Animal Licensing and Control Bylaw – Provisions Related to Restricted Breeds.

Recommendation:
That Administration prepare an amending bylaw deleting specific breed references from the Restricted Dog definition in the Animal Licensing and Control Bylaw 13145 as outlined in Attachment 4 of the May 30, 2003, Planning and Development Department report.

Report Summary

This report describes the process and reasons leading to the Administration’s recommendation to remove breed-specific restrictions on the ownership of dogs, while retaining the existing restrictions for individual dogs that demonstrate dangerous behaviour.

Previous Council/Committee Action

  • At the September 17, 2002, City Council meeting the following motion was passed:

That Administration prepare draft amendments to the Animal Licensing and Control Bylaw removing provisions related to restricted breeds, discuss these proposals with stakeholders, seek broader public input, and return to Community Services Committee with a recommendation on the draft changes by June 2003.

Report

The Planning and Development Department prepared a report on the City’s previous actions with respect to aggressive dogs. The report also presented the advantages and disadvantages of the three primary options resulting from a review – expanding, retaining, or eliminating the current restricted dog provisions.

Research was conducted on aggressive dog incidents in Edmonton and other Canadian cities and a literature search on breed specific legislation was undertaken.

The scan of other cities shows that Edmonton does not have an inordinate number of aggressive dog incidents. The average annual number of reported incidents over the three year period 2000 to 2002 is just above 200. The six year average for 1996 to 2002 taken from the Capital Health Region is below 250 per year.

Using the above supporting material, stakeholder input was sought from the Animal Control Advisory Board, the Edmonton Public and Separate School Boards, the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues and a focus group of community league, industry and veterinary representatives. These groups endorsed the recommendation to remove the breed restriction.

The favourable response provided by the stakeholder groups to the removal of restricted breeds from the bylaw led next to seeking broader citizen input by publicizing the proposal and inviting feedback. This was accomplished by means of a mailout of information to all veterinary clinics and Community Leagues, a news release, through TV, radio and print media interviews and by posting all relevant information on the City of Edmonton website. Citizens were asked to direct their comments to a dedicated email address or a voice mailbox or to the Citizen Action Centre.

At the time of writing 350 comments had been received from citizens, of which about 40% supported the recommendation and 60% were opposed.

  1. The responses in favour of removing the breed restriction can be grouped as follows:
  • The owner is responsible for the dog’s behaviour. Any dog can be made aggressive if an owner encourages such behaviour or if the dog is neglected.
  • To single out one breed is clearly discriminatory.
  • Do not punish every owner for the offences of a few.
  • The current breed specific bylaw punishes primarily the responsible owners, those whose dogs are licensed and who want to be good neighbours. It does little to prevent incidents by dogs whose owners are irresponsible.
  • The pit bull breeds are reliable, friendly, loyal dogs when properly socialized.
  1. Responses opposing removal of the breed restriction fall into these categories:
  • Public safety is more important than concerns about discrimination.
  • There are already too many uncontrolled dogs in parks and on trails.
  • All large dogs should be leashed and muzzled in public.
  • Belief that pit bull breeds are bred to be aggressive or to kill.
  • Don’t just restrict ownership of large aggressive breeds, ban them.

The Administration recognizes the concern of some citizens that the overall level of public safety may suffer if pit bull breeds should become unrestricted. However, even under the current bylaw the existing restrictions are not fully effective, for several reasons.

  • First, it is not possible to identify the breed mixture of a crossbreed dog with sufficient certainty to satisfy a court of law. No one can be certain of lineage without knowing the actual parents of an animal. The dog may look to some like a ‘pit bull’ but may well be a mixture of other breeds. Further, there are no dogs called pit bulls among the breeds recognized by the Canadian Kennel Club and where the administration uses the term pit bull it means American Staffordshire Terrier or Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
  • Second, enforcement action on the animals that act aggressively in offleash areas or in neighbourhoods is possible only if the dog can be caught or the owner remains on the scene. The owner of an unlicensed dog is less likely to step forward if his/her dog is involved in a bylaw infraction and not all dogs in the City are licensed.
  • Third, there is no evidence that the overall number of dog attacks in a community diminishes when a specific breed is banned.

To alleviate citizen concerns that aggressive dogs are insufficiently controlled, the Development Compliance Branch proposes to adopt the following enforcement processes. These will not require any change to the wording of the existing bylaw.

  1. The first conviction for a chasing, attacking or biting incident where no injury occurs will result in a $100 fine and a written warning to the dog owner that a second conviction will lead to the dog becoming restricted.
  • A second conviction of a dog chasing, attacking, or biting where no injury occurs will lead to a $100 fine and the dog becoming restricted.
  • Any subsequent conviction for attacks without injury (by the now restricted dog) will lead to a $500 fine; convictions for attacks that do cause injury will result in a $2500 fine.
  1. The first conviction for an attack resulting in injury will lead to a $500 fine and the dog being declared restricted.
  • A further injury incident or the degree of severity of the first will lead to prosecution under the provincial Dangerous Dogs Act which could result in a destruction order.

Each incident will continue to require a full and fair investigation, which would consider mitigating circumstances such as provocation of the dog.

Finally, many responses from citizens also included suggestions on methods to reduce aggressive dog incidents. These are grouped as follows:

  • License the owner, who must demonstrate competence and understanding of the responsibilities of owning a dog.
  • Mandatory obedience training for vicious dogs.
  • Ban certain owners from owning pets.
  • Microchip all vicious dogs to confirm their identity if they change owners or re-offend.
  • Behaviour testing of ‘questionable’ dogs to ensure they are safe in public places.
  • Mandatory spay/neuter to prevent possible transfer of an individual dog’s aggressive temperament to offspring.

Justification of Recommendation

For the following reasons the Planning and Development Department recommends removal of the restricted dog breed category and concentration of enforcement action only on individual dogs that have shown aggressive behaviour:

  • In every city surveyed the pit bull breeds are not the major problem, and even in cities that do not restrict pit bull breeds they are not the major “problem” dogs.
  • Therefore the justification used for restricting ‘pit bulls’ applies equally to several other breeds, that is - some individuals of the given breed did attack and injure humans. If carried through to its logical conclusion this would lead to the situation of banning numerous very popular breeds. For example:
  • In Edmonton in 2001, human victims required medical attention from attacks by: Siberian Husky, Akita, American Eskimo, Border Collie, Cockapoo, Collie, Doberman, German Shepherd, Golden Retriever, Pit bull, and Rottweiler.
  • In Edmonton, the dog breeds of which greater than 1% of the total number licensed of that breed were involved in aggressive incidents include Great Danes, Dalmatians, Mastiffs, Akitas, Rottweilers and Pit bulls.
  • The statistics from the Capital Health Region taken since 1997, show four other breeds with the same number of incidents as pit bulls, and eleven breeds with a greater number of incidents.
  • There is no objective method of establishing the lineage of crossbreeds or dogs not registered with a national kennel club. The result is an inconsistent enforcement practice.
  • Restricting one breed may lead owners who desire strong or intimidating dogs to purchase other non-restricted breeds with similar temperament and qualities.
  • At least five highly regarded professional organizations support dangerous dog legislation but have taken a position against breed specific bylaws, claiming that aggressiveness in dogs is often a product of inappropriate methods of genetic selection, rearing and training. These organizations are:
  1. The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies;
  2. The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association;
  3. The National Companion Animal Coalition (Canadian);
  4. The American Veterinary Medical Association; and
  5. The Humane Society of the United States.

Background Information Attached

  1. Review of Restricted Dog Provisions and Three Options.
  2. Dog Incident Statistics for Edmonton, the Capital Health Region and six Canadian Cities.
  3. Existing Definition, Fines and Regulations Applying to Restricted Dogs.
  4. Changes required to remove restricted breed wording from the Bylaw.

Background Information Available on Request

  1. Summary of all public responses.

(Page 1 of 4)

Attachment 1

Review of Restricted Dog Provisions and Three Options

Background

The Alberta Municipal Government Act authorizes cities to enact bylaws to regulate, restrain, license and impound animals, including cats and dogs. The City of Edmonton takes its responsibilities regarding the licensing of pets, the care of strays and dealing with misbehaving pets seriouslyand currently enforces these issues through the Animal Licensing and Control Bylaw 13145. This bylaw, which came into effect January 7, 2003, is the most recent of a series of bylaws related to animal control in Edmonton since 1917.

The Planning and Development Department includes the Animal Services Section. It promotes compliance before enforcement, and demonstrating that there is a return value for licensing and responsible pet ownership.

By striving to provide good service, through pet recovery, education and communication the Planning and Development Department believes that most pet owners can be convinced of the value of licensing their animals and of having consideration for the peace and safety of their neighbours.

It is widely accepted in the community that dogs which have attacked a person or another pet must be prevented from repeating such an act. The COE has had provisions regarding vicious dogs in its various dog bylaws since 1917, whereby dogs of any breed and any size that injured a person or animal without provocation were required to be confined and muzzled or destroyed. More recently a vicious dog designation entailed severe restriction on the freedom of movement of the dog, the wearing of a muzzle, liability insurance and higher annual license fees.

In 1987, following several highly publicized attack and injury incidents by ‘pit bulls’ in Edmonton, City Council added a new section to the dog bylaw, specific to pit bull breeds. Although owning ‘pit bulls’ was not prohibited, in order to minimize the risk to the public all owners of such dogs were required to confine and muzzle their dog at all times, except inside the home. To discourage people from owning ‘pit bulls’ there was a higher license fee and higher penalties should the dog be loose, or should it attack someone. Essentially any ‘pit bull’, even if it had never done any harm, was placed in the same category as a vicious dog.

The intent of this provision was to discourage the ownership of ‘pit bulls’ and thereby prevent attacks that may otherwise have occurred. Whereas the vicious dog provision prevented a repeat attack from an animal that had already demonstrated its aggressiveness, the restricted breed category sought to prevent even the first attack by eliminating the specific breed viewed to be a serious problem.

Over the ensuing years the clause used to define ‘pit bull’ in the bylaw was frequently circumvented, as owners acquired American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers – which are of the pit bull family - but simply not given that name by the Canadian Kennel Club. Further, there was the subjective difficulty of establishing with certainty the breed of a dog without registration papers, or of a crossbreed.

The intent of the bylaw was not being met, and this problem was raised and widely discussed during the process of drafting the current Animal Licensing and Control Bylaw 13145. The Planning & Development Department proposed a very specific definition of ‘pit bulls’. Focus groups did recommend elimination of the breed specific bylaw, however the Administration believed that the bylaw was achieving the goal of preventing attacks by reducing the number of dogs of this breed. It had been successful and citizens took comfort in knowing that pit bulls were a low risk in Edmonton.

City Council accepted the recommendation but asked for a more comprehensive review of the breed specific regulation and broad public input on whether it should be removed or should remain. The findings are to be presented to Council in June 2003.

Methodology

The project will:

  1. Prepare the goals & principles on which the initiatives will be based.
  2. Prepare a set of possible options, including the justification, benefits and drawbacks to each.
  3. Scan the dog attack statistics from other cities.
  4. Test the draft principles and options with the Animal Control Advisory Board, Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues and both School Boards.
  5. Amend recommendations and submit for wide public input within a communications plan.
  6. Prepare a final report for presentation to Community Services Committee on June 23 2003.

Public Participation

The Public participation model being used in this project takes ideas to a selected group of stakeholders for testing and then the presentation of a more complete version of the provisions to the public.

The model includes the participation of the Animal Control Advisory Board (ACAB) followed by the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues (EFCL) and the Edmonton Public and Separate School Boards.

A much more general distribution of the draft provisions will be made using traditional vehicles such as news ads, mailouts, websites and e-mail message boxes.

Deliverables and Time Lines

  • Project begins on January 10, 2003.
  • The Background report will be presented to the Animal Control Advisory Board on March 17, and to the EFCL and School Boards during March and April.
  • A focus group will be held in April.
  • Public communication will begin in April/May once comments and feedback from the above groups has been received. Comments will be received until June.
  • The formal recommendation will be presented to Community Services Committee June 23, 2003.

Principles & Goals

  1. Promote and protect public and animal health and safety.
  2. Ensure that the provisions are fair, consistent and enforceable.
  3. Achieve a high degree of voluntary compliance by building on community standards.
  4. Encourage and facilitate licensing of dogs and cats.

Three Options

  1. INCLUDE ADDITIONAL BREEDS IN THE RESTRICTED DOG CATEGORIES:

Existing dog attack records from Edmonton and other cities show several breeds with a higher than average number of aggressive incidents. Therefore, whether the problem is caused by a disproportionately large number of these dogs in the city, or because these breeds are inherently more aggressive, or because owners of these dogs tend to encourage them to be aggressive – they are a public safety hazard and they should be restricted.

Pros:

  • Is consistent with the justification used for restricting the pit bull breeds.
  • May decrease the total number of dog attacks.

Cons:

  • Unlikely to get public support due to the large numbers of dogs and owners affected.
  • Will lead the City into continuous addition of new restricted breeds.
  • Will cause numerous owners to euthanise or give away their animals due to cost of ownership, inability to get liability insurance and the dramatic restriction on the dogs’ freedom.
  • Will discourage the licensing of these dogs and thus reduce the ability to locate the owner when a dog does attack.
  • All unclaimed impounded restricted dogs will be euthanised, since none will be adopted.
  1. STATUS QUO:

Maintain the restricted breed category in place because it has reduced the numbers of this breed in the city and therefore prevented attacks that would otherwise have occurred.

Pros:

  • Maintain an existing effective public safety provision.

Cons:

  • May be perceived as unfair and discriminative. About 150 owners of the restricted breed not previously affected will be required to pay higher license fees, seek liability insurance and greatly reduce the freedom of their dogs.

Possible solution: Grandfather all American Staffordshire Terriers and Staffordshire Bull Terriers legally licensed before Jan 7, 2003.

  • Difficulty determining type of crossbreeds.

Possible solution: process of double/triple verification by separate veterinarians that the dog is not primarily of a pit bull breed, to be provided by the owner.

  1. ELIMINATE THE RESTRICTED BREED CATEGORY ENTIRELY:

Only dogs that have attacked without provocation become restricted.

Pros:

  • The justification for restricting the dog is obvious, supportable and transparent.

Cons:

  • It does not prevent attacks by restricting those breeds perceived to be a problem.

Possible solutions: A more aggressive enforcement and prosecution policy for biting dogs. Lower tolerance threshold for declaring a dog vicious or dangerous. Enforcement action directed to chronically irresponsible owners.