A number of Cochrane dog owners and off-leash dog park users have shared their stories with the Eagle, in hopes of bringing some light to what they feel are inadequacies in the ‘Animal Bylaw 16/2012'.
A number of Cochrane dog owners and off-leash dog park users have shared their stories with the Eagle, in hopes of bringing some light to what they feel are inadequacies in the ‘Animal Bylaw 16/2012'.
Some issues with the bylaw that were highlighted included a perceived lack of public consultation to inform the bylaw; ambiguous interpretations of the definition of ‘bite' vs. ‘attack' and the notion that a growl is a prelude to an attack (versus a warning).
Other concerns have been brought up by some over the wording of the bylaw, which seems to imply that animals cannot bite an intruder, even if the intruder is trespassing or is a perceived threat; the discrepancy over an animal at play versus an animal deemed ‘out of control' or ‘running at large'; the definition of ‘nuisance barking' and ‘nuisance animal'; and a perceived lack of investigation on the part of bylaw officers in specific cases.
Jim Uffelmann is an avid dog park user and advocate for preservation of the off-leash park.
At the end of the day, Uffelmann wants the bylaw to be put back on the table, where public consultation and a sharpening up of definitions (including separating the definition of ‘attack' from ‘bite') could serve to address some of the flaws in the current bylaw.
According to the municipal enforcement team for the town, the draft bylaw was presented to council in November 2012, followed by reportage in both local papers and an open house Jan. 10, 2013.
“The bylaw is in line with animal bylaws in many other communities, ” said municipal enforcement.
“The open house was advertised over the Christmas - I didn't even know it happened and neither did a lot of folks I know from the park who definitely would have attended, ” said Uffelmann.
Jessica Way is a Cochrane woman and owner of two Shiloh Shepherd dogs. One of her dogs, seven-year-old Indy, was convicted of attacking a person, which resulted in a $750 fine (reduced to $500) and the requirement for Way to post a sign on her fence ‘Beware of Dog'.
It was Thanksgiving Sunday, 2014 when a neighbour, accompanied by a nine-year-old child, entered Way's yard to knock on her basement suite door.
Indy, who according to Way had never shown signs of aggression but had long been fearful of children following repeatedly being taunted by them from the other side of the yard fence, wound up nipping the child and retreating away from the child immediately afterward.
Way said the whole incident happened so quickly. While she said she felt terribly for the child, it was ‘a textbook fear bite' and Way questions being served a hefty fine for her dog ‘attacking' a child versus ‘biting'.
The wording of the bylaw that an ‘attack' means “an assault resulting in bleeding, bone breakage, sprains, bruising or multiple injuries ” and that a ‘bite' means “a wound to the skin causing it to bruise, puncture or break ” leaves the interpretation too open - where essentially anything can be deemed an ‘attack'.
“The wording connotes almost anything could be an attack, ” she explained. “I definitely understand that no dog should ever bite - but he felt threatened because they were in his yard. ”
In addition to the fine, Indy is never allowed out in the yard unsupervised. Way said this continues to confuse her, as she now has the required signage posted on her gate and does not understand how such a stipulation can be imposed on private property.
Rudy Sundby is a former Cochranite who used to walk his daughter's dog, Sam, at the off-leash park daily.
A retired RCMP officer, Sundby said he was ‘floored' by the lack of due diligence undertaken by a bylaw officer who issued two tickets amounting to $300 in fines for ‘dog not under control in a designated area' and for ‘excessive barking'.
Following an incident that Sundby said he viewed as his dog trying to play with another at the off-leash park (resulting in a nervous owner picking up his small dog), he said his daughter was contacted over three months later and issued tickets.
“There has to be a degree of investigation, ” said Sundby, who said there was nothing of the sort with respect to this incident.
His daughter wound up paying the fines, against her father's advice. Sundby said Sam has never displayed any signs of aggression and just the issuing of a ticket for ‘excessive barking' puts into question how much general experience the bylaw officer had with dogs to begin with - as barking is commonly seen as a natural reaction from an excited dog seeking play.
Gwenn Wright was an avid off-leash dog park user until nearly two years ago. Following two simultaneous incidents in February and March 2013, one of Wright's dogs, a rescue named Maya, has been banned from any off-leash area in town and has been deemed a ‘nuisance animal'.
Wright was also issued six tickets resulting from the two incidents (of which two were dropped) ranging from $150 for ‘dog not under control in a designated area' to $350 for ‘damage to property or another animal'.
The first incident took place when Maya was playing with a group of dogs and, according to Wright, a Jack Russell Terrier raced toward the group and began to engage in play.
Several minutes later, the terrier retreated and its owner declared the dog was hurt. Wright, who said Maya had never bitten a dog before, said she did not see her dog bite the terrier and that nobody actually saw what happened.
She felt, in all likelihood that the terrier had simply injured himself, as is common when a group of animals rambunctiously play in a pack.
Upon exchanging information with the owner of the terrier, Wright was notified several weeks later by a bylaw officer that the incident was reported claiming that Maya had attacked the terrier; the report indicated the terrier was taken to a vet a week after the incident had occurred.
Wright was stunned.
“The information I gave to bylaw was totally re-written - they totally changed my statement and then submitted it to the court, ” she said, adding that only one witness was ever contacted and the statement she provided was not presented to the court.
Fearing threats from the prosecution to ban her dog from residing in the town, Wright said her husband took the deal - one leaving Maya banned from off-leash areas and fines and court costs amounting to $800.
Wright said shortly after the first incident, she had a run-in with a man walking a pug-type dog in the park on three separate occasions. She said that Maya tried to play with the pug, who snapped at her each time. She never observed Maya biting the dog, despite accusations from the man after the third incident.
This was also used against Wright in court, leading to the conviction of Maya.
Wright said she feels there was a serious lack of investigation from the bylaw officer. All in all, she said the experience has turned she and her husband off from even continuing to reside in Cochrane.
She added that several off-leash users she used to walk with are very supportive of her and are shocked that Maya could have been labeled a ‘nuisance dog'.
Uffelmann is familiar with Wright's story and has pointed out a number of flaws in the bylaw.
Uffelmann is concerned that a lack of due diligence on behalf of the bylaw officers has led to the unfair labeling of some dogs and has shed a negative light on the park.
“People think there a lot more bad dogs out there than there really are, ” he said, adding a concern with the absence of language in the bylaw to address dog walkers - including a limit to the number of dogs a walker can have at one time.
“There have been a multitude of issues involving a dog under the control of a dog walker as of late, ” said Uffelmann. “I keep encouraging people to report these incidents to bylaw. ”
Determining a 'vicious animal' is a designation reserved for the courts. The senior manager of protective services has the ability to determine a 'nuisance animal' and issuing tickets, such as for a dog being 'out of control' or 'excessive barking' is in the hands of bylaw; those who wish to dispute this designation or any ticket must reserve this for the courts, upon which the outcome would be based on the evidence presented to the courts.
For dog owners looking to connect with other off-leash park users, a Facebook group ‘Cochrane Dog Park Users' is active and administered by Uffelmann.
To read the Animal Bylaw, visit cochrane.ca/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/61. Municipal enforcement (animal bylaw) can be reached at 403-851-2532.
