Editor:
Your editor is a reasonable and intelligent person, so I find it surprising that he would write such an incomplete commentary about Sechelt's latest animal control bylaw (Coast Reporter, Dec. 25).
Perhaps he didn't realize Sechelt's bylaws are complaint driven. No one from the District will be hiding behind rocks watching and waiting to see if irresponsible dog owners let their animals harass, chase and/or kill wild birds and animals, "unprovoked" or otherwise. Plus, our bylaws carry no criminal penalty; only the province or feds have that authority.
It's unclear when he says it's in a dog's "nature" to chase animals. Is he implying it's their "right" and we should endorse such reckless behaviour? Surely he doesn't condone such an antiquated lack of dog control?
I have photographs of deer that were chased by dogs to exhaustion only to have their legs chewed off while the deer were still alive. And the last thing winter-stressed shore birds in our beautiful parks need is to be harassed by dogs.
Obviously if a dog chases a rat in its own backyard, the owner will probably not file a complaint.
Like our burning bylaw, if a neighbour feels unjustly affected by irresponsible behaviour, they can call the District to complain. Soon, if a neighbour sees a dog or packs of dogs chasing threatened great blue herons or rare shorebirds or deer fawns, they can notify the provincial conservation officer, or, with this new element to our bylaw, they can inform our bylaw officers as well.
Towards the end of his editorial he claims it's impossible "to legislate" human behaviour, yet we have a constitution and countless laws that do just that. It is illegal for humans to treat animals cruelly, period. Should that not extend to the behaviour of their pets?
Keith Thirkell
Sechelt councillor
