Despite Cindy Andrew and her dog receiving multiple injuries, the attacking animal did not meet the ‘dangerous dog' criteria
A new animal control bylaw could offer more clarity about the definition of “dangerous” for future “dog bite” investigations carried out by the Capital Regional District (CRD).
But a Colwood dog attack victim says the proposed new ‘Animal Responsibility Bylaw’ is not enough to ensure public safety.
Cindy Andrew says she had to “pursue” the CRD “three times” to thoroughly investigate a dog attack involving her and her dog Farley in December, which ultimately found the attacking animal did not meet the ‘dangerous dog’ criteria, as defined by the Community Charter.
While the CRD has drafted the new bylaw, which offers a new “middle ground” designation of “aggressive,” Andrew says the investigation process is also in need of urgent review, not just the bylaw.
“My experience has really shone a light on this … I think there's work to be done,” she said. “This is about public safety … when incidents occur, are the appropriate laws and processes in place to ensure public safety of pets and people?”
When her duck-tolling retriever was attacked by a larger dog, Andrew was left with a broken nose and concussion following the melee that ensued for several minutes. Both Andrew and dog Farley were also bitten by the attacking canine, she says.
When she was told the attacking animal did not meet the ‘dangerous dog’ criteria, Andrew appealed the decision with the City of Colwood, who contract CRD Animal Services to enforce its Animal Control Bylaw.
A review quickly followed, which found that the city’s bylaw model and “subjective metric” for determining whether a dog is dangerous have “too high a threshold.”
“Through our investigation, we have realized that our current Animal Control Bylaw does not contain sufficient tools that we (or our contracted agency) need to assess and classify these situations,” said Colwood’s bylaw manager Byron Grant in an email shared with Goldstream Gazette.
According to the CRD's draft bylaw – which has come about because of Andrew’s experience and “several” other incidents – an unprovoked dog causing “non-serious or minor injury” to a person or another domestic animal, would be classed as “aggressive.”
Currently, the Community Charter defines a ‘dangerous dog' as one that has killed or seriously injured a person or domestic animal or can be defined so if an animal control officer has reasonable grounds to believe it is likely to kill or seriously injure a person.
Grant said in an email that an “aggressive” designation would have “likely satisfied all stakeholders in Andrew's case.”
But Andrew feels adding an “aggressive” category will only serve to “muddy the waters” of future investigations.
“How is adding another category going to help?” she said. “How about you just do a good job working with the categories we have right now. Because … how much do we distinguish between aggressive dogs and dangerous dogs? I couldn’t.”
In areas where the CRD is contracted to enforce animal control bylaws—including Langford, Sooke, View Royal, Saanich, North Saanich, Central Saanich, Sidney, Metchosin, and Highlands—the municipality would need to agree to adopt the ‘Animal Responsibility Bylaw’.
Something Colwood is keen to expedite, says Sandra Russell, communications manager, who notes the new bylaw could create “consistency and clarity” for municipalities in the CRD.
“I expect this collaboration will result in us adopting what is recommended since our team is collaborating closely on these changes,” she said.
While Andrew is appreciative of Colwood’s quick response to her complaint, she feels the CRD could do more.
“Colwood heard me,” she says. “They're acting on it, they’re working for change. CRD, it's your turn.”
The CRD said they cannot comment on Andrew's case as they “believe she has launched [a] more formal complaint,” something Andrew says she has not done.
