June 19, 1998

 To:Board of Health

 From:Dr. Sheela V. Basrur

Medical Officer of Health

 Subject:Municipal Animal Care and Control Legislation

 Purpose:

 This report outlines policy directions for harmonized animal care and control legislation for the City of Toronto. Public input on these policy directions will inform the drafting of legislation for consideration by the Board of Health and City Council.

 Source of Funds:

 The funds to deliver the current programs provided by Toronto Animal Services were approved by City Council at its meeting of April 29, 1998. It is anticipated that this report will have no impact on funding.

 Recommendation:

 It is recommended that the Medical Officer of Health and the City Solicitor report to the Board of Health with draft animal care and control legislation based on this report and input received from the community.

 Background:

 As we move forward in making Toronto truly one City, an opportunity to bring new vision to animal care and control legislation has arisen. Being mindful of the valuable role animals play in the lives of Toronto=s citizens, this legislation must be effective and meet the needs of both the pet owning and non pet owning segments of our community.

 The value of pets to our community can be seen in the health benefits, companionship and social interaction pet owners receive, and in the significant role which pet ownership plays in our economy. Industry data estimates that impact in Toronto to be in excess of 200 million dollars annually.

The vast majority of pets in our community are dogs and cats. We have shared our homes, food and companionship with dogs for tens of thousands of years. In mankind=s history, dogs have served us as guarders, herders and hunters; in the past several hundred years this has evolved into primarily a companion relationship. Cats became domesticated relatively recently, playing an important role in Egyptian culture beginning about three thousand years ago. Over the centuries the cat=s role in society has been primarily to control rodent populations. Only in the past few decades has this role in our lives become less utilitarian.

 "Animal Services in the New Toronto," a business plan prepared by Toronto Animal Services staff, speaks to the history of animal care and control. It appears that the Township of York was the first municipality in the Toronto area to pass an animal control bylaw in 1850. In fact, after passing a procedural bylaw, the animal control bylaw was the second piece of legislation enacted by the township. The first provincial animal control legislation in Ontario was enacted in 1865; "An Act to impose a tax on dogs to provide for better protection of sheep in Upper Canada" mandated the licensing of dogs. The licence fees collected were used to compensate farmers for sheep losses from marauding dogs.

 Current animal care and control bylaws work with community education and direct service programs to further the goals of municipal animal control. These include the prevention of human health problems associated with animals such as bites and the transmission of disease, the humane care of pets, and the control of pet overpopulation. Most importantly, animal care and control bylaws help to define and reinforce responsible pet ownership, a key goal of all animal service programs.

 The previous six municipal animal service agencies have collaborated regularly over the past decade to develop common approaches to problem solving and service delivery. However, the bylaws enacted by the former municipal councils were quite unique. Currently there are ten by-laws that regulate animal care, control and ownership within the new Toronto. This report outlines the policy content of proposed unified legislation to replace these existing bylaws.

 The proposed legislative provisions are guided by the Toronto Animal Services Mission Statement "To promote and support a harmonious environment where humans and animals can co-exist free from conditions that adversely affect their health and safety". They are largely based on the current local bylaws, incorporating those aspects which have proven effective, and harmonizing regulatory requirements where differences exist. The content of each major section of the proposed legislation is outlined below. Draft legislation in appropriate legal language will be prepared for the Board of Health and City Council by the City Solicitor and Medical Officer of Health based on this report and public input received.

 Prohibited and Regulated Species

 Each of the former municipalities has legislation prohibiting or regulating the keeping of some animal species within the City. Three main criteria are proposed in determining if a species should be addressed by this section of the bylaw. These criteria are:

 (a)Whether the species may pose a significant public health and safety concerns. Many of the prohibited species bylaws were passed by the former Councils in response to complaints of persons keeping lions or other inappropriate animals as pets. Although not common place, these incidents were a significant health and safety concern.

 (b) Whether the general public has sufficient knowledge and resources to provide adequate and humane care for a species. For example, some people have purchased pot bellied pigs in the belief that they would remain small and make a wonderful pet, only to find that they did not have the resources required to handle the animal when it had reached maturity.

 (c)Whether the removal of individuals of a species from its natural environment would pose a significant threat to its ability to maintain a viable population . For example, black footed ferrets were captured in such numbers that extensive conservation and reintroduction efforts are required to maintain their limited population in the wild. The Toronto Zoo is an active participant in a breeding program to address this issue.

 The current bylaws will act as a guide in the creation of a list of prohibited species. In addition a number of new species previously not identified will be considered for inclusion on the list.

For instance, livestock which had previously been widely permitted are proposed to be restricted to areas zoned as agricultural. Specific sites, such as the Toronto Zoo, the Riverdale Farm, and certain wildlife facilities are prepared to be exempted from this section of the bylaw.

 Care of Animals

 The pets in our community not only provide us with companionship and affection, but place on us a responsibility to provide them with humane care and the necessities of life. To that end, many of the former municipalities incorporated care provisions within their bylaws. These aspects of the bylaws have worked very well in the past and compliment the animal welfare efforts of local humane societies. It is proposed that care conditions be part of the new legislation, including the provision of adequate food, water, attention, length of tether, sanitary shelter and veterinary care.

 Licensing and Identification

 Licensing and identification of pets are centrally important provisions of animal care and control legislation which support many of the goals of municipal animal services. Key aspects of this section of the proposed bylaw are outlined below.

Dog Licensing and Cat Registration

 The most caring and responsible pet owner may lose their pet. Everything from thunderstorms to a gate accidentally left open can result in hours of risk to the pet and apprehension on the part of owners. Most municipalities require that dogs be licensed and cats identified. Approximately 60% of all lost dogs in Toronto are returned to their owners; unfortunately less that 7% of cats are reunited. This is a direct result of the failure by cat owners to properly identify their pets. Cats have become the major draw on Animal Services resources with twice as many cats as dogs being handled.

 Most of the former municipalities had requirements that cats have identification attached, but did not require registration with the municipality as for dogs. Inequities between dog and cat owners in licensing requirements and the burden of funding animal services through fees needs to be addressed. The former municipality of North York required the annual registration of cats and this policy is proposed for the new Toronto. It is also proposed that dogs and cats be treated equally in regard to fees and licensing requirements

 Many of the former municipalities had free dog identification programs - some were free for senior citizens, others for dogs that had been permanently identified by implantation of a microchip. To ensure a fairness during the transition to the new legislation, citizens who received free dog licenses under previous bylaws will be grand fathered. With the introduction of compulsory cat registration, it is recommended that a grace period be provided to offer cat owners the opportunity to opt into current lifetime cat registration programs.

 "Free Ride Home"

 In implementing the Licensing and Registration provisions of the legislation, Toronto Animal Services proposes to continue to provide the "Free Ride Home Program". This program enables Animal Services Officers the opportunity to reunite a properly licensed or registered pet directly with their owner without the need for impoundment, and creates a conducive educational environment. This program is closely monitored to ensure that it serves to reward the responsible owner whose pet has become lost. Pet owners who do not licence or register their pets and whose animals are repeatedly at large will be required to redeem their pets from impoundment as outlined in other sections of the bylaw.

 Rabies Vaccination

 Rabies vaccination of dogs and cats has been a requirement in all of the former municipalities for a number of years. This Public Health legislation was implemented to ensure a vaccinated companion animal population which would not be a threat to animal or human health. Through the use of a state of the art information system, vaccination for rabies can be directly linked to pet licensing and registration information. Therefore, pet owners will be required to demonstrate that their pets have been vaccinated during the licensing process. This information is a valuable resource for Public Health when conducting rabies exposure investigations.

 Guard Dogs

 Some organizations utilize trained guard dogs as a major component of their security system. These dogs may pose a threat to public safety if they escape their confines. It is essential for Animal Services staff and emergency service providers to be able to distinguish these dogs quickly and respond accordingly. It is therefore proposed that a special licence be required for these dogs and that a highly visible identification tag be affixed to the dog.

 Personal Assistance Dogs

 Personal assistance dogs such as Guide Dogs for the Blind, Hearing Ear Dogs and Special Services Dogs contribute significantly to the quality of life for an important segment of our society. It is therefore appropriate that no fee be levied for the licensing of these dogs.

 Spay/Neuter Incentives

 Perhaps the most important aspect of licensing and registration provisions is fee incentives for spaying or neutering pets. Pet overpopulation not only results in many pets being born for which there are not enough caring homes, but also places a great demand on municipal animal services. Incentive programs to have pets adopted from Animal Centres spayed and neutered will be expanded. Additionally, city-operated spay/ neuter clinics will be open to all pet owners in Toronto. Reduced fees are proposed for licencing spayed or neutered pets as an encouragement to have these simple and relatively inexpensive procedures performed.

 Senior Appreciation

 Pets play a particularly meaningful role in the lives of many senior members of the community. In an effort to support pet ownership by this segment of society, where the senior has met with the other responsible pet ownership aspects of licensing, significant reductions in the fees for licensing are being proposed.

 Fees

 The proposed licensing fee structure is intended to encourage and reward responsible ownership. Those pet owners who have their pet sterilized and/or permanently identified by microchip after paying the higher annual fee will be entitled to a refund for the difference in fees for that year. The fee for an unsterilized pet which has not been permanently identified is increased over that in place in the former municipalities. This rationalised fee structure is based on an increase in cost for those pet owners whose pets most often utilize animal services, and an incentive for pets owners who are responsible.

The following table indicates the proposed fee structures:

 Keeping of Permitted Animals

 The City of Toronto is a highly urbanized community which in many areas has a significant population density. All members of the community must be able to enjoy all that our wonderful city has to offer. Pets should contribute to this quality of life, rather than detract from it. This places many responsibilities on the pet owners.

 Historically, the control of animals was the sole focus of municipal animal services. Current programs encompass many aspects of pet care, education, and promoting the value of the human-animal bond. However, a cornerstone of our service remains the responsibility to deal with uncontrolled animals which have a negative impact on community enjoyment, health and safety.

The following provisions of the proposed legislation allow animal services to perform this key function.

 Number of Animals Permitted per Dwelling Unit

 Frequently, animal services receive complaints related to people who have let their pet population grow beyond a manageable limit for a highly urbanized area. It is appreciated that this most occurs due to a deep affection for animals. However, a large number of animals at any one home can have a negative impact on the neighbourhood. The current bylaws each prescribe some limits on the number of pets which can be kept at a dwelling unit. In harmonizing these provisions for the new City, it is proposed that any combination of dogs, cats, ferrets and rabbits be permitted to total of six pets, with no more than three being dogs. It is further proposed that a grandfathering mechanism be created to address those instances where the number of pets are in compliance with existing bylaws.

The following table indicates the allowable number of pets under the former municipal animal care and control bylaws.

 When kept as pets, pigeons can and do create a significant hardship for immediate neighbours. In order to allow animal services to deal with this problem when it occurs, it is proposed that any owner of pigeons not permit them to stray or perch, roost or nest except on the owner's property.

 Leashing

 The most effective animal control tool is a leash in the hand of a responsible person. To this end, a dog leashing component is essential to the effectiveness of this by-law. The provision which follows would be consistent with those which exist within the animal care and control by-laws of the former municipalities; "While a dog is being walked on property other than that of the owner, a leash of not more than 2 metres would be required".

 Dogs Running at Large

The current municipal bylaws addressed the issue of dogs running at large in much the same way. Owners are not permitted to allow a dog to run at large within the City except on the owner's property or in places designated by the City as "off leash areas". This component would remain unchanged in the proposed legislation. Further, set fines would be established for Provincial Offences Notices issued under the bylaw. These fines would be set at a monetary value which would discourage repeat offences.

 Off Leash Areas

 "Off Leash Areas" were established in public parks in the former municipalities of Etobicoke and Toronto. This use of park space has been at times a subject of friction within local communities. Anticipating that such use of park space could be broadened to all of Toronto, it is necessary that an extensive review of all facets of the issue be conducted. A separate report which addresses this complex issue of "off leash areas" will be brought forward later jointly by the Medical Officer of Health and Parks and Recreation.

 Cat and other Animal Trespassing

 Problems associated with nuisances caused by cats at large have increased significantly over the past decade, and unlike dogs is not effectively addressed by leashing provisions. Additionally, permitting cats to roam exposes them to many dangers such as rabies, exposure to diseases from other cats and injuries from motor vehicles. In an effort to address what has become a significant problem in animal control, it is proposed that a segment of the bylaw prohibit trespassing of cats and other pets other than dogs on private property. This approach is modelled on a provision of the current North York bylaw and would afford a property owner and animal services an avenue to address complaints and concerns regarding unwanted pets on private property. In tandem with the registration provisions, animal services would be better able to reunite lost cats with their owners and provide effective, one on one responsible pet ownership education.

 Impoundment of Animals

 Unfortunately, not all dogs and cats picked up by animal services will be wearing a licence or registration tag, or their owners will not be home to accept responsibility for the pet and impoundment will be required. The former municipalities currently charge fees for the redemption of impounded pets in order to recover some costs and deter repeat offenders.

 It is proposed that the harmonized legislation provide for the charging of per diem fees for redemption of impounded animals. The per diem boarding fees have been formulated to reflect costs to the City. To ensure that all pet owners have a reasonable period of time to redeem their pets, all animals will be held for a period of five full working days. This would not include the day that the pet is impounded nor any days that the facility is closed to the public.

 The following table indicates the proposed impoundment fees:

 It is important to note that the responsible pet owner would be able to avoid costs in most cases by appropriately identifying their pets.

 Since animal services is often required to assist impounded pets which are injured or ill, the cost of veterinary and related services associated with these incidents would be charged to the pet owner at the time of redemption.

 Stoop and Scoop

Appropriate removal and disposal of dog excrement is necessary in order to maintain public enjoyment of property and prevent disease transmission. Although this issue has been at the forefront of animal control initiatives for many years, voluntary compliance is still difficult to achieve. A number of the bylaws of former municipalities required that dog owners clean up after their pet on public property, while others required the owner to do so on their own property as well. Requiring that the owner=s property be maintained in a sanitary condition has been an effective tool in addressing neighbourhood concerns in those municipalities where it has been in place. It is proposed that the new animal care and control bylaw require dog owners to stoop and scoop on both public and private property.

 Protective Care

 Events such as automobile accidents, evictions and incarceration can result in the pet=s owner temporarily being unable to provide care for the pet. In an effort to address these emergency situations, animal care and control legislation will provide a mechanism for these pets to be housed at a municipal shelter for a period of five days, to provide the owner an opportunity to arrange alternative care. In the event that the owner does not collect the pet within that time, the pet would be treated as a stray according to the bylaw. Toronto Animal Services will work in cooperation with humane societies and other organizations to provide assistance in these cases. The pet=s owner would be responsible for all expenses and daily boarding fees related to the pet=s care during impoundment.

 Regulation of Biting Dogs

 The effective control of dogs which bite is necessary to prevent direct trauma and the transmission of communicable disease, such as rabies. Many of the former municipalities had components of their bylaws which provided more effective control of dogs which had bitten. It is essential that an effective regulation to address this important issue be incorporated into the new bylaw.

 The proposed legislation would require that following the first bite to a human or domestic animal that occurs on the owner=s property, a caution would be issued advising the owner of our concern with the dog's behaviour and suggesting remedial action. If a dog bites a second time on the owner=s property or if the first bite to a human or domestic animal occurs on public property, a notice will be issued for effective control. This control would not only require that the dog wear a muzzle when off the owner's property, but require the effective restraint of the pet while at home as well.

Under the municipal act (Section 210, paragraph 10), a citizen whose dog is subject to a muzzling order is entitled to a hearing by City Council, a Committee of Council, or a civic official delegated by Council. It is proposed that the bylaw delegate the authority to hear such appeals to the Medical Officer of Health, or designate. This approach has been used successfully in the former City of Toronto, where the chief animal services official hears appeals.

 Media attention often identifies certain breeds of dog as a particular public threat and calls are made for the banning of a specific breed. During the past few decades a number of breeds have fallen into such temporary disrepute. No breed specific provisions are recommended for inclusion in the proposed animal care and control legislation. Dogs are primarily a product of their environment, socialization and training, and all are capable of biting. The apparent rate of bites by a particular breed may depend on many factors, such as the number of dogs of that breed in the City, their degree of contact with people (dogs typically owned by families may have more contact with children and adults than those owned by elderly shut-ins) and the way the breed is viewed and socialized by owners. Those who wish to have a dog which projects a "macho" image, will simply select a breed which is not addressed by legislation. Toronto Animal Services will continue to monitor the many factors that are identified during dog bite investigations, and incorporate the most recent information in education programs for the community.

 Conclusions:

 This report outlines the policy direction and provisions proposed for harmonized animal care and control legislation for the amalgamated Toronto. It is based on a review of existing bylaws which deal with animal related issues, and the experience and knowledge of Toronto Animal Services staff.

 Most of the proposed provisions such as prohibited species, care of animals, muzzling of biting dogs, licensing of dogs and the treatment of dogs at large are an extension of existing bylaws. Several initiatives which have not been in place in most parts of the new City are proposed. For example, cat registration and animal trespass are essential measures to effectively address an increasing number of nuisance complaints. More effective stoop and scoop provisions will help address local neighbourhood problems. In order to prevent undue dislocation for pet owners during the transition from existing bylaws, grand fathering is proposed for several provisions. .

Animal care and control legislation is an essential tool, along with public education and other animal programs, to achieve the goals of animal services in a large urban area. The enactment of a unified animal care and control bylaw is a necessary and important step in the harmonization of animal services in Toronto.

Contact Name:

 Dr. D. McKeown, Toronto Office

Tel:392-7405

Fax:392-0713

Dr. Sheela V. Basrur

Medical Officer of Health