Council split on animal control bylaw

FORT FRANCES—While some councillors feel the town’s animal control bylaw only needs a grooming, others are convinced the leash needs to be tightened.
The topic was discussed at length during Monday night’s meeting after the bylaw was reviewed by the Planning and Development executive committee in late July, and came back to council with recommendations some felt weren’t enough.

In a report to council, Planning and Development superintendent Rick Hallam said that, other than corrections to language and outdated references (such as fines, fees, the Municipal Act, the Chief of Police, etc.), and issues of dealing with “the annoyance of barking dogs,” the bylaw meets the present needs for animal control in Fort Frances.
Accordingly, the recommendations to council Monday night included that the clerk make the necessary language and reference corrections, and the clerk (after reviewing provincial law and what’s done in other municipalities), advise council of the legalities of including in the bylaw the use of electronic anti-barking collars for nuisance dogs.
Coun. Andrew Hallikas, who sits on the Planning and Development executive committee with Couns. Rick Wiedenhoeft and John Albanese, said that aside from cleaning up the wording, he found the bylaw sufficient to meet the needs of the Town of Fort Frances.
“I asked our bylaw officers exactly how many complaints were we getting . . . they indicated that there wasn’t a lot, that there isn’t a problem. . . .
“So if there wasn’t a problem, why should we create additional legislation?” he wondered.
“I’m a strong believer in the ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ philosophy,” noted Coun. Wiedenhoeft. “Right now, we have to believe, according to our bylaw officers, that we don’t have a problem in this community.
“And if we don’t have a problem in this community, what is more legislation going to do to fix a problem that doesn’t exist?”
While Coun. Wiedenhoeft feels more people should be licensing their dogs more than they do (only an estimated 50 percent of dog owners in town have), he said limiting the number of dogs a person can have doesn’t make sense—it’s all about the level of care each owner gives their animals.
“My personal opinion is if a person has one dog, it can be as big a problem as a person who has five dogs,” he remarked.
“Right now, I believe we do not have a problem with dogs in our community, and the bylaw that exists takes care of our needs right now,” stressed Coun. Wiedenhoeft. “I don’t think we should fix something that ain’t broke.”
But other councillors contended the animal control bylaw needs further review.
Coun. Albanese said he’d like to see the cost of licensing go up according to how many pets the owner registers to discourage people from having so many animals in their household.
He’d also like to make sure the bylaw applied equally to both dogs and cats.
Mayor Roy Avis, who brought the motion to review the bylaw before council at its July 28 meeting, said he has several issues with it.
“I believe we should have some sort of control over the number of animals per household,” he noted, adding he also would like to see licensing compulsory for pet owners.
Right now, he pointed out, the only time owners are forced to license their dog or cat is when the animal is impounded—and the owner has come to get it back.
He’d also like to better clarify the process by which animal complaints are handled. Currently, the onus falls too heavily on complainants, possibly making them “gun shy” to file reports.
Coun Ken Perry agreed he’d like to see licensing mandatory, and implemented on a graduated fee scale.
“I don’t think we should wait until the dog’s impounded before we make them get a license,” he noted.
Coun. Albanese said he knows of two local residents, in particular, who have showed serious concern over neighbours’ animals.
“What are we going to do? Wait until we have a lineup of people complaining about what’s going on with their next-door neighbours?” he asked.
But Hallam reiterated that the bylaw isn’t “broken.”
“When you look around Fort Frances and the numbers of households, and the numbers of pets contained within those households, and there’s two incidents—one in the west end and one in the east end, it doesn’t necessarily mean the engine is broken.
“It just means we’ve got some work to do.”
He mentioned every municipality has issues with dogs defecating in public places, but every day he sees dog owners being responsible and cleaning up after their canines.
Hallam added every municipality has problems with dogs running at large, but locally, the owners of most dogs impounded either are identified by the complainants or simply show up—looking for their dog—and are dealt with by the town.
“Nuisance dogs are being dealt with,” Hallam stressed.
“We’ve got some problems. Let’s deal with it—that’s all I ask for,” countered Coun. Albanese, adding he’d like to stop residents from fighting over animal control issues and be “better neighbours.”
Council eventually voted 4-3 against the committee’s recommendation to simply make corrections to the language and outdated references in the bylaw.
Council then passed a separate motion to send the animal control bylaw back to the Planning and Development executive committee for further review.
(Fort Frances Times)