Hinton Leashing Laws

Dear Hinton Town Council, At first I thought I was writing you a letter, now it seems more like a report. Quoting comments from the social networking site Facebook, citing opinions and information from our local newspapers, reviewing a copy of the 2008 Bylaw No.1021 concerning animal control, using a registry of pedigree cat’s report and a website dedicated to blogging about dogs; these words are here to voice my opinion on the proposed bylaw concerning the leashing of dogs and cats. Jane Dresden stated in the Aug.27/12 issue of the Hinton Parklander that “the leash law is not the only issue, its owner education.” Which I completely agree with, because before printing off a copy of the Town of Hinton Bylaw No.1021 I was not aware of what the bylaw all entailed. So maybe implementing a new law isn’t the answer, maybe it’s simply educating the town on what the bylaw already is – in full. I believe that if people knew the bylaw they would follow it, especially if they knew that if guilty of an offense it would result in a fine anywhere between $250 to $500, or imprisonment of no more than 60 days if the offender failed to pay. This is a hefty fine for those who simply like to enjoy leash-free activities with their dogs like Leanne Weik, who wrote the Parklander on Aug. 13/12, that “one of the things [she] loves about Hinton is the ability to walk, run and bike with my dog – off leash.” Are we really going to make a law to take away something Hinton residents love? And benefit from health and security-wise? As Weik states her dog “motivates [her] to exercise” and provides that “extra sense of security” when she’s out on the trails. Also “leashes can cause dogs become more agitated” says Carol Faid and Garry Schaffel, in the Aug.20/12 Parklander edition, two people who also like enjoying the trails with their dog but believe leashes aren’t always the safest to dogs or their owners. This, as they recall a bicycle crash caused because of using a leash due to the trail being a designated leash zone. So why do these people and their dogs have to suffer by losing something they love to do? Maria Michener wrote to the Hinton Voice on Aug. 9/12 bring up this very topic as to why every dog and dog owner has to suffer for a few dogs running at large. This is a law, so why are we in a sense making every dog owner guilty, when they are truly innocent. This isn’t done with other laws. Our law enforcement doesn’t give everybody on the road a speeding ticket because one person is driving too fast. No, it punishes the person breaking the law, not everyone else who is similar simply because they own a car. So why punish every person who owns a dog? This is causing the “citizens of Hinton [to wage] war against one another”, as Michener puts. The town administration estimates that 35% of Hinton’s dwellings contain a dog(s), meaning in a town of 10,000+ there are at least 3,500 dogs/dog owners. Should all 3,500 of these pet owners suffer because of the 54 Animal Control reported dog disturbances and the 11 Hinton RCMP reported dog attack incidents? No, because that’s only 65 of 3,500 dogs, or 1.86% of the estimated 35%. I agree with Maria Michener when she says “the Town council should look into utilizing [the dog catching service] to its full potential…[so] these few dogs could be caught and the owners dealt with”, instead of the other 3,435 dog owners having to suffer the consequences. This is why an off-leash area is a must, so every dog owner does not have to suffer for the few. I agree with the bylaw in that all dogs must be leashed in high-traffic and public areas like sidewalks, board walkways (The Beaver Boardwalk) and roadways. This is a bylaw that should be implemented to every dog/dog owner but I still believe there should also be some leeway. The Hinton Voice stated “if we cannot draw our limits based on the rights of other, the government is increasingly asked to do so in our stead.” We are human, we learn by mistake. But again I will emphasize the need for public education, because how can we learn if we don’t even know we’re making a mistake. The town should be increasing owner education before decreasing and “infringing one’s personal liberties, like walking one’s dog”, which The Hinton Voice describes as “disheartening.” But we can keep these liberties in good standing with a dog park or two, or designated off-leash areas. Hinton will need more than one dog park to satisfy the 3,500 dogs of Hinton safely and favourably. Dogasaur.com, a website who’s catch phrase is “Improving your dog’s life”, states in a blog called “10 Reason For and Against Dog Parks” that their #8 reason why you shouldn't bring your dog to a dog park is too many dogs. Having a single dog park may create more harm than good, because it will be like a business, with peak hours when everyone is trying to go. And everyone wants to go because they want to exercise their dog which is the #1 reason stated by Dogasaur.com: “dogs benefit from exercise when they get to run off-leash and play freely.” Plus this makes your dog tired, and “a tired dog is a good dog...[because] he won't constantly bark or try to destroy property.” The site's #10 reason supporting dog parks, which Hinton SPCA President Debbie Morin-Huber agrees with stating “if a dog is tired, they're not going to be barking their heads off and driving neighbors nuts.” So in this case everyone wins from a dog park. Dog owners and non-dog owners alike. Although we can make a park or parks for dogs we can't for cats, just like how we can't leash them or shouldn't have to anyways. Our previous 2008 Bylaw No. 1021 and the current proposed bylaw includes that cats must be leashed, mostly to prevent it from leaving one's property. If a cat leaves the property unleashed it is considered at-large according to section 6(f) PROHIBITIONS of the bylaw; “a dog or cat is considered to be running at large when off the property of it's owner and not in immediate and effective control.” This part of the bylaw has stirred up many comments from both sides of the argument. Another case of non-owner vs. owner, and in this one it seems to dominate with people against the leashing of cats. The following are comments I have retrieved from Facebook and am not posting names due to the privacy of the matter, but will provide them to the town if they feel it warranted : ■ “Next thing you know we'll have to leash our children as well!” ■ “It's a domestic cat, not a tiger or mountain lion.” ■ “If you leash your cat up you're risking your cats life more than if it isn't on a leash.” ■ “It's a cat,...they're domesticated animals, they aren't hurting anything or anyone.” ■ “A cat [cannot] keep healthy and fit while restrained on a small tangled leash.” ■ “Leashing a cat is unheard of.” And that's exactly the point, leashing a cat is unheard of. The Cat Fanciers' Association Inc, the world's largest registry of pedigree cats, advocated against leash laws in a 2008 report by George Eigenhouser asking “is the cure worse than the disease?” “Today cats are often perceived in our culture as free spirits and only partly domesticated. Many people believe that cats need to roam outside and should not be confined...But other people believe that laws should regulate cats at large (commonly called leash laws) in the same manner that dogs are regulated. They believe in leash laws or other regulations mandating confinement of cats...Despite these obvious differences, some jurisdictions have enacted, or are considering, cat leash laws...Cat leash laws can be extremely threatening to cat owners and devastating for innocent cats. What happens to owned cats caught outdoors? If lucky, they may be returned to their owners (perhaps together with a fine or other penalty). But animal shelters report that only a tiny percentage of cats are returned to their owners. If a cat unintentionally escapes from his home while his owners are on vacation and is not wearing his collar and tag this could be a death sentence...Why such hatred for free-roaming outdoor cats?...It is hard for cat lovers or animal lovers in general, to understand this mind-set...Fortunately, this "round up and kill" attitude toward free-roaming cats is not a view shared by most. A 2007 study showed that an overwhelming majority of Americans—81%—believes that leaving a stray cat outside to live out his life is more humane than having the cat caught and killed. Even if the stray cat were certain to die in two years being struck by a car, the overwhelming majority of Americans, 71%, would still prefer to let the cat live...Confinement laws reinforce negative attitudes that cats are nuisance pests without value and polarize communities...These laws do not benefit society, the shelters or the cats.” Just like how our previous and proposed bylaws do not benefit Hinton's society as a whole. When it comes down to it dogs need to be leashed on public walkways but also need designated off-leash areas and some parts of the trail system, and cats should not be included in this bylaw due to the strong disapproval. Dogs need to be dogs and cats need to be cats, just like we need to be humans or in this case humane. Compassion needs to be shown to both sides of the argument, to non-pet owners and pet owners alike as well as the animals affected by this bylaw. I hope you take my words into consideration, but there are more words. Enclosed are comment cards from other Hinton residents expressing their concerns, as well as immediately attached to this are signature sheets of those who directly agree with this letter. Thank you for taking the time to read my submission. Karen Palashniuk Aug.28, 2012