in their house more often, just because they are ignorant enough to not train their dog LOL.

And its not like I lost any friends over this.  It is obvious to me at this stage of the game, that these people were never my true friends.  My true friends are intelligent adults who wouldn't be childish enough to throw eggs.

And a note to my neighbours, instead of trying to train me with your eggs, why don't you try training your dog?  Believe me your dog will love you for it, and you will enjoy your dog more and maybe not have to clean up his runny poop in your house anymore either.

Blue Divider Line

Chase away unwanted cats
Passive Ultrasonic detector

Animal Away Pro
Electronic Animal Repeller

Chase away unwanted deer

Scarecrow Motion Activated Sprinkler Deer and Animal Repellant

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon March 11, 2010 Governance & Services Committee Meeting Minutes (Pg. 10)

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

Blue Divider Line

Loss of enjoyment of property
« on: April 19, 2009, 03:52:56 PM »Reply Good afternoon,
I have a question about noisy neighbors. The neighbors kids are excessively noisy. They play basketball, hockey, build skate board ramps, constantly screaming. After 4 hours of a basketball bouncing (sometimes 3 and 4 at a time) it's more than I can take. This goes on everyday, every night....There is NO WAY I could open my windows to get fresh air....the noise is just terrible.
I know it sounds catty....but after hours of this I am ready to explode. Can I do anything about this? I live near Ottawa Ontario.
thanks Logged
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Loss of enjoyment of property
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2009, 04:47:03 PM »Reply Well of course you could move, but that is easy advice and difficult to do. You are entitled to your privacy, but the proof of the offending noise and interference with the quality of life is difficult to establish. You might start with complaints to the Municipality who may have a noise bylaw, and if that is not successful, legal representation may be the next step. A tough situation, no easy remedies!! Jim Clapp

Jim Clapp
Wills & Estates
Lawyers

Blue Divider Line

We don't know how true this is of a wolf dog, because we have a wolf dog at our subdivision that barked for 80 minutes straight LOL.

However, barking isn’t for all canines; the wolf, a close relative of the dog, hardly ever barks, nor do older dog species like the Alaskan Malamute and Samoyed, according to Feddersen-Petersen.

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

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon February 11, 2010 Regional District of Central Okanagan Governance and Services Committee Meeting Minutes

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.

Blue Divider Line

December 14, 2009 Regional District of Central Okanagan Regional Board Agenda

.pdf icon Item 4.3 Dog Control Service Review and Recommendations.pdf

Blue Divider Line

For Dog Fines see pages 2, 4, 6, 9, and 24 of .pdf icon consolidated ticket information utilization bylaw #435, 1990.  Take lots of money with you, to retrieve your dog!

Blue Divider Line

Noisy Dog Fine $100

Blue Divider Line

Barking:

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

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon December 14, 2009 Regional District of Central Okanagan Regular Board Meeting Minutes

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)

Blue Divider Line

Dog License and Bylaw Violation Fees

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

Blue Divider Line

Dog Licensing Fees and Fines Rise for 2010

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

Blue Divider Line

This letter was found on the public bulletin board next to the mailboxes at Valley of the Sun.


click letter to read larger print

Hopefully by posting this letter, this dog owner will understand that the point is not who wrote the letter.  What is the point of putting a name on the letter anyway?  And does the letter writer not understand?

The point is:

This dog owner is lucky that is all they received is a letter instead of a phone call to dog control, and or a fine to go along with it.

Agreed?

Nobody wants to listen to their neighbours dog bark for hours on end and if the dog owner doesn't do something, dog control will be called!

Agreed?

This letter writer had enough and was nice enough to not call the Regional District of Central Okanagan dog control, but instead warned the dog owner first, now how thoughtful was that?

How thoughtful is it of the dog owner to let their dog bark on end disturbing their neighbours, then bitch about the neighbours complaining about it?  Not too thoughtful now is it?

What difference does it make, if the dog owner realizes who wrote the letter or not?

Agreed?

Maybe there is something bothering the dog?  Wonder if the dog owner ever thought of that?

Agreed?

Hopefully the dog owner will take this as constructive criticism, instead of lashing out or letting their dog bark on end.

The Regional District of Central Okanagan has some information on

WHY DOGS BARK
Tips on how to deal with problem barkers.

To learn more about how to help your dog watch the Dog Whisperer.  Ceasar Milan is down right amazing!

Why Dogs Bark At Night
Dog's are not stupid and will usually have a good and fairly obvious reason for chronic barking.

Dog Barking Help

How to quiet your own Barking Dog

How to train a discriminating watchdog
How to train a watchdog that can be counted on to bark at intruders,
but can be depended on to remain quiet when no threat is present.

Watchdog training, teaches your barking dog when to bark & when not to

Dog training schools Vernon BC

Dog training schools Kelowna BC

Blue Divider Line

If you wish to make a complaint about a dog in the North Westside Road area, here is how you go about it.

.pdf icon Barking Dog Log Form

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon April 27, 2009 Regional District of Central Okanagan Regular Board Meeting Minutes

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

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon December 14, 2009 Regional District of Central Okanagan Regional Board Agenda

* This below is not the entire document, click link above for entire document.

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT amendments to .pdf icon Dog Control Bylaw No. 366 and .pdf icon Ticket Information Utilization Bylaw No. 435 be given three readings and adopted, to come into effect on January 1, 2010.

The Dog Advisory Committee recommendations are as follows:

Recommendation for Increases to Dog License Fees:

1. Increase the neutered and spayed license fee from $16 to $20 in 2010.
2. Increase the unneutered and unspayed license fee from $50 to $60 in 2010.
3, Increase the late fee from $5 to $20,
4. Amend the bylaw from three months to six months from time of purchase of a license, for a refund for the difference in the license fee where an owner has a dog spayed or neutered.

Recommendation for Increases to Impound Fees for dogs other than dangerous or aggressive dogs:

1. Increase the second impoundment fee from $50 to $75.

2. Increase the third impoundment fee from $150 to $200.

3. Increase all subsequent impoundment fees to increase from an additional $100 to an additional $200 each time.

4, Increase the additional fee where an impounded dog is not licensed so that the additional fee shall be the same as the ticket fine for No Dog License. If there are any amendments to the ticket fine for no dog license, this additional fee is adjusted in accordance with that amendment.

5. Increase the daily maintenance fee from $10 per day to $20 per day to be charged for each overnight detention.

Recommendation for Increases to Dog Control Ticket fines:

1. Increase all fines which are currently under $100 to $100.

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

SCHEDULE 3, 2003
BYLAW NO.

Ticket Offences for Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 366.

 

  Section

Fine

No dog license 3. $100*
Dog without tag 4. $100*
No Kennel Operation Permit 7. (a) $100*
Keep more than 2 dogs 7. (b) $100*
Dog in prohibited area 12. $100*
Fail to keep dog in fence or pen 13.0 $100*
Fail to keep dog as required 13.1 $100*
Fail to leash 13.2 $100*
Fail to keep dog as required 13.3 $100*
Fail to remove dog feces 13.4 $100*
Keep dog in prohibited area 14, 15 $100*
Fail to control/enclose dangerous dog 17.1 $200
Fail to control/enclose aggressive dog 17.2 $150
Fail to control dog 17.3, 17.4 $200
  17.5, 17.6 $200
Nuisance dog 17.7 $100
Dog at large 18. $100*
Fail to fence/pen 20. $100
Fail to keep dog inside 21.1 $100*
Noisy dog 21.2 $100
Obstruct Dog Control Officer/Pound Keeper 34. $150


* 2009 changes

Blue Divider Line

Listing of Dog Friendly Parks from Ministry of Environment

Listing of Dog Friendly Parks from Regional District of Central Okanagan

Blue Divider Line

RDCO Dog Control
890 Weddell Place
Kelowna
(between Richter Street and Gordon Drive)

Kelowna SPCA

Vernon SPCA
4800 Haney Road
Vernon, BC V1H 1P6
vernon"at"spca.bc.ca (take out the "at" and replace it with @)

Blue Divider Line

Teach your small dog to knock (bark) at the door to be let in so your dog doesn't accidentally get locked out and freeze to death in the winter!!

Blue Divider Line

Composting Dog Waste

Blue Divider Line

DON'T LET YOUR DOG RUN LOOSE

OR YOU MAY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST OF THE CONSEQUENCES

The investigating bylaw enforcement officer is confident that unknown dogs from the area caused the animals deaths.

If the owners of the dogs can be found, then the owner is liable.

Roaming dogs cost this farmer his two feeder cattle.  RDCO paid compensation to this farmer $452.25 per animal = $904.50, but it could have cost RDCO taxpayers up to $750.00 per animal killed x 2 = $1,500 instead.

April 24, 2006 Regional Board Agenda
.pdf icon Item 7.2 Compensation for animals killed.pdf

Blue Divider Line

We were just watching CHBC noon news Jan 14, 2009 and it showed there have been instances of people taking their dogs for a walk down the street in the city and the dog steps on a metal cover plate (hydro) laying on the sidewalk and gets electrocuted and dies. In one instance in Toronto two different dogs died that way almost across the street from each other and a few months apart the news said. Something about an electrical short which energizes the metal cover plate. People that have shoes on don't get a shock, but the dogs do. The news said its happened more than a few times down in the US. Be careful taking your dog for a walk and don't let it step on a metal cover plate.... how horrible!!!

Blue Divider Line

Prohibited Animal Amendment Bylaw No. 1073, 2004

Prohibited Animal Bylaw No. 1028, 2003

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

RDCO's Bylaws

Blue Divider Line

Livestock Protection Act of British Columbia states "3 (1) A person must not keep a dog unless a valid and subsisting license has been issued for that dog under this Act or under a municipal bylaw".

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

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon November 12, 2009 Governance & Services Committee Meeting Minutes (Pg. 9)

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

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon  November 12, 2009 Governance & Services Committee Meeting Minutes (Pg. 10)

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.

Blue Divider Line
.pdf icon November 12, 2009 Highlights of the Special Regional Board Meeting

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.

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon Regional District of Central Okanagan Regular Board Meeting Minutes - October 26. 2009 (Pg. 2)

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?

Blue Divider Line

September 21, 2009 Regional District of Central Okanagan Regional Board Agenda

.pdf icon 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

.pdf icon September 21, 2009 Regional District of Central Okanagan Regional Board Minutes

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

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon September 10, 2009 Regional District of Central Okanagan Regional Board Minutes

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

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon August 24, 2009 Regional District of Central Okanagan Regional Board Minutes

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

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon April 27, 2009 - Highlights of the Regional Board Meeting

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.

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon March 19, 2009 Governance & Services Committee Meeting Minutes

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.

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon February 20, 2009 Governance & Services Committee Meeting Minutes

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.

Blue Divider Line

Water park for dogs floated instead of beach
Kelowna Daily Courier - by Ron Seymour - 2009-02-03

A man-made water park for dogs should be built somewhere in the city, Coun. Robert Hobson says.

Such a facility might lessen the demand for a new off-leash dog park along the shore of Okanagan Lake, Hobson said Monday.

“There‘s no reason why we can‘t artificially create a water environment for dogs somewhere else,” Hobson said during the regular council meeting.

“I don‘t think the dogs feel they have to have that view of Okanagan Lake,” he added.

Hobson made his comments as council accepted a staff report not to add Kinsmen Park, at the end of Sutherland Avenue, as the city‘s second off-leash, lake access park for dogs.

Most people who live around the park were strongly opposed to the idea, council heard, and environmental groups feared the possible disruption to waterfowl at the nearby Maude Roxby bird sanctuary.

The only current off-leash dog park on the lake is at Cedar Creek in the Mission. Infrastructure director Joe Creron said ongoing efforts to find a second suitable location have been unsuccessful.

“I‘d love to find one – but I‘ve been looking for 10 years,” Creron said.

People who live near proposed locations usually object, fearing an increase in traffic and noise. And, increasingly, Interior Health raises concerns about dogs using popular swim beaches.

Without any water, many of the city‘s existing dog parks are of little value on hot days, Coun. Michele Rule said.

“The one we use, up in Glenmore, is so hot and dry you can‘t use it in the summer,” she said.

Creron said he would have staff investigate the feasibility of developing some sort of dog-friendly water feature in a park and report back to council at a later date.

Meanwhile, Coun. Charlie Hodge convinced council to pass a resolution urging the local dog committee to keep looking for a suitable new dog park on Okanagan Lake, other than Kinsmen Park.

“I‘d love to see us continue to pursue access to the water (for dogs) somewhere in the city,” Coun. Brian Given said.

Kelowna has 65 parks where dogs are allowed on a leash, and eight where they can run free.

Blue Divider Line

Proper investigation needed in complaint-driven systems
Kelowna Capital News - Published: September 20, 2008

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.

Blue Divider Line

Minutes of the Governance and Services Committee Thursday, April 10, 2008

3.4 Review of Dog Control Function
7 full-time officers are employed. There are two casual employees as well as during the summer three students are employed to work in the parks. There is emergency and off-hour coverage seven days per week.
Dog control is driven by public complaints responded on a priority basis (priority 1 through 3) (page 4)

Blue Divider Line

RDCO funding covers the following programs: Humane education, cruelty investigations, and the spay and neuter program
  • 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)

Blue Divider Line

Governance and Services Committee Meeting Minutes - April 10, 2008 (page 5)
The Regional District has a Dog Advisory Committee of which Director Given is the chair. Staff work with the committee to bring about changes to dog control regulations ie: more parks where dogs are now allowed to be in, penalty for aggressive/dangerous dogs, etc.

Blue Divider Line

Dogs and Cats can catch salmonellosis from eating garbage and can pass it on to humans.

Blue Divider Line

Spallumcheen hikes fines for dog offences
By Jackie Pearase - Vernon Morning Star - Published: November 07, 2008

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.

Blue Divider Line

Legislation protects pets
From Vernon Morning Star - March 26, 2008

This month the provincial government introduced legislation that is good news for British Columbians concerned about animal welfare. Amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act will enhance the BCSPCA’s power to help animals that are in distress or abandoned and will also increase penalties for offences.

The goal of these new amendments is to give animal welfare workers tools to more effectively stop animal cruelty behavior in the community. Changes will also deter potential offenders by increasing penalties for those who do not properly care for animals.

Currently, upon conviction for the offence of causing distress to an animal, there is a penalty of up to $2,000 or a six-month jail sentence or both. That will increase to $5,000 or a six-month jail sentence or both for a first offence and $10,000 or a six-month jail sentence or both for a second offence.

These amendments have been introduced in response to operational issues identified by the BCSPCA. They specifically refine the definition of “distress” to include situations where an animal’s health or well-being is affected by inadequate ventilation, space, care or veterinary treatment. They also authorize agents operating in remote areas to obtain warrants by telephone.

These amendments work by empowering animal welfare workers clarifying the authority of agents to seize evidence of an offence, take abandoned animals into custody, hold and dispose of animals.

They also address the obligation of animal owners to reimburse the society for its care-related costs, provide immunity from legal proceedings for damages to persons performing duties or exercising powers under the act and they have updated provisions relating to corporate structure and obligations.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands supports the work of the BCSPCA through annual grants, and overall, since 2001, the province has provided the BCSPCA with over $3.15 million to assist it with the costs of its operations.

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was enacted in 1895 to establish the BCSPCA and authorizes the society to take action to assist all captive animals, including farm animals, that are in distress and to investigate offences involving animals.

For additional information, please check my website at
www.tomchristensenmla.bc.ca. link no longer valid

Blue Divider Line

Governance & Services Committee Meeting Minutes – January 10, 2008 (Pg. 4)
5. Development Services
5.1 Hobby Kennels
Staff reviewed the report of October 3rd regarding hobby kennels and a complaint which was received in 2007. Staff noted that the noise bylaw would have been in affect for this complaint but was never followed through. Staff confirmed that up to 20 dogs can be in a hobby kennel. Beyond this it would be considered a service kennel. The individual that was operating the facility was a dog breeder with 30 years experience but has since relocated. It was noted that the 15 meter setback has no affect with a hobby kennel.
Director Hanson noted her support for the recommendation.
HANSON/EDGSON
THAT no change be made to the Joe Rich Rural Land Use Bylaw and the RDCO Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw regarding dog kennel facilities.
CARRIED

Blue Divider Line

Governance and Services Committee Meeting – October 21, 2005 (Pg.1-2)
3. Delegation: SPCA - Diane McKeown, Manager re: Future funding
K. Roth noted the Regional Board requested that the SPCA address the Committee to review their ongoing funding requirements, what portion of the function is ongoing, what are the Society’s long-term plans and what are the dog control funds used for. Staff highlighted the SPCA receives funding from two separate sources: regional grant in aid whereby individual municipalities and electoral areas decide on their degree of participation, and the dog control function provides $12,500 annually. The dog control function funds are meant to offset the dogs that are diverted to the SPCA instead of in the hands of the Regional District. The $12,500.00 is arbitrary and has not been linked to any specific statistic or work performed by the SPCA.
Diane McKeown, SPCA Manager, addressed the committee highlighting:
- The number of animals coming into the shelter. From January through to September: 513 dogs were in the shelter--332 surrendered, 135 stray dogs, 46 from dog control. Cats: 677 surrendered, 702 strays.
- January/February is the highest period for the spay and neuter program (snip program). The Snip program is unique to the Central Okanagan.
- Education program continue – this year 29 presentations were made to elementary schools, 9 to high schools.
- Ongoing fundraising activities
- Staffing – 7 full-time, 5 casual part-time – average salaries $8.75 per hour. Rely on volunteers.
- Expenses for 2004 are approximately $433,000. No other income other than donations and fundraising.
- $12,500 for dog control specifically to cover costs of stray animals, adoptable dogs from dog control, vet bills.
- Does the SPCA own the building? Yes, it was purchased 12 years ago. The Central Okanagan is one of the few shelters in the province who owns their building.
- Is there a norm how the SPCA is supported in the province? What happens if there is a deficit? If a deficit occurs the provincial association helps but it’s a struggle to pay bills--ongoing struggle as a non-profit agency.
- How do you evaluate the outcomes on the work being done? Stats are kept and comparisons to population growth are done.
Discussion:
- If funding is removed from the regional grant in aid process the line item funding would be through the dog control service.
- The funding would be for $63,000 annually.
- Grant in aid process allows the partners to opt out – as a line item the partner could not opt out.
- Should funding be done by assessment or per capita? It was agreed that it would be best by assessment.
- In allocating funds, can the Regional District enter into a contract in order to allow the Board to review its commitment?
- Fixed dollar amount for three years to allow a degree of certainty for the delivery of service. Concerns will be addressed through budget measurement and contract.
SHEPHERD/DINWOODIE
THAT the Regional District’s funding to the SPCA become a line-item in the 2006 budget (calculated by assessment) for a 3-year fixed contract;
AND FURTHER THAT the SPCA be required to submit an annual report to the Regional Board.
CARRIED

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon Governance and Services Committee Meeting – February 15, 2005 (Pg.5)
g) SPCA – Dianne McKeown, Shelter Manager & Kathy Woodward, Assistant Manager Grant request for $55,000
Discussion:
-General donations have decreased by almost 50% in 2004.
-Spay/neuter program also reduced as grant money was not received until May so the program did not begin until May.
-Do you have a spay/neuter program specifically for wild cats and do you provide traps? Due to legal advice received, the Society does not provide traps. Individuals are referred to Buckerfields to rent the trap. If the Society has a caregiver for the cat it is released, otherwise it is not neutered until adopted. Kittens 4 months and under can normally be domesticated. There are no programs for wild cats
-Does the provincial body cover costs of legal challenges/seizures outside the region? Yes, there is no cost borne by the local SPCA.
The committee questioned why the SPCA is not a line item under the dog control function and how the SPCA would fit into the service which currently exists.
ACTION: It was agreed to deal with this year’s SPCA request for a regional grant in aid and further that the Governance & Services Committee explore the issues related to adding the SPCA as a budget line item.
Consensus: To include in the budget. Lake Country $1,000, Ellison/Joe Rich $200, City of Kelowna $39,182, Westside $9,807, Peachland $1.647 ($51,836 supported)

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon Governance and Services Committee Meeting – April 11, 2003 (Pg. 4-6)
5. Report Dog Advisory Committee
Brian Given, chair of the Dog Advisory Committee (DAC), highlighted that the DAC was given the mandate by the Regional Board to review issues related to dogs.

The committee met a number of times and brings forward for discussion today a number of key recommendations.

Issues identified at a public meeting held on November 26, 2002 were noted in the April 2 report to the Governance Committee.

It was noted that the City of Kelowna operates under different bylaw.

Regional District Dog Control officers, Bruce Langham and Dan Maja, presented a slide presentation on dangerous and vicious dogs highlighting some of the recent attacks to both the public and farm animals. The ticketing process for aggressive dogs, the court process involved and what ‘deeming a dog’ means was reviewed.
Changes to the bylaw for dangerous dogs is being recommended to protect society from these animals.
Kelly Roth highlighted the recommendations:
- that the City of Kelowna become a participating municipality in the RDCO service of Dog Regulation and Control
- bylaw amendments for:
    · dangerous/aggressive dogs
    · run-at-large definitions
- that the City of Kelowna implement dog access to trails, walkways, roadways in parks
- that the RDCO implement on-leash dog access to trails, walkways, roadways in the regional and community parks in the Regional District except beaches and playgrounds.

The Governance Committee discussed the recommendations and expressed concern that the courts are lenient when a dog attack involves farm animals and not humans. The concern was that a dog that kills sheep, would it not also attack a child in the right circumstances. The committee questioned whether the wording in the bylaw could force the courts to prescribe a penalty.

ACTION: Kelly Roth to review the wording under the Livestock Protection Act to prescribe a penalty.
HEIN/CANNAN
THAT the Regional District of Central Okanagan Governance & Services Committee
recommend:
a) To the City of Kelowna, THAT the City of Kelowna become a participating municipality in the Regional District of Central Okanagan service of Dog Regulation and Control and subsequently repeal “City of Kelowna Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 5880-88.
b) To the Regional District of Central Okanagan, THAT the Regional District of Central Okanagan amend “Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw No. 366 in accordance with the bylaw amendments for dangerous dog provisions attached to the April 2, 2003 report to the Governance
Committee.
CARRIED
Dog access to trails, walkways, roadways in parks
The Dog Advisory Committee recommendations to implement dog access to trails, walkways, roadways in parks were highlighted. It was noted that 1e) will require funding to be allocated for education and enforcement and that the respective governing bodies need to review this in their own jurisdiction.
ACTION: It was agreed that the Parks Advisory Committee and the Westside Parks and Recreation Commission be requested to review and comment on the proposed dog access recommendations at their next meeting and report back to the Dog Advisory Committee.
Brian Given noted subsequent to the report two further recommendations are being proposed to the current bylaw:
- Section 13.2 – remove the last sentence “A person who is certified as being blind is exempted from the provisions of this section of this bylaw”.
Mr. Given explained that one of the committee members is legally blind and has a seeing-eye dog and noted that the dog owner is trained to pick up after their dog.
- Section 33 remove in its entirety – identified elsewhere in the bylaw Brian Given noted that the work of the committee is by no means complete. Further issues continue to be reviewed:
- possible banning of certain breeds of dogs
- different licensing levels for dog owners with trained dogs
- no consensus about walking dogs along city waterfront park
GRAY/DINWOODIE
THAT the Regional District of Central Okanagan Governance & Services Committee
recommend:
a) To the City of Kelowna, THAT the City of Kelowna implement dog access to trails, walkways, roadways in parks as outlined by the City of Kelowna Parks Department at the Dog Advisory Committee meeting held on March 11, 2003
b) To the Parks Advisory Committee and the Westside Parks and Recreation Commission for review at their next meeting with comment to be given to the Dog Advisory Committee, THAT the Regional District of Central Okanagan implement on-leash dog access to trails, walkways, roadways in Regional and Community Parks in the Regional District of Central Okanagan except beachesand playgrounds

AND FURTHER to the District of Peachland, District of Lake Country and City of Kelowna be requested to review with comment to be given to the Dog Advisory Committee on,

THAT the respective local governments provide counseling and enforcement resources for dog owners in parks through their Parks and/or Bylaw Enforcement budgets at the level that suits the needs of the individual jurisdiction, or alternatively, through the
Regional District of Central Okanagan’s Dog Regulation and Control Service provide counseling and enforcement resources for dog owners in parks issues to the level that meets the needs of the Regional District of Central Okanagan as a whole.
CARRIED

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon http://www.regionaldistrict.com/docs/inspections/dogadcommtofr.pdf

*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).

Blue Divider Line

Key things you need to know about pet medication in all Canadian Provinces thanks to CBC Marketplace:

  • Prices of drugs for pets are NOT regulated in Canada.

  • Remember you can shop around.

  • If your pet is on a long-term medication you can call different vets and compare their prices for the drug(s).

  • Call your local pharmacy to check if they carry your pet's drug. They may sell it for less.

You may be surprised to learn that the prices vets charge for the drugs are unregulated and vary widely across the country (and even from one neighbourhood to the next).

Though some clinics were only charging a small markup, the highest markup in the test was more than 300%.

Both the lowest price ($26.25) and the highest ($110) for the drug Tapazole were in Toronto.

source http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/

Blue Divider Line

Ways to donate to animal shelters

Blue Divider Line

And owners of more than two dogs are reminded they are required to have a kennel license ($125) which is subject to approval from the Regional District.

Source CKOV63 January 26, 2007
http://www.ckov63.com/news.php?extend.4484  (website link no longer in existence)

Blue Divider Line

Dog Walker notice
This notice was posted on the Killiney Beach bulletin board.

Blue Divider Line

Pick up your doggie do
This notice was posted at Valley of the Sun

Blue Divider Line


Click notice posted at Westshore Estates for larger image

Blue Divider Line

Bulletin we found posted March 2, 2008 on the bulletin board at Muir subdivision

BEWARE OF RAT POISON AT MUIR SUBDIVISION
Beware of sick person dropping rat poison on the easement road at Muir subdivision near Fintry
click image to read larger print

Blue Divider Line

RDCO - Barking Dog Complaint form
http://www.regionaldistrict.com/docs/inspections/barking log form - to complainant.pdf

Blue Divider Line

2005 Regional District Annual Report States (page 18)
Initiate a system for attaching dog control impound photos to the dog control database.
http://www.regionaldistrict.com/docs/boards_committees/Annual%20Report.pdf

Blue Divider Line

2004 Inspection Service Statistics (pg 18)
Dogs Licensed 9,046
Dog Complaints 2,990
Dogs Impounded 1,186
Dogs Euthanized 292
Dog Bylaw Violation Tickets 330
http://www.regionaldistrict.com/boards_committees/board_annual_report.aspx

2005 Inspection Service Statistics (pg 17)
Dogs Licensed 9,224
Dog Complaints 2,892
Dogs Impounded 1,111
Dogs Euthanized 259
Dog Bylaw Violation Tickets 324
http://www.regionaldistrict.com/boards_committees/board_annual_report.aspx

2006 Inspection Service Statistics (pg 17)
Dogs Licensed 9,476
Dog Complaints 2524
Dogs Impounded 1128
Dogs Euthanized 219
Dog Bylaw Violation Tickets 218
http://www.regionaldistrict.com/docs/boards_committees/Annual Report.pdf (pg 17)

Blue Divider Line

On average, 15 – 20 cats come into the shelter per week. They only euthanize cats if they are very sick or very aggressive.

regionaldistrict.com/docs/boards_committees/mins//2007/07_03_23specialbrdmin.pdf

Blue Divider Line

Deadline for Dog Licences is Feb 28, 2009 or you get charged a $5.00 late fee.

Blue Divider Line

There is compensation (consolidated dog bylaw 366 page 8) up to maximum $750.00 for dogs that have been killed by someone else's dog.

Blue Divider Line

B.C. Assessment came to my neighbours property, to assess his small shed under 10 x 10 feet square.  My neighbour has no house on the property, just a small shed and a fifth wheel trailer.  BC Assessment stepped onto the unfenced property and started up the hill towards the shed.  My neighbour was not home and his dog who had puppies in the shed at the top of the hill noticed someone entering her territory from down the hill.  She barked, and the assessment person scrambled down the hill and fell, dropping some paperwork on the ground when he fell down.  The dog did not bite him, and I don't think the assessment person was hurt except a scraped knee maybe.  I am not sure that the dog left her property even.  BC Assessment called "Dog Control" and dog control came out and entered my neighbours property to impound his dog and puppies.  Dog Control took a "BILLY CLUB" to the mother of the puppies, and beat her to be able to impound her.  She was only protecting her puppies which is natural.  My friend takes his dog with him to town in the back of the truck a lot, and she doesn't attack people.  She runs loose at home all the time and usually stays home and doesn't roam the neighbourhood.  She is well behaved and listens.  Anyway dog control didn't realize there was another puppy and left one behind.  My neighbour had to borrow money and pay around $250.00 to get his dogs back, so the one puppy left behind could be fed.   BC Assessment actually apologized to my neighbour when my neighbour complained to BC Assessment.  Couldn't Dog Control leave the dog alone and fine the owner if he had too.  I don't understand why the dog had to be beaten?  She was on her own friggin property!

Blue Divider Line

DID YOU KNOW YOU ARE PAYING SOMEONE $400.00 TO BUY THEIR DOG LICENCE?

IF THE RDCO GOT YOUR MONEY, THEY WILL SPEND IT!

CAN YOU AFFORD DOGGIE CONTESTS?

REGIONAL DISTRICT's DOGGIE CONTEST

“Central Okanagan dog owners purchasing or renewing their dog license by Tuesday February 28th receive a bonus:  their name will automatically be entered into the ‘Big Dog, Small Dog, and All Dog Contest’.  Prizes are provided by some of our Licensing Agents. The Regional District is providing the top prize:  a $400 Gift Certificate valid at any of the participating agents.  As well, by meeting the deadline they won't be charged a $5 late renewal fee.”

Instead maybe the Regional District should give someone a $400.00 prize to figure out a way we won't have to pay so much for dog control, and so that owners of these dogs could be happier with the dog control system.

 Blue Divider Line

Does the RDCO have enough bylaws about this or what?

This is pretty confusing!

Consolidated Dog Bylaw 366 Schedules.pdf

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

Blue Divider Line

RDCO NEWS RELEASE – May 28, 2003

More Regional Parks to Open for Leashed Dogs

Dog owners and their leashed pets will be welcome in more Central Okanagan parks, during a pilot project approved by the Regional Board. The test period will run from June 16th this year through the end of April 2004.

During that time, dogs on leash will be allowed on trails and pathways in 11 additional Regional Parks as well as 49 parks and pathways on the Westside. Leashed dogs are already allowed to walk the trails in Antlers Beach/Hardy Falls, Glen Canyon, Kalamoir, Mill Creek, Mission Creek and Rotary Trails Regional Parks. Dogs are allowed to be off leash in specified areas of the Westside Aquatic Park.

Public beaches, environmentally sensitive areas and Conservation Parks will remain off limits to all dogs. Those parks include Mount Boucherie, Robert Lake, Rose Valley and Stevens Coyote Ridge.

Regional Parks and Recreation Director Bill Vos says “the pilot project was recommended after a request from the Dog Advisory Committee. It asked the Department to look at the number of parks that presently allow dogs on leash. The parks selected for the trial period are based on their existing trail and walkway network. Some of the parks named are simply connecting walkways.”

During the test period, Regional Park staff will monitor public opinion, budget implications and enforcement costs of the expanded dogs on leash program. Vos says, “we’ll also look at the impact of the changes on the health of each park and its continued enjoyment by the general public. The review could result in bylaw amendments that would see some or all of the parks reclassified to permanently allow dogs on leash.”

Contact:

Bill Vos Bruce Smith
Director of Parks and Recreation Communications Coordinator
868-5230 979-7339

Blue Divider Line

Local Government Act
Division 1 — Regulation of Animals
Application in relation to regional district animal control service
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96323_26

Blue Divider Line

Community Charter
Part 3 - Division 6 — Animal Control
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/03026_03

Blue Divider Line

Okanagan Dog Owners Association

Blue Divider Line

READ PEOPLES COMMENTS ABOUT BARKING DOGS and DOG CONTROL

Blue Divider Line

Comment Form

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

NAME

You can remain anonymous if you like!
None of the options are mandatory except your community.

PHONE

EMAIL ADDRESS

disguise your email address like this for spam protection
name "at" hotmail.com

COMMUNITY
  *required

OTHER COMMUNITY NOT LISTED
 

COMMENTS

 

 

Blue Divider Line

3 dogs relaxing on a couch.

Blue Divider Line

Make a Comment

RDCO Barking Dog Bylaw | DOUBLE TIME PAYDog Bylaws in Various Cities | Concerns about RDCO's Dog Bylaw | RDCO Dog Control Comments | RDCO Dog Control Complaint | RDCO Staff Collective Agreement 2007 - 2010 | RDCO Dog Control Statistics | Barking Dog Solutions | RDCO Sold 9 Dog Licenses to 1 Property | Dog Control DID NOT ISSUE A FINE | Dog Training Tips | RDCO Dog Control Minutes | RDCO Dog Control Minutes prior to 2012 | RDCO Dog Advisory Committee Minutes | Unwarranted ticket | BC Dog Legislation | Bark Log | Actual Costs | Dog Consultant Costs 2012 -2013 | Bark Log of 2 Farm Dogs | Denied Delegation Requests | Dog Bylaw Officer Appointments | Another Barking Dog Complaint

Read others Comments

RDCO Barking Dog Bylaw | DOUBLE TIME PAYDog Bylaws in Various Cities | Concerns about RDCO's Dog Bylaw | RDCO Dog Control Comments | RDCO Dog Control Complaint | RDCO Staff Collective Agreement 2007 - 2010 | RDCO Dog Control Statistics | Barking Dog Solutions | RDCO Sold 9 Dog Licenses to 1 Property | Dog Control DID NOT ISSUE A FINE | Dog Training Tips | RDCO Dog Control Minutes | RDCO Dog Control Minutes prior to 2012 | RDCO Dog Advisory Committee Minutes | Unwarranted ticket | BC Dog Legislation | Bark Log | Actual Costs | Dog Consultant Costs 2012 - 2013 | Bark Log of 2 Farm Dogs | Denied Delegation Requests | Dog Bylaw Officer Appointments | Another Barking Dog Complaint

Blue Divider Line

Gossip for All
Make a Comment

INDEX ALL ] Air Quality ] Agriculture ] [ Barking Bylaw ] BC Election 09 ] BC Gov ] BC Human Rights ] BC Hydro ] BC Laws ] BC Native Land Claim ] BC Rivers ] Boating ] Building Inspection ] Building Laws ] Building Laws RDCO ] Bullying ] Bylaw Enforcement ] Canada Post ] Canadian Gov. ] Carbon Tax ] Democracy ] Denied Delegates ] Dictatorship ] Dog Complaints ] Drugs ] Food ] Garbage Law ] Gas Prices ] Global Warming ] Gov. Spending ] Great Ideas ] Health Care ] Homelessness ] ICBC ] Inland Port ] Legal System ] Missing Pets ] New Government ] Petition to Parl. ] Planning ] RDCO Agreement ] RDCO Policy ] RDCO Policy Manual ] RDCO Spending ] Road Rage ] Robin Hood ] School Tax ] Security ] Smoking ] Sewer ] Suicide ] Tasers ] Telus Cell ] Telus TV ] Telus Wireless ] Tourism ] Tussock Moth ] Wage Inequality ] Water Board ] Western Budworm ] Westside T. Station ] WFN ] Wind Power ] Wrong ]

Blue Divider Line

Gossip for All
Read others Comments

Air Quality ] Agriculture ] Barking Bylaw ] BC Election 09 ] BC Gov. ] BC Human Rights ] BC Hydro ] BC Laws ] BC Native Land Claim ] BC Rivers ] Boating ] Building Inspection ] Buidling Laws ] Building Laws RDCO ] Bullying ] Bylaw Enforcement ] Canada Post ] Canadian Gov. ] Carbon Tax ] Democracy ] Denied Delegates ] Dictatorship ] Dog Complaints ] Drugs ] Food ] Garbage Laws ] Gas Prices ] Global Warming ] Gov. Spending ] Great Ideas ] Health Care ] Homelessness ] ICBC ] Inland Port ] Legal System ] Missing Pets ] New Government ] Petition to Parl. ] Planning Minutes ] RDCO Agreement ] RDCO Policy ] RDCO Policy Manual ] Road Rage ] RDCO Spending ] Robin Hood ] School Tax ] Secure Prosperity ] Sewer ] Smoking ] Suicide ] Tasers ] Telus Cell ] Telus TV ] Telus Wireless ] Tourism ] Tussock Moth ] Wage Inequality ] Water Board ] Western Budworm ] Westside T. Station ] WFN ] Wind Power ] Wrong ]

Blue Divider Line

Gossip
In Other Towns

INDEX ALL ] Boucherie Rd ] Kaleden ] Kelowna ] Naramata ] Oyama ] Peachland ] Penticton ] Summerland ] Vernon ] West Kelowna ] Westside Road ] Winfield ]

Blue Divider Line

Index

Boucherie Road ] Kaleden ] Kelowna ] Naramata ] Oyama ] Peachland ] Pentiction ] Summerland ] Vernon ] West Kelowna ] Westside Road ] Winfield ]

You will find Okanagan B.C. businesses, services, classifieds, local arts and crafts, vacation rentals, plus much more located in communities around Okanagan Lake.  We will be adding to this site, so come back and check it often.  Lots of gossip, photos, and much more.

Blue Divider Line

©2006-2014 okanaganlakebc.ca