Pet owners raise concerns

Staff ~ The Record
Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

By?Christopher Gooding
The Record
SPRINGHILL - Residents here are howling a proposed animal control bylaw seems vague about the fate of canines that disturb the peace and quiet.
The bylaw, introduced during Springhill Town Council's monthly meeting in Oct., states dogs who persistently disturb the peace on three occasions within 24 months shall be disposed of and therein lies why some Springhill pet owners are will to bear their teeth at the proposed bylaw.
"When I think of disposed of I think of euthanasia," pet owner and resident Troy Henwood says. "But does it mean adopt? Should it be put to its grave if it barks?
Henwood says the proposed animal control bylaw is long overdue but wants to make sure future council's are very clear on what this council intended.
"I want council to be very clear on it. If it comes down to it, who euthanizes the animal and how? The days of taking dogs into the woods and putting a bullet in its head are long gone," he said.
In the bylaw, section 24(3)-B states dog that has been persistently disturbing the quiet of the neighbourhood by barking, howling or otherwise for the third time within 24 months will be disposed of by a pound keeper. Elsewhere in the bylaw it states the pound keeper can sell the animal [Section 22(4)] or, if it cannot be sold, the pound keeper can destroy the animal [Section 24(5)].
Henwood says he feels more could be done with the wording in the bylaw to marry the two sections.
It might be semantics, but Henwood says making sure council's direction is clear and concise for future councils should be paramount.
Springhill mayor Allen Dill identified council's intent following the contentious section 24(3)-B is for the pound keeper to follow the directions listing under Impounding, specifically beginning at article 22(4).
That citizens are concerned the bylaw as proposed might need clarity, Dill says, is actually a positive.
"I'm encouraged by the concerns and I'm looking forward to citizen involvement and input at the hearing," Dill said.

Organizations: Springhill Town Council

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • colin
    March 09, 2010 - 09:26

    I am glad this council has the foritude to try and put a stop to the dogs barking, for no reason, in this Town. There are people that do nothing to stop their dogs from barking, day or night and I hope thatconsistant action is taken by the Animal Control officer.
    While to SOME dog owners that feel they provide a sence of security, these dogs are a nuisance to others that are trying to relax in their homes, put their children to sleep or have to work shift work.
    I don't think dogs should be put to death because of neglect by the owners, have a three step fine system first offence is a $50.00 fine, the second offence is $100.00 and the third offence is $500.00 and the loss of their dog.
    Also implement a by-law to deal with cat owners that allow their cats to wonder throughout the neighborhood, feeding, climbing on vehcles and urinating on neighbours property.

  • KAREN
    March 09, 2010 - 09:26

    I hope no one ever tries to break in you house even if you a security alarm colin because if you did have a dog that didnt bark the people would rob you blind and worse do harm to you. Dogs are not an animal they are part of the family and people who think otherwise are incredibly stupid.

  • Jody
    March 09, 2010 - 09:26

    Our dogs give us a sense of security when they bark. thats all I have to say about that, LOL!

  • Jody
    March 09, 2010 - 09:26

    Our dogs do not get left unattended outside for long periods of time. Usually a dog that is barking for long periods of time is either neglected by being left out all day or night. Find out why the dog is barking and follow through with that.