Proposed animal control bylaw amendments lack clarity, compassion: Petition organizer
Iqaluit bylaw, which would allow euthanasia of seized dogs after 24 hours, tentatively set for third reading June 10
Stephanie Tawse is pictured with Stella, a dog she helped take care of in Iqaluit. Tawse is leading efforts pushing back at proposed changes to the city’s animal control bylaw, which would let municipal enforcement euthanize captured loose dogs after 24 hours. (Photo courtesy of Stephanie Tawse)
There are growing calls for Iqaluit city council to reject a proposed amendment to the domestic animal control bylaw that shortens the time period before municipal enforcement can euthanize loose animals.
Stephanie Tawse cares for rescue dogs during her work rotations in Iqaluit. She said the proposed timeline of 24 hours — down from seven days — is too short and lacks compassion.
“We do agree that the dangerous dogs do need to be taken off the street, but this is not going to fix that problem,” she said in an interview, calling the proposal “a step back.”
Tawse has set up a petition on Change.org, where it has garnered more than 800 signatures from across the country.
Iqaluit councillors unanimously voted May 13 to move the proposed amendment, which includes other changes to the bylaw, through first and second reading without debate. Councillors Harry Flaherty and Simon Nattaq did not vote because they were absent from the meeting.
The clause in question states “every animal found running at large whether properly licensed or not with the City of Iqaluit may be euthanized after a 24-hour hold period.”
The 24-hour hold period is increased to 72 hours for animals caught on weekends and holidays.
There are a number of factors about the issue that councillors may not have considered, Tawse said.
For example, an owner may be out of town on medical travel and unreachable for 24 hours. Also, kids might leave a door open and their dog runs out, and registration tags may fall off accidentally or be tampered with.
Tawse also raised concerns about new “impoundment fees” in the bylaw that start at $150 and which she said some people might not be able to afford. She also questioned what euthanasia method municipal enforcement would use.
The bylaw is “a scare tactic,” said Janelle Kennedy, president of Nunavut Animal Rescue.
“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,” she said.
Kennedy — who acknowledged concerns about dangerous loose dogs — said collaboration with the city on initiatives such as spay and neuter clinics and microchipping would be better solutions.
The current bylaw, she said, also gives the chief of municipal enforcement authority to deal with dangerous animals, including destroying them if necessary.
“The majority of dogs that are caught are actually friendly dogs because you can actually catch them,” Kennedy said.
“A lot of the dogs that are a bigger problem are the ones that actually are harder to catch, and that’s where we could help too with all of our years of experience in catching and restraining animals.”
Tawse launched her petition Tuesday after raising her concerns in an Iqaluit Facebook group Monday.
The city issued a news release Tuesday reminding residents that animal tags are free and available for pickup at the city’s operations centre at 1549 Sivumugiaq St.
Councillors Kyle Sheppard, Sam Tilley and Amber Aglukark have made Facebook posts in support of the bylaw amendments, with the latter two making reference to other communities where kids have died in dog attacks.
Their arguments echo those of city spokesperson Geoff Byrne, who said in an email to Nunatsiaq News the city “does not have the necessary infrastructure to support spay and neuter clinics” and the approved animal control budget “accounts for the temporary housing of impounded animals.”
“The city has received written submissions from a few individuals who have shared their concerns” about the bylaw amendments, he said.
Third reading of the proposed bylaw is tentatively scheduled for June 10, the next council meeting. If passed, it will become law.
What a surprise the person that wants this not to happen doesn’t even live in Iqaluit or Nunavut. But they do a work on a rotation in Iqaluit… they should write a book about what needs to be done to fix it. and who cares what 800 people (or any amount of them) in the rest of Canada think. This is an Iqaluit safety issue.
Genetic fallacy.
Stick to the point of the argument next time, if you are able.
“they should write a book about what needs to be done to fix it” this part was sarcasm since we always get people to come here for a short time a think they are experts on how we should do things.
Sometimes they do know things… the idea that since we live here we know everything better than anyone else about every issue is just bull.
Good day sir. I tip my fedora at you.
I live in Iqaluit and have for a number of years. I signed the petition and support what Stephanie Tawse said about this proposed by-law and I know many other Iqalummiut who signed the petition and do not support the by-law amendment because it is not compassionate and it is an overreaction and would be an extreme response to the issue. Dangerous dogs, sure, need to be addressed but the usual friendly loose dog should not be killed and should be returned to its human or, if abandoned, given up for adoption. The dog rescue team can help; leave aside petty personal issues to address the issue and our society.
I am curious with the current 7 day time frame, how many dogs are even killed? and how long is the normal retrieval time of loose dogs that are cared for and picked up by owners? is it usually less then 24 hours? and then any dog that is not picked up in less then 24 hr just waits the 7 days then is put down anyway?
Something needs to happen. These things don’t happen in other cities. Zero enforcement for dog tags, zero enforcement for spayed and neuter, zero penalties for bad dog owners and zero penalties for those that give out puppies on Facebook. And when someone does try and enforce rules they get called the “R word”. Something needs to happen.
No one wants to kill a dog. But sometimes that’s the only option left. Because people don’t chain up. Don’t feed. Don’t care until it’s too late. Then suddenly the dog is a victim, and the people who stepped in are the villains?
Nah.
Do your thing City of Iqaluit!
This is true, but it’s not the same issue
Do what you gotta do councilors, your job is to fix it for us. We have suffered enough. The few oddballs who are loudly protesting, do not have to put up with barking from tied up dogs when lose dogs roam by at all hours. Put the ownerless ones out of misery and the dangerous dogs out of harms way from us.
Our Hamlets and Inuit are weak? Can we even trust our Hamlets now a days?
Is the City actually planning on ‘euthanizing’ dogs, or are they just going to take them out and shoot them?
24 hours is way too short, too many possible scenarios here that could get the pet killed before the owner can find out and claim the dog, travel for one, being out of town and a house dog sitter not noticing or acting quickly enough is one, kids have taken my dogs leash and collar off more than one. How would the city know who to contact then?
Some of the councillors have had a few too many evening home meetings GNs with certain people and got all gun hole about killing dogs without really looking at all the options available to them.
This just seems premature without really looking at it in a larger context.
From 7 days to 24 hours, just ridiculous. Whose bright idea was that? This does not address the lose dogs with no owners, this actually affects the responsible dog owners instead and that is not right. 24 hours is way too short, in a perfect world there might be enough time to get your pet back but here in Iqaluit we are no where near a perfect world. Too many things can go wrong here and it comes down to a responsible pet owner getting the shaft once again, just like a home owner we always seem to get the shaft from the city. So friggen annoying.
The city of Iqaluit is already grappling with NUMEROUS serious challenges. The unchecked overpopulation of dogs only compounds these problems, posing a real hazard to both public safety and community well-being.
Simply fundraising for only a few spays and neuter procedures will NOT resolve the deeper issues- neglect, aggression, and the exponential growth of the animal population… If the practice of “EUTHANIZING” dogs is upsetting, we than must acknowledge that allowing uncontrolled breeding is apart of the cause.
With so many residents in Iqaluit owning a “pet”, even a single lapse in responsible ownership can quickly lead to more litter, further overwhelming the limited local resources. Spaying and neutering alone will not immediately solve the issue; it addresses more symptoms, not the root cause- persistent, unmanaged breeding.
The reality is that the city council cannot be expected to intervene in every case. They are doing what they can within existing constraints. The onus falls on us, the pet owners, to uphold our responsibility. When you choose to own a pet, you also accept the duty of caring for it’s property- including ensuring it does not contribute to a unsustainable population.
The current bylaw is not PUNITIVE as said by many locals, they are just PROTECTING. It exist to safeguard the broader community from the consequences of inaction. Campaigns and petitions, while well-intended, risk delaying necessary enforcementand perpetuating the VERY ISSUES we seek to RESOLVE.
In summary, this is not just a individual pets- its about the public responsibility. Solutions must be grounded in accountability and long-term planning, and NOT JUST AN EMOTIONAL REACTION!
So focusing your attention on responsible dog owners is your answer to unwanted dogs that roam free for months and years?
This does not address that issue but it does affect responsible dog owners. Try and think more broadly and actually look at other options that may be available.
You probably do not have a pet so it doesn’t seam to matter with you at all.
The City of Iqaluit is responsible for loose pets, and they need to find real solutions and not just continue to do the same thing as before but faster. The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Change, both short and long term, is only possible if they actually do something different. They should take an evidence based approach to the situation, based on best practices in other jurisdictions and actually make progress.
No one is saying that euthanasia isn’t part of the solution, but shortening the decision making window to 24h is only going to end in tragedy.
The emotional reaction is ramping up the killing of loose dogs to try and show like you’re doing something to address the issue, while taking no real steps to actually address the problem or make the city safer.
Why didn’t they just enforce the bylaws that were already in place? They seem to have rounded up more dogs in the last 24 hours than they did in the last two months.
Also, I’ve gone to the city building at least three times in the last year during normal business hours, and each time I had to leave without a dog tag. The level of indifference and lack of help was breathtaking.
This has been simmering for long enough and I just applaud the current administration for finally trying something. Didn’t realize so much love for dogs considering how the poor things just roam our streets looking for their next meal. Some have ailments we do not wish on any living thing and they deserve better. If this will prevent this cruelty and remove the dangerous dogs off our streets, so be it. If I loved something so much, I would do anything within a 24 hour period, so this bs that it should somehow be a few more hours is just more dust in the air.
I’m protesting, I live in Iqaluit and I have dogs in this city.
I’m concerned because this bylaw is heavy handed, rash and will lead to negative outcomes overall for our city.
The city has tried to ram this through with no consultation, no policy work and no forethought. It’s a knee jerk reaction to a problem they don’t want to actually take responsibility or accountability for.
Does anyone think this bylaw will actually change anything… Alot of the comments are about how dysfunctional the bylaw and city staff are… you you thing the person that is supposed to kill dogs everyday (if dogs are really picked up within minutes of being loose) will do their job every day?
A dog will probably be loose for a few days before it is even picked up by bylaw. that is when the 24 hr starts. that means the dog will have slipped out the door like 3 days before it is put down. enough time for responsible owners to contact Bylaw and let them know that their dog is loose.
The City used to have a pretty productive relationship with the local Humane Society which helped keep the problem under control.
Can someone explain what happened there that this relationship no loner appears to exist?
Can the city clarify if they bring the dog to the veterinarian to Euthanize them properly
Or
Does the city use bullets and shot the dog at the dump
This is where I don’t agree only because the dog must be scared or and how shots does it take
I am only asking this because I think if they brought it to the veterinary it can be done right
Not dodging bullets how accurate of a shot is the shooter to make sure the dog is not suffering and put down humanly
So, in your opinion, the proposed by-law is a rational decision? I don’t think so. The proposed by-law is basically saying “aah!.. too many dogs! Some people are complaining, what are we going to do? Kill all the loose ones! That will solve all our dog problems!” THAT is an emotional reaction. You need a multi-prong strategy and the tools are there to implement it. You can kill dangerous dogs, you can call owners of loose dogs, you can give dogs to yhe Humane Society (they work very hard to find fosters), you can enforce the dog tag rules and fine people whose dogs are loose, you can educate people about caring for dogs and dog tags, you could work with the dog rescue society to encourage spaying/neutering. This is what you could do. Instead you decide to simply kill any loose dogs… So who is taking an irrational approach? The councillors who proposed this by-law.
I agree that 24 hours is a stupidly short period of time to retain an animal before euthanizing it. However I think we have to discuss the reasons why we are in this situation in the first place.
– Too many Iqalummiut simply do not properly care for the animals in their care and through deliberate neglect and abuse their animals become feral and dangerous. Dogs are not meant to be chained in front of residences 24 hours a day 365 days a year … it is cruel and inhumane.
– There are too many stray dogs in town, it seems like people here are infatuated with the idea of having a puppy and then abandon them after they become adult dogs with behaviour issues.
– We have a mayor and council, who for whatever reason, seem bound and determined not to work cooperatively with the only organization in town that is trying to do something about the problem.