Animal Services Bylaw – Report on Public Feedback
You spoke, and we listened!
Animal Services Bylaw 07/2024 passed first reading at the Regular Council Meeting of November 18th, and we rolled out a series of educational social media posts to highlight some of the key concepts and changes reflected in the bylaw and to draw attention to our Animal Services Bylaw survey. Community consultation and public engagement was an important part of the final stages of the bylaw’s development, and we received 216 completed surveys over a period of two weeks. Respondents provided excellent feedback and were very engaged with the content; it was very rewarding to see that so many folks in Dauphin truly care about the animals in this community.
On December 6th, Councillor Daley, the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, the Director of Finance, and the Animal Services Officer met to review the feedback and to determine which suggested changes would be incorporated into the final version of Bylaw 07/2024. The revised bylaw was presented to Council for second and third readings at the Regular Council Meeting of December 9th and the approved bylaw will be effective January 1, 2025.
This bylaw is a tremendous leap forward for animal welfare and management in Dauphin, and it is our hope that it will serve as a model bylaw for other municipalities in Manitoba to follow.
The data below outlines the survey response percentages for each concept and which concepts underwent changes that were incorporated into the final version of Bylaw 07/2024.
Survey for Public Feedback on Animal Services Bylaw 07/2024
Number of Completed Surveys: 216
1. General Awareness and Understanding
a) Are you aware that the City of Dauphin has proposed significant updates to its Animal Services (formerly Animal Control) Bylaw?
YES: 92%
NO: 8%
b) Have you had the chance to review the proposed bylaw?
YES: 91%
NO: 9%
2. Pet Ownership Limits
a) The current/old Animal Control Bylaw permits only 2 dogs and 2 cats per property. The new Animal Services Bylaw [please read Sub-Section 3] proposes a maximum of 6 Companion Animals per property in any combination but with no more than 3 dogs and no more than 5 cats.
For example, you could have 1 dog and 5 cats, 2 dogs and 4 cats, 3 dogs and 3 cats. Do you agree with these changes to the limit on Companion Animals per property?
YES: 69%
NO: 28%
UNDECIDED: 7%
BYLAW CHANGE: Maximum of 5 (changed from 6) Companion Animals per property in any combination but with no more than 3 dogs and 3 (changed from 5) cats. For example, you could have 3 dogs and 2 cats, 2 dogs and 3 cats, 1 dog and 3 cats. This brings the number permitted per household down by 1 over the draft bylaw, but it still permits 1 more animal per property than is currently allowed.
b) The new bylaw permits no more than 6 rabbits and 4 guinea pigs per property to prevent animal hoarding issues. Do you think these are reasonable limits on these types of pets?
YES: 76%
NO: 18%
UNDECIDED: 6%
BYLAW CHANGE: None. There is no wording in our current Animal Control Bylaw addressing maximum numbers for these animals; 6 and 4 provides reasonable parameters to address any potential hoarding situations.
3. Prohibited Animals
a) The new bylaw [please read Schedule A] provides a much more comprehensive list of prohibited animals, which includes (among many others) chickens, goats, bees, large rodents, venomous/poisonous animals, and most marsupials. It does allow domestic ferrets, sugar gliders, African pygmy hedgehogs, certain types of (“pet”) tarantulas, small lizards, and snakes of the Pythonidae and Boidea (anaconda) families up to 2 metres in length as long as they are kept inside. Do you agree with the exclusion/inclusion of these species?
YES: 69%
NO: 20%
UNDECIDED: 11%
BYLAW CHANGE: The lengthy and very specific classification of prohibited animals has been changed to a more general prohibition on livestock, wildlife, and venomous/dangerous animals with discretion given to the Animal Services Officer to assess the possession of non-“companion” animals on a case-by-case basis.
A number of respondents requested that chickens and bees be permitted. During the City’s Zoning Bylaw review consultations, chickens and bees were discussed at length and determined to be inadvisable at this time, especially given the proximity of opportunities for bee-keeping and chicken-keeping in the surrounding rural areas.
4. Animal Cruelty & Basic Animal Care
a) The new bylaw [please read Sub-Section 11] strictly prohibits any act of cruelty upon an animal, including abandoning an animal, use of body-gripping traps, and confinement in conditions that result in distress. Animals must be provided with adequate food, shelter, potable unfrozen water (snow is not a replacement for water), adequate natural light, regular exercise, a sanitary living environment, and veterinary care when sick, injured, or suffering. Do you think these requirements are sufficient to protect an animal’s welfare?
YES: 93%
NO: 5%
UNDECIDED: 11%
BYLAW CHANGE: None.
5. Outdoor Shelter Requirements
a) The current/old bylaw has very loose specifications for outdoor shelters for dogs kept outside. The new bylaw [please read Sub-Sections 13 and 14] requires outdoor shelters to be weather-proofed and insulated with clean, dry bedding that will assist with maintaining normal body temperature. Do you feel that this increase in the standard for outdoor shelters is sufficient to protect an animal’s welfare?
YES: 88%
NO: 19%
UNDECIDED: 8%
BYLAW CHANGE: None.
6. Tethering & Confinement
a) The current/old bylaw does not speak to tethering (tying out) and specifies only that an animal may not be impounded, yarded, or confined without necessary food, water, shelter, or attention for more than 15 consecutive hours. This means that an animal could be confined for longer than 15 consecutive hours as long as these needs are met. The new bylaw [please read Sub-Sections 15 and 16] strictly prohibits the permanent tethering of an animal, and it prohibits tethering an animal for more than 4 consecutive hours, for a total of no more than 8 hours in a 24-hour period. Tethers must be at least 3.5 metres (10 feet) in length. Do you feel these tethering restrictions are sufficient to protect an animal’s welfare?
YES: 82%
NO: 14%
UNDECIDED: 4%
BYLAW CHANGE: It was encouraging to see that the majority of respondents who indicated “No” were actually advocating for even tighter restrictions on tethering. While Administration may have personal opinions that would favour a more sweeping prohibition on tethering, we recognize that these proposed parameters are a significant step forward and a very good first step towards a phased-in approach. We want to be realistic given current tethering practices and give residents a chance to adjust and build necessary enclosures that would allow their animal more freedom. The more sweeping the change, the more resources the City would need to ensure the enforcement of the regulation. The proposed time parameters will remain unchanged from those indicated in the draft; however, a clause has been added in Sub-Section 10 to give the Animal Services Officer greater discretion when evaluating any animal welfare related concerns: e.g. taking breed, size, and coat into consideration when evaluating the status of animals kept outside and/or tethered. This will actually tighten the restriction even further so that, for example, a short-haired chihuahua may be assessed differently than a thick-coated Alaskan Malamute in the case of tethering or enclosure outside on a cold day.
b) The new bylaw [please read Sub-Section 17] specifies that a person must not confine a dog to an enclosure for a period in excess of 8 hours within any 24-hour period. An enclosure in this case means an outdoor kennel or structure forming a pen suitable to confine an animal in a humane manner that provides sufficient space for the animal to freely move about. This does not refer to a fenced yard. Do you feel these guidelines are sufficient to protect an animal’s welfare?
YES: 86%
NO: 6%
UNDECIDED: 8%
BYLAW CHANGE: The wording will remain unchanged from the draft; however, a clause has been added in Sub-Section 10 to give the Animal Services Officer greater discretion when evaluating any animal welfare related concerns: e.g. taking breed, size, and coat into consideration when evaluating the status of animals kept outside.
7. Animals in Vehicles
a) The new bylaw [please read Sub-Sections 18 and 19] specifies that a person must not leave an animal in an unattended vehicle if the ambient temperature outside the vehicle is higher than 22 degrees C or lower than -10 degrees C unless the vehicle’s climate control system is active. This temperature range comes directly from The Animal Care Act. Animals in distress due to a violation of these guidelines can legally be removed from the vehicle by authorized officers. Do you feel that these guidelines are reasonable and are sufficient to protect an animal’s welfare?
YES: 93%
NO: 4%
UNDECIDED: 3%
BYLAW CHANGE: None.
b) The new bylaw [please read Sub-Section 20] specifies that an animal must not be transported in a motor vehicle outside the passenger compartment or in an uncovered passenger compartment unless the animal is adequately confined in a ventilated kennel securely fastened to the vehicle or secured in a body harness or other manner of fastening that is adequate to prevent the animal from jumping or falling off the vehicle or otherwise injuring itself. Do you feel that this requirement is sufficient to protect an animal’s welfare?
YES: 90%
NO: 4%
UNDECIDED: 6%
BYLAW CHANGE: None.
8. Animal Performances
a) The new bylaw [please read Sub-Section 21] prohibits shows or performances where animals are required to perform tricks or fight for the entertainment of an audience. This would include circuses where animals are forced to perform for an audience, but it would not include exhibitions, parades, or performances involving horses/ponies or dogs, displays or shows of animals at agricultural fairs or pet shows, or magic acts as long as the animals are treated humanely. Do you agree with including this regulation in the bylaw?
YES: 86%
NO: 5%
UNDECIDED: 9%
BYLAW CHANGE: This section of the bylaw has been removed so that the bylaw focuses more solely on the welfare and management of pets.
9. Pet Licensing
a) Under the current/old bylaw and process, dogs and cats were required to be licensed annually, with proof of current rabies vaccination required at the time of each licensing and renewal. The new bylaw and process [please read Sub-Sections 22 – 27] would allow for one-time (lifetime) licensing for dogs and cats with no proof of rabies vaccination required. The dog or cat would be issued one tag and number that they would keep for life. Animal Services would increase the enforcement of pet licensing with the goal of having every pet in Dauphin accounted for. Do you agree with this change to lifetime vs. annual pet licensing?
YES: 80%
NO: 12%
UNDECIDED: 8%
BYLAW CHANGE: No change to the proposed lifetime licensing; however, rabies vaccination is still required. Instead of the (initially proposed) higher redemption fee for unvaccinated animals found to be at large (which will add further costs that will prohibit the vaccination of the animal), the owner will be granted 10 days to have the animal vaccinated for rabies, otherwise a $100 fine will be applied (as per the Fees, Fines, & Charges Bylaw).
b) A tiered fee structure for pet licences would incentivize the sterilization of dogs and cats. For example, lifetime licensing for a sterilized cat would be FREE whereas a lifetime Unsterilized Cat Licence would be $125 (which would be fully refunded if the cat is sterilized within three months of licensing). For dogs, the lifetime fees would be $100 for sterilized dogs and $200 for unsterilized dogs (with $100 refunded if the dog is sterilized within three months of licensing). Do you agree with this fee structure as a means to encourage the sterilization of dogs and cats in our community?
YES: 79%
NO: 16%
UNDECIDED: 12%
BYLAW CHANGE: Lifetime licence fees have been reduced as follows to make licensing more affordable and therefore to encourage the licensing of every pet in Dauphin:
- Lifetime licence for sterilized dog: proposed $100 reduced to $75
- Licence for unsterilized dog: proposed $200 reduced to $150 – to be reduced to $75 if sterilized within 3 months
- Lifetime licence for sterilized cat: proposed FREE increased to $25 (so that cat owners are helping to subsidize Animal Services, SNAP, and TNR)
- Licence for unsterilized cat: proposed $125 reduced to $100 – to be reduced to $25 if sterilized within 3 months
c) Current rabies vaccination is still required under the new bylaw, and dogs and cats found running at large and then impounded at the Animal Services Centre will require higher redemption fees if they are unvaccinated for rabies. Owners can also be fined for not vaccinating their dog or cat for rabies. Do you feel this is an effective method for encouraging and enforcing vaccination for rabies?
YES: 88%
NO: 7%
UNDECIDED: 5%
BYLAW CHANGE: Instead of the (initially proposed) higher redemption fee for unvaccinated animals found to be at large (which will add further costs that will prohibit the vaccination of the animal), the owner will be granted 10 days to have the animal vaccinated for rabies; otherwise a Class B fine will be applied (as per the Fees, Fines, & Charges Bylaw – which will be $100 effective January 1, 2025).
10. Animals on Public and Private Property
a) Under both the current/old and the new bylaw [please read Sub-Sections 28 and 29], dogs and cats are not permitted to be at large on either private (other than their own) or public property (with the exception of the Off-Leash Dog Park). Do you agree with the requirement that cats must be kept inside or otherwise contained within their own property?
YES: 85%
NO: 8%
UNDECIDED: 7%
BYLAW CHANGE: None.
b) All dogs must be controlled on a leash when in public. The current/old bylaw specifies that the leash must be no longer than 6 feet (2 metres) fully extended. The new bylaw [please read Sub-Section 30] does not specify a maximum required length for the leash, but it must be of a length that prevents the dog from reaching persons or other dogs at a minimum distance of 2 feet (.6 metres). Both static and retractable leashes are permitted. Do you agree with this change?
YES: 89%
NO: 8%
UNDECIDED: 4%
BYLAW CHANGE: There is some confusion reflected in the comments regarding the leashing of cats – the draft bylaw did not make it clear that cats are permitted to be off their own property if leashed, so wording to this effect has been added. The comments reflected very strong feelings in opposition to the use of retractable leashes. While retractable leashes may not be ideal for larger/stronger breeds, small/medium-sized breeds can be managed well on retractable leashes. Wording has been added to this section to reinforce that animals must be kept under control, and we are hoping owners will be able to gauge the leashing needs of their own pet in order to secure them properly.
11. Off-Leash Dog Parks
a) The new bylaw [please read Sub-Sections 34 to 44] outlines specific rules for off-leash dog park use, including licensing and limits on the number of dogs per handler. Do you think these rules are clear, fair, and complete?
YES: 87%
NO: 6%
UNDECIDED: 7%
BYLAW CHANGE: Added wording to accommodate licensed dogs visiting from outside the city.
12. Animal Nuisances (Noise, Waste, Property Damage)
a) The new bylaw [please read Sub-Sections 48 to 51] strengthens regulations to address noisy dogs, animal waste, and property damage. Do you believe these provisions adequately address community concerns?
YES: 84%
NO: 4%
UNDECIDED: 12%
BYLAW CHANGE: None.
13. Muzzle and Control Orders
a) The new bylaw [please read Sub-Sections 54 to 61] avoids labeling any dog as an “aggressive dog”, a “vicious dog”, or a “dangerous dog”. Instead, it focuses on aggressive behaviour to reinforce the notion that most dogs are not inherently “bad” and can be rehabilitated with proper training. Following from this, instead of labeling a dog with an “Aggressive Dog” designation, a dog that displays aggressive behaviour can be the subject of a Muzzle and Control Order, which outlines restrictions that the owner must follow to protect the public, including using a humane muzzle on the dog when out in public. Do you think this approach adequately protects the public from dogs that display aggressive behaviour?
YES: 86%
NO: 7%
UNDECIDED: 7%
BYLAW CHANGE: None.
14. Trap, Neuter, Return Program
a) The new bylaw [please read Sub-Sections 68 to 75] permits the City or a not-for-profit entity to operate a Trap, Neuter, Return Program whereby feral/stray cats are humanely trapped, sterilized, vaccinated, ear-tipped (for easy identification), and returned to the neighbourhoods from which they came, where they would become Community Cats. The Program would allow volunteers to register as Community Cat Caretakers whereby they would be permitted to feed and provide shelter for these Community Cats to support their survival during the winter months. Cats provide excellent rodent control, and TNR is a humane method to reduce the numbers of feral/stray cats over time. Do you support the concept of a TNR Program in Dauphin?
YES: 80%
NO: 13%
UNDECIDED: 8%
BYLAW CHANGE: None; however, we recognize the need for further education and messaging to help the public understand the benefits of the TNR concept. Without TNR, there inevitably will be an increase in the number of feral/stray cats over time; with TNR, there will be fewer feral/stray cats over time.
15. Breeding
a) The new bylaw [please read Sub-Sections 76 to 80] requires an owner of a dog or cat that will be used for breeding purposes to pay a fee for a Breeding Permit. This is designed to prevent the “backyard breeding” and unintentional breeding of dogs and cats in Dauphin that is contributing to the overpopulation of puppies and kittens. Breeders would be subjected to inspections to ensure compliance with all parts of Section 3 (Animal Welfare) of the bylaw, and the owner may only allow the dog or cat to have up to one litter per year and up to four litters during the animal’s lifetime. Breeding without a permit would incur fines. Do you feel that this requirement is a fair and effective approach to address the overpopulation of unwanted puppies and kittens in our community?
YES: 84%
NO: 9%
UNDECIDED: 7%
BYLAW CHANGE: None.
Thank-you for your interest and input!