The findings of the report recommended an amendment to the bylaw to focus on the importance of responsible pet ownership and to incorporate the following provisions:
Thank you for your interest in learning more about the Animal Responsibility Bylaw. Here, you will learn about the new bylaw, be able to ask questions and submit your feedback.
Background
In December 2019, the City hired a consultant, Allan Neilson of Neilson Strategies, to:
The findings of the report recommended an amendment to the bylaw to focus on the importance of responsible pet ownership and to incorporate the following provisions:
At their July 6, 2020 meeting, Council supported these recommendations and directed staff to develop a bylaw to incorporate the recommendations.
Staff reached out to stakeholders that would be most affected by the bylaw and asked for their input:
“The proposed Animal Responsibility Bylaw is a welcome improvement over the current bylaw. The addition of animal care standards, regulations for cats, and the replacement of breed specific legislation with stronger dangerous dog provisions will improve the welfare of animals in our community while also helping to protect public safety.”
Carley Colclough, Pound and Adoption Coordinator for Nanaimo Animal Control Services
"The BC SPCA is supportive of municipalities who take a proactive approach to public health and safety through comprehensive animal bylaws. Incidents involving cat overpopulation, dangerous dogs, and hoarding have created expectations for regulators to proactively address these issues and the City of Nanaimo has an opportunity to be a leader in this regard. Municipalities without bylaws in place to address animal issues can also become known as a “safe haven” for people who neglect and abuse animals. The BC SPCA frequently encounters scenarios where a person facing enforcement action in one municipality for animal neglect will move to another with fewer regulatory bylaws. As the City of Nanaimo has taken a practical approach to updating their animal responsibility bylaw, the BC SPCA is in support of these changes and the positive outcome for animals in your community."
Alison, Government Relations Officer, BC SPCA
"On behalf of CatNap Society (Cats Needing Aid and Protection), a CRA registered charity and BC registered non-profit society, we feel that the revised animal control bylaws pertaining to cats are significantly overdue for a community of Nanaimo’s size. We are a cat rescue group, who has been operating to help the community of Nanaimo for 22 years and our 75+ unpaid volunteers selflessly devote hours of personal time and expense to rescue 400–500 homeless and abandoned stray and feral cats annually.
The fact that there is no spay/neuter or permanent identification bylaws for free-roaming cats in our city, are the sole reasons why our animal rescue exists. We have been trying to address that problem in our city since our inception in 1998, by getting all of our rescued cats spayed/neutered to help prevent unwanted future litters and advocating for a spay/neuter bylaw.
If our community and its citizens could personally witness our front-line rescue efforts and thereby understand what happens when unspayed/unneutered cats are left to free-roam, breed and fend for themselves, they wouldn’t hesitate to support the revised animal control bylaws for cats. The significant degree of needless suffering that the cats we rescue experience with parasites, disease, exposure to toxins/the elements, starvation, and the many other medical issues we see, is heart-breaking. Responsible cat ownership is the key to prevention of all of these issues, and the new provisions in the draft bylaws directly address responsible cat ownership. The implementation of these types of cat bylaws have been proven strategies in other Vancouver Island communities, and they can and will work for Nanaimo too.
We are in full support of the current animal control bylaw revisions that have been put forward to Council and welcome any opportunity to help our community’s citizens understand the urgency and necessity of all of the proposed cat bylaws."
Chrystal Kleisinger and Cathy Brzoza, Board of Director Representatives/Volunteers, CatNap Society
Staff from various departments also provided input on the bylaw:
On November 9, 2020, the bylaw was presented to the Governance and Priorities Committee and the Committee passed a motion to have the bylaw read at the November 16, 2020 Regular Council meeting. During that meeting, Council passed the following resolution:
"That readings of the Animal Control Bylaw be delayed until Staff have had the opportunity to post the Draft Bylaw to the City’s Bang the Table platform for 3 weeks of public input, create a report on that input for consideration of changes that might be incorporated into the draft Bylaw, and bring back to Council for three readings in early January."
Questions and feedback will be taken until December 11, 2020. We will then report back to Council with your input in January 2021.
How you can get involved:
We recommend you read through the information provided in the Documents, Links and FAQs sections before submitting your questions and feedback. We understand this is an important topic for many, please be respectful in your feedback. All questions and feedback will be third party moderated. for more information, please review the site's Forum Etiquette & Moderation protocols.
Review the documents in the Document Library, links and FAQs and provide any feedback you have about the changes to the bylaw. Please keep comments respectful, on topic and unique (do not post multiple comments regarding the same topic) as per our moderation guidelines.
Consultation has concludedYou need to be signed in to comment in this Guest Book. Click here to Sign In or Register to get involved
I do not support this bylaw as it stands for a number of reasons that include:
-- It should be much clearer, and easy to use with better sections and subsections, e.g. exceptions – like guide dogs, RCMP service dogs and medically-required support animals (is in the current one, not in the proposed one). Another example is that breeders should have a section on its own so anyone can quickly and easily see what applies specifically. It all needs better organization and clarity.
-- Language, tone and intent is much harsher and authoritarian than the current bylaw e.g. currently the contracted poundkeeper has to make “every effort” to find the owners … that’s what mammas and pappas of fur babies expect by the way … but now they just need to make “reasonable effort” and that is not even defined, but if an owner doesn’t respond to selective methods of approach … very tight time limits are imposed. Don’t ask citizens to give blind trust especially when many have had less than impressive experiences to date.
-- Overall, there is too much arbitrary power given to contracted out animal control who can seize animals for petty infractions as listed in the bylaw. Also, by not expressly including that warrants are required to enter private homes, it seems like the city has intentionally written it to fool people into thinking that an animal control person can just enter! This does not reflect professional, transparent and accountable law making and in the hands of the wrong individual it does not support respectful communities and honest, transparent, unambiguous enforcement.
-- The current bylaw makes it very clear the only killing will be done by a vet. This bylaw gives that power to the poundkeeper who is not required to have any suitable qualifications or experience. Most frightening is that there is no review and appeal process at all where an independent trained and qualified animal behaviourist will review the facts, interview the parties and examine the dog first! The bylaw treats treasured fur baby members of families like chattels that can be seized immediately for not being on a leash even when the owner is present! This is not responsible law making. It is unreasonable and heavy handed against responsible, reasonable, licensed dog owners, and taxpayers.
-- The definitions are a bit off and don’t fit reality. e.g. animal kingdom with Nanaimo’s two exceptions actually includes fish and other animals so it is unreasonable to imply tropical fish owners can only have four fish, snails or clams; or snake or other owners can only have 4 live crickets or roaches to feed them. Sloppy and incomplete definitions and bylaws make for confusion and angry/frustrated taxpayers and make if far more likely to have the whole bylaw thrown out under judicial review. Either make additional exceptions as to what animal species are not included or make appropriate provision for those covered. Again, clarity, practicality, and unambiguous law-making is needed.
-- It is harsh, cruel and unreasonable to take away cats’ current ability to be cats and roam. Cats were domesticated in part to hunt vermin and for my cat and four other immediate vicinity neighbourhood cats, I am very thankful for their service. My cat has killed 10 rats this year and two mice in the neighbourhood. Roaming cats are far better, safer and more effective options at rodent control than poisoning rats and mice that then get eaten by bald eagles and other wild birds, in turn being poisoned and often dying horrible deaths. My and my neighbours' vege patches need the roaming cats to prevent the wholesale theft of the harvest by rats. If we are truly in the search of being a sustainable city on an island, we need more people growing food and more cats keeping the rats away. There are many cheap, safe, harmless and effective ways of preventing cats being interested in exploring garden patches, e.g. Cayenne pepper borders for example; a spray of water from the hose. In 12 years I have not had any issues (and no complaints from neighbours where my cat roams) and five cats regularly roam through my yard. I use roe cover over our vege beds to keep slugs, snails, white flies, racoons, etc. out but mostly to catch the increasing amount of bird poop from the wild song birds that are drawn to the neighbourhood by people erecting bird feeders in their yards. In 12 years I am happy to say that I have seen the bird population more than double on our street given the number of people feeding the wild birds. There are many responsible bird feeder owners who erect feeders responsibly in such a way as to prevent any seeds or spillage hitting the ground so that the birds are never on the ground to be pray for cats or other hunters.
-- Research on cats hunting birds clearly demonstrates that it is feral cats in rural settings that kill the most birds – 100s each year -- because that is their only food source. Those cats might even kill ducks and chickens as big as them because they are trying to survive. By comparison city neighbourhood cats catch far, far fewer birds and where they do catch them is at bird feeders! People who have bird feeders need to know how to make them 100% safe for birds. Easy to do when you choose to be a responsible backyard bird feeder. So again, this proposed bylaw is highly unreasonable, prejudicial and unfair to cats.
-- The European Union and the UK are just two examples of many jurisdictions that respect cats' rights to roam. Why can’t we? Why suddenly do we allow ignorance and fiction to dictate acts that create unnecessary cruelty? Cats born indoors and that have never experienced being free and roaming are still captive but the harm is arguably less. But, for all our senior cats in Nanaimo and all the kittens that are born outdoors and adopted through societies (like my cats), you are asking responsible owners to take those freedoms away and force cats into tiny back yards and onto leashes when they have known years and years of neighbourhood freedom! That will never be ok.
-- My eldest cat adopted from the Nanaimo SPCA has roamed for almost 12 years, since he was a kitten rescued as a feral cat. He has a daily walk routine to visit two retired seniors at their home down the road. He stops at another home for a tummy rub if that senior is out in his driveway and another stop to check in on another cat before a four-property fence walk home. He even walks (no leash) with our dog (on leash) around the block. In summer he sleeps outdoors in his cat house. In winter he sleeps indoors. He has inddor towers and toys galore, but he was born and raised an outdoor roaming cat true to his species, and needs his time outdoors roaming and doing what cats do. I could not in ethical good conscience rescue any other cats in this city that will not allow cats to be true to their nature. The same way I do not support whales or lions in captivity or circuses, I will not cause harm to any wild animal by taking away their freedom. And it is unfair to me that the city turns a blind eye to the irresponsible wild bird feeders in our city who feed wild life without following best practices and then blame cats for the results of their own irresponsible poor feeder maintenance practices!
-- Dogs should never be defined as at large when they are in the control of their owner/handler. This is unreasonable. Rather, “control” on or off leash is what is key. This works well in many jurisdictions as it rewards responsible dog owners and obedient dogs while still protecting others from dogs that should be on leashes at ALL times because they have zero recall, because of their humans’ failure to be responsible dog owners and provide them with the time, care and appropriate training and reinforcement.
-- The six-foot leash length is also arbitrary and unreasonable. For example, some seniors and others like/need much longer retractable leashes as it is safer for them in many situations especially for poop pick up. Much longer leads are needed when training dogs in public places to achieve successful recall practice. Again, what is reasonable is about owners being present, focused, engaged and in control of their dog. For some that’s a two-foot leash, for others no leash at all but a constant hand lock on a harness handle with a muzzle, leash-less for the well-trained dogs; and everything in-between in the right places and settings based on the owner having control of the dog AT ALL TIMES, depending on the activity happening at that time. I enjoy seeing several dogs walking downtown without leashes at the immediate side of their owners looking up at the owners every second stride and focused only on the owners. Other dogs that owners let loose on fields while they check their phones and talk without even engaging with their dog or having it under any type of effective control; letting the dog run up to other people and other dogs, is what needs managing. A one size rule needs to be appropriate where responsible owners and well behaved dogs are rewarded to encourage more responsible dog ownership, happier, calmer dogs and safer neighbourhoods.
-- Some jurisdictions have good rules, many do not. Why are we choosing to copy some really poor examples? Why are we choosing cruel and barbaric practices and processes that will cost taxpayers an additional $100,000 a year? How about focusing on providing dog owners with more opportunities for their pets? So that 100% of dog owners will want to pay the annual fee to better balance the books? And bring the 52% licensed dogs to maybe 90% or more? More off leash dog parks are not solutions, ask any qualified animal behaviourist.
-- There needs to be other exceptions included in the bylaw to accommodate the medical reasons some cats and dogs cannot be sterilized. For example, a kitten that was part of litter of kittens that was rescued with their mom from an empty plot just out of city limits earlier this year was scheduled to be sterilized a couple of weeks ago in Nanaimo. The vet advised he is unwilling to proceed with the surgery as the kitten has a heart murmur and would likely not survive the operation. Nowhere in this muddled bylaw is there any recognition for this or similar medical and other realities. Which vets even reviewed the bylaw? Which renowned animal behaviourists reviewed it? Which award-winning dog trainers? Which responsible active current city pet owners?
-- The bylaw as it stands is also incomplete because none of the attachments or items referenced were attached so no-one can actually view the fines, the amounts, the full implications of the application of the bylaw. Why does everything have to be so complicated and hard? Why expect citizens to go and find other sections of other pieces of legislation and then try to interpret what it is exactly that you are trying to say? Not good practice.
-- There are several “new” thoughts introduced when compared to the current bylaw so it is really not transparent or helpful to taxpayers to not have all the detail shared in its entirety. For example, a new concept floated in the bylaw is a different range of annual license fees on neutered or not neutered … in the past the only discount was early payment, and while the current bylaw has all the fees and consequences listed as part of the bylaw package, the proposed one does not.
-- This is a pandemic year with more rats and other vermin out and about due to shuttered businesses and restaurants, etc.; more people out in public with their dogs; overall increasing numbers of pet owners world-wide; and, exorbitant tax increases in Nanaimo with no cost-cutting or job furloughs at the city while more residents are unemployed and struggling in our community. Add the recent homeless responses and opioid crisis and one must ask whether this should have even been tackled at all? Either way, the city needs to get it right. Thank you,
Pam Agnew
I refer council to the study that advocates of no-roam provisions rely on to support their position. This study differentiates between feral, rural and urban domestic cats. It actually finds that urban domestic cats are not the primary predators of birds. "Urban pet cats are estimated to contribute only about one-sixth of the kill of birds in Canada (Table 4), despite comprising about half of all house cats." The study also finds that people feeding wild birds in their yards is a major contributor to bird kills by urban cats. https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Blancher-2013-Estimated-number-of-birds-killed-by-domestic-cats-in-Canada.pdf
Another factor not being mentioned is that roof rats, which are a problem in Nanaimo, are major predators of songbird eggs and fledglings. While cats often aren't effective against adult roof rats, they do kill young rats.