September 2, 1998

To:  Board of Health
From:  Dr. Sheela Basrur, Medical Officer of Health

Subject:  Policy Directions: Harmonizing Animal Care and Control Legislation

Purpose:  To outline further policy directions for harmonizing animal care and control legislation in conjunction with a draft bylaw.

Source of Funds:  The funds to deliver the current programs provided by Toronto Animal Services were approved by City Council at its meeting of April 29, 1998.

Recommendations:

(1)It is recommended that this report be forwarded to each Community Council for further consultation on October 14, 1998 with the community and that comments be forwarded to the Board of Health by October 23, 1998.
(2)That the Board of Health give consideration to holding a special meeting in mid November to hear deputations on draft animal care and control legislation.

Background:

At its meeting of July 6, 1998, a report was submitted to the Board of Health by the Medical Officer of Health, outlining policy directions for harmonizing animal care and control legislation for the City of Toronto. Public comment was provided through deputations at that meeting. The Board of Health directed that:

(1)The Medical Officer of Health prepare a further report and, in consultation with the City Solicitor, draft a bylaw on animal care and control, taking into consideration the written and verbal comments made at the meeting of the Board, and submit this report and draft bylaw be submitted to the Board of Health for information at its meeting on September15, 1998;
(2)Requested that each Community Council consider the foregoing report and draft legislation, and after public consultation at their October 14, 1998 meetings, provide comments to the Medical Officer of Health for inclusion into a consolidated report and draft bylaw for submission to the Board of Health at its meeting on November 10, 1998;
(3)Further, that the Medical Officer of Health report on the following:
    (a)a clarification of the grandfathering provisions of existing animal control bylaws in former municipalities for pet owners whose pets were registered prior to implementation of a city-wide harmonized bylaw;
    (b)a requirement that impounded animals be micro-chipped;
    (c)limiting the number of cats in the city to six per household.

References to the Animal Care and Control Bylaw in this report should be reviewed in conjunction with the joint report, "City of Toronto Bylaw Respecting Animals" (August 31, 1998).

Introduction:

The Mission Statement of Toronto Animal Services is "To promote and support a harmonious environment where humans and animals can coexist free from conditions that adversely affect their health and safety." Development of the draft Animal Care and Control Bylaw has been guided by this Mission Statement. Existing bylaws have also been reviewed and aspects which have proven effective have been incorporated. Consideration has also been given to the comments of deputants.

Toronto Animal Services provides a myriad of services to residents and pets within the city. Services continue to be provided within the former municipal boundaries in accordance with existing bylaws. Until a harmonized bylaw for the new City of Toronto is enacted, the "Animal Services in the New Toronto" business plan cannot be implemented. This business plan provides for the rationalized delivery of services to citizens and pets across the new Toronto. Currently, different service levels are provided within previous municipal boundaries. It is therefore imperative that a new effective Animal Care and Control bylaw, which meets the needs of the community, be enacted as soon as possible.

It should be noted that two Community Councils (Scarborough and NorthYork) have not yet confirmed if the draft harmonized by-law will be on their October agenda. Further Board direction is needed regarding any modifications to the public consultation process that may be required if this item cannot be dealt with as planned.

Comments:

This report is presented in partnership with the proposed Animal Care and Control Bylaw. For ease of discussion, the applicable Part and Section of the bylaw are noted after each title.

Prohibited and Regulated Species:  Part II and Schedule "A" and "B"

Each of the former municipalities has legislation regarding prohibited species. Three main criteria were utilized in determining if a species should be addressed under this aspect of the bylaw. A number of deputants to the Board of Health recommended that the current criteria be extended to include species which, if they escaped, could become established and pose a threat to our indigenous wildlife populations. This concept was incorporated into the criteria, which are:

    (a)The risk that individual animals of any species may pose significant public health and safety concerns. Many of the prohibited species bylaws passed by the former Councils were in response to complaints of persons keeping pets, such as lions. Although not commonplace, these situations posed significant health and safety concerns.
    (b) The concern that the general public have sufficient knowledge and resources to care for the specific needs and requirements of the species to ensure that these animals are humanely maintained. For example, many people have purchased pot-bellied pigs believing that they would remain small and make wonderful pets, only to find that they did not have the resources required to handle the animals when they had reached maturity.
    (c)The risk that removal of an individual animal from its natural environment may pose a significant threat to that species' ability to maintain a self-sustaining viable population, and where the escape of individual animals into the environment could pose a threat to indigenous wildlife. For example, black-footed ferrets were captured for sale as pets in such numbers that extensive conservation and reintroduction efforts are now required to maintain their limited population in the wild. The Toronto Zoo is an active participant in the breeding program. Red Eared Slider turtles that have been released into Grenadier Pond have established a local population which competes directly with the natural turtle population.

The current bylaws were used as a guide in the creation of the list of prohibited species. In addition, a number of new species previously not identified have been included on the list. For instance, livestock which had previously been permitted in many locales are to be restricted to areas zoned as agricultural. A number of site-specific areas and practices will be exempted from this bylaw. These exemptions will include the municipal parks which have petting zoos, Black Creek Pioneer Village, the grounds of the Canadian National Exhibition and Woodbine Racetrack.

Care of Animals:  Part III

Pets in our community provide us with companionship, affection, and place on us a responsibility to provide them with the care and necessities of life. To that end, many of the former municipalities incorporated care provisions within their bylaws. These aspects of the bylaws worked well in the past and complement the animal welfare efforts of local humane societies. Deputants to the Board of Health recommended that the term "adequate" be incorporated into this section of the bylaw to ensure that the level and type of care provided meets the specific needs of the species. The provisions in the bylaw deal with issues such as food, water, attention, length of tether, sanitary shelter and veterinary care.

Protective Care:  Part III - Section 9 and Schedule "C"

Unfortunately, circumstances such as automobile accidents, evictions and incarceration arise where pets require temporary emergency shelter care. To address this problem, Toronto Animal Services recommends that these pets be housed at municipally-funded shelters for five days to give the owner an opportunity to arrange alternative care. The pet's owner would be liable for all expenses and daily boarding fees related to the pet's care. If the owner does not collect the pet within that time, the pet would be treated as a stray according to the bylaw. Toronto Animal Services will work with humane societies and other organizations to provide assistance in these cases.

Dogs and Cats
Licensing and Identification:
Dog Licensing and Cat Registration  Part IV - Section 10 and Part V - Section 18, and Schedule "D"

Even the most responsible pet owners may lose their pet, resulting in hours of concern as to the animal's whereabouts. Most municipalities require that dogs be licensed and cats identified. Approximately 60% of all lost dogs are returned to their owners and less than 7% of cats are returned to their homes, a direct result of the failure by cat owners to properly identify their pets.
Cats have become the major drain on Animal Services resources, with twice as many cats as dogs being handled.

These inequalities in the legal requirements and costs for services for dog and cat owners need to be addressed. The former municipality of North York required annual registration of cats and this has been incorporated in the draft Animal Care and Control Bylaw for the new City. A number of deputants were supportive of these initiatives. Further, some members of the Board of Health and some of the deputants also supported registration and licence fees that treat both dogs and cats equally.

"Free Ride Home"

Toronto Animal Services proposes to continue the "Free Ride Home Program," which allows Animal Services Officers to return a licensed or registered pet to its owner without impoundment, and creates an educational opportunity. This program is closely monitored to ensure that it rewards the responsible owner whose pet has become lost. Pet owners who have not licensed or registered their pets will be required to redeem them from Toronto Animal Services and pay redemption fees.

Rabies Vaccination

All of the former municipalities required dogs and cats to be vaccinated against rabies to ensure a vaccinated companion animal population which would not be a threat to the community's health. Through the use of a state-of-the-art information system, vaccination history for rabies will be directly linked to pet licensing and registration information, providing a valuable resource for Public Health when conducting possible rabies exposure investigations.

Personal Assistance Dogs

No license fees will be levied on personal assistance dogs, such as Guide Dogs for the Blind, Hearing Ear Dogs and Special Services Dogs, which contribute significantly to the quality of life for an important segment of our society.

Spay/Neuter Incentives

Perhaps the most important aspect of the licensing and identification proposal is spay/neuter incentives. Pet overpopulation results in many pets being born for which there are not enough caring homes, and places a great demand on the Animal Centres operated by the City. Incentive programs to have pets adopted from Animal Centres spayed and neutered will be expanded. Additionally, the spay neuter clinics operated by Toronto Animal Services are open to all pet owners of Toronto. The reduced fee structure for the purchase of licences for spayed or neutered pets reflects an incentive to have these simple and relatively inexpensive procedures performed.

Grandfathering  Part IV, Section 17, Part V, Section 18

Many pet owners have taken advantage of special pet identification incentives, including lifetime dog licensing programs in several former municipalities. Dogs owners who had opted into these programs will be exempt from the licensing component of the bylaw for the life of the registered dog. Further, many of the former municipalities had provided lifetime identification tags for cats. These cats will remain exempt from the registration components of the bylaw for the life of the pet. If the ownership of the pet is transferred, the new owner will be required to comply with the licensing and registration components of the new Animal Care and Control Bylaw.

Senior Appreciation

Pets play a meaningful role in the lives of many senior members of the community. In an effort to promote pet ownership by seniors, a significant reduction in the fees will result if other responsible pet ownership aspects of licensing are met.

Fees

Toronto Animal Services wants to encourage pet owners to be responsible and the fee structure clearly acts as an incentive to that end. Those pet owners who have paid the higher fee will be entitled to a refund for the difference in fees in the year in which they have the pet sterilized and/or micro-chipped. The fee for an unsterilized, non micro-chipped pet reflects an increase over fees previously in place. This rationalised fee structure reflects an increase in cost for pet owners whose pets most often utilize Animal Services, and a price reduction for pet owners who are responsible.
The following table indicates the proposed fee structures:

Registration and Licence Category	Yearly Fee	5 Year Fee
Each Dog or Cat, Senior's Fee	$35.00, $35.00	$140.00
Each Dog or Cat Microchipped, Senior's Fee	$25.00, $15.00	$100.00, $60.00
Each Dog or Cat Spayed or Neutered, Senior's Fee	$15.00 No Charge	$60.00 No Charge
Each Dog or Cat Spayed or Neutered and Microchipped	No Charge	No Charge
Each Replacement Tag	$3.00
Each Personal Assistance Dog	No Charge

Keeping of Permitted Animals:

The City of Toronto is highly urbanized. All members of the community should be able to enjoy all that our city has to offer with pets contributing to the quality of life, rather than being an impediment. This places many responsibilities on pet owners.
Historically, the control of animals was the sole focus of animal control programs. Today, the programs of Toronto Animal Services encompass many aspects of pet care and promote the value of the human-animal bond. Still, the cornerstone of our service relates to uncontrolled animals which have a negative impact on the public's ability to enjoy their environment and may pose a threat to public health and safety. The following provisions of the Animal Care and Control Bylaw allow Animal Services to perform this key function.

Number of Animals Permitted per Dwelling Unit  Part II - Section 4, Part IV - Section 17

Frequently, we hear of people who have let their pet population grow beyond a manageable limit for a highly urbanized area. It is appreciated that this occurs because of a deep affection for the pets. However, a large number of animals in any one home can have a negative impact on the neighbourhood. Therefore, the Animal Care and Control Bylaw incorporates a component to place reasonable limits on the number of pets which can be kept in a dwelling unit. This section stipulates that any combination of dogs, cats, ferrets and rabbits be permitted to a total of six (6) pets, with no more than three (3) pets being dogs. An effort has been made by staff to strike a balance between pet limits in pre-existing bylaws. In some areas the permissible numbers in the bylaw would increase the number permitted. In others where no limit was in place, it would result in a reduction.

The introduction of limits on the number and type of pets which may be kept will be new for people in some areas of the City. It is not the intent of this bylaw to require pet owners to be separated from their pets. Those persons who are keeping more than the proposed number of dogs, cats, ferrets and rabbits prior to the passage of the bylaw, may keep those pets if they were permitted under previous bylaws until such time as the pets have died or are otherwise disposed of.

The following table indicates the current allowable number of pets under the former municipality's animal care and control bylaw:

Community	# of Dogs	# of Cats	# of Rabbits	# of Ferrets
East York	2	6 (of max of 6 dogs/cats but no more than 2 dogs)	2	No Addresssed
Etobicoke	3	Not Addressed	3	3
North York	2	6	5	2
Scarborough	3	Not Addressed	3	3
Toronto	3	6 (or max of 6 dogs/cats but no more than 3 dogs)	3	No Addressed
York	Not Addressed	2	1	2

Dogs Running at Large  Part IV - Section 11

Current municipal bylaws address the issue of dogs running at large in much the same way. "No owner of a dog shall cause or permit a dog to run at large within the City's boundaries, except in places designated by the City as "off leash areas"." This remains unchanged in the proposed legislation. Further, set fines will be established at a monetary value which would discourage repeat offences where Provincial Offences Notices are issued under the bylaw.

Micro-chipping Requirements  Part IV - Section 13(5b), Section 15(5) and Part V - Section 18

Micro-chipping has proven to be an effective, permanent method of identification. It was suggested at the Board of Health meeting of July 6, 1998 that micro-chipping be considered for pets which have been impounded. To ensure that impounded dogs and cats will be identifiable in the future, pet owners will be required to have the pet micro-chipped following redemption.
Where a Muzzle Order has been issued, the owner of the dog will be required to immediately micro-chip the pet. This will assist Animal Services staff in positively identifying the dog if subsequent bylaw violations occur.

Off Leash Areas  Part IV - Section 11 (1)

"Off Leash Areas" were established in the former municipalities of Etobicoke and Toronto. This use of park space has been at times a contentious issue within the local community. Anticipating that such use of park space would be broadened to all of Toronto, an extensive review of all facets of the issue needs to be conducted.

Number of Dogs Under a Person's Control  Part IV - Section 11 (4)

Numerous problems have arisen where individuals have been walking too many dogs and they have been unable to adequately control these pets. To ensure effective control of pets, the bylaw stipulates that no person shall have more than three (3) dogs under their control at any time. This number is consistent with the number of dogs permitted per dwelling unit.

Cat Trespassing  Part V - Section 20

Cats that roam freely are exposed to a number of dangers such as rabies, diseases from other cats and injuries from motor vehicles. In an effort to address what may be the largest problem facing Toronto Animal Services, a segment of the bylaw to deal with the trespassing of animals has been incorporated. This will afford a property owner an avenue to address complaints and concerns regarding unwanted pets visiting their property. In tandem with cat registration provisions, Animal Services will be able to reunite lost cats with their owners and be able to conduct effective, one-on-one responsible pet ownership education. It is anticipated that this will be a contentious issue as comments both in favour and against this component were heard in deputations at the Board of Health. This new provision for many residents of Toronto was adopted from the animal care and control bylaw of the former municipality of North York

Leashing Requirement  Part IV - Section 11 (5)

The most effective control tool is a leash in the hand of a responsible person. Therefore, a leashing component is essential to the effectiveness of this bylaw. To assure effective control, the leash is not to exceed two meters in length. This section of the bylaw is consistent with those which exist within the animal care and control bylaws of the former municipalities.

Stoop and Scoop Provision  Part IV - Section 16

The stooping and scooping of dog excrement must be addressed. Although this issue has been at the forefront of animal control initiatives for many years, voluntary compliance is still difficult to achieve. Toronto Animal Services has seen a steady increase in complaints and demands for the delivery of service in this area. A number of former municipalities required that dog owners clean up after their pet on public property, while others required the owner to take this action on their own property as well. The section of the bylaws requiring that the owner's property be maintained in a sanitary condition has been an effective tool in addressing neighbourhood concerns. The Animal Care and Control Bylaw includes a section requiring the dog owner to remove their dog's excrement from property anywhere in the City.

Impoundment of Animals  Part IV - Section 13, Part V - Section 21

Not all dogs and cats picked up by Animal Services Officers will be wearing a licence or registration tag, and not all owners will be at home to accept responsibility for the impounded pet. Where an appropriately identified pet is unable to be returned directly to the owner, no redemption fee will be charged for the first day, although the owner will be required to pay the per diem boarding fee. The pet owner will be subject to all redemption and per diem fees if the pet is claimed on subsequent days.

To ensure that all pet owners have a reasonable period of time to redeem their pets, all animals will be held for a period of five full working days. This will not include the day that the pet is impounded nor days that the facility may be closed to the public. Redemption fees are formulated in a method to discourage repeat offences. Additionally, the pet owner will be required to pay per diem boarding costs which accurately reflect the cost to the City. The responsible pet owner will be able to avoid costs in most cases by adequately identifying their pets.

Since Animal Services Officers are often required to assist pets which are injured or ill, veterinary service and other additional costs associated with these incidents or impoundment will be charged to the pet owner at the time of redemption.

Regulation of Biting Dogs  Part IV - Section 14, 15

Effective control of dogs that bite is necessary for public safety and to prevent transmission of communicable diseases such as rabies. The investigation of animal bites, the confinement of dogs and cats for rabies control purposes, and the muzzling and restraint of biting dogs, are currently provided for in legislation. Those services, as well as legal action against the owners of dangerous dogs, are provided by Toronto Animal Services and funded in the Public Health budget.

The proposed bylaw to deal with biting dogs follows an evaluation of current procedures and a review of the effectiveness of other available options in preventing dog bites and protecting public health and safety.

In arriving at the recommended legislation, consideration was given to:

    (a)why dogs bite, and how dog bites can be minimized or prevented;
    (b)which dogs bite, and which dogs have been shown to cause significant injuries; and
    (c)whether breed-specific legislation would help to minimize dog bites.

It is estimated that the amalgamated City has a dog population of approximately 118,000 animals. Public Health records show that the City receives approximately 1,600 reports of dog bites annually, most of them minor in nature. A bite is identified as an injury received as a result of a dog's tooth or teeth penetrating the skin of the bite victim.

The Animal Services unit of the former City of Toronto has been tracking animal bites for a number of years. Based on a scan of Animal Services in the other former municipalities, it is reasonable to assume that these readily available data are representative of all dog bites in the new City of Toronto. The following statistical information is from the former City of Toronto only. It is noted that the number of confirmed bites of humans increased from 386 in 1987 to 419 (8.5%) in 1993. However, no significant changes occurred between 1993 (419 bites) and 1997, when 425 bites were confirmed. Research shows that 9.5 % of dog bite victims received sutures or other surgical procedures in 1993. This increased to 12% of all dog bites in 1997.

According to former City of Toronto records:

    (a)More than half of all dog bites occur on the dog owner's property;
    (b)More than two-thirds of biting incidents on public property occur while the biting dog is on a leash;
    (c)More than 85% of the victims know the dog that bites them;
    (d)More than two-thirds of all bite victims are adults; and
    (e)Nearly two-thirds of all children get bitten as a result of playing with a dog or as a result of teasing the dog, or disturbing it while it is eating.

Why do dogs bite?

Bite investigations reveal that dogs bite for a variety of reasons including the following:

    (a)The dog is provoked (trespassing on a dog's property, teasing the dog, etc.).
    (b)The dog's owner is ignorant about "dog language," or about the traits or behaviours of the dog breed and is unable to adequately control it.
    (c)The owner has failed to properly train and socialize the dog, so the animal does what comes naturally.
    (d)The person in charge of the dog at the time of a biting incident will not, or is unable to, properly control the dog.
    (e)The dog reacts to inappropriate behaviour by the victim. Many dog owners do not know how others should approach or behave around their dog. Children especially often act inappropriately around a dog as they have not been taught how to approach a dog. Dog owners have a responsibility to provide guidance to others when they give permission to "pet the dog".
    (f)The dog has an overly protective attitude toward his property, and has never been trained that biting is an unacceptable way to show its protective attitude.

Which dogs bite?

Generally, only bites by Rottweilers and Pitbull Terriers appear to draw media attention, which leaves the impression that those are the only breeds that routinely bite, or are capable of inflicting injury. Consolidated records from 1997 show that 51 of the 425 victims of confirmed dog bites required sutures or other surgical attention, and Table #1 identifies the breeds responsible for two or more of such incidents. This demonstrates that no particular breed predominates and that virtually any breed of dog is capable of inflicting significant injury.

Table #1

Breed & Crossbreeds	Number of bite victims 12 yrs of age and under	Number of bite victims 13 yrs of age and older	Total number of bites requiring stitches, etc
German Shepherd	5	5	10
Pitbull/Staff. Terrier	2	4	6
West Highland Terrier	2	2	4
Labrador Retriever	0	4	4
Lhasa Apso	4	0	4
Border Collie	0	3	3
Golden Retriever	2	0	2
Rottweiler	1	1	2
Visla	2	0	2
Chow Chow	1	1	2
St. Bernard	0	2	2

Table #2 identifies the 12 breeds and their crossbreeds that have bitten most frequently in 1997. This list includes all recorded dog bites, irrespective of severity. A listing of the percentage that those breeds and their crossbreeds represent in the City licence registry is provided for comparison. For example: German Shepherds and Shepherd crossbreeds represent 5.4% of all licensed dogs, yet account for 14.6% of all confirmed bites.

There are 236 different breeds that appear in the former City of Toronto licence registry and breeds include the crossbreeds of specific breeds where the predominant breed has been identified. Breed information in bite reports tends to be more reliable than information in the City licence registry, since breed descriptions are confirmed during bite investigations by City staff. Dog information in the Licence Registry, on the other hand, is made up of breed descriptions provided by the dog owners at the time they licence their dogs. No confirmation of the breed is required.

Table # 2

Breeds and Crossbreeds	1997 Ranking	% of total bites	1997 Ranking in License Registry	% of Total Registered Dogs
German Shepherd	1	14.6	1	5.4
Pitbull/Staffordshire Bull Terriers/American Staffordshire Terriers	2	10.6	4	3.1
Labrador Retriever	3	7.3	2	5.2
Rottweiler	4	6.1	5	2.8
Husky	5	2.8	9	1.7
Beagle	6	2.6	8	1.8
Border Collie	7	2.5	13	1.1
Poodle	8	2.4	7	2.2
Doberman	9	2.1	17	0.9
Cocker Spaniel	10	1.9	6	2.3
Collie	10	1.9	25	0.6
Jack Russell Terrier	10	1.9	12	1.3
All other Breeds and Crossbreeds		43.3		71.6

Table #2 shows that, although the 12 breeds and their crossbreeds collectively only represent 28.4% of the dogs identified in the licence registry, they are responsible for 56.7% of all confirmed bites. Many of the biting dogs are not known to the City at the time of the biting incident, and are licensed as a result of a bite investigation.

Breed-specific legislation

Since the mid 1940's, a number of breeds have fallen temporarily into disrepute, commonly as a result of some high-profile biting incidents. Those breeds have included the Doberman Pinscher, Chow Chow, Rottweiler, German Shepherd, Saint Bernard and Pitbull. Often the initial remedy sought has been breed-specific legislation. The May 1990 edition of the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, reported that during 1989, 164 out of 165 communities in the US that considered breed-specific legislation, instead passed generic dog legislation that addressed problem dogs. A specific example is New York City, which passed a breed-specific ordinance within its health code in April 1989, intending to get rid of "Pitbull dogs" by insisting that they be seized, tattooed, neutered, muzzled and indemnified with $100,000 insurance, and that as of October 1, 1989, any Pitbull not so treated would be destroyed. Litigants against that ordinance were: the American Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club, the American Dog Owners Association and the New York based American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Complaints were also filed by a veterinarian and eight dog owners who were concerned that their dogs might be interpreted as being "Pitbull terriers" and as a result could suffer harm. As well, the City's own licensing and enforcement agency filed an amicus curiae brief indicating that they could not comply with the order because of the difficulties in defining and identifying "Pitbull dogs." That legislation was replaced by generic dangerous dog legislation.

Any dog, irrespective of the breed, known to be a threat to public health and safety, should be properly restrained, confined, and, when warranted, destroyed. However, since dog bites are more a reflection of a dog's temperament and behaviour than its appearance, such a policy should apply to all dangerous dogs, regardless of the breed. Breed-specific legislation has three weaknesses: vagueness, and both over and under-inclusiveness

Vagueness and over-inclusiveness have to do with the difficulty of what dogs to include. Does a dog have to anatomically resemble the breed that is banned? Does it only need a similar head to be banned? Does it have to demonstrate comparable behavioural traits? As well, many owners identify and licence their dog as a specific breed when it is not, and this complicates terminology and identification even further. Just because a dog anatomically resembles a banned breed does not mean its behaviour will be similar. If we relied only on recent media reports to identify biting dogs, we would conclude that all Rottweilers, Pitbull Terriers, or Bullmastiffs are a potential threat to public health and safety. However, in reality, the vast majority of those breeds and their crossbreeds are not aggressive toward people, and are kept as family pets.

Under-inclusiveness has to do with the fact that all dogs can bite, and as noted in Tables #1 and #2, many of them do. As well, some of the breeds, which in the public's mind are gentle family pets, appear on Table #2 as having inflicted significant injuries.

The rationale for not considering legislation to ban specific breeds also applies to breed-specific muzzling. From time to time it is suggested that specific breeds should be routinely required to be muzzled, or be prohibited from using certain public areas like some parks. These suggestions are impractical for the same reasons previously identified.

Since it is impossible to prevent dog bites unless all dogs are banned, the proposed legislation provides a number of options to deal with biting dogs and their owners, and these have been shown to work effectively in some communities of the City. The proposed legislation deals with all biting dogs generically as follows:

    (a)Where a dog bites for the first time while on its own property, in addition to the requirements associated with rabies control, the owner will receive a written caution, advising of the City's concern and suggesting remedial actions.
    (b)Where a dog bites for the first time while anywhere other than its own property, or for the second time while on its own property, the dog will be ordered muzzled whenever it is off the owner's property, regardless of whether it is properly restrained. This is in addition to the requirements associated with rabies control.

All muzzle orders can be appealed at a public hearing held either by a Committee of Council or by the Animal Control Official, if delegated by Council.

In severe bite cases, every effort is made to immediately remove the dog from the community. Animal Services has been very successful in the past in persuading owners of problem dogs to surrender them to the City so they can be humanely destroyed. When an owner does not cooperate, the provincial Dog Owners Liability Act provides an opportunity to have the courts order the dog destroyed, if warranted. As well, although rarely used, Section #221 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides an opportunity for criminal charges against an owner for "causing bodily harm by criminal negligence."

Spay/Neuter Clinics  Part VI

Municipal spay neuter clinics at a reduced fee are operated in the former municipalities of Etobicoke, North York and York. Spaying and neutering a pet not only helps to address the pet overpopulation problem but also has beneficial health implications for the pet. These clinics, which performed more than one thousand surgeries during 1997, will offer all citizens of Toronto an opportunity to have these valuable surgeries performed.

Pigeons  Part VII

Several of the former municipalities had extensive bylaws regarding pigeons. This part of the bylaw addresses the keeping of pigeons. In an effort to streamline the bylaw and yet deal with all of the issues relating to problems which occur, the bylaw prohibits pigeons from straying onto any property other than that of the owner. Additionally, the Care of Animals provisions will be utilized to ensure that the pigeons are properly cared for and kept in a sanitary condition.

Conclusions:

The Animal Care and Control Bylaw is the culmination of a review of existing bylaws which deal with animal-related issues, the experience and knowledge of Toronto Animal Services staff, and comments provided by the deputants to the Board of Health.
Most aspects of the proposed bylaw, such as prohibited species, care of animals, muzzling of biting dogs, licensing of dogs and dogs at large are an extension of previous bylaws. Cat registration and cat trespass provisions, which were incorporated in the bylaw of the former municipality of North York, may be contentious but are essential to address the ever-increasing number of nuisance complaints. A unique approach to grandfathering exemptions to guarantee the fairness of certain aspects, are incorporated in the bylaw. More effective stoop and scoop provisions of the proposed Animal Care & Control bylaw will help address local neighbourhood problems.

Contact Name:
Don Mitton, Animal Services Manager
Toronto Public Health, Scarborough Office
Telephone: 396-7423
Dr. Sheela V. Basrur
Medical Officer of Health