New Draft By-Laws on Pets
Presentation by Eugenie Chopin - January 31, 2006

Eugenie is * Organizer and Co-ordinator of Tellington TTouch South Africa, an International Organization which trains people to work with animals, including dogs, cats and other companion animals. We have TTouch Practitioners in many different cities around the country who have completed a 3-year training course. We write and distribute a monthly newsletter to thousands of people who are interested in learning more about how to care and communicate with their animals. * Vice-Chairman of Human Interaction Group (HAIG) - an organisation that promotes education and healthy communication between human and animal. * Editor of the Tellington TTouch Newsletter and spokesperson for the couple of thousand people who signed a petition against limiting of the number of pets. * Member of the Concerned Animal Group (CAG)

 

This presentation is in response to the recently-announced

CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNCIPALITY
BY-LAWS RELATING TO DOGS AND CATS

 

CHAPTER ONE - DEFINITIONS

From the document entitled CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNCIPALITY
BY-LAWS RELATING TO DOGS AND CATS

"dwelling house" means a single builing designed for use as a residence for a single family situated on premises containing not more than two such buildings;

Comments: Council Officials have stated in Annexure D - 2. b. "The proposed by-laws propose a limit on the number of pets on a property, depending on the size thereof." We cannot see that this is a true statement as there is no differentiation between a home on a quarter acre and one on 2-5 acres. Dwellings with larger space will naturally be suitable for a larger number of pets than what the council has allowed by making the limit of both dogs and cats to a maximum of 4.

"dwelling unit" means an inter-connected suite of rooms including a kitchen or scullery designed for occupation by a single family, other than a weling house, irrespective of whether such unit is a single building or forms part of a building containing two or more such units;

Comments: This definition is ambiguous at best. If the council means flats and townhouses, clearly state this. If it also means servants quarters on a property or a shanty, please state this.

 

CHAPTER 2 - CONTROL OF DOGS

Where relevant, comments are related also to Chapter 3 on control of cats.

2. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsections (2) and (3), no person may keep more than

(a) Two dogs, or allow more than two dogs, over the age of six moths to be kept in or at a dwelling unit;

(b) Four dogs, or allow more than four dogs, over the age of six months to be kept in or at premises containing one or two dwelling houses;

Comments: I will comment on the restrictions for both cats and dogs.

• If space is an issue: There can be a huge difference of even a flat from a one room apartment to a spacious flat. Large townhouses can easily accommodate more than 2 dogs and 2 cats.
• Size of dogs and their nature to need more or less exercise can make a difference to how many pets can be accommodated in a home.
• Cats can easily gain space vertically and so it's easier to house more cats in a smaller space. Therefore it is suggested that the limitation on the number of cats be upped considerably. (this is assuming that the Council will insist on restrictions at all!)
• From the beginning we have advocated that the issue should be "Responsible rather than Restrictive" Ownership.
  • If an owner is responsible and the animal is well-cared for in that he is healthy, gets enough food, exercise, has access to health care and stays on the property in question causing no nuisance value in the neighbourhood - why should there be any limitation?
  • It is of concern that the By-Laws seem to be interested in the health of the human with little concern to the health of the animal. Inspectors will be looking for health hazards, but who will be looking into the well-being of the animal.
  • There are many reasons why people should be allowed to have more than the limited number of pets imposed by the council. You will say, just apply for a permit, but the permit application structure as stated in the proposed by-laws is so complex as to make it almost impossible to utilize for the average pet owner.
  • Reasons for having more pets include
    • For many people their pets are their children. While this may be difficult for some to accept culturally, it is a fact! You are in essence saying to people that they may only have 2 children. This means If you want to get a puppy, you have to wait years for an old dog to die or you have to kill the older dog to get a young one. This could have an enormous emotional effect on the pet owner
    • For many people, working or showing their dogs is their only recreational activity.
      a. It may be the only recreation outside of work
      b. For those who don't work, it is the focus of their lives
      c. To work or show dogs, they usually need to be younger and fitter
      d. Must we stop our recreation for years, while our dogs get older until it is "legal" to get a new pup with the death of a friend?
  • These restrictions do not in any way take into consideration the thousands of owners who care for many unwanted animals, give them good homes and keep them away from the Shelters who have the unfortunate job of putting down thousands of dogs and cats every year. If you take away the possibility of such humane ownership, many more animals will be put to death by the Shelters who have no place to house them
  • We urge you to reconsider the limits you are proposing! If the council is adamant about placing limitations, make the numbers higher and make permits a simple process.

    Permits to keep dogs

    3. (2) an application in terms of subsection (1) must be in writing on a prescribed form and must be accompanied by -
    (a) the prescribed fee;

    (b) an affidavit by the applicant and other documentary evidence that the applicant has for a period of 14 days prior to the date of the application in a place on the premises concerned within one meter of, clearly visible from, a public street, displayed and maintained in a prescribed form, notice of his or her intention to apply for a permit in terms of subsection (1) and inviting inhabitants of the area to lodge with the applicant during such period, in writing, and objection to, or representations relating to, the granting of the application

    (c) a copy or any objection or representation lodged in terms of paragraph (b)

Comments: These proposals are so out of proportion to what is being applied for, that it is hard to make comments.

• It should not be the neighbours decision as to whether the person should or shouldn't have more pets. The same way you have no right to comment on the number of children I have, you also have no right to comment on the number of pets I have.
• This is of course assuming that I am caring adequately for my pets. If I am not, then a neighbour has the right to make a complaint. If my dogs or cats are being a nuisance, then the neighbours have a right to complain. If I am in some way creating a health hazard (although I still have to hear from council what might be the circumstances for this) my neighbours have the right to complain.
• By advertising the intention of getting more pets, we actually invite objections and problems where they wouldn't otherwise exist. I would like to paste here a copy of a letter received this week from someone who answered my appeal for action against certain aspects of these by-laws

• So while this story is slightly different, the principles are the same and the fact that a board sign was needed caused major trouble that would have been effectively prevented by an easier method of obtaining a permit.
• This procedure is designed in inhibit applying for a permit and I fear has been added as an excuse for the limitations. Meaning that now council can say, oh, but you can apply for a permit! But actually getting the permit is so difficult that most people would have trouble knowing how to even go about it, never mind do it and then….. how difficult will it be to receive???
• Several of us on the CAG Committee have been in favour of permits, as we believe that pet owners do need to be accountable, but this is unacceptable. We have seen this first proposal for Permits last week and there has been no discussion with council representatives on the subject. This aspect of the By-Laws has not been open to the public for comments!
• I urge you to reconsider this particular permit system. It brings true the concerns of some of my colleagues who were against all restrictions on the grounds that something like this would be the result. I truly hope they are wrong and that the council will see fit to add a simply application form for a permit which can be given or withheld after an inspection by a qualified assessor.

  (5) The Council may only consider an application in terms of subsection (1) after receipt of a written report from an environmental health officer -
  (a) as to whether the dog for which the permit is required is likely to cause a public health hazard or the keeping of such dog may result in a contravention of section 5;
  (b) setting out the results of an inspection of the premises on which the dog concerned is being kept or to be kept.

Comments: Again we urge the council to take note that criteria should be set as to whether the owner is capable of maintaining physical, emotional and mental good health in excess dogs and cats. WE are concerned about the well-being of the animals. If this is not a concern of council - and we have been told that it is not - then IT SHOULD BE.

PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF DOGS

5. No person may keep a dog -

which is wild, dangerous or ferocious to such an extent that the dog is a danger to any person who legally enters upon the premises on which the dog is kept

Comments: The reality is that all dogs are potentially dangerous. All dogs have the capacity to bite in the right circumstances.

We suggest that the council needs to define "wild, dangerous or ferocious". There are many dogs that will bark and charge strangers. They look ferocious to those who don't know dogs or the individual dog, but the dog itself is very unlikely to cause harm.

In many other countries, a dangerous dog is one that has a bite history. I.e. a certain type of bite that may include breaking the skin that has been reported to the authorities. We would question who will be making the assessment of what is a dangerous dog and what are the criteria? This has not been addressed and is open to a wide range of opinions and varied interpretation as it now stands.

This argument holds true for having dogs in public places. You need a definition! And this definition has to be created by competent animal experts. Then what happens? Must we now kill every dog that has bitten? That would probably be a good third of the dog population. Or only dogs that have bitten seriously?

Does it make more sense to state that owners have the responsibility to make sure that any potentially dangerous dog is suitably restrained so as not to be a danger to another person. Actually it is my understanding that the existing laws already cover this and that all cases that have gone to court on the issue have come back in favour of the complainant.

There are many people who have taken on the job of caring for aggressive dogs and are doing a wonderful job of giving these animals quality life, while keeping them in a safe environment. And Yes, the public must be safe from these dogs. Again, it boils down to Responsible rather than Restrictive ownership. It is only when the owner is not responsible that steps need to be taken for public safety and few people have objections to this.

Prohibited behaviour in respect of dogs
7. (1) No person may without reasonable grounds -
(a) incite a dog against a person, animal or bord; or
(b) allow a dog in his or her custody or under his or her control to attack or put fear into any person, animal or bird.

Comments: The restriction that "no person may without grounds allow a dog to put fear into any person" is clearly not even a remote possibility. As fear is an emotion based on the thoughts of a person, it would be an impossibility for an owner to control the thoughts of another individual!

It is well documented and many books have now been written on the subject of controlling our thoughts. Each of us has thoughts that in turn create emotional reactions. There are many people who fear dogs. And most of them have little knowledge of dogs, which may be one of the reasons for the fear. But this has nothing to do with an individual dog and can certainly not be controlled by a dog owner. So this phrase simply has to be deleted from the By-Laws.

Trying to tell a dog not to attack or put fear into a bird is almost laughable. It's what they do, especially if they come from the gun dog breeds. And which expert is going to assess whether the dog has "put fear" into a bird?

It is starting to look like Council would prefer that we don't own dogs at all.

Most of the population of Johannesburg, including all races, own dogs at least partially for the reason of protection. If these dogs are not allowed to put fear into another person, then quite frankly, they won't be doing their job. Until council has dealt with the serious crime issues that we have in this country, I would suggest that the dream of all dogs being Lassie should stay out of the By- Laws. And the reality is that dogs will be dogs - and there are no true "Lassies" in the dog world.

Council's power to sterilise dogs
8. The Council may sterilise -
(a) a male or female dog at the request of its owner, subject to payment of the costs thereof by the owner; and
(b) a stray male of female dog, and recover the cost thereof from the owner of such dog

Comments: While we would wish for more sterilization of pets, we would suggest that there should be an amendment to this section, which says that the owner is subject to payment if they can afford the fee. There are many people who have financial constraints, but still have the right to the comfort and joy that a pet can bring. If the owner in question is not able to pay, what happens to the dog or cat? Is it confiscated and lost to the person?

Can we make this subject to the ability to pay?

Taking dogs into custody
12. (1) An authorised official or an employee authorised thereto by a person, body or structure contemplated in paragraph (c) or (d) of the definition of "Council" may, for the purpose of having a dog impounded, take into custody any dog which -
(c) is found in a public place and is not on a leash and in the control of a person

Comments: I am wondering if council actually means "not on a leash OR in the control of a person"??? If the dogs are under control by a person, is there cause for taking a dog??

(b) overturns, damages or tears and refuse receptacle or refuse bag.

Comments: I doubt there are many dogs out there who haven't done this at least once in their lives. Can council please amend to use the word "consistently" or "numerous times"

Destruction or sale of unclaimed dogs and cats
15. (1) If an impounded dog or cat is not claimed by a person entitled thereto within 96 hours after the dog or cat has been impounded, the pound master may in the manner prescribed in section 5 (1) of the Animal Protection Act, 1962 (Act No. 71 of 1962), destroy such dog or cat or cause it to be destroyed, or may sell such dog or cat or cause it to be sold.

Comments: Many pets go missing while owners are away or on holiday. It would be a tragedy to lose a pet because the Pound has put down an animal that hasn't been claimed in 4 days. The even more unfortunate aspect is that the Pound is obliged to put down dogs and cats quickly during the Holidays, not because they want to, but because over the Christmas period they receive so many animals that they have no space. As a result their euthanasia rate can double during the holiday period.

We acknowledge that the Pound rarely puts down dogs after only 4 days, but certainly the By-Laws give them the right to do so. We would prefer the law to read differently for the ultimate protection of the pet.

While pet owners do their best to see to the care of pets while away, accidents can happen and owners have the right to expect that pets will be kept in care until they learn of the lost animal. 4 days is an impractically short period of time.

We understand that this limitation is simply the cost involved. The Council only pays for 4 days "board" at the Pound at this time. I would suggest that perhaps the Council can come up with some sort of compromise with the Pound to guarantee that dogs and cats will be kept alive longer than the prescribed 4 days. It is disrespectful to not only the human, but the pet to think that in 4 days, the "Pound" can kill the animal if not claimed.

In conclusion, we would like to encourage the Council to sponsor the existing organizations that are doing the work of Education and Sterilization in areas where it is most needed. Education is always the answer to many problems and it is in the City's best interest to financially support the projects of Sterilization if it wants less animals. And along with this goes the Education on why we sterilize as well as education on the care of our pets.

Many thanks for your consideration.

 

Eugenie Chopin
Tellington TTouch SA
Practitioner Level 3