County looks at changes to bylaw following several significant dog attacks in 2025

By Melissa Crispin-Piche Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

Justin Valley, manager of Protective Services, presented administration’s review of Animal Control Bylaw 2020-17 during a recent Wheatland County committee meeting. 

Council directed administration to review the bylaw on July 8, 2025 specifically the section dealing with vicious dogs.

Valley said one of the biggest proposed changes would be replacing the existing dangerous dog hearing process with a remedial order system. 

“One of the big hold ups in the original process was the dangerous dog hearing process. It was long, arduous. It was confusing, cumbersome,” Valley said.

Under the proposed process, a peace officer investigating a dog attack would determine whether the animal should be declared vicious and bring the matter forward to administration.

A remedial order could then be issued to the dog’s owner declaring the animal vicious and outlining conditions intended to protect the public.

The owner would have 14 days to appeal the order. The appeal would initially go to the chief administrative officer rather than directly to council, with a secondary review available. Valley said the proposed changes are intended to make the process more efficient while still giving owners an opportunity to challenge a declaration.

“The declaration of a dog being dangerous is the ability for the municipality to place conditions on the animal for safekeeping in your community to further protect your community,” he said. 

It’s the municipality which is able to set conditions to keep a deemed vicious dog in the community. Those conditions could include mandatory micro chipping and vaccinations, spaying or neutering, warning signs, secure enclosures, liability insurance and requirements for the dog to be muzzled or kept on a harness or two leashes when outside the owner’s property.

Another proposed change would allow an owner to request a review one year after a dog has been declared vicious. Valley said the option recognizes that a vicious dog declaration does not necessarily have to be permanent.

“A lot of the time, part of the hardship of having your dog declared vicious is this thought that it is a life sentence for your dog,” he said.

The review could consider whether the owner has followed the conditions, completed additional training or obtained a behavioural assessment.

The proposed bylaw would also give peace officers additional authority in urgent situations involving an actively aggressive animal.

Valley said the county’s peace officers have held shotgun certifications for about 16 years, but the current bylaw does not specifically allow officers to destroy an animal in circumstances involving active aggression or serious harm.

“It’s much akin to what the police would do in a situation if you have a dog that is literally, it’s uncapturable, it’s running around, it’s attacking people,” he said.

The committee also discussed adding a new category for nuisance animals. The proposed section would address animals that repeatedly bark or howl, trespass, run at large or cause waste accumulation; he stressed that it’s for animals that are repeat offenders.

Coun. Rick Lausen questioned how the provision could apply to agricultural animals, using a bull that escapes and breeds a neighbour’s cow as an example. Valley agreed the wording needs more work.

Other councillors supported the idea particularly for rural areas where animals can repeatedly cause problems.

The proposed nuisance animal provisions would not override protections available to livestock owners dealing with animals on their property. Valley said he encourages farmers to contact the county when possible but acknowledged there are situations where that may not be an option.

The review also proposes changes to enforcement terminology replacing “violation tag” with “municipal tag” to make the distinction between municipal penalties and provincial violation tickets clearer. One example for change with the proposed municipal tag would be in lieu of prosecution they could pay a fine or a fee directly to the County. He emphasized that this is just another option available to the bylaw amendments.

Administration also reviewed fine structures in neighbouring municipalities, including Newell County, Vulcan County, Kneehill County and Mountain View County, and proposed considering increased penalties for serious animal related offences. 

Valley said there is a significant difference between a minor bite and an incident resulting in serious injury requiring medical attention. 

“There is a big difference between a dog that bites and it’s a small nip that doesn’t require a lot of medical attention and a dog that creates an injury that requires serious medical attention,” he said.

Committee members generally supported modernizing the bylaw, particularly the changes to the vicious dog process. Reeve Scott Klassen said the previous hearing process had been “very odd” and believed the proposed changes would provide a cleaner process while still allowing an appeal.

The proposed amendments will return to council for further consideration before any changes to the animal control bylaw are finalized.