Thursday September 02, 2010
Find local businesses. Fast!


Local News

Bylaw to stop dogs from chasing squirrels, seagulls

License
Share |

Sechelt dogs that "without provocation" chase any animal — be it a rat, squirrel, seagull, bear or cougar — would violate a dog licensing and control amendment bylaw that passed three readings at the Dec. 16 council meeting.

The first draft of the bylaw, prepared by District of Sechelt staff, would only have stopped dogs from chasing, biting or attacking domesticated animals. But at committee of the whole Dec. 9, Coun. Keith Thirkell suggested expanding the bylaw to include wild animals and birds as well. Thirkell argued that this would bring it in line with provincial and federal legislation that protects various wild animals, including migratory birds and endangered species.

Councillors Fred Taylor and Alice Janisch voted against the bylaw.

"People have given me examples where their dog has run after seagulls and that would be a crime [if we pass this bylaw]," Taylor said. "One individual has talked to me about their dog chasing a rat in their yard. That would be a crime. People have talked again about bears in the park and how their dog ran after the bear to defend them and save them from being attacked. That would be a crime. I just think we're unnecessarily criminalizing behaviour in our community."

Coun. Ann Kershaw said the clause "without provocation" was key, and that she hoped common sense would guide how the bylaw gets enforced.

"I've thought it over and I think that if a coyote was in my yard, then I think that's provocation in itself," she said. "It depends on your interpretation of provocation. And a bird fluttering away in front of a dog, that's provocation."

Thirkell asked staff to clarify if the bylaw would be enforced differently for incidents that occurred on people's private property.

"If you look at it from practical terms, it's highly unlikely our bylaw enforcement officer would be as concerned with something occurring on somebody's private property, because there's a good chance nobody would be complaining about it," District director of corporate services Jo-Anne Frank said. "But if somebody saw a dog chasing a bird and had an issue with it, and it says in our bylaw that that's an offence, then theoretically our bylaw enforcement officers would be reacting to that complaint and enforcing the provisions of the bylaw."


[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2010 Glacier Media Inc.

License
Share |

Comments

Sort Comments:


0
0

dgriffin says...

It is already illegal for dogs to chase domesticated animals (farmers can shoot dogs and cats that attack their livestock) under provincial and federal laws. I also believe these laws extend to wildlife under the federal wildlife act.

I question the Town of Gibsons ability to enfource this bylaw anyway. I see people walking and running their dog off leash and not picking-up after them within town boundaries with impunity. These two things are already bylaws. The moral – don't create laws that you have no ability to enfource.

Posted on January 1, 2010 @ 3:37 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3058992 

0
0

Halfmoon Bay resident says...

Crazy ideas! It must be a new year's resolution. Is this a justification for the animal bylaw control person's salary? Allowing for a larger fine catchment? Besides hoping "common sense would guide how the bylaw gets enforced" is also rediculous as it gives bylaw enforcers the freedom to make up the rules as they go along.

Posted on January 1, 2010 @ 2:32 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3058989 

0
0

Corporeal says...

I haven't read anything so ridiculous in my life. Passing a bylaw to punish an animals' primal instinct is akin to passing a bylaw to make it an offense to get a suntan.

@interested: a cat does indeed have that sort of instinct. it's called a prey drive (also known as a hunter instinct), and it's inherent in all carnivores including dogs, who are descended from wolves and cats who are descended from the middle east wildcat. Please research into animal behaviour more before posting such misinformation.

I thought the recycling bylaw was absured but this really tops the list.

I had no idea Sechelt was turning into a facet of America.

Posted on December 31, 2009 @ 1:27 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3058424 

0
0

cherylb says...

What a dumb by-law. Coun. Ann Kershaw said the clause "without provocation" (which she admits is open to individual interpretation) was key, and that she HOPED common sense would guide how the bylaw gets enforced. When was the last time you could safely leave something up to "common sense"? Everything has to be spelled out as clearly as possible. Many people have no "common sense". Sechelt is clearly moving backwards.....

Posted on December 30, 2009 @ 10:05 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3055570 

0
0

Celeste says...

I have recently moved to this beautiful part of the world from Vancouver and am beginning to wonder if I have made a dreadful mistake.

The idea of such an idiotic bylaw being passed is quite beyond my comprehension.

I can only assume that the Sechelt councillors have far too much time on their hands and no matters of importance to deal with in order to spend their time on such absurdity.

Posted on December 29, 2009 @ 8:11 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3055556 

0
0

chris says...

Man, I thought this was a joke. If this was April fools, I would think someone was having a laugh. I think jbpkx is on the right track, but don't you know? The cats are really the ones in charge.


"Researchers at the University of Sussex have discovered that cats use a "soliciting purr" to overpower their owners and garner attention and food." hahahahha



arf arf woof woof!!!!!!!!!

Posted on December 29, 2009 @ 5:09 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3051629 

0
0

chris says...

Man, I thought this was a joke. If this was April fools, I would think someone was having a laugh. I think jbpkx is on the right track, but don't you know? The cats are really the ones in charge.


"Researchers at the University of Sussex have discovered that cats use a "soliciting purr" to overpower their owners and garner attention and food." hahahahha



arf arf woof woof!!!!!!!!!

Posted on December 29, 2009 @ 5:08 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3051597 

0
0

interested says...

For your readers interest:

Link :

http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/songbrd.html#Cat

Cat Predation
Americans keep an estimated 60 million cats as pets. Let's say each cat kills only one bird a year. That would mean that cats kill over 60 million birds (minimum) each year - more wildlife than any oil spill.

Scientific studies actually show that each year, cats kill hundreds of millions of migratory songbirds. In 1990, researchers estimated that "outdoor" house cats and feral cats were responsible for killing nearly 78 million small mammals and birds annually in the United Kingdom.

University of Wisconsin ornithologist, Dr. Santley Temple estimates that 20-150 million songbirds are killed each year by rural cats in Wisconsin alone.

Feline predation is not "natural." Cats were domesticated by the ancient Egyptians and taken throughout the world by the Romans. Cats were brought to North America in the 1800's to control rats. The "tabby" that sits curled up on your couch is not a natural predator and has never been in the natural food chain in the Western Hemisphere.

Cats are a serious threat to fledglings, birds roosting at night and birds on a nest. Research shows that de-clawing cats and bell collars do not prevent them from killing birds and other small animals. For healthy cats and wild birds, cats should not be allowed to roam free.

Work with your local humane society, veterinarians and state wildlife agency to enact and enforce free-roaming cat regulations. For more information:

Free Roaming Cats. American Backyard Bird Society, PO Box 10046, Rockville, MD 20849.

Cats: A Heavy Toll on Songbirds. by Rich Stallcup. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, 4990 Shoreline Hwy., Stinson Beach, CA 94924.

Is there a Killer in Your House? by George Harrison, National Wildlife Magazine (October/November 1992).

Beware of Well-Fed Felines. by Peter Churcher and John Lawton, Natural History Magazine (July 1989).

Back toTable of Contents

Posted on December 28, 2009 @ 12:58 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3047223 

0
0

sighthound says...

I don't live on the Coast but it is where I have been considering retiring to but Sechelt is definitely off my list now. There is no way that I would be willing to live in a place that passes such absurd laws.

As cute as they are, squirrels are vermin that cause a lot a damage. I currently live in a squirrel-infested area where their gnawing on my wires have caused two fires and frequent interruptions of my phone, cable and internet service. I applaud my dogs' efforts in chasing squirrels off my property.

Yes, in areas where there are endangered species, it is reasonable to have leash laws to restrict dogs (and cats) from attacking those species but trying to legislate against the DNA-encoded instinct of animals to chase and eat nuisance prey animals is the height of absurdity.

Posted on December 27, 2009 @ 7:15 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3047214 

0
0

sighthound says...

I don't live on the Coast but it is where I have been considering retiring to but Sechelt is definitely off my list now. There is no way that I would be willing to live in a place that passes such absurd laws.

As cute as they are, squirrels are vermin that cause a lot a damage. I currently live in a squirrel-infested area where their gnawing on my wires have caused two fires and frequent interruptions of my phone, cable and internet service. I applaud my dogs' efforts in chasing squirrels off my property.

Yes, in areas where there are endangered species, it is reasonable to have leash laws to restrict dogs (and cats) from attacking those species but trying to legislate against the DNA-encoded instinct of animals to chase and eat nuisance prey animals is the height of absurdity.

Posted on December 27, 2009 @ 6:12 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3047212 

0
0

jbpdx says...

It's a conspiracy...... by all the cat owners on city council. Sounds like a reason to now to pass a by-law stating dogs are now a protected class due to institutional discrimination.

/S/
Dog owner.

Posted on December 27, 2009 @ 9:58 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3045529 

0
0

none says...

I think the law is crazy but seem to wonder why cats are not on this bylaw... Only dogs. In my neighborhood the biggest threat for birds, squirrels are CATS not dogs. I drives me nuts dogs are held to leash laws and other laws like this one but cats can roam the neighborhoods, leaving dead animals in my yard, with no way to do anything unless I set out my own live traps? Meanwhile, if I play fetch, with my dog, in my on yard I can be given a ticket for leash law violations. Crazy.

Posted on December 26, 2009 @ 5:30 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3043399 

0
0

Annie says...

This is absolutely ridiculous. Talk about "common sense". I don't see any common sense at the local government level that would even consider such an asinine proposal. Don't you have anything better to talk about or work on? Stop the nonsense and get down to dealing with the serious issues of a city.

What about the Border Collies that drive away birds from airport runways? All we need is one passenger to look out the window and start a firestorm. We humans are becming totally stupid. Better to be thought an idiot than open one's mouth and prove it.

Posted on December 26, 2009 @ 3:01 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3043396 

0
0

CSRBC says...

So there is a bylaw punishing owners who own dogs that chase squirrels, rats etc.

To be fair to all, squirrels that chatter and swish their tails to provoke a dog to chase should equally be charged.

Since squirrels have no owners, they are 'owned' by the city of Sechelt.

One would hope that Sechelt would be fined for their wild animals 'provoking' the dog to chase.

Fair is fair.

Carol J

Posted on December 26, 2009 @ 1:00 pm PST | Report post to Editor | 3043395 

0
0

RunninOnEmpty says...

Why is it, that when we elect dimwits to city councils or other boards that are funded by tax payers, members of a provincial legislature or the House of Commons, they seem to think that it's their god given right to push through some of the dumbest laws or by-laws that they can think of.

Making it illegal for a dog to chase squirrels or any other animal for that matter, is the dumbest bylaw that I have heard of in a decade, since it's a natural instinct that is inbred in them before we domesticate the animals centuries ago.

Don't we have enough stupid by-laws and laws on the books now that try to control us? We don't need anymore trying to control animals.

Posted on December 26, 2009 @ 4:45 am PST | Report post to Editor | 3043387 

Post a comment

You must be Registered and logged in to post a comment.

Register or

The Coast Reporter welcomes your opinions and comments. We reserve the right to edit comments for length, style, legality and taste and reproduce them in print, electronic or otherwise. For further information, please contact the editor or publisher.




About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Sitemap / RSS    Glacier Interactive Media & their Glacier Websites    © Copyright 2010 Glacier Interactive Media | User Agreement & Privacy Policy

LOG IN



Lost your password?