A city councillor is surveying Calgary residents to gather feedback on a bylaw amendment to limit the number of pets allowed in a household.
Following the seizure of 33 dogs from a Calgary home last week, Coun. Diane Colley-Urquart is introducing a notice of motion to amend the current responsible pet ownership bylaw to include limits on the number of dogs and cats Calgarians are allowed to own.
"Recent events covered in the media have highlighted the health and safety risks to both humans and animals when a single household is overburdened with pets," said Colley-Urquart in a blog post. "In the interest of public safety, it is the responsibility of Council to address this issue and protect the quality of life of both our citizens and our animals."
Presently, the bylaw includes regulations on licensing, cleaning up after pets and keeping animals under control but does not indicate how many animals one household can have.
Many Canadian cities, including Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Winnipeg, restrict the number of household pets. On Monday, May 26, Colley-Urquart will bring her Notice of Motion forward to Council. Until then she is requesting feedback from the public through a brief survey.
Industry leaders are working to eliminate the barriers to the awesome pet experience pet families desire. As they have discovered, sometimes it is the very language used by industry that creates problems for pets and pet families.
Legal minds are addressing what is best for both parties when it comes to the use of words like guardian or ownership. In 2003, 2005 and again in 2010 the AVMA addressed the situation as follows:
The American Veterinary Medical Association promotes the optimal health and welfare of animals. Further, the AVMA recognizes the role of responsible owners in providing for their animals' care. Any change in terminology describing the relationship between animals and owners, including "guardian," does not strengthen this relationship and may, in fact, harm it. Such changes in terminology may adversely affect the ability of society to obtain and deliver animal services and, ultimately, result in animal suffering. (Approved by the AVMA Executive Board May 2003; Revised by the Task Force on Legal Status of Animals-AVMA Executive Board April 2005; Reaffirmed by the AVMA Executive Board April 2010)
In October a US lawyer, well known for her advocacy on behalf of 'Pit Bulls' wrote a blog that discusses the use of these words in some depth.
