Iqalummiut fill city hall to oppose changes to animal control bylaw
Amendments allowing euthanasia of seized dogs after 24 hours pass 3rd reading at council meeting
Iqaluit residents gather at city hall Tuesday to show their opposition to changes to the city’s animal control bylaw. (Photo by Arty Sarkisian)
Updated June 11 at 5:10 p.m. ET
Iqaluit Mayor Solomon Awa says he has never seen council chambers so full as it was during Tuesday night’s meeting where councillors voted on controversial amendments to the city’s animal control bylaw.
“I’m here not only to get more information, but obviously to speak out on behalf of those that can’t speak for themselves,” said Christopher Gerlach, owner of a German shepherd.
Gerlach was one of more than 50 residents who showed up to voice their opinion on changes to the city’s animal control bylaw, which shortens the hold period for impounded animals from seven days to 24 hours before they can be euthanized.
Those who did show up were not given a chance to address council. Despite the turnout, councillors unanimously approved the bylaw amendments through third reading without debate.
According to the amendments, city staff will make a “reasonable attempt to contact the owner” of an animal caught with a city-issued tag within that 24-hour period. But the city may refuse to return an animal that has been caught more than twice.
A captured animal that is not wearing a city licence tag may be euthanized at any time.
Euthanasia is the “very last option” whether an animal is licensed or not, Awa said.
Iqaluit residents read the city council meeting agenda Tuesday at city hall while waiting for the third reading of amendments to the city’s animal control bylaw. (Photo by Arty Sarkisian)
An animal can be put up for adoption or sent south, depending on the “condition” of the dog, which is determined by the city staff, he said.
“If it’s sick, you decide. If it’s dangerous, you decide,” Awa said.
Gerlach said the city’s decision was “emotional” rather than “scientific.”
“I wanted to see if there were any statistics of the increase in dog attacks or bylaw calls about violent animals,” he said, adding the stricter rule will make the community less likely to call bylaw staff on a dog.
“If they’re going to shoot it in 24 hours, I’m not going to call bylaw unless I see a dog actively attacking someone.”
Awa said the amendments were prompted by numerous calls to the city about dogs running loose and instances of residents being attacked by loose dogs, although he doesn’t have specific numbers.
“I don’t have a number. I have experience,” Awa said.
People spoke out against the proposed amendments after the bylaw passed first and second readings earlier this spring. One of those who spoke out, Stephanie Tawse, started an online petition that has been signed by approximately 1,860 people from around the world.
“It was all pushed through with no way for the public to have any input, even though it affects the public,” she said after the meeting.
The amendments also added some new fines, including “daily care and sustenance fee” of $30, along with a dog impoundment fee of $150 after the first offence, $250 for the second, $300 for the third and $350 for the fourth.
Note: This story was updated to correct the number of signatures on Stephanie Tawse’s petition
Although it is true that by 3rd reading the public does not have a chance to comment. it seems shady that the city council did not make any announcement on the new bylaw update at all before the first reading was even made. Council has made it clear that they knew there would be opposition to this move and did not want to deal with the back lash in a meaningful way. There was no public consultation, and certainly not a desire for one. Guess we will have to speak against this council at the next election.
Yes, shady democracy. And conveniently the livestream was having difficulties and I believe the time changed to 15 minutes earlier? I have never heard of the 1st and 2nd reading. It was all about June 10 and the 3rd reading. Sketchy for sure. I see bylaw doing a great job with catching loose dogs but I have seen mostly puppies and ankle biters. The city had a PSA on FB about a dog attack complaint. Is that dog taken from the owner?
“…started an online petition that has been signed by approximately 490 people from around the world.” tsk, tsk, tsk couldn’t be bothered to do the petition in person in Iqaluit.
The petition was open to anyone and posted on Iqaluit Facebook groups.
“Petition around the world”??? really!!! this doesn’t even effect or are experiencing the situation here in Iqaluit.
And it’s just puppies and ankle biters that are being taken. There was so many in the several years that have caused stress on people trying to keep the poor dogs (adult dogs) from freezing in the cold winters. there are some dogs that do end up leaving their homes and having to look for food, because they are not being fed at home!
My , 10 yr old , got a female puppy from her cousin . I had , her bring , it back , enough puppy mill in town.
When asked about numbers as far as calls to bylaw about loose dogs and animal attacks, the Mayor replied “I don’t have a number. I have experience.”
What does that mean? What is that experience? This Lis not some sort of family meeting where the dad can tell everyone to do what he says because he says so and no explanation is needed. There should be some sort of records, no? I get that he may not have the answers on the spot (though he really should have anticipated those questions), but he should be able to get them.
he was bitten thats what is his experience.
Exactly why Bylaws should be passed on data. Not emotions.
‘Experience’ is a way of saying ‘I know things’ and yes, you are expected to bow in reverence.
Religious folks use this cheap parlor trick all the time.
Let me guess, majority of those in opposition to the euthanasia sit in the comfort of their vehicles unlike those who must walk amongst the animals. This is about safety and comfort for the pedestrians and children from aggressive dogs, potential rabies, and, costs and man power. Good on the City council to proceed.
Agreed except I need to point out the irony that 99% of these loose dogs are as a direct result of irresponsible adults who get cute puppies for their kids with zero understanding of the responsibilities involved on being a pet owner.
I am all for this bylaw.
And the people who get a puppy for their kid with no intention of having a adult dog should put it down them selves atleast (though they really should just not get the puppy to begin with). but it is easier to tell your kid the bylaw killed there dog instead and all they need to do for that to happen is let it out of the house when it starts to get big and hope the problem goes away.
That’s great for the relationship between the Iqaluit children and authorities. Easy way out, can say that it was done without consent and blame authorities, a lifetime of trauma and mistrust for the kids.
Anyways at this point if people want that for their community, they’ve got it. I think that it will be more suffering, more aggressivity, more issues, but the “silent majority” seems to desire this.
All I want is for the hold time to be 48 hours to ensure mistakes have time to be corrected. You will still get the killed dogs you want, it will just take an extra day and give people who disagree a bit of peace of mind.
I am not for the killing of dogs I am for the safe streets and no loose dogs running around. I would rather have responsible dog owners. Also I agree that parents shouldnt set up that trauma and distrust in govnt over something like that… they will learn that later in life on their own.
It’s disappointing to see yet another one-sided take. Maybe next time, include voices from the public gallery who actually supported what Council approved. That’s part of balanced reporting too, right?
Instead, we get more of the same — headlines and narratives tailored for clicks, not substance. A little more effort in explaining how public engagement actually works would go a long way. For instance, the public’s main opportunity to weigh in is during second reading of a bylaw — that’s the key point for real discussion between residents and Council. But readers wouldn’t know that from this coverage.
If we want real accountability, let’s start with responsible journalism. Not just the low-effort, TMZ-style summaries.
“Maybe next time, include voices from the public gallery who actually supported what Council approved.”
There were none present to speak to the press.
these people in council were never voted in, Sue the City administrators, Sue Elections who make this happen
yes, it is great that the council decided to kill any loose dogs within the community boundaries. The protesters who showed up, are they just waiting for a young child or an elderly person be mauled to death. Don’t forget, you are not living in southern canada any more. If you want to protect your dog or pet, leash them, chain them or place them inside a chain linked fence. Stop WHINING!!!
We just want people to have extra time to pick their dog up. That’s all. By-law can still pick up all the dogs, they just stay impounded a little longer before being killed. It changes nothing for the community’s security.
Hello Iqaluit residents, just because a dog barks at you, that doesn’t mean it is attacking you. I have walked around the city for years and never been attacked by a dog. Some dogs bark at you but that’s not an attack. This whole issue is ridiculous, killing a dog because of bad owners is just wrong, charge the owner somehow. It’s not the dogs fault the owner doesn’t look after it.
ASPCA Iqaluit branch was in full attendance to watch.
I walk around the community plenty living here the last year and a half. Never been attacked by a dog. My direct experience is that people don’t train their dogs, someone has a bad experience once because of said untrained dog usually in a controlled setting, and the cycle continues. All this would be curbed by proper pet maintenance in all respects.
490 online signatures from around the world carries no weight in our local politics.
However, 50+ residents physically attending a council meeting is huge.
I’m disappointed that not one councillor proposed hearing from the public. Any councillor could have moved to add a short block for public representations to this agenda. Setting aside a few minutes to hear from a large group of petitioners is so far below the minimum standard for consultation it is disheartening.
Regardless of where one stands on a charged issue, we should be concerned by council actively ignoring public input.
Thank you Mayor and Council for this decisive action. Hope the owners will now take your cue and take more responsibility for their dogs.
If the City had put any effort over the past few years into enforcing the previous bylaw and working with Iqaluit Animal Rescue, to deal with loose dogs, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Few people oppose collecting loose dogs and protecting the public from them. The objection is to the crazy over-reaction that now allows any dogs to be killed within 24 hours and those without collars to be killed immediately.
You see all these people opposing it arent from here… nor have they lived here for a long time.. dont know what its like to lose friends as kids due to dogs mauling humans, i myself have been attacked more than once, and everyone around me has been. if you take care of your dog and its missing for more then a few minutes or hour you will go look for it, if not you arent responsible. i bet you 90% of these people opposing drive everywhere and dont have to worry about being attacked or mauled by dogs, this is very dangerous for children playing outside… some of these dogs can carry rabies which is always fatal and can cause an outbreak. i agree with city counsel 100%, good job on this and putting your foot down.
Next time I get asked by my employer to verify or plan any financial information, I’m just going to wing it and say ‘I don’t have the numbers. I have experience.’
There are more commenters in support of dogs than in support of people for way more important issues
WTH? more people show up for animals rather then human issues. What world r we moving towards. I bet 90% of the people there, go jump in thier cars and drive by these animals. Try going for a nice walk around Iqaluit, and maybe put the blame on the folks not getting thier animals fixed. Those comments are sick, imaging, thinking a animals live is more important then a humans. What a sick world we are moving towards.
It is unconscionable, reprehensible & barbaric to kill dogs & cats who have no homes or have become lost. These animals can be rescued, trained & adopted into loving homes in other parts of the country if needed. Shame on the Mayor & City Counsel for this heartless decision & it needs to be reversed. We adopted a dog from the NWT & our dog not only provided unconditional love, it also saved my life when I had a severe allergic reaction. Gandhi stated that the advancement of a civilization is based on the way in which it treats its animals & the more helpless the animal, the more it needs protection. Persons who made sickening decision have failed to serve their community & lack compassion & a moral compass. There needs to be animal rights legislation & animal rescue groups need to be involved.
Kill the dogs, if anyone wants the loose dogs take care of them, keek them on a lease.
How many more children’s need to be mauled or even killed from a dangerous before people realize that there are some loose dogs that are very aggressive, please speak out.
How many have while just walking almost have been bitten?
Keep the dogs in a cage or safely inside the house and safe, small price to pay for the safety of our children’s.