By passing the first two readings of the city’s re-written animal bylaw, council is barking up the right tree.
The new bylaw will require that dogs be leashed in all public spaces except in off-leash areas, which would reverse the current situation, in which the entire city is considered off-leash except for playgrounds and posted parkland.
Perhaps, as stated Tuesday by Coun. Cathy Heron, the status quo represents a problem that doesn’t really exist, a system that isn’t really broken. But, as a matter of public policy, this reversal represents the more sensible approach to dog handling, and thus the change is warranted.
Requiring that dogs be leashed makes sense because it emphasizes that dogs must be under the owner’s control at all times, and makes such a requirement much more realistic to achieve.
In its pursuit of more stringent controls on the comings and goings of humans’ best friends, the city is doing a commendable job of balancing two competing needs: control and freedom.
City staff have developed criteria for the establishment of off-leash areas and have identified about 20 parks that could serve in that capacity. The goal is to have one off-leash area in each of the city’s 17 neighbourhoods.
If this comes to pass, it would put a dog park within an easy drive of every resident. Most would be able to walk to their local off-leash park, not a bad deal for dog owners in a city of 61,000 people that covers 35 square kilometres.
In contrast, Edmonton has 817,000 people, covers 684 square kilometres and has about 40 off-leash areas.
The benefit of dog parks for the animals is obvious: it’s one-stop shopping for running, jumping, chasing, sniffing and spraying.
There are benefits to people as well. A preliminary 2012 study by Taryn Graham, a University of Waterloo masters student in recreation and leisure studies, found that, for the people who frequent them, dog parks provide a sense of community, face-to-face interaction or escape from day-to-day worries.
But we must be careful about putting dog parks everywhere. The desires of dog owners must always be balanced with the community as a whole, with the understanding that citizens deserve to have outdoor spaces they can visit without having to interact with other people’s pets.
The revamped bylaw also contains a provision for bylaw officers to declare that a dog is dangerous, with such a designation requiring an annual licensing fee of at least $250. The city’s justification for this is that dangerous dogs (those known to chase, attack or bite) require more enforcement resources.
While it appears the bylaw contains a robust mechanism for appealing such a designation, this is an area that must be watched closely, as it has potential for being overused and becoming a cash cow for the city. Or, it could spur so many complaints, legitimate or bogus, that the city will have to look at adding to its roster of bylaw officers.
Let’s hope that common sense prevails.
Overall, the city’s administration should be commended for doing a thorough job with its review of the bylaw and council should be applauded for passing it (assuming this happens at third reading).
Now if they would just do something about cats.
