No rush to vote on bylaw to kill loose dogs after 24-hour hold
Final vote expected at next council meeting, scheduled for June 10
A pack of loose dogs roams Iqaluit. City councillors are expected to consider an amendment to the animal control bylaw that will allow municipal enforcement officers to euthanize loose animals 24 hours after being caught. (File photo by Jeff Pelletier)
Killing loose dogs may be a “measure of last resort” for the City of Iqaluit, but giving them a 24-hour death sentence shouldn’t be the first option in addressing the ongoing issue.
City councillors are expected to give a third-reading vote on June 10 to amend the animal control bylaw, reducing the holding period to 24 hours from seven days for any loose animal that’s caught.
That vote is the last step in passing a bylaw. Third reading is often a formality in municipal politics because councillors have already expressed their will at a previous meeting.
Councillors voted May 13 in favour of the change at first- and second-reading.
The proposal came out of the blue. There wasn’t much public discussion among council members. There wasn’t much explanation from city staff about the reasons for the change. And there didn’t appear to be any public consultation with Iqalummiut.
Dogs hold a special cultural significance in the North, but they pose risks to people, themselves and other dogs when they run loose.
Considering how contentious the issue is, there should have been more explanation out of city hall about why a change is needed.
Other than Deputy Mayor Kim Smith saying, “it’s no secret that we have a dog problem,” there wasn’t much discussion when councillors considered the proposal on May 13.
There was no hew and cry, either, to make changes when the city’s public safety committee discussed the issue at an April meeting. In fact, the main comment seemed to have come from Smith, who suggested it was time for the city to review its bylaw. A review!
Five weeks later, the proposal to change the animal control bylaw appeared on a council meeting agenda.
You’d think responsible pet owners would know within hours if their dog got loose or wandered away.
But it’s easy to imagine how life might prevent someone from reclaiming their pet within 24 hours of its escape — a medical emergency, business or family-related travel, or shift work.
After a backlash, in the form of an online petition calling on council to “halt and reconsider” the proposed amendment, the city issued a public service announcement with some more information about animal control in Iqaluit.
Euthanasia of animals is a “measure of last resort,” that May 22 announcement said. The city issued it to provide “transparency and context” about the proposed amendment … nine days after councillors had already voted for it.
At that point, the city had captured 47 animals in 2025, the announcement said. That’s an average of a little more than 2.2 a week. It had euthanized 15 — or nearly one-third — or about one every three weeks on average. The good news: one-third of captured dogs are returned to their owners.
Are those numbers high? Low? Are they manageable for the city? Lost in the hasty approach to the bylaw amendment has been any discussion of whether the city can manage or afford the dogs it has to hold onto now, under the existing seven-day hold period.
There hasn’t been much explanation from the city about why changing the hold period to 24 hours is better. There’s no rush. Loose dogs have been a longstanding issue in Iqaluit.
There’s no harm in deferring the final vote on the animal control bylaw amendment.
Spoken just like a true southerner who only visits Iqaluit and judges others during their brief visit
TMZ of the north strikes again, WTG Corey lol
Stories = click bait = ad revenue
Corey, Defender of Dogs (Except When It’s Convenient)
If a child were bitten, you would be penning an outraged sermon about the city’s failures faster than a malamute in a snowstorm.
But today? The pups are just misunderstood angels—leave them be!
Apparently, accountability only applies when there’s a dramatic headline in it.
Priorities, right?
Ad a pet owner, I agree
With this. 24h is more than enough time to reach out to the city that your pet is missing.
What about the person expected to kill all these dogs/pets? Is there mental health services for them?
Iqaluit loose dog problem won’t be a problem with 6 months to a year. I shouldn’t be afraid to walk in Iqaluit
The dog problem in each and EVERY community of Nunavut really makes you wonder what the RCMP were seeing back in the 50’s and 60’s
Good stuff. Do the 3rd reading in front of all the PETA that will show up tonight. our streets will be safer and in a month no one will give a crap all the stink they put up.
My guess is that the reduction to a 24-hour holding period is driven by budget constraints—likely because the city is demolishing the building that previously housed the dogs and doesn’t want to invest in a replacement.
Otherwise, what justifies such a drastic change? In recent weeks, there’s been a noticeable increase in how quickly dogs are being picked up. If that pace was possible all along, why wasn’t it the standard before?
What’s even more alarming is the new policy allowing the immediate killing of untagged dogs—without any attempt to locate their owners. That’s unacceptable. If my dog were to get out by accident and something happened to her due to a city oversight, I would become the biggest storm this city has ever seen.