Proposed Bylaw 03-2002




No Specific Section

The increase in the number of penalties and new laws

All new penalties and laws result from adding vicious dog provisions, off leash area controls and special section allowing for disabled to own assistance animals.

Section7  7.1


RE:equipment approved for CASO


Canmore Vet Clinic vets were concerned about an “unqualified person” using tranquillizers.

Recommend that Council approve this section under the agreement that the Town will provide a certified training course to the CASO

Section 4  4.3


RE: Confining any pet in heat to their property

According to the Canmore vet Clinic vets, this is “unfair to both the pet and the owner”

See revision in bylaw to allow for the pet to be taken off of the Owner’s property during the heat cycle as long as the animal is controlled on a Permitted Leash

Section 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12


RE: Limiting numbers of animals per household

Several people spoke against this section as an infringement on their personal freedoms

Recommend Removal of these sections as there are other bylaws existing which will limit the likelihood of “cat houses” where large numbers of animals may be ill kept.

Section 4  4.4


RE: Barking, howling

No person spoke against this section

See revision of wording of text to include the term “Excessive” and that at the discretion of the CASO no person will be charged without a second person to substantiate the charge. This avoids neighbourhood feuds.

Section 3  3.10.1


RE: Temporary License for visitors

Many people spoke against this section citing reasons from unenforceable to poor public relations with our tourist destination status

Recommend removal of this section







Section 2.8


RE: definition of damage to property public or private

Several people questioned the rationale behind including urinating in the definition

The intent of this inclusion was to give citizens recourse through the bylaw to penalize people who allow their pet to continually use their neighbours property to eliminate thus causing damage to grass and shrubs.

Recommend removal of “public” from definition.

Schedule A







Many voiced their conerns over the fact that there appears to be too many penalties, they were too specific, license fees are too high compared to other municipalities, and typographical errors

Revision of penalty for failing to remove feces, section 4.6  Should read $100.00 not $75.00


Revision of wording for penalty 4.11. Should read “fails to come”


Remove “an offense for which a penalty is not otherwise provided”  $150.00


Since the Town already subsidizes the operation of Animal Control, no fee reduction is recommended.Added exact amounts due for 3 year licensing program

Section 3.13


RE: Vicious dog classification by CASO


Please note the additional wording which ensures due diligence by the CASO before classifying an animal as “vicious”. Several criteria have to be met by the offending dog before this action is taken:

Generally speaking the first bite is documented but not necessarily prosecuted unless the attack and/or injury substantiates the classification as truly “vicious”. Second, if a dog bites but the result is not grave, a document is kept on file and written warning issued for future reference should the animal repeat the behavior. A separate “bite registry” will be kept. Third, an investigation as to the exact circumstances of the attack will be conducted and if the attack seems to have been a result of extenuating circumstances or accidental, no action under the “vicious” clause will be taken.

Section 2.23


RE: Definition of “Permitted Leash”

Typographical error

Should read “no more than two meters” not the suggested eight.

Section 4.2.7


RE: Leaving a dog unattended in a motor vehicle

A few people seemed concerned that the CASO could charge them under this section even if someone other than the owner  reached into their vehicle and an injury resulted.

The intent of this section is to allow the CASO to assist animals in obvious distress.


Request by a few people to increase the number of legal off leash areas

It is strongly recommended that although not part of this bylaw, Council should examine allocating two or three more areas for recognized off leash areas.