Euthanasia of loose animals ‘measure of last resort,’ City of Iqaluit says
Statement comes as petition opposing bylaw changes that would shorten holding period gains momentum
The City of Iqaluit says euthanasia of loose animals it picks up is a “measure of last resort,” amid concerns over proposed amendments to the domestic animal control bylaw. (File photo)
The City of Iqaluit is trying to reassure the public that euthanasia of loose animals is “a measure of last resort” amid mounting concerns over a proposed amendment to its domestic animal control bylaw.
“[Euthanasia] is used only after all reasonable efforts to return or rehome the animal have been exhausted, and only when health or safety is seriously at risk,” says an announcement issued by the city Thursday.
“The city remains committed to humane, culturally informed animal care practices and continues to seek partnerships with animal welfare organizations.”
The statement comes the same week an online petition was launched calling on city council not to move forward on proposed amendments to the domestic animal control bylaw.
Those amendments would allow municipal enforcement officers to euthanize loose dogs after a 24-holding period, or a 72-hour hold for animals caught on weekends or holidays.
If approved, that would replace the seven-day maximum holding period in the current bylaw as well as a 72-hour minimum hold. The amendment also adds impound fees to be charged to owners whose animals are caught.
The petition has more than 1,200 signatures as of Friday from users across Canada.
“Twenty-four hours, it’s just not enough time, and it would be the harshest measure that I’ve ever heard of other than a cull,” Janelle Kennedy, president of Nunavut Animal Rescue, said earlier this week.
She called the bylaw amendment a “scare tactic.”
City council unanimously approved the amendment on first and second readings at its May 13 meeting. Third reading, after which it becomes law, is scheduled for June 10.
The city’s announcement Thursday said, “Domestic animals, especially dogs, hold deep cultural and personal significance in the North. However, when dogs are allowed to roam freely, they can pose serious risks to themselves, residents, and visitors.”
Dog attacks in which people have been killed or injured “have deeply impacted communities and underscore the urgent need for effective animal control and prevention strategies,” the city said.
The city also released its animal control statistics for 2025 so far. They include:
- Animals captured: 47
- Animals returned to owners: 21
- Currently impounded: 4
- Animals adopted locally: 3
- Adopted to southern shelters: 3
- Total euthanized (including sick or injured): 15
- Animal cruelty complaints: 3
- Dog bites/attacks reported: 2
- Animals hit by motor vehicles: 1 (deceased)
- Deceased animal calls: 8
- Domestic Animal Control Bylaw fines issued: 13
- Dog tags issued in 2025: 54
The city put out another reminder that animal registration tags are free and available for pickup at the municipal enforcement office at 1549 Sivumugiaq St.
Chip them. Include the fee in the release fine if owner wants the dog back. When chipped, city can track how many times the dog was captured. Have a new rule from there, x-times = euthanize. Dogs that are always running around probably have bad homes at worst or very irresponsible owners at best. Long overdue for dog-owner accountability.
How about give the dog to Humane society? Why does the animal need to be killed because the human is irresponsible?
Because the City is not willing to work with the Humane Society due to egos and politics despite it being the most logical and cost effective approach that has demonstrated a reduction in loose dogs.
If I want the city to be governed a certain way and all I have to do now is have a country wide petition going to change it! We the tax payers should be the ones who hold our community to account. We have a dog issue not these out of towners.
I agree that we, the tax payers in Iqaluit, should be the one’s to hold our community to account. However, there was no public consultation on this by-law. I can understand folks wanting to start a petition to get their voices heard if the City isn’t going to actively seek the public’s opinion on a proposed by-law.
Requiring microchipping of dogs is an excellent idea.
Best way to guarantee your dog is identifiable and the city can contact you. And is a good back up just in case the dog tag does fall off somehow.
Loose dogs can pack together and attack anyone. I for one do not take wild loose dogs lightly. Lucky for loose dogs I am not a catcher. Otherwise…..i will dispose of easily and humanely who needs loose dogs in a small town ? Not me or many others all I can say is the loose dogs in our community are very lucky. They have a price on there heads .
Just neuter and spay any dogs found running around. Then the population will decrease and no new puppies will be born in that area. Problem solved. Also you can stop the breeders from adding to the population increase so people can instead choose to adopt rather then getting dogs from breeders. Killing animals for no valid reason is animal cruelty.
Are you suggesting the City hire a full time vet to spay and neuter all these dogs?
Who’s going to pay for this?
It doesn’t matter how well intentioned the city is, if you give an enforcement officer powers that are heavy handed, they will use them. It’s why generally you would do actual research and review of a decision like this before you would pass a bylaw. You would also think that someone on council will have the good sense to consult with the community on something as emotionally charged as this issue can get.
Law enforcement powers should be measured and proportional, especially when speaking about unfettered use of force to euthanize animals.
They can already euthanize animals, all this does is allow them to kill them faster, which doesn’t actually solve the issue of loose dogs in any meaningful way.
They should invest in education, spaying and neutering to actually make a dent in the problem.
Does “all reasonable measures” include scanning for microchips? If not, why not? There are many animals in Iqaluit who are chipped and it’s an easy way to find owners.
Nunatsiaq and you say it is a national petition. How many signatures from Iqaluit came in though? Did either the journalist or you check? Every single person I know in Iqaluit who has a dog has signed the petition.
Well said.
I love how it took this for EVERY dog owner to walk their dog and actually take care of them. Less chances of hitting “beloved” dogs on the road now. Way to go City of Iqaluit! Scare tactic work and making these people who care more for dogs fundraise for a free spay and neuter clinic.
What’s the strategy for all the unattended children wreaking havoc on the community? Youth would be less likely to commit arson under the watchful eye of a parent/guardian
how does this bylaw help at all? It doesn’t solve the problem. For some reason they are just doubling down instead of taking an honest look at how this will actually help.
I notice Amber from city Council on facebook trying desperately to justify this decision. It honestly makes no sense. She helps feed someone elses dog team and therefore is some kind of dog expert??
The proposed change does nothing to actually help the situation. Not backing down isn’t showing us it’s the right decision, it’s showing us they aren’t open to listening to the people they represent.
Nunavut Animal rescue’s approach hasn’t solved any problems yet either. They have brough awareness for sure, and i commend them for being where they are today with their space in Apex. But they too need to be able to sit and provide solutions as well.
Volunteer, staff member or a community member, doesn’t matter who is putting in time to tend to this issue, doesn’t mean work isn’t being done. Don’t need to throw Amber under the bus like that.
Shes knowledgeable with qimmiit and probably wants to help enforce a better momentum in tackling a long standing issue that no one has put time into dealing with.
Iqaluit has a stray dog problem, spay and neuter clinics are needed, shelter space is needed. The current shelter for the city is old, run down, moldy and needs to be demolished. No time for complainers and people putting others down. Be apart of the solution.
If this bylaw does nothing to help, what are your solutions that haven’t already been attempted?
Will you or your peers volunteer and donate to build a shelter and take care of strays caught?
The city has put out notices and reminds the people of Iqaluit to educate themselves on the issue and how to be a good pet owner.
It’s so frustrating that some people don’t mind putting others down who in fact are putting the work in behind the scenes.
This is putting in the work to you?? Putting a solution forward that doesn’t actually stop the problem we have.
I bring up Amber because she isn’t knowledgeable. That’s part of the problem. She’s loud, there’s a difference. She’s doubled down on this ‘solution’ and when others like Ms. Kennedy, who actually are very knowledgeable, she uses popularity to diminish what she’s saying. Instead of working with the humane society Amber has turned it into an adversarial situation. “you’re either with me or against me”. This is a problem with out society in general now. “Can I order some pancakes for breakfast?”….”you must be one of those egg hating people!!”
WORK TOGETHER! Listen to the knowledgeable people and work with them. That’s what good leaders do.
I never said the city isn’t trying to work with NAR, never said no one isn’t working together, never said no one is putting in the work.
The City and NAR have been working together for years. Unfortunately relationships have bumps in the road and often, in our isolated communities, they crumble.
Once again, I commend NAR and their work, yet there is still a serious stray problem.
But just because the city, including Amber are loud, doesn’t mean work isn’t being done.
Amber has done extremely well putting forward issues, e.g. at the Public Safety Committee Meeting.
She brought this up, and opened the floor to suggestions and ways to tackle this issue.
She is knowledgeable and courageous to want to work on this all by voicing the concern, and now providing an avenue for the city and NAR to come up with a solution. With more people with experience.
Rebuild relationships.
I shake my head at the fact people are not aware at how much effort it takes one person to voice concerns.
Keep note though. Amber brought up more than just the stray dog issue. Judging her and saying she is not knowledgeable is a very quick call to make.
I’m struggling to see how this process can be considered fair or democratic, especially given the severity of the bylaw. There was no consultation with the community, no input from residents, elders, or anyone else. Our councilors are elected to represent the people of this community, and this bylaw has significant impacts. The voices of the community should be part of the decision-making process. Decisions like this shouldn’t be made unilaterally.