Claresholm town council updates dog bylaw

By Rob Vogt Local Press Writer
An incident last year involving a dog biting a human where the dog was deemed aggressive, has led Claresholm town council to make changes to better deal with aggressive dogs.
At its March 14 meeting, council
approved the final two readings of an updated dog bylaw.
Abe Tinney, the town’s chief administrative officer, explained what was
being proposed was that after a dog has been deemed aggressive, it has to be registered with a microchip implanted containing information about that designation.
The owner also has to provide proof to the Town of Claresholm of liability insurance of $500,000 to cover if the dog attacks someone else. The insurer has to inform the town if the policy expires as well.
Ownership of the dog cannot be transferred before the aggressive dog is registered with the municipality, and the dog must be licensed through the town.
If the dog’s ownership is transferred, the Town of Claresholm has to be notified of the new owner and where they live, including if it is in a different municipality.
Coun. Kandice Meister said she had some concerns over these changes brought forward to her about enforcement, mostly with the microchip and that it does not hold the information.
She suggested more information sharing as well as higher fines than proposed.
Meister also asked how the microchip will be enforced and what happens if the owner does not get insurance.
“It’s mostly an enforcement issue that was brought to me,” Meister said.
She also wanted to discuss the changes with the Claresholm Animal Rescue Society and there may be a different way than the proposed changes.
The intent, she added, is to hold dog owners accountable and some think some steps are being missed along the way.
Tinney said in terms of monitoring the microchip, adminstration reached out to the veterinarians who said the information could be implanted in a chip in a dog just to say it’s been deemed aggressive. Although he said they may know more at the animal shelter, and he may have to defer to them.
He added the information could be placed in the microchip and scanned by the veterinarians as well as at the shelter.
Meister said she was told that information was not held in the microchip and a better way to track animals is an ear tattoo because any veterinarian can look that up. The information is also not automatically transferred if the owner gets rid of the dog.
Tinney said the information stored on the microchip can be accessed by the veterinarian on their computer.
The owner is supposed to provide contact information to the town when transferring ownership.
“That’s what we’ve requested,” Tinney said.
At the end of the day, he continued, the town has provisions and fines in place. There is no guarantee people will have regard for the bylaw.
“We run those risks with any bylaw we have,” he said.
Tinney also offered to refer the bylaw to the animal rescue society if council wished, especially if there are questions he cannot address.
He noted administration looked at what other municipalities do; reached out to the veterinarians; and if there is other information he will follow up.
Mayor Chelsae Petrovic asked what is the difference between a tattoo and chip?
Meister responded there is none, adding there needs to be more information sharing between the veterinarians, animal shelter, town and even the RCMP.
Coun. Kieth Carlson said the matter goes back to the veterinarian who put in the chip. Even if the animal is given away, if there is a problem with the animal, the town can go back to the veterinarian who can scan the chip and trace it back.
He pointed out if the town becomes aware of issues, it has a responsibility to ensure it is addressed as best as possible from an accountability perspective.
The town can’t guarantee an owner will follow best practices but the town has to put in as many fail safes to hold itself to account.
Carlson added if an animal goes away, all the town has is the honesty of the owner with a chip there to scan and trace back.
Meister said the concern is the town can deem a dog aggressive but the information may not be shared with veterinarians or the shelter.
Coun. Mike Cutler said the information would be shared when the chip is put in.
“This is a step in the right direction,” Petrovic said.
Meister said more consultation with the veterinarians and the animal rescue society is needed.
Regarding what, Cutler asked. Administration already talked to the veterinarians, so what more does the town need to know?
Carlson said the changes put the onus on the owner who becomes accountable because it is up to them to have the chip implanted in the dog.
He added this is one more layer of protection for the municipality. It is not fool proof, but it shows the town has done its part if the animal leaves the community and that the town has taken this issue seriously.
Council then approved the changes to the dog bylaw with everyone in favour of both readings of the bylaw except Meister and Coun. Brad Schlossberger who voted against both readings.