London’s pets, unwanted no more

BLOG #539: The city is slowly moving towards a new animal welfare policy, one that could significantly improve the way we relate to and are responsible for our companion animals. One goal is to make us a “no unwanted births community.”

Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2011 – London

It’s a lofty goal, to be sure, but given the interest the subject seems to generate certainly not unwarranted and quite possibly attainable: “London doesn’t want to be a ‘no kill’ community; we want to be a ‘no unwanted births community’.”

The subject at last night’s meeting of city council’s community and neighbourhoods committee was changes to London’s animal welfare policies. The speaker was Jay Stanford, the city’s director of environmental programs such as Blue Box and garbage collection but who also somehow got roped into one of the most emotional issues on the current agenda. And handles it very admirably, one might add.

Last night he presented an update on the long and winding road the city is trodding towards new animal welfare policies which could ultimately include a completely different way of handling lost or unwanted dogs and cats.

This was largely a response to an intense public meeting in July when several hundred animal lovers packed – and that truly was the word – a committee room at City Hall to lay out their concerns about the way things currently run.

High on their list was London Animal Care and Control, the private company the city has contracted for more than two decades to do its dirty work with stray animals. One of the complaints was LACC kills too many animals, although realistically under present conditions it has little choice.

The current contract expires at the end of next year presenting an opportunity for many changes in the way London and Londoners deal with their companion animals.

Kill rates are high on the agenda, Mr. Stanford agreed. But reducing the number of pets which unfortunately end up neglected, abandoned and dead involves much, much more than refining a contract.

His report to the committee – which you can read here – does not provide definitive answers. Instead it sets out some specific areas where research is required to discover the lessons other communities have learned about caring for animals.

Calgary in particular is cited. Although three times the size of London, it operates its own animal care and control facility at no direct cost to the taxpayer and relatively few animals are killed. It has one of the highest dog and cat license compliance rates in the country, aided by the fact failure to secure the proper license can impact a pet owners’ ability to keep a driving license.

Calgary also has more than 140 off-leash dog parks. By contrast London has three; a fourth has been authorized for several years but neighbourhood in-fighting has prevented finding an acceptable location.

“I don’t believe London is behind the times,” Mr. Stanford said last night, “but we’re currently not the leader, more in the middle of the pack.” But he acknowledges pressure from animal advocates to move towards the front.

The goal can be reached but a point Mr. Stanford makes clear is the leadership position Calgary has attained was achieved by developing programs “where all things work together.” Reducing kill rates, for example, starts with knowledgeable citizens and responsible pet owners. It also involves widespread civic and community collaboration.

Recommendations for new programs of “things to work together” are still several months off. Mr. Stanford has promised the public will be kept in the loop as the work proceeds.

On council, though, the lines are already beginning to form. One will undoubtedly be led by Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen who wants to make sure “in terms of covering the potential extra costs, the overall vision is that this would be covered by more fees, right?”

The other line, though, might well form behind Councillor Bud Polhill who drew applause from the public gallery with this: “The issue is not the dogs and cats that have a home, but those that don’t. We need to change the attitudes in this part of the country; we have to have respect for animals. We just spent $22 million for a facility to recycle cans and bottles but we have animals out there with no homes and no support from anybody. That’s the part of this program I’m most interested in.”