Dog control needs standard set of rules
Public safety depends on standardizing regulations and placing onus on owners
Surrey is right to reform its bylaw to shift focus from dangerous dogs to responsibility and accountability for owners.
Next, we need provincewide reform of dog-control laws. Dog owners and the public deserve to know exactly where everyone stands.
We need standardized universal registration; standardized incident reporting; standardized definitions of dangerous dogs — and progressive tools for intervention; standardized enforcement — and well-defined, effective penalties for failure to comply.
Good policy is impossible without accurate data. So we need a provincially managed aggressive dog registry. All complaints about aggressive dogs in all B.C. jurisdictions and all medical or veterinary interventions for dog-bite injury should require mandatory reports to a central database.
Let’s have mandatory, provincewide licensing. Every dog should be microchipped and registered. Who should pay for it? Dog owners through their licensing fees — but the rest of us should contribute through public revenues because it’s a public safety issue.
Owning a pet is a privilege and a responsibility. Licensing addresses animal welfare and the public has an interest in that, too. Mandatory registration and identification ensures owners are responsible for their pets and accountable for what they do, but it also helps prevent abandonment, loss and theft.
Under the old Surrey regulations, dogs were flagged as dangerous after an attack. Convenient for enforcement officials, not so convenient for victims. That law failed to address a larger issue: People’s right to share public spaces without fear.
So, Surrey is right. Shift the focus of responsibility from animal to owner. This provides tools for proactive prevention instead of reaction to damage already done. Dogs don’t deserve punishment for being dogs. Owners have a duty to ensure pets don’t infringe on others’ right to feel safe.
Demands for breed-specific legislation arise whenever officials try to deal with aggressive or dangerous dogs. Compelling evidence shows that singling out specific breeds is less effective than enforcing owner responsibility.
In the Netherlands, the government withdrew breed-specific legislation in 2009 after it failed to reduce dog bite numbers.
And in the United Kingdom, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reported in 2016 that breed-specific prohibitions did not reduce dog-bite frequency.
Thirty people have been killed in the U.K. in dog-related incidents since 1991. Hospital admissions for dog bites increased 76 per cent over the last decade. Yet 70 per cent involved dogs not covered by breed-specific bans.
Netherlands law provides for early intervention. Animal control officers use an “abnormal behaviour” test to assess antisocial behaviour by dogs or owners. They can then mediate with a sliding scale of responses from enforced training to euthanasia where owners refuse to comply or animals can’t be rehabilitated.
This approach is what we need in B.C. Dog attacks here have resulted in maiming and death from seniors to infants. And many pets suffered similar fates.
Response from the provincial government has been inexcusably lethargic. The problem has been dumped on municipalities. The result is an unco-ordinated jumble. When a CKNW reporter set out to simply find out which dogs were biting whom, she had to file 17 freedom of information requests. This is unacceptable. It reveals indifference and incompetence by the provincial government.
Well, here’s what Premier Christy Clark should do:
1. Make dog bites a reportable public health event.
2. Require police, animal control agencies, physicians and hospital emergency rooms across B.C. to report aggressive dog incidents to a central authority.
3. Standardize animal licensing. Calgary makes the fine for having an unlicensed dog five times as expensive as a licence. It works. Ninety per cent of Calgary dogs are licensed — and 87 per cent of lost dogs are safely returned.
4. Make dog owners accountable. In the U.K., animal control authorities can demand owners take action to prevent dog attacks or face fines of up to $33,000.
5. Provide for mediation and intervention. In the U.K., if a complaint is made about aggressive dogs, owners may be compelled to attend dog training classes, muzzle the dog in public, have it neutered and microchipped, and erect approved protective fencing.
6. Be flexible. British law provides for graduated responses. First comes a low-level notice to curb anti-social behaviour. Then come injunctions requiring mandatory training and behaviour modification classes, microchipping, neutering, muzzling and leashing and prohibitions upon where a reported dog can be taken in public. Finally, there’s provision for a criminal behaviour order.
It’s time for B.C.’s politicians to start taking public safety seriously.
Compelling evidence shows that singling out specific breeds is less effective than enforcing owner responsibility.