Test to dog bylaw

Times Contributor   

 

A test to the dog bylaw is in play, after Jay and Marianne Howard questioned Wheatland Council about kennel permits of an adjacent neighbour.

The neighbour was taking in dogs without a permit, and some of the dogs were getting loose into the Howard’s feedlot operation.

“Our concern is that the approval for this kennel is retroactive. This directly affects us. The last thing I want is their dog going through the pens. If this continues, there will be future trouble,” said Jay Howard.

Howard indicated that the kennel currently has six dogs and is illegal. There have been several incidents of the dogs being at large. The Howards called a bylaw officer to come out and inspect, but said nothing had been done. He said the owner isn’t using proper fencing, but put up temporary construction fence to restrain the dogs. Electrified perimeters have no current circulating and the kennel has been put up at a distance that will infringe on their feedlot regulations. They were also concerned about the draw of coyote populations. County staff confirmed that there had been several incidents reported.

Councillors indicated that action by council is done on a complaint basis and once the complaint is received, the investigative process begins. A warning is issued and the owner must comply with regulations and apply for permits. Staff said that the operator came in and obtained the paperwork, which is due back next week. The application for a permit is advertised and letters sent to affected parties in a mile radius, so they can object before final permission is granted.

“You are starting at the back and working to the front,” said Howard. “We should have the right to object before it is a done deal. Nip it in the bud.”

Councillors suggested that most people apply for the permit prior to setup and that the procedure usually addresses everyone’s concerns. They emphasized that the County had to abide by the bylaws and procedures.

The Howards wondered if a stop work order could be given and staff advised Council a provincial court order would be needed, and it was an extended judicial process. 

“It is not a friendly process,” said Reeve Glenn Koester.

“This is a big issue. We should discuss it now or at another time. I would hate to think people can go ahead and do what they want, taking the chance things won’t get taken away,” said Councillor Ken Sauve. “Where does it stop?”

Koester noted that both sides of the issue are important, but people should know that just because something is their dream, a venture may not fit within county bylaws.

Council asked staff to expedite the situation and deal with the issue as quickly as possible.

Howard was unsure of what he should do while he awaits that process. He said the last thing he wanted was a war, however, it was his livelihood at stake and he did not know what to do if the dog entered the pens and livestock were in jeopardy, or if the dog got injured.

“I want to give the dogs the benefit of the doubt. People are leaving the dogs in their trust,” said Howard.

Councillor Brenda Knight submitted that if the dogs were at large the bylaw officers have the authority to remove it. She also said according to the Livestock, Poultry and Honeybee Act a dog injuring kept livestock can be legally shot. Council directed Howard to contact the bylaw officer; if the situation repeats itself. The issue was forwarded for further debate.