 |
|
|
October 23, 2001
TO: Mayor Kelly and Members of Halifax Regional Council
SUBMITTED BY: George McLellan, Acting Chief Administrative Officer and Dan English, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
DATE: October 9, 2001
SUBJECT: Regulation of Fierce and Dangerous Dogs
ORIGIN
A motion of Regional Council of July 4, 2000 requested that Staff provide a Report on the possibility of permitting rather than licensing of dogs within the HRM. In discussion leading to the motion, it was suggested that the Municipality investigate the banning of certain breeds of dogs such as “Pit Bulls”.
RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Regional Council:
1) not proceed with implementation of a breed specific dog By-Law, nor a programme of permitting rather than licensing of dogs; and
2) direct staff to bring forward amendments to HRM By-Law D-100 Respecting the Registration and Control of Dogs which would enable Animal Control Officers to more effectively control fierce and dangerous dogs; and
3) schedule discussion of this report at a future Committee of the Whole.
BACKGROUND
What is a Fierce and Dangerous Dog?
Current HRM policy with respect to fierce and dangerous dogs is contained in By-Law D-100 Respecting the Registration and Control of Dogs. Under the current Dog By-Law, any breed of dog in the HRM can be deemed fierce and dangerous dependent upon behaviour exhibited. Once deemed fierce and dangerous, the By-Law requires the dog owner to ensure that the deemed dog is muzzled when off of private property. In addition, the owner must physically restrain the dog so that it is prevented from biting another animal or person. To date, 81 dogs in the HRM have been deemed fierce and dangerous. The table attached at Appendix A details the breeds of dogs which have been deemed fierce and dangerous.
The By-Law defines a fierce and dangerous dogs as any dog or dog hybrid which:
(1) inflicts bites or attacks a human being or domestic animal either on public or private property;
(2) has demonstrated a propensity, tendency or disposition to attack, to cause injury to or otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animals;
(3) when either muzzled, unleashed, or unattended by its owner, or a member of the owner’s family, in a vicious or terrorizing manner, approaching any person in an apparent attitude of attack upon streets, sidewalks, any public grounds or places, or on private property other than the property of the owner;
(4) is owned or harboured primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting; or
(5) is trained for dog fighting;
provided that no dog shall be deemed a “fierce or dangerous dog” solely because it bites, attacks, or menaces a trespasser on the property of its owner, harms or menaces anyone who has tormented or abused it, was at the time of its aggressive behaviour acting in defence to an attack from a person or animal or acting in defence of its young or is a professionally trained guard dog for law enforcement or guard duties.
History of Regulation of Fierce and Dangerous Dogs in the HRM
Prior to the promulgation of the harmonized HRM dog by-law on July 4, 1998, a breed specific dog by-law existed in the former County, but not in any other former municipal unit. Former County By-Law No. 13 Respecting Dogs deemed dogs fierce or dangerous by breed. Section 2(3) of the By-Law deemed Pit Bull Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, Pit Bulls, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers or any dogs of mixed breeding which includes any of the aforementioned breed as fierce or dangerous. This designation imposed upon owners the responsibility to muzzle their dogs when off of private property. While on the owner’s property, deemed dogs were to be securely confined indoors or in an enclosed pen or other structure preventing the entry of young children and adequately constructed to prevent the dog from escaping.
In 1997, the Ad Hoc Animal Registration Committee was formed with the Regional Council mandate to harmonize the dog by-laws of the former Municipal units. The harmonization recommended policy respecting the registration and control of dogs. The Committee was composed of Animal Control Officers, and representatives of the Nova Scotia Veterinarians Association, Taking Action to Protect Animals (TAPA), the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Committee (PIJAC), the Nova Scotia Society of Prevention of Cruelty (SPC), and HRM staff from Legal, Finance and Police Services.
In Committee discussions, the issue of whether or not the Municipality should have a breed specific by-law was discussed. It was agreed unanimously by Committee members that a breed specific by-law should not be recommended to Regional Council. The recommendation was accepted by Regional Council when the by-law was adopted in July 1998. It was believed that a breed specific by-law would be flawed, as a result of:
1) enforcement and legal issues related to identification of a non-recognized breed;
2) constitutional/discriminatory issues of legislating against a specific breed of dog; and
3) practical application of the by-law given that issue is one of irresponsible dog ownership.
In addition to the aforementioned reasons, expert opinion provided by associations such as the Canadian Kennel Club supported dog by-laws which strictly control fierce and dangerous dogs rather than banning specific breeds. Behaviour based regulations applied, regardless of breeds, were determined to be more successful in ensuring public safety.
Public Attention on Fierce and Dangerous Dogs
During the last decade, there has been a series of highly publicized dog attacks on domestic animals and humans. A high percent of these attacks have victimized children. Many of these publicized attacks have been by dogs described as “Pit Bulls”. Two maulings in Britain in the late 1980's resulted in the first highly publicized breed ban. The British Parliament, in 1991, enacted the Dangerous Dog Act, which banned four breeds of dogs (Pit Bull Terriers, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero).
Britain’s Dangerous Dog Act has had mixed results. While initially effective at reducing the numbers of Pit Bulls, it has proven to be very expensive with unclear results. When introduced over 700 dogs were destroyed, and thousands more taken from their owners and kennelled. By 1998, Britain expended more than seven million dollars kennelling banned dogs. There has also been significant legal costs incurred. Recently, public sympathy has swayed in support of banned dogs and their owners. Some news stories have described a rise in Pit Bull populations, dog fighting, and the development of even more potentially dangerous crossbreeds emerging as a consequence of the ban.
In Germany, after an attack that killed a 6 year old on June 26, 2000 in Hamburg, the German government decided to ban and restrict ownership of over 40 breeds of dogs. German police agencies currently enforce this ban. German public opinion on the breed specific legislation is divided on both sides of the issue. The results of the ban have been inconclusive.
There has been much media exposure about dog aggression in recent years in the HRM. Many news stories have linked Pit Bulls, and vicious dogs, to criminal activity and dog fighting within the city of Halifax. Publicity of vicious dogs has heightened public awareness, yet the number of dog attacks in the HRM over past years has decreased. In 2000, 172 dog biting incidents were reported in the HRM, and this year to date 110 bites have been reported.
Metro Regional Housing Authority Policy
On December 16th, 1999 the Metro Regional Housing Authority prohibited the keeping of Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepards, Mastiffs and cross-breeds thereof as well as any dog standing over 40cm/16inches in height at the shoulders. These restrictions were imposed after the Housing Authority received complaints about dog bites, dogs running at large, dog fighting, dog breeding and tenants feeling nervous as a result. In their opinion, the Metro Regional Housing Authority feel that the breed and size restrictions have had a positive effect in reducing dog related complaints.
DISCUSSION
Cons - Why Not to Proceed With a Breed Specific By-Law
Governing Bodies and Expert Opinions
The Canadian Kennel Club, Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, and National Companion Animal Coalition do not support breed specific legislation. The overwhelming amount of information gathered by experts including trainers, animal behaviorists, veterinarians, and canine clubs do not support breed specific legislation. Experts acknowledge that in general some breeds may be more prone to aggression than others, these include those breeds with mastiff and/or Pit Bull heritage, broad heads, short coats, and powerful jaws. However, it is also argued that temperaments within a breed vary widely and that fierce dogs can be found in any breed.
Experts state that five factors form a complex interaction to determine an individual dog’s temperament. These factors are:
1) genetics,
2) upbringing,
3) the environment in which the dog lives,
4) health status, and
5) training.
In most cases, fierce and dangerous dogs exists as a result of irresponsible dog ownership.
Enforcement Issues in Identifying Dogs
The most commonly banned breed of dog is the “Pit Bull”. Enforcement of a ban on Pit Bulls, and Pit Bull hybrids, would be extremely difficult as identifying the breed of purebred and mixed breed dogs is extremely difficulty for Animal Control Officers, and owners would not likely identify their dog as a banned breed.
Compounding this difficulty is that the Canadian Kennel Club does not recognize the “Pit Bull” as a purebred breed As such, in practise in Canada, “Pit Bull” refers to any dog of “bull” heritage whose traditional purpose was to fight other dogs in the “pit”. In Canada, Pit Bulls are by definition mutts or mixed breeds. The following breeds are frequently categorized in Canada as “Pit Bulls”:
1) American Staffordshire,
2) Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and
3) Bull Terrier
For enforcement purposes, unless a dog is registered as a purebred with the Canadian Kennel Club it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove the breed of a dog. Many breeds closely resemble other breeds in their appearance and mixed breeds do not match any breed standards. As there is no method to accurately identify dogs that vary from breed standard, or are mixed, breed identification is subjective and not legally defendable.
Which Breeds of Dogs are Statistically the Most Dangerous?
Statistics on dog bites rates, by breed, reflect broad trends which reflect dog ownership choices.
Currently the two breeds that are the most likely to bite statistically are:
1) the German Shepherd; and
2) the Chow Chow.
Pit Bulls and Rottweilers mixes are in the top ten list of frequent biters, but since Pit Bulls are not a recognized breed in Canada, it is difficult to ascertain exactly how many Pit Bull incidents have occurred.
It should be noted that dog bite statistics are inherently misleading as there is no way to determine breed of mixed breed dogs, nor is there any credible way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed in the dog population at any one time. For example, 10 attacks by a German Shepard relative to a population of 10 dogs implies a far greater risk than 10 attacks by Pit Bulls relative to a population of 1,000 dogs.
Public Health and Safety Issues if Breed Specific By-Law Introduced
It is possible that a ban of a breed will not deter some owners from purchasing that breed. If banned dogs are purchased it is unlikely that they will receive proper veterinarian care and vaccinations as the owners may feel it is not an option to take the dog for veterinarian care. This could increase the spread of disease among domestic animals or cause the animal unneeded suffering. If owners experience behavioural problems with the dog they will not have anywhere to turn for assistance (i.e. trainers, behaviorists, etc). This could lead to potentially more dangerous dogs.
It is common in other places that when a breed is banned individuals who want a dog for criminal activity purposes move on to another breed or mix. These new breeds are often more physically imposing than the first combined with the same environment leads to another dangerous dog situation.
Legal Implications
If certain breeds were banned, policies to address dogs of banned breeds all ready living within the HRM would have to be implemented. In Britain, over 700-800 dogs were destroyed when it enacted its Dangerous Dog Act. Of the estimated 50,000 dogs in the HRM, it is estimated that 1,500 could be deemed Pit Bulls. Introducing a ban would have a direct legal and fiscal implications for these dogs, their owners and the HRM.
Pros - Why to Proceed with a Breed Specific By-Law
Reasons to Ban Specific Breeds
Several reasons have been argued by those advocating the banning of specific breeds of dogs. These arguments include:
a) certain breeds are too powerful and dangerous for many individuals to handle;
2) some breeds of dog, such as terriers, display higher prey and defence drives. These drives are the instinct to hunt, guard, and defend territory. These high levels of drive lead to aggression especially toward children; and
3) banning specific breeds of dogs is necessary as it is taking preventative action to ensure public safety.
Other Municipal Experiences
Other Municipal experiences with breed bans have been mixed, and with inconclusive results. Breed bans have created inequities as responsible owners are penalized along with irresponsible owners. The attached chart at appendix B details Canadian municipalities and their dog by-laws.
Winnipeg is the largest Canadian municipality with a Pit Bull ban. The ban has been in effect since 1990. City officials feel that the ban has been effective and has “helped decrease Pit Bull attacks to near zero”. When the by-law was introduced, licensed dogs were grand fathered and had to comply to dangerous dog restrictions. Non-licensed dogs and dogs born after that time were expelled from the city. For enforcement purposes, mixed breeds are compared to the Canadian Kennel Club, American Kennel Club, and the United Kennel Club standards for Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and American Pit Bull Terrier. If a registered veterinarian determines that the dog meets 50% of the standard it is considered a Pit Bull and banned.
Staff Recommended Action - Amendments to existing Dog By-Law & Alternatives
Stricter Laws to Control Fierce and Dangerous Dogs
Staff believes that it would be more effective, economic and efficient to have stricter laws to control aggressive dogs of any breed or mix rather than breed-specific bans. All dogs have the potential to do harm. Experts in the field support legislation that addresses the larger issue of dog aggression (regardless of breed) and irresponsible ownership by making the owners responsible for their dogs actions. Staff is prepared to bring to Regional Council amendments to the Dog By-Law which would:
1) implement higher fines for owners who’s dogs:
(i) have multiple offenses for running at large;
(ii) are already designated fierce and dangerous; and
(iii) are running at large that are not spayed or neutered.
2) implement higher licensing fees for:
(i) dogs designated fierce and dangerous.
(3) expand the definition of fierce and dangerous to include dogs:
(i) found running at large more than a set number of times in a given time span;
(ii) have attacked/harmed any domestic animal; and
(iii) that approach displaying aggressive body language when unprovoked.
4) impose restrictions on dogs deemed fierce and dangerous so that:
(i) they must be confined in the house or in a structure that is dog proof from the inside and locked on the outside; and
(ii) must be under the control of someone over the age of majority at all times when off owners property by means of a 6 foot or shorter leash.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS
When the Animal Control contract is tendered in April 2001, the tender responses may have increased costs as a result of heightened service levels and service expectations. If a breed specific ban or a permitting programme is implemented there will increased administrative and enforcement costs. In addition to increased costs, there would be increased enforcement challenges.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES / BUSINESS PLAN
This Report complies with the Municipality’s Multi-Year Financial Strategy, the approved Operating, Capital and Reserve budgets, policies and procedures regarding withdrawals from the utilization of Capital and Operating reserves, as well as any relevant legislation.
ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives Council may pursue are as follows:
1. implementing a breed specific ban; or
2. deeming certain dogs fierce and dangerous by breed.
Additional copies of this report, and information on its status, can be obtained by contacting the Office of the Municipal Clerk at 902-490-4210, or Fax 902-490-4208.
Report Prepared by: Mary Halley, Participant Relations Coordinator, 902-490-5596 and Peter James, Regional Co-Ordinator By-Law Enforcement, 902-490-5641
Report Approved by: Allan Waye, Community Projects, 902-490-6484
Halifax Regional Council
Halifax City Hall,
1841 Argyle Street,
Halifax Nova Scotia
Municipal Clerk's Office at 902-490-4210 or e-mail at clerks@halifax.ca
