A South Surrey senior is calling on Surrey’s mayor to put more teeth into the city’s animal responsibility bylaw, after a close encounter with an at-large dog Sunday morning.
David Dines said he reached out to Mayor Doug McCallum and officials with the city’s bylaws department after the incident, which he said occurred as he was walking along 16 Avenue near King George Boulevard on March 17.
Dines, 66, said he was passing a fenced yard when he saw a black dog – which he described as a pit bull cross – at the far end of the lot. Initially, he thought the dog was within the confines of the four-foot-high chainlink fence, but quickly discovered otherwise.
“All of a sudden there’s the pit bull right on the sidewalk,” Dines told Peace Arch News Tuesday. “I had two seconds to react, it just came at me.”
Dines said he yelled and kicked at the dog to ward it off, but never made actual contact with the animal and wasn’t injured in the incident.
He worries that may not be the case if the dog gets out of its yard again and confronts a child or less able-bodied senior. A bus stop is right in front of the property, he noted, and he says the concerning dog – as well as a second dog he’s seen on the property – is typically “rabidly insane” when people pass by.
Dines said a bylaw officer he spoke to told him the owner will be asked to supervise the dogs when they are in the yard, but didn’t have an answer when asked how that could be enforced.
Asked why a leash or muzzle couldn’t be ordered, the officer advised the city “can’t enforce that until the dogs get out a second or third time,” he said.
Dines said he first reported concerns with both dogs last fall.
The mayor was not available to comment by PAN’s press deadline Wednesday.
Kim Marosevich, the city’s manager of bylaw services, confirmed both reports. The first, she told PAN, was not deemed a violation; and, Sunday’s remains under investigation. The dog owner, she noted, is “absolutely” co-operating.
Marosevich said the city’s revamped Animal Responsibility Bylaw bylaw has “been an excellent tool” in enabling officers to intervene in situations “before they escalate.”
The bylaw, developed in collaboration with animal experts including the BCSPCA, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association and dog behaviour expert Dr. Rebecca Ledger, was approved two years ago, and efforts are underway to measure its success, Marosevich said.
While Marosevich said she thinks the bylaw is working, in terms of providing education and support that help prevent situations from escalating, Dines described it as “basically useless.”
He said recent aggressive-dog incidents that have been in the news – including one in Vancouver’s Robson Square on March 1, where an off-leash dog was captured on video chasing and nipping at a young woman – are further evidence of the need for stronger laws.
Surrey’s bylaw classifies dogs into four categories: normal, aggressive, vicious and dangerous, with each designation invoking increasing requirements for the dog owners around control, public notification and liability insurance.
Despite calls to ban certain breeds, breed-specific legislation (BSL) was not implemented. Such restrictions, research determined, “do nothing to discourage irresponsible behaviour by individuals who breed, train, sell or possess dangerous dogs not covered by the breed specific legislation.”
READ MORE: Surrey sinks its teeth into comprehensive new dog bylaw
“Our analysis within the communities in which (breed-specific legislation) has been implemented provided little evidence to suggest that breed bans have had a positive impact on dog attacks,” the report states.
“They impart a misleading sense of security and suggest that there is a simple solution to a complex community issue. Studies in other municipalities suggest that BSL has a tendency to compromise rather than enhance public safety.”
Surrey’s bylaw defines an aggressive dog as one that “without justifiable provocation” displays aggressive behaviour toward a person or animal, or causes a minor injury.
Premises for guard dogs, the bylaw notes, are to be “completely enclosed by means of a two (2) metre fence… and any gates in such fence are reasonably secured against unauthorized entry.”
Dines said he has nothing against dogs, but said he is “really concerned” about the city’s bylaws. While he’d like to see change, he’s not optimistic that expressing his concerns will bring them about.
“It’ll probably go nowhere, but at least I sent my letter,” he said.
