HomeMy WebLinkAboutCS-08-95THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
REPORT
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend
to Council the following:
1. THAT Report CS -08 -95 be received;
2. THAT the terms of reference for a tender call (Attachment #5) be approved;
3. THAT staff be authorized to issue a tender call for the provision of Animal Control Services
for the Municipality and report back to Council;
4. THAT a copy of report CS -08 -95 be forwarded to Laurie and Fred Davis and Hetty and Jim
Powell and advised of Council's decision; and
5. THAT Animal Alliance of Canada; Durham, Courtice and Bowmanville Veterinary Clinics
and Durham Animal Adoption be thanked for their input and forwarded a copy of report
CS -08 -95 and advised of Council's decision.
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 At the December 12, 1994 meeting of Council, report CS -46 -94 was tabled directing staff to
contact Animal Rights organizations and other animal service providers with the intent of
providing input to a terms of reference for a tender call to provide Animal Control Services
for the Municipality.
1.2 Subsequently, staff sent a letter (Attachment #1) to the Oshawa and District Humane
Society; the Ministry of Agriculture & Food, local veterinarians, Durham Animal Adoption
and the Animal Alliance of Canada requesting input for the preparation of terms of
reference, inviting tenders from private contractors to supply Animal Control Services within
Clarington.
../2
)
DIG B PR,MED ON RECYCLED PAPER
{EnORT CS -08 -95
.2- MARCH 20, 1995
2.0 AGENCY COMMENTS:
2.1 The Oshawa and District Humane Society and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food did not
respond to the letter. Staff did however, follow -up with a telephone call and left messages
on answering machines with still no response. The Newcastle Veterinary Clinic had no
comment.
2.2 The Animal Alliance of Canada; the Durham, Courtice and Bowmanville Veterinary Clinics
and Durham Animal Adoption all provided written responses (Attachments #2, 3 and 4
respectively) to the Department's letter requesting input.
2.3 A summary of those responses highlighting concerns raised are provided as follows.
2.3.1 Possible decrease in overall animal care.
• The wording and structure of the tender is intended to provide an enhancement of
overall animal care and public services to our current service.
2.3.2 Animal vaccinations and care to be overseen by a local veterinarian and not the contractor.
• The tender indicates that vaccinations and care of injured or sick animals are to be
conducted by a licenced veterinarian, overall animal care and maintenance will be
subject to regular inspection by Municipal staff and the Ministry of Agriculture and
Food.
2.3.3 Lack of knowledgeable staff dealing with injured /sick animals.
• Any tender contractor is required to employ qualified staff and adhere to all Federal,
Provincial and Municipal Laws, Acts, Regulations and By -Laws.
2.3.4 Decrease in emergency hours covered.
• The tender provides for an increase of the current level of emergency service
involving both the number of hours covered and the criteria involved in a call out.
2.3.5 Contractor should not be responsible for euthanasia of any animals.
• The tender calls for a licenced veterinary to conduct any euthanasia.
2.3.6 Who would co- ordinate the sale of tags and kennel licences?
• The Municipality would retain responsibility for all licensing and sale of tags as per
current practice.
2.3.7 Would veterinary cadaver removals by the Municipality continue?
• This service would no longer be provided to the veterinary clinics by the
Municipality. We will encourage the successful contractor to make arrangements
with the local clinics.
../2
Ili4
REPORT CS -08 -95 .3- MARCH 20, 1995
2.3.8 What would the impact of a new emergency clinic for Durham Region in Whitby be?
• To date the Municipality has not been consulted with respect to what any impact
might be should animal services continue to be provided by the Municipality.
Notwithstanding, any impact would be consistent regardless of the provider.
2.3.9 Local veterinarians will not provide the drug T61 (used to euthanize animals) to a contractor.
• The successful contractor will be required to elicit the services of a licenced
veterinarian for this service.
2.3.10 Full public consultation should be sought in any review.
• This process has been initiated as indicated in this report. Further opportunity for
input will be provided to the public at such time that a subsequent report is prepared
for consideration of Council.
2.3.11 Contracting out would produce a more complex complaint process for the residents.
• This is true of any contract the Municipality issues. Staff is prepared to review all
complaints received and deal with the contractor on an individual basis. Members
of the public will not be referred to the contractor.
2.3.12 Would public access hours be reduced?
• The tender actually provides for an increase in the hours of public access compared
to the current Municipal operation.
2.3.13 Would a contractor provide statistical information for review?
• The tender indicates a requirement for quarterly updates to the Municipality in the
same format that is currently utilized by the Department. It is staff intention to
forward this information to Council in report form as it is received.
2.3.14 Would regular scheduled meetings take place between local animal agencies, the municipality
and the contractor?
• Should Council decide to award this tender, staff is confident that in conjunction with
the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, that they will be able to oversee the contract
without regularly scheduled meetings involving local animal agencies. The tender
does require quarterly reports by the contractor which in turn will be reported to
Council by staff.
../4
kkEPORT CS -08 -95 - 4- MARCH 20, 1995
2.3.15 Possibility of corruption ie. double billing.
• This is not a concern since the contract will be structured as a lump sum proposal.
There will be no additional charges to the Municipality other than the contract price
as stipulated in the tender. All fees and charges will be as approved by Council on
an annual basis.
2.3.16 Staff should review the Oshawa Animal Services Study (prepared by James H. Bandow,1993)
and the Municipality hire a consultant to do a cost analysis of public versus private operation
of a shelter.
• Staff have reviewed this document and further the Director of Community Services
and the Chief Administrative Officer met with the City of Oshawa Animal Control
officials with respect to the study mentioned above. Although the document is
comprehensive and many excellent recommendations resulted, staff cannot
recommend that the Municipality hire a consultant to do a cost analysis of public
versus private operation of a shelter. Should this report be approved by Council, a
comparison of any recommended tender and the current Municipal operation will be
made by staff and reported to Council.
3.0 COMMENTS:
3.1 Staff is aware of the sensitivity of this particular issue and further understands the concerns
raised by various organizations and members of the public referred to in this report.
3.2 It is imperative that the interested parties understand the process involved should this report
be approved. Staff is requesting authority from Council to invite private sector tenders which
will allow staff to make various comparisons and then report back to Council making a
recommendation to either award a contract for the provision of Animal Control Services, or
that the function be retained and operated by the Municipality.
JPC:sa
_) 6
Recommended for presentation
to the Committee,
William H. Stockwell,
Chief Administrative Officer
../5
REPORT CS -08 -95 "5- MARCH 20, 1995
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Ann Livingston
Animal Alliance of Canada
221 Broadview Ave.
Suite 101
Toronto, Ontario M4M 2G3
Nancy Armstrong
19 Loscombe Drive
Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3S8
Durham Veterinary Clinic
110 King Street East
Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1N5
Courtice Veterinary Clinic
1500 Highway #2
Courtice, Ontario L1E 4V4
Bowmanville Veterinary Clinic
2826 King Street East
Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K5
Laurie & Fred Davis
R. R. #1
Hampton, Ontario LOB 1J0
Hetty & Jim Powell
3 Coleman Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 1L3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
TO REPORT NO. CS -08 -95
January 3, 1995
Dear Sir or Madam:
The Municipality is considering contracting out the Animal Control
operation in 1995.
Your comments are appreciated as we prepare terms of reference for
potential bidders. If you can provide any comments and concerns
that can be addressed in this proposal call, I would appreciate
receiving them before January 23, 1995.
If you wish to discuss the intent of this direction, contact myself
or Scott Rose.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours truly,
cc: Scott Rose, Program Manager
C1507
f"r-c
ur
t
221 8ro dvi . 1 v Avg!
804c:• 11, T milo
0nta , (;
M 2 .3
(4161 X162 , 5 -1 l
F� sl►n l
('416,) 62 W17
$ 416 462 9541
ANIMGL GLLIGNCE
U
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
TO REPORT NO. CS -08 -95
TO: Mayor and Members of Cl�rington Council
PROM! Anne Li.vingaton, Animal Alliance uf,
Canadn
SUBJ1,CT :' CoMmenta Regarding the Vunic,,ipality of
CIbringtonis Possible C retracting Out of
Animal. Control. Services
DAT8 January 25, 1995
RECOMMEODATIONS I
Anima] Alliance ef, Canada rec,ommer d,6** the following:
� � 3
1. Befdre any cjonsideration is g) en to contrac•titig
out anlrtal c.:ontrol s$rvi c.,ei5, an independent
consultant bo hired to evaluate rrvico and perform
a cost /b'eneff t analysis of a public versus In ivate
operat i OP;
7. If douncil decidos to contract.1 out without
benefit ;of an independent: report, � full public
cur►suXta!tion prociess be hold on thle (hatter. to
determinL the best way to proceed;
3. If Council agr.ee,,i to contracti ng out, animal
welfare lux.ganizations participate in the drafting of
the conttract and Ito terms of r.efe� ence..
BACKGROU�D
� I
Anit�;al Alliance Is concerned tYiat. he quality and
humaneneos of animal contrul servi es might suffer
if contrgot.ed out. Futtirtg animal services, at arm'E.
length flrorn the muttic^ipality has traditionally
rvsul ted: in a of control to o ie degree or
another. The qual ] t_y of animal car.. Is largely
dependant on wlto ,gets the contract.
Itt o0r, ckper.ienc:e the complaint i.ttvolving
,,ome: priVaLe c ()rAzactors haF., been Tiore c.•oriiplex oitd
difficult than if animal. services vere kept as a
municipal department. twitter, couplaints
concernibg the ,ideiiLific:ation, notification,
handling, and euthanasia of ao�5t- pe is has in yotrne
municipaii. tie* become a soijrc_e; of ersistent
cot,stitu�nt oompletints and ati otic�g >I ng publit:
relation$ pLoblem.
0 '19 j /2.
M 416 462 9541
ANIP1HL HLLIH14l -
2.
"pme privately operated patln'tls are well run. Sunic.
are riot . Our concer.r► is that. ill the que5 t. Lo Bave
ntaney, the municipality may tut Considex all the
co -;ts or fully eva,l uate all- .rte "benef Its , "
plirough our pound rescue pro
sate serious pr,b:lertt;S, For, e,
ea:ntern Ontario, an injured
in to cage over a weekend bei
1r►deperidenty '3oU
cic)g wi. t}i nU u6tg f r uric the. mun
went untreated because the p
re 6dj ly ttauu the. owrier Lo r.
fo'r the veterinary care. Af
the poor dog could not be sa
eut.harll red. T11115 situation
LoWn3hip where -the dog was f
spelled out in their animal
I vecer. iildry care for urrtagged
ram, we have doc;uitielrte.d
altipl.c-, recently in
og was left untreated
re the pound keeper, an
kit veteriild'ry care. A
t_:iirctl.it.y Irl c,iue,t.ic>ri
and keeper could "Ot.
claim Ole dos illd pay
er days of Suffc.:r lrry,
ed and was ultimately
rose because_ 01e
and did not have
urltxul. (:(),,tract to seek
&nIma15
The Ministry ui Agricuiture nd �`oo" s pound
inspect i orl repor. tc reveal c:ci lc1 i t. i or1s at. .;c�mt Private
Founds which are truly silock'ng. One repoxt states;
"One clog wds impounded. The water was f.r. ozel-i i t•► the
bowl. Mr. only runs the heater at night: and
does not check t ;(-) sec; how co d the mound gFi.s....
The, pens had fecal matter anp straw in thcm. Mr.
---i . ' . only w;ashQs the pour• 3 i i•1 the spring and f al l
and washes -tale bowls wheli he-1 feels they are dirty."
The „e; problems, in variou:� c >rtlbinA.Aon,.i and dt,yree
of severity, have been liotic+cl at Voriou;s prlvat -k,
ontar i o pours <l5 by Arll'inal Alliance c>taif and
volunteers. i
3ulrte pIf ivatL� 'pounds have ver restricted hours of
operation. One pound in ont xlo Js Opell 0111y frOlyt 9
.•r .m. to 10 ix.ml Monday thr oQ Y) Saturcitty, and by
.appointment . Another :ieeiite. o be open lDy
tti)poiritrnErrrt only, ariti cif _,ttiri the pound kE:eper to
return rneisaye to make that' appointmer ►t is very
difficult. Sor(te pound, 3 }cave ari active. adoption
program, but marry do riot. V r:y few hdve 111 dutivQ
Idelitification and lost.. & fo rid prUyrdrn. Some.
popnd.s seem less UiAri wi I 111-1p to adopt out their
antmals. sKiliie pokili t-, are rio open at al.) on
weekends, ox url] y f cir �tti hour or two on Saturday
motning. i,iick cif public accessibility makes it.
910
9541 RNI11AL PLLIANCE 04
a
extremely difflc:ult for pF,cap
car: reclaim ar,irnaI ;.
placed in good homes ankI mor
other unh4ppy fat(,,,-,. 0r,e F, c?
DOOr relations with other to
organizat:iorrs and :;h(:I t ers,
information with' them about
Again, this lack. c)f co- opera
ariimals.' k >c::st lriterests; aw
locate their" lost animals be:
down or sold for researcl-I.
I o to Conte 1tr to adopt
ult, fr�wer trtiirual�: <:trc
arcs euthdtll?,ed :_ >r r„rc_t
)It(] rrepurte:dly hab very
,al animal wel fare
ind refuse, to ; ;Jjare
lust and found animals,
,ion I, true jr) the
iers may not !JC tr} >le t.cf
.ore the arritnoalb are, r,rrt
A Vourid UIctL upe.rate..ti 1j., t.111 k. roanner doeo not
instill confidence in the public- it Rather,
in municipalitie, where' anin il. control is contracted
out and conditions are poor„ resident;i era le,58)
1•1kely to arse the services ald may tur.tr tc> ;;hc,li. errs
In adjoining Municipalities.) Sometime -; dnimalps ar.e
l;n,ply abandoned out. ;side to .pike .their: chancc,•i,
rather than being brought in! to .a puu,ak] t_t,(r 1)1.1b] i c
mirDtrust:s. The, f i I' t. 'SCenarl' o places ern unfair
burden on other animal shelf rs, while the hazardij
of the second scenario arc 1�19ion grid, I trust, go
Without saying, Fither way„ animals efuffer at-Id t:he
public i;� not properly sFr%ieh.*
The Anim,11s. for Researull Act reriuireS, that st-ray
animals be kept. i-c,). uri;ly 72 -,ours, not including t.li(:
day thtt af,imal is btc)ught lt,i, After this period,
thI_- pound keeper call keep th�. animal.-;, ;-scull 1.11r_fu,
give them away, or Sel1c.1 thetr� for experirr, +�r,tatiarr.
Cuxrc .-trtly, our under ,t:s-rndirly. i. that ar,irnal" at
Cllarington animal control ar�2 kept for dt3 ]t >rty a:
th,:re. i` room ari t.1,e pouncl, fir ovidirrg Cheri, with
ev .ry l�u�� ikrle c h�cr,c e' of f 1 rii] i t1y a flew hurite . Ac,irnal
Al iance through the Ontario�S.P.C.A. frequently
r.ee;cues anImal5 who havi_ 1)er_t, jr, the! pou.t,c1 fur sorlle
rnur,ths, , Thls ind i c:at.tit.; <) j(-Ilk/el of c:ommi t.roet,t to t'I-ie
animals' best interests thatiis often ]auklny in a
pr.iofit riotivated privatc. con�r��ctar.
In all the di,: c ur :r; 3 ons 5 i rwel AnJ mil Al 1.1at,c:t!'s
inception In 1990 reyerrd.ing ourid "ieizoxe, ?>uL11
Mitlist;ry Of -Agriculture and �Iood,and rcprebentat.lves.
of. the r.e4;earcrl:, c :orr,rr,ut,i t.y hare :;t,�t,FCi that. they do
not want adoptable pound ani pals; The otlly ujie"
i
9 1 1,
T 416 462 9541
ANIMAL ALLIANCE
9.
they want are those who are
Animal A131anwu runs a pr.uvi
operation to pQrc:hase cats a
nep t toy research, since im
we have rescued approximatel
LhJ0, 1 e'st of our knowladgo, M
04 homes. We know,that two
foY biting, and another save
destroyed because they were
caul..; were euLhdni'ved due to
infection and other contagio
statintics, it IV safe to sa
animal ending up in the pours
given a chance. .
,ruly unadoptable.
ice, Wi JY I e;scue
icl dogs at risk of being
Alementinq this program
i 500 'hogs a& cats, Tr;
)At, have been placed In
dogs were.euthdnired
i or eight. ware:
.11 with parvuvirub, 70
Appel resplrat.oly
As diseases. Givcn uur
that virtually every
3 system is adoptable,
one of out greatest concerns is that our po;;lUve
relations working with the current staff at
CllringLon dn1mal control will dome to an end. W('s
Are very pleased with the r_o� operation we have
received from the staff ovorl the past two or thre=e
years and look. forward to working with people; who
dermnstrate the :;rime degree yf concern for tO
d 0 nta ls' best interests,
I
Access to Information and pulplic: acr.ountability of.
the activities in private plinds 13 qurtdiled.
Unlike municipally operated animal control ovivic ob,
pr:ivdte contractors are not :ompe) led to'r&ea tt,
i.nforMatlon to members of the public about numbers,
of aniMals. cuminy into or yodny out of the pound or
their cif po5iti.on (ic: acclaimed, adopted, DOA, ,sold
to research, euthanized, etc). ThK makc5 it very
difficult to identify irohlehs which we may he ahle
to help t_enwdy.
I
A consOltati on report: Prc:POQ0 f Ol the ri t.y Of
Oshawa, by Aame6 H. Bc-ndow & �ssoNates highlight
i of or t4nt issues f car c ono i cle •at i on . A thol ough
reading of "A Review of the pperatr ions a "O Servlc:es
Pewforme.d by the City A OQQwc +. Animal Services
4tion" in recommended. Susanne 'Menzi ens, who
manayea the sheltex at Oshawpi Animal Vervlae.s, 01A,
us that Mr. Sandow's c:on5ulLgtion in 1992 resulted
in a marked inomovknsent in Kaffing, delivery of
sex vier:, both to animals and, to the puhl i c: , and
Improved public relations.
% i f
e5
TZ 416 462 9541 ANIMAL ALLIANCE 06
i
J
Furthetmore, owhawa'b new il1lyran of regular
raetti nqs with local voluntee - based animal wet fare
grbupsi the Ontario S.P.C.A. and Animal AlllancV is
an excellent system of bu.i lcl' ng bl It gvs and iolvin(j
animal rare problems before they become;
Wuxmount.abl.e . We TecommenJ that Clar i ngtc>r► acYOPt
such a sy6tcm cif open d}alog le with their aninsal
control personnel, whet.hol monic:lpally oi►c:ratbd or
contracted out.
iJx e1r ri5 t haL r►►ay :;t,eni t.c> },[' saved or rr.duc.oa
tl�►�ough contracting out animal c:oni:xul services W
be deceptive. The r�t.,i r t:ant.rar.t:o� may bid low for thu
coftraot and animal care UAW* May suffer, or
Lhe expenses 90y c;.r:eeP up ov i.r the years if �r
shelter has to be built 0Y r .novated, or the otaff
unloni�u:s; as han happened 1) othe.e muri.li:lPH I.it. "s-
Bandow refers to some places1 where pr i v,ate.
contractors' costs actually Weeded the previous
municipal operation and the hAties had to c:onAder
tak i ny t:ho :service back,
Th, seeming advantage of getk,.iny 110 of animal
control issues and Problems Vy privatizing animal
control can be decepLive. T ►e municipality ha6 the
disadvantage of being Cho yep : Nerrt. of c:oxt; 1njn"-'
arising from animal control natters without t ht„
corresponding advantage ut h5ving immediately
accountable animal c:ontrc►1 ;-s�t.aff. The delay;
involv0d in learning of prut>�tr�ttr�� and Valing wit)-'
them could quite easily lead; to negative public
.r.eaot.7on on top of anAmol Pulfering.
The po$$jh l.ity of corr.uptio'V must be mOnit.oY.ed, and
will be that much more difficult with animal control
at arm's length from municipl 1 operations. Tt ►rxe
arse allegations of iirivat.e c°0tractors elvowhorH
"double Di l.l.i;ng" by c hargiQ individuals to pick ui>
found stray animals when such a fee it aloo paid by
the municipality; c:l _ ►}rniriybuthar►acain compensation
from the municipality when it lb alreddy paid 'hy the
Ministry of Agriculture anV,nsed or for Claiming
ex��enue s at_t.E,r►dant. on one animal to two or
more municipalitico for who, the MUM hd,%;
contracts • hnimal All iancr. olunte=5 have
witnessed the SSMP an i Ma l wt��ring i.dent i f i cat ion
/G,
x) 13
E 416 462 9541 ANIMAL ALLIANCE 07
6, .
Collzir$5 doting di If f:erent. i r ibour,dnlerit date i� 01-,
difforont clays; ca(Iu c a•rds �TlIssil-,g 1ffli) oundnicrit date
i1jformotion altogether; and atilma1,-; at }ssing from
th'e pot,ind prior to the crid vi their 1�-t -ray pet iod.
These Situations t(rciy be dttnIbuted to atteri;
caYe :I P?;S1)P.Sq or. sc,rc,e kind of! 117tent1nn to dcccive .
Whatever t-eason, neither porirld visitor"; flor t.ht
rnunicApalit:ies ar:e
The bidding proces,; ft,c priv',:rte alai.rf,�,:} cc)r,t.Yo]
c.at,t.rdcLots is Problematic. � The unc (er.tainty of t Ile
oci.t.come and the brevity of the contract peric)ds mean
t11;,t pxivate contract-ors, may, undertake: a '1�-aYC�e
inve�.tMent to build a shelter, only to lose the
cul,tract and its inc..orrie two for three yearn; later;
or, because of this, they ma' not guild a good
staFlter •arrcl t:he (a,i,aiit.y r,i- Co'1,i,11,a1. care will. suffer.
Culver. Se:ly, two or three: yeah,:, Js. Lot) lung for the
municipality t:o wait to invi1tc t €,rider.., and t,akF,
ddvantage (if a L>eUer deal for animals and the
,f,un i c: i pa 13 t,y, ,
IIZ c,nnc lusi,an, Animal Al l iaric:c, thankr+ the
Mut,ic:3p,i1it:y of Clcarillyt-or, fft,r thi,_ trf,iieartut,ity tO
prcuent our comments. Wc- urkJo Cou11c,i1 to care tully
cons i der our recommendat i ons , The cler. i s } c,,i t.o
privatilr: ar,1111,a7 (:cir,t.rtil i))v�olves 1(lany 'cie.yimj -;
is$ues, Anlinal welfare and Oervice tc) ti-le pul_,lic:
are at risk. We would l,e vefry i,1ea5FC3 Lc) ar, er ira
Pexson any ytteHtI(Ale, U11sirig' from thic, rcpc,rt. We
fkI3:t11E:x ask that you inform Animal Alliaric•e of any
crouticil of committee meetings scheduled _regarding
this matter .
FROM B06
Dear Prod,
This 10tter is
res contVaating Animal
Are&, Courtice, nurham a
discuss the Z!Wation. T
zhQuld be considered in
It Our primary concern in
control service to tender
Compassion given to stray
financial commodity viewe
individual: in need. Curr
responsible end caring gr
work with them.
ANVILLE VET PAGE. 002
POwmanville Veterinary Clinic
RR44 Sowmanville
E826 King St E, L1C YK5
Jan 20, 119 ATTACHMENT NO. 3
TO REPORT NO. CS-08-95
"*Wnze to your letter datec jan.2/93
servicat in jTq5. Thr" climics in the
powmanville Veterinary clinicg' met to
i following Points wsr's made and we feel
Our decision.
that we feel that Qontractiog the an,m&l
will decrease the total Animal care and
a and thst the animals will banQme -
a5 QrOfit-Makinq entitis5, rather than
mt1y: the staff of Animal control are a most
UP of individuals, And it is our Pleigure to
2) Emergency and trauma v["ims: Staff must havg knowledge on handling
an& assessing injured ani als0e-what requires immedi.t. attention ad
what can wait.
S) out of hours: sug-en
& I.- if tendering,
day a week coverage for i Party should Provide E4 hour
curygnt working hours. I jured Animals and maintain stray ca: is to
4) Custom euthanasia: Eut anasin of owned patz should not be
allowedybut rather rsfgrr d to local veter"Ar'"s fOr
50ander to provide conti 1''Ued 5" of mun!"Dal dOO taqu and licences.
6) Currently the town pro ides cadaver removal for thy alinics. would
this continue" At what coh?
7) " Wears that our c!
emergency clinic to be to
facility showld be undort
working hours, This woQld
8) Vaccination for Pound
and negotiated with local
9) Currently Durham yet
would be unwilling to pro
will Wildlife be euthaniz
C.C. Scott Rose, Durham Vet C11
nics Will pgrticip8ta in an out Of hours
aced " W"by' "SOUSSiOn with thYs
ken to •
care for injuryd Animals after regular
tentativ$1y start Naroh 1/,`;
animals and care of lick to bg gzt,blished
vyt.Tinwrians.
70vid8y T61 for 8u4.hanasia of Nildlife. They
it to A Private subcontracted pgnty�
How
Sincerely
"Qurtiae Pet Clinic
Dr. Ted Kilpetrick
P.O. Box 252, Bowmarnille, ON L1C 3L1
I
Mayor Diane Hamre
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Mayor Hamre,
AGENDA
January 12, 1995
M� �i -i
JAN 1 6 1995
MUNICIPALITY OF C3_ €trim{ =a � 0i1
MAYOR'S 0FRUE
Durham Animal Adoption volunteers would like to respond to a recent
letter from the Community Services Department regarding the
consideration being given to contracting out the Animal Control
operation in 1995.
As a volunteer group formed with the intent of assisting both
people and companion animals in our community, we are very
interested and concerned with the impact privatization could have
on Animal Control in Clarington. Over the past 5 years we have
been developing what we see as a co- operative relationship with the
present Animal Control shelter, working together with the
Municipality to return lost pets to their families, and to find
adoptive homes for those not spoken for. We have always encouraged
responsible pet ownership, including vaccination, spay /neuter and
identification for dogs and cats of area residents.
Our concern is what the outcome of a privately run shelter may or
may not mean to both the people in Clarington, and their pets.
Several points come to mind as important issues. How much input
would the Municipality have in how a privately run shelter
operates? What guidelines could be imposed to ensure quality
service to the community, and humane care and treatment of the
animals? How accessible and accountable to area residents would
a private shelter be? And while a contract out would relieve some
of the pressure of maintaining and operating the service, the
Municipality would still receive public calls of concern and
complaint if a resident had an animal related problem that wasn't
being handled to their satisfaction.
916
°DURHAM °
P.O. Box 252, Bowmanvl8e, ON L1 C 3L1 (9X) 263-M5
(905) 623-0770
ATTACHMENT
ADO NT NO. 4
TO REPORT NO. CS -08 -95
4'.
4i
January 17, 1995
Mayor Hamre and Members of Council
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, Ontario
L1C 3A6
Mayor and Council Members,
Durham Animal Adoption would like to request a place on the agenda
for your upcoming January 23, 1995 meeting. We would like to
address council with regard to the consideration being given to
contracting out the Animal Control Services in 1995.
If there are any problems or concerns with our request, please"
contact Nancy Armstrong at 623 -0770 at your convenience.
yip
Thank you,
Nancy Armstro
James H. Bandow & Associates
Consulting and Training for Animal Care & Control
898 Francis Rd. Burlington, Ontario. UT 3Y2
Project Report
A REVIEW OF
THE OPERATIONS AND SERVICES PERFORMED
BY THE CITY OF OSHAWA ANIMAL SERVICES SECTION
Prepared for:
The Corporation of the City of Oshawa
Community Services Department
50 Centre Street South
Oshawa, Ontario.
LTH 3Z7
Burlington, Ontario.
June, 1993.
917
Submitted by:
James H. Bandow
Senior Consultant
P.O. Box 252, Bowmanvft, ON L1C 3L1
I`yA
L
a
(905) 263 -8915 (905) 623-0770
Our ideal vision of Clarington's Animal Shelter would be an
environment with the best interest of our community residents and
the dogs, cats and wildlife that live here, in mind. The formation
of a volunteer committee to investigate what would serve our area
best would be a valuable asset in the decision of whether or not
to contract out Animal Control. This committee could be made up
of members from Community Services, Animal Control, volunteer
groups, veterinarians and individuals from the community.
We have enclosed a copy of a 1993 report done by consultant
James Bandow for the City of Oshawa, with regard to prospective
systems of Animal Control.. We found many of the points made to be
interesting and informative, and we hope they will be of help in
your decision making.
cc:members of council
917
Thank you,
Nancy Armstrong
Durham Animal Adoption
i
r �
f
0
r
r
7
r
r
E
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................. ............................... 1
2. WHAT WE SET OUT TO DO ......... ............................... 3
2.1 Assessment of current services ..... ............................... 3
2.2 Service alternatives ............ ............................... 3
2.3 Recommendations ............. ............................... 3
3. WHAT WE DID .................. ............................... 4
3.1
We reviewed animal services records and other documentation ................. 4
3.2
We inspected and examined the building and equipment ..................... 4
3.3
We met with and interviewed animal services staff and others ................. 4
3.4
We identified the key issues ....... ............................... 5
3.5
We examined examples of alternate ways to deliver animal services ............. 5
3.6
We developed recommendations based on our findings ...................... 6
3.7
We prepared a draft report ........ ............................... 6
3.8
We met with the city of oshawa staff committee ......................... 6
3.9
We finalized our report .......... ............................... 6
4. WHAT WE FOUND .................................................
7
4.1
Introduction ................. ...............................
7
4.2
The current level of animal services in Oshawa ...........................
7
4.3
Mission statement and strategic planing ...............................
8
4.4
Hours of operation ............ ...............................
9
4.5
Records ..................... .............................10
4.5.1 Animal records .......... ...............................
11
4.5.2 Operational records ........ ...............................
11
4.5.3 Policy and procedure manual . ...............................
12
4.6
Animal handling .............. ...............................
13
4.6.1 Animal volumes .......... ...............................
14
4.6.2 Impact from Resolution 986 .................................
16
4.6.3 Cats are next ........... ...............................
19
4.7
Shelter facilities and equipment ..... ...............................
20
4.7.1 Location ................ .............................20
4.7.2 Shelter layout and design .... ...............................
20
4.7.3 Vehicles ...............................................
20
4.8
Staffing ..................... .............................20
4.8.1 Service delivery concerns .... ...............................
20
4.8.2 Job descriptions .......... ...............................
21
4.8.3 Performance management and training ...........................
21
4.8.4 Reporting relationships ..... ...............................
22
4.8.5 Staff interviews .............................. ..........
22
4.9
Municipal legislation and enforcement ....................... .......
23
9 f
4.10 The role of private animal service providers . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .24
4.11 Budget . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.12 Animal licensing, registration and enforcement . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 24
4.13 Public relations and community outreach . . ..... .... . . .... ... . 26
4.14 Service evaluation . .... . . ......... .............. . ... . .. ....... 27
5. ANIMAL SERVICE MODELS ... .. ................ ......... . .. . . ... 28
5.1 Model No. l ................. _ ......................... ..... 28
5.2 Model No.2 ................................................. 29
5.3 Model No.3 ................. ............................... 30
6. THE ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH ACT ......................... .. 32
6.1 The pound ..... . ............................ ......... 32
6.1.1 Definitions in the act ............................. .... 32
6.1.2 Comments ....... ......... ...... .................... 32
6.2 Disposal of impounded dogs and cats 35
6.2.1 Requirements and definitions in the act ....................... 35
6.2.2 Comments ............... .............................36
7. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
..... ........ .
7.1 Conclusions
........ ............................... ....
7.2 Consideration of other options to deliver animal services
38
7.2.1 Option 1
39
....... ............................... :....
39
7.2.2 Option 2 ....... . ....................
39
........ ...
......
7.2.3. Option 3
..... ............................... ..
7.3 Specific recommendations to improve service delivery
40
......................
41
RECOMMENDATIONS ............ .............................41
APPENDIX A: ANIMAL CONTROL IN ONTARIO .............................. 44
119
1. INTRODUCTION
generally Animal service (animal care and control) g Y is an activity that is highly visible to the
citizenry, and animal care, control, and service issues and concerns are frequently brought to
the attention of local municipal councillors.
Over the years, surveys conducted by municipalities anrimal services tended
than wwith
indicate that residents are more likely to voice their dissatisfaction with
any other municipal service.
Considering this high profile, it is surprising the low pnority and staff re, control and service
programs frequently receive in funding, equipment allocation
In recent years, a number of municipalities have developed progressive and innovative
approaches to deal with animal related issues. The Cityo of
section for has ad mal Servtaken first
steps in that direction by changing the name of its animal
and completing construction of a new
shelter to follow this up w th an aggres progressive
aggressive animal
steps have placed the City in an excellent p osition
service program that incorporates concepts and ideas that have been shown to work successfully
elsewhere.
This service review was initiated for three reasons.
Firstly, a decision had been made in 1992 to carry out an itiated, and with h he departure of the
Services. For a number of reasons the review was never
Animal Services Manager in March 1993, such internal review had become difficult, if not
impossible, to do.
whether. the current way of delivering animal services was
Secondly, questions had been raised
the best model for the City at this time.
Finally, there have been concerns about the efficiency and q frolm he City adopting Resolution
by the City, and about the impact on shelter services resulting
968, which stopped the sale of animals to research facilities.
This study should not be viewed as a complete review of all aspects of the City's Animal
Services. As an example, resources did not permit a survey of Services users. However, we are
` rforman ce factors we-were able to gain sufficient
confident that by reviewing some of the key pe
insight to permit us to make our recommendations.
1
We have reflected on the discussions held with various rict Humane Society Durham Animal
s of City management and
i operations staff, with representatives of the Oshawa &
L
Adoption, Animal Guardian Society, the South Durham Veterinary Association, and with
individuals from other animal care and control agencies and organizations in Ontario, whom we
consulted and approached for information.
Those discussions, together with our review of the documentation provided to us by the City,
and our visits to the animal facilities operated by the City and those operated by the Oshawa and
District Humane Society, have provided the basis for our conclusions and recommendations.
In order to understand the reasoning for some of our recommendations, it might be helpful to
be familiar with the evolution from dog catching to animal services in Ontario, and with the
relevant sections of the Ontario Animals for Research Act.
We have therefore included a discussion of both topics in this report.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone with whom we had contact during this
study for their cooperation, courtesy and candour. A listing of the names of individuals and
organizations who provided us with information are listed in Chapter 3.3.
L
2. WHAT WE SET OUT TO DO
2.1 ASSESSMENT OF CURRENT SERVICES
We set out to look at the animal services currently provided by the City of Oshawa. We looked
at those services from the City's perspective, from the perspective of resident users, and from
the perspective of a number of individuals and groups having an interest in this issue.
We set out to examine to what degree the services met the City's animal service mandate or
mission statement and the City's written animal service goals and objectives.
2.2 SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
One of our goals was to provide an overview of the major animal service delivery models
currently in use in Ontario, to compare their advantages and their disadvantages from a
municipal perspective as we saw them, and to determine which option offered the most practical
and effective way to deliver animal services in the City of Oshawa.
2.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Our final goal was to recommend the most appropriate and the most effective animal service
delivery model for the City of Oshawa at this time.
y2�'
3. WHAT WE DID
3.1 WE REVIEWED ANIMAL SERVICES RECORDS AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION
In order to determine the current level of service provided by the City of Oshawa's Animal
Services we reviewed:
a) The Animal Services Policy and Procedure Manual; j
b) Shelter Record Books for the years 1990 & 1991; J
c) Animal Services Reports for the months January 1991 to March 1993;
d) A summary of dog licensing information for the years 1990, 1991, 1992; and,
1993;
e) Job descriptions for the positions of:
► Animal Services Officer;
Animal Services Clerk;
► Working Foreman /Woman (Animal Control);
► Manager, Animal Services;
f) Information items identified as " Duties performed - not in Policy and Procedure
Book";
g) Staffing and scheduling information;
h) City of Oshawa animal by -laws enforced by Animal Services;
i) Excerpts from Animal Services Stand -by Records. I
3.2 WE INSPECTED AND EXAMINED THE BUILDING AND EQUIPMENT
a) We inspected the type of vehicles used by Animal Services, vehicle markings and
equipment;
b) We toured the City's animal holding facilities at 919 Farewell St.
C) We toured the facilities operated by the Oshawa and District Humane Society at
199 Waterloo St. 1
3.3 WE MET WITH AND INTERVIEWED ANIMAL SERVICES STAFF AND OTHERS
The assistance of the following individuals, groups and organizations in the preparation
of this report is gratefully acknowledged:
► A. Graham Nelson, R.D.M.R., P.Mgr., Director of Community Services, City
of Oshawa
T 2
* R. Noel Hutchinson, H.L.T., A.M.C.T.(A), Director Parks Division, Community
Services Department, City of Oshawa
* William L. Slute, Bac.Agr.(Env.Hort.), A.M.C.T.(A), Parks Manager, Parks
Operation Section, Community Services Department, City of Oshawa.
* W.P.(Paul) Hurley, Training and Development Co- ordinator, City of Oshawa
Suzanne Menzie, Working Forewoman, Oshawa Animal Services
Patrick Hanley, Clerk, Oshawa Animal Services
Laurie Davis, Durham Animal Adoption
Terry Jackson, Officer, Oshawa Animal Services
Gary Swinson, Officer, Oshawa Animal Services
Lynn Piggott, Officer, Oshawa Animal Services
Cathy Azling, Animal Guardian Society
Nancy Armstrong, A r i I 0 R L C' 1
Michelle Stevens, Director, Oshawa & District Humane Society
Jim-Ruffly -, Executive Director, Oshawa & District Humane Society
Brenda Gilfillen, Shelter Manager, Oshawa & District Humane Society
Tom Hogg, DVM., South Durham Veterinary Association
Liz White, Director, Animal Alliance of Canada
Frank Hampson, Manager, Lincoln County Humane Society
Note: Names identified with an asterisk identify members of the City of Oshawa
Staff Committee referred to in chapter 3.4.
W. P. (Paul) Hurley only attended the discussion of the draft report (Chapter 3.8).
3.4. WE IDENTIFIED THE KEY ISSUES
During our review of the documentation provided, and through our discussions with City staff,
with other individuals and representatives of other organizations having an interest in companion
animals and /or in animal services in the City of Oshawa we identified a number of issues for
clarification by the City of Oshawa Staff Committee.
3.5 WE EXAMINED EXAMPLES OF ALTERNATE WAYS TO DELIVER ANIMAL
SERVICES
We examined examples of the different animal service delivery models found in Ontario.
We contacted the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Animal Industry . Branch, for
clarification and interpretations of a number of definitions in the Animals for Research Act.
Ilk.
4
3.6 WE DEVELOPED RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON OUR FINDINGS
The type and volume of records maintained by Oshawa Animal Services were somewhat limited.
This lack of recorded data made a reasonable analysis of the effectiveness and efficiency of
animal services currently provided by the City of Oshawa virtually impossible without
undertaking a major user survey. This fact increased the importance of the comments and
observations of those outside the civic service with whom we met.
Through those meetings and discussion we were able to gain an insight into the scope and quality
of animal services currently available to residents of the City of Oshawa.
We also gained an understanding of the interests and the abilities of other groups and individuals
to deliver all or part of the animal services in the City. That information is reflected in our
recommendations.
3.7 WE PREPARED A DRAFT REPORT
Upon completion of our review, we prepared our report in draft for discussion. The report was
then circulated to the City of Oshawa Staff Committee for their review.
3.8 WE MET WITH THE CITY OF OSHAWA STAFF COMMITTEE
The Oshawa Staff Committee was reconvened to discuss the contents of our report and to clarify
our findings and recommendation.
3.9 WE FINALIZED OUR REPORT
Following the meeting with the Oshawa Staff Committee we made the appropriate changes to
the draft report and issued our final version.
x
�ZJ
4. WHAT WE FOUND
4.1 INTRODUCTION
All animal services related to municipal by -law enforcement are currently being delivered by the
City of Oshawa from it's shelter at 919 Farewell Street.
In addition, the Oshawa & District Humane Society operates an animal adoption centre,
primarily for cats surrendered to them by owners, at 199 Waterloo Street. Space permitting,
the Society occasionally purchases dogs from the City for adoption purposes. Two other
volunteer groups, Durham Animal Adoption and Animal Guardian Society, also help locate
potential adopters for available animals at the City's facility. All groups outside of the City
stated that, although they have tried to help find homes. for unredeemed animals, they have not
always been receiving expected co- operation from City shelter staff.
We applaud the City's recent decision to change the name of it's animal service section from
"Animal Control" to "Animal Services ". This type of positive move, along with initiatives such
as changing the names of "pounds" to "animal centres" or "shelters ", are occurring throughout
North America. Those initiatives are part of an overall strategy to change public perceptions
about the negative image of "dog catching" and "pounds" of the past.
The City of Oshawa continues to actively pursue other initiatives that will help promote and
advance the "public service" focus.
The next step for Oshawa should be the development of a strong public service program focus.
4.2 THE CURRENT LEVEL OF ANIMAL SERVICES IN OSHAWA
In order to determine the current level of service we looked at a number of specific service
components that are commonly indicators about the effectiveness of an animal service program.
The components we examined were:
► Mission statement, planning and program development;
► Hours of Operation;
► Records and other documentation;
► Number of animals handled;
► Shelter facilities;
► Staffing;
► Municipal legislation and enforcement;
► The role of private sector animal services;
`�26
► Budget;
Animal licensing, registration, identification;
► Public relations and community outreach;
► Service evaluation.
During this review we looked for issues with potentially significant impact on determining the
best animal service delivery model for the City of Oshawa.
4.3 MISSION STATEMENT AND STRATEGIC PLANING
The first thing we noted was that neither a mandate or mission statement, nor planning
documents with specific goals and objectives existed for Oshawa Animal Services. We tried to
get a sense of the aims and objectives of the agency through our discussions with City staff and
through our meetings with other individuals and groups.
Enforcement of municipal by -laws was the frequently identified reason for the existence of
Animal Services. Although there has been a change in name, it appears that this has not
necessarily resulted in a change of perception. We believe that without a clear mission
statement, it will be difficult to identify specific goals or plan goal - specific programs that focus
on service rather than on enforcement.
As an example, the City of Toronto's Animal Control Service mission statement reads:
"Maintaining an urban environment where humans and animals can co -exist
free of conditions that adversely effect the health and safety of the community ".
To achieve that mission, the City of Toronto has identified four major programs.
These are:
1. Rabies Control;
2. Care and control of dogs and cats;
3. Control of wild, exotic and domestic animals, other than dogs and cats;
4. Responsible Pet Ownership and the Human- Animal Bond.
Within those programs a number of specific objectives and date specific implementation
strategies are identified. These provide the opportunity to measure progress towards achieving
individual program goals as Animal Control Services works towards achieving it's mission.
It has been our experience that when animal service agencies,or groups are not clear on their
mission, and staff is uncertain, it often follows that the public is confused why some services
are available and why others are not. This can have the effect that service expectations by the
public are significantly different than the agency is prepared to provide.
T �� L /
We must remember that few other public issues can be as charged with emotion, or can get the
public as upset, as animal issues. Failure to provide a clear definition of what the public can
expect, and why, can cause needless complaints to City management and elected representatives.
One of those issues that came up during a number of discussions with staff and with outside
groups was the City's role in dealing with cats. We noticed that there appeared to be different
expectations and different understandings, depending whom we spoke with. Because of its
importance in the delivery of future animal services, we have commented on the cat issue as a
separate item in Chapter 4.6.3 of this report.
Public misconceptions about animal services also do not automatically change if the decision is
made to contract the service out. No matter who is responsible for service delivery, it will
remain a municipal service, and the public will still hold the City responsible for the type and
quality of service it receives.
No matter which service delivery model is chosen, a clear mandate, or mission statement, tells
everyone how a municipality views animal services and how it sees the role of it's animal
service agency. A clear mandate also provides the focus for long term strategic planning, and
makes it easier to develop and gain support for specific programs and implementation strategies.
4.4 HOURS OF OPERATION
Oshawa Animal Services currently provides service to the public during the following hours:
Monday to Friday: 08:00 to 17:00 hrs. & after -hours emergency service
Saturdays: 08:00 to 10:00 hrs. & after -hours emergency service
Sundays and Holidays: Field services on stand -by bases only.
No shelter services.
We did not undertake an examination of the amount of time spent daily on cleaning and caring
for the animals. We are therefore unable to comment about the appropriateness of the schedule.
However, the above hours make it extremely difficult for most people, who work during the
C day, to get to the shelter. As the focus changes, and the agency becomes more service oriented,
consideration should be given to at least adjusting the hours when the Shelter is open to the
public. Traditionally, animal services staff do not work "office hours ". Most Shelters attempt
to accommodate the animal owning community. Since redemption of stray and found animals
and animal adoptions, are important shelter functions, we suggest that the City evaluate whether
the current staff complement would permit extending shelter hours at least on one evening per
week until 19:00 or 20:00 hours, and to extend Saturday services at least until 12:00 hours. We
also reviewed the type of "stand -by" services provided during after- hours. We arbitrarily
selected eight pages from the stand -by record book for examination. Those pages covered parts
of the
months of September to December 1992, and January to June 1993, and showed a total of 179
animal related calls.
Although the types of calls responded to ranged from assisting the Police to picking -up dead
squirrels, most calls could be classified into six categories. Based on our sampling, following
are the sir categories and the percentage of the 179 calls they represent:
24%
INJURED CATS
19%
INJURED DOGS
16%
DEAD CATS
6%
ASSIST POLICE
6%
VICIOUS DOGS
5 %
INJURED SQUIRRELS
24%
ALL REMAINING CATEGORIES
We found that 56% of the 179 calls related to the pick -up of injured animals, and 20% to the
pick -up of animal cadavers.
Although we were told that stand -by service are restricted to "emergencies ", we did not find
written definitions of the types of calls considered as "emergencies ". We recognize that there
is little room for discretion when it comes to responding to an injured animal call, or when it
comes to removing a larger animal cadaver that causes traffic problems. We question however,
whether there is a need to provide stand -by services to pick up smaller animal cadavers like
squirrels or cats. In many municipalities callers requesting such after -hours service are simply
requested to leave such cadavers, or to move them to the side of the road for daytime pick up.
It would appear that the City is spending a considerable amount of money on overtime. We
would suggest, that the City clarify the types of calls it considers "emergencies ", and that such
information be included in any promotional brochures.
4.5 RECORDS
All records provided to us were treated as confidential information.
In keeping with the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, we
did not contact anyone whose name appeared in the records.
4.5.1 ANIMAL RECORDS
We were provided with two log books identified as INDEX 1990 and INDEX 1991. These
records provided individual entries of:
�' ► dates and addresses from where animals were received,
► the types of animal (by species only) received, and whether they were picked up
by staff or admitted by residents,
► what money was received with admission of animals,
► dates, names and addresses of all individuals who either purchased or redeemed
Ilanimals and the amounts of money received from those transactions,
► animal rabies suspects,
► animals boarded,
u ► dates and areas when and where complaints were investigated (The 1990 Index
contained information until October' only; the 1991 Index contained no
investigation information)
► receipt book numbers.
We were also provided with computer summary sheets for each of the months of January 1991
to March 1993. Although those monthly reports provided information about the number of
animals picked up by staff and admitted by the public, the information was not precise enough
to develop a good overview of the categories of animals being handled. Annual summaries and
comparative analysis of specific calls or activities did not exist. However, absence of such
documents is not unusual. Nevertheless, the records we received, provided us with a good sense
of the overall numbers and types of animals handled.
4.5.2 OPERATIONAL RECORDS
The only reference to field services, or to the number of investigations or responses to service
requests, appeared in the log identified as Index 1990. The entries covered the period from
January 01 to October 18, 1990, when a total 2140 "Investigations" were entered by date and
by street or by area. There was no information entered about the type of investigation carried
it out, or about the outcome of the investigation. There were also no records that indicated how
long it took to respond, or the length of time taken for each investigation.
Although no investigation entries had been made in the log identified as Index 1991, the monthly
computer summary records provided information about the "Investigation calls received by
telephone".
We totalled the monthly records and arrived at the following summary:
1991
(INFORMATION
FOR
11
MONTHS
ONLY):
2354 CALLS
1992
(INFORMATION
FOR
11
MONTHS
ONLY):
1750 CALLS
1993
(INFORMATION
FOR
3
MONTHS
ONLY):
272 CALLS
THIS TRANSLATES INTO THE FOLLOWING MONTHLY CALL AVERAGES:
IN 1991 OF: 214
IN 1992 OF: 159
IN 1993 OF: 91
Since the 1993 information represents three "slow" months (January, February and March), we
would anticipate that the overall monthly average for 1993 will be somewhat higher than the first
three month average, but probably below the 1992 monthly average of 159. This indicates a
significant decline in the number of requests for investigations or service requests over the last
three years. We suspect that this decline is largely the result of a stabilizing of dog populations,
and is similar to animal service experiences elsewhere across North America. However, as
animal service agencies get involved with cat related issues and legislation, and as they shift
from re- active to pro- active service delivery, they commonly experience a rapid increase in
requests for service.
Having this type of information is therefore especially helpful in strategic planning and
developing programs that respond to public need. We would therefore urge the City to keep
records like: response times, recommendations to animal owners, etc.. Such information can
easily be tracked and recorded by developing a more extensive " 10" Code.
4.5.3 POLICY AND PROCEDURE MANUAL
We were provided with a copy of the Animal Services Procedure Manual, bearing a notation
"Received March 28, 1991 ".
We liked the organization of materials and references in the Manual, and commend the City on
the production of this document. We believe that it forms an excellent reference work for
employees, and provided us with good insight into how Oshawa Animal Services was intended
to function when the focus was on enforcement.
We found a need for further clarification of some of the terminology in a number of procedures
(e.g. "unprovoked ", "sufficient evidence" etc.), but were generally favourably impressed with
the work that has gone into the development of the document.
As the priorities of the City's Animal Services change in line with it's change in name, these
procedures will require updating. However, the established format. should make this easy.
1�
93
4.6 ANIMAL HANDLING
We have previously identified the various pieces of documentation that provided us with
information about the volume of animals handled in 1990, 1991, 1992 and the first three months
of 1993.
However, without review of each individual receipt it was impossible to identify some important
factors such as:
► how many dogs were apprehended by staff while straying on public property;
► how many straying dogs were taken home by residents and picked -up from
finders' addresses;
► how many dogs and cats were picked up with identification affixed;
i ► how many identifiable animals were taken straight home to their owners;
► what was the average holding time before redemption for straying animals at the
City's Animal Centre.
I
i
`Ilk,
9
4.6.1 ANIMAL VOLUMES
We also wanted to determine whether changes in shelter animal volumes, identified by some
other shelters and agencies across North America, held true for Oshawa.
Since the categories of "owned animals ", or "straying animals confined by residents ", or
"impounded animals" were not clearly defined-.in the City's Index logs or in the computer
summaries, we had to make some educated guesses in order to determine redemption and sales
rates from those categories.
We randomly selected March 1990 and September 1991 from the records and decided to look
at the handling of dogs for those months.
The following is what we found:
MARCH 1990 SEPT. 1991
No. of stray dogs picked up by staff:
71
51
No. of stray dogs admitted by residents:
27
19
TOTAL STRAY DOGS RECEIVED
98
70
TOTAL STRAY DOGS REDEEMED:
40 (40.8 %)
23 (32.9 %)
TOTAL STRAY DOGS REMAINING:
58
47
No. of owned dogs surrendered:
33
12
TOTAL DOGS AVAILABLE FOR SALE:
91
59
No. of dogs sold to new owners (adopted):
29 (31.9%)
27 (45.8%)
No. of dogs sold to research institutions:
13
0
No. of dogs euthanized at the shelter:
N/A
25
When we compared the volume of incoming animals, we noticed a 29% overall drop in
September 1991 over March 1990. We looked for reasons for the decline, and decided that
perhaps the spring/fall variable could produce those differences.
Since we did not want to compare "apples with oranges ", we' went back into the records and
extracted the information for September 1990. We were unable to look at September 1992,
since information for that month was not available from the records supplied.
Q 7 }
For September 1990 we found the following:
at in
Those figures showed that the incoming dog volume 9915 we noted ah23%
March 1990. When we compared September 1990
reduction in the number of dogs in 1991.
This is similar to the March 1990 /September 1991 comparison.
The following is a summary of all live dogs (stray and owned) received for the above, randomly
selected months:
March 1990: 131
September 1990: 111
September 1991: 82
March 1993: 69
This is good news in light of the expressed ion 968. concems about the pressure on dog housing space
at the Oshawa shelter as a result of Re
C _)4
L
Because of it's impact on animal management at the shelter, Resolution 968 was the subject of
considerable discussion with everyone we spoke with.
4.6.2 IMPACT FROM RESOLUTION 986
On November 19, 1990, Council of the City of Oshawa adopted Resolution 968, as amended
by Resolution 969, which provides that the City .of Oshawa does not and will not comply with
requests under the terms of the Animals for Research and will no longer supply any animals to
any operator of a research facility, as provided for under the Ontario ANIMALS FOR
RESEARCH ACT, Section #20.
The passing of that resolution restricted the available disposal options of apparently healthy dogs
and cats, or those which are ill or injured, but which in the opinion of a veterinarian are capable
of being cured or healed so as to live without suffering thereafter, and which have been
"impounded" under City of Oshawa By -laws.
The applicable sections of the Animals for Research Act are discussed in Chapter 6. The
implication of the City's decision not to sell animals for research purposes are that any dog or
cat, which has been impounded under City by -laws, may now only:
a) be returned to the person who owned it before it came into the possession of the
City,
or
b) be sold or disposed of by gift or be held in possession for sale or disposal to a
bona fide purchaser or donee,
i) as a pet,
for use in hunting, or
iii) for working purposes.
or
C) be euthanized by a veterinarian if it is found to be unsuitable for research.
The main impact from Resolution 968 has been that some impounded, unredeemed dogs require
sheltering for longer periods of time than before while attempts are made to Iocate "bona fide"
purchasers or donees.
Since the City currently does not have a by -law that provides for. the impoundment of cats,
Resolution 968 impacts on dogs only.
_r .
,i ),)
The Oshawa Shelter is equipped with 26 dog kennels (plus 4 kennels in the isolation room).
Kennels are designed to hold one adult dog at any one time. We have been told by shelter staff
and by others that as a result of Resolution 968, on occasion the City has been unable to provide
housing for all dogs delivered to the City's Animal Shelter.
Records indicate that 1990 was the last year in which dogs were sold for research purposes by
the City of Oshawa. The Log, identified as Index 1990, showed 53 dogs having been sold to
research institutions that year. The Log did not .provide any information about the number of
animals euthanized in 1990.
We were informed by shelter staff, that since the adoption of Resolution 968, more dogs have
required longer holding periods.
The computer summary for March 1993 of the Animal Services Report, is the first document
that makes reference to the numbers of dogs being held over.
dThat record shows the following carry-over from March 1993 to April 1993:
0
C
r
a
7 DOGS IN THE SHELTER NOT LESS THAN 10 AND NOT MORE THAN 20 DAYS
b
1 DOG IN THE SHELTER NOT LESS THAN 21 AND NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS
C
1 DOG IN THE SHELTER NOT LESS THAN 31 AND NOT MORE THAN 40 DAYS
d
1 DOG IN THE SHELTER NOT LESS THAN 41 AND NOT MORE THAN 50 DAYS
e
1 DOG IN THE SHELTER NOT LESS THAN 51 AND NOT MORE THAN 60 DAYS
f
11 1 DOG IN THE SHELTER MORE THAN 61 DAYS (76 DAYS)
Shelter staff suggested that most of those animals would probably not be adopted for a variety
of reasons, and were of the type that in the past would have been euthanized. Some animals have
been purchased from time to time by the local animal welfare and animal adoption agencies for
the purpose of finding new homes for them. Those groups indicated to us that they were
interested to continue doing this in the future.
Since those groups rely on the generosity of others in time and resources, and since they do not
purchase those animals to generate revenues, we would urge that the City consider donating
eligible animals to them for adoption purposes. If the animals were provided without charge,
it might also be possible to encourage those groups to occasionally take an animal that has been
identified as difficult to adopt by animal shelter staff.
9J6
In order to determine to what degree the Shelter holding capacity of 26 dog cages and 32 cat
cages was capable of accommodating longer animal holding periods, we extracted the
appropriate information from the records supplied, I and developed the following annual
summaries for 1991 and 1992.
We must state here that we do not have absolute confidence in the numbers we found in some
of the records. We attempted to balance the number of animals received against the number of
animals disposed of, and even after allowing for a reasonable carry-over, we found the
discrepancies too great to consider the numbers accurate.
Without examining each individual animal's record we are unable to state how those
discrepancies have occurred.
We nevertheless used those numbers as the total dogs and cats received and plugged them into
a commonly used animal holding capacity formula.
Summary of dogs and cats received in 1991 and 1992:
DOGS 1992 1991
No. of dogs picked -up
684
748
No. of dogs admitted by residents
389
426
TOTAL DOGS RECEIVED
1073
1174
CATS 1992 1991
No. of cats picked -up
226
236
No. of cats admitted by residents
1026
765
TOTAL CATS RECEIVED
1252
1001
CAPACITY FORMULA:
y = 365 (r n
a
365 is the number of days in the year
r is the number of cages /kennels/runs
n is the number of dogs /cats per cage /kennel /run
a is the average holding time in days
y is the approximate number of dogs /cats that can be housed per year
M
Example: y = 365 (12 x 1)
4
y =365x3
y = 1095 animals /year
Taking an average annual receipt of 1100 dogs and 1200 cats and 26 dog cages and 32 cat cages,
we suggest that the Shelter is capable of housing those 1100 dogs for an average of
approximately 8.5 days each, and those 1200 cats for an average of approximately 9.5 days
each.
Considering that on average approx. 40% of the dogs were redeemed within the redemption
period, this would allow some, but not much extra capacity to carry over dogs for extended
periods of time.
4.6.3 CATS ARE NEXT
With a significant shift in socio- economic conditions and a changed lifestyle, more Ontarians
now live in fewer communities of higher population density. And many live alone.
Unfortunately, while the need for animal companionship appears to have increased, the ability
to own dogs has been greatly diminished. As a result we have seen a significant increase in
ownership of fish, birds, small rodents and in cats.
It is generally agreed that owned cats now significantly outnumber owned dogs.
And although more cats than dogs are now passing through most pounds and shelters in Ontario,
few municipalities have as yet taken any steps to come to grips with this issue.
As the numbers of cats in communities grow, so does the potential for conflicts with the human
population. Progressive animal control agencies accept that some degree of cat control is
necessary and are starting to develop legislation, policies and procedures to deal with cats.
t Although it is unquestionably controversial, the time has come to start regulating the keeping
of cats.
The City of Toronto's Neighbourhoods Committee recently approved a report to control cats in
the City. Consequently, the City's Solicitor is currently drafting legislation that will provide for
the mandatory registration of cats, and restricting the numbers that may be kept to six, except
when both dogs and cats are kept in the same dwelling unit, when the number of dogs shall not
exceed three, and the combined total of all dogs and cats shall not exceed six.
We believe that cat issues will dominate animal control issues during the next 10 to 15 years.
4.7 SHELTER FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
4.7.1 LOCATION
The City's Shelter facility at 919 Farewell Street. is a new facility, in pleasant surroundings. It
is too soon after relocation to permit us to comment on the impact of the move on any changes
in redemption or adoption of animal.
4.7.2 SHELTER LAYOUT AND DESIGN
The layout appears to be reasonably functional. However, dog and cat housing are not designed
for long term holding. If the requirement to house animals for extensive period (week vs. days)
of time continues, consideration should be given to providing outdoor activity areas that are
easily accessible and permit effective cleaning and maintenance. In some facilities volunteer dog
walkers are used to provide housed animals with periods of activity outside the kennel areas
instead of outside activity areas.
4.7.3 VEHICLES
The four vehicles used by Animal Services are functional, and the lettering and markings
attractive.
Given the size of the City, and its human population, the number of Animal Services staff, the
number of reported investigations and the number of animals picked -up by Animal Services
staff, it should be possible to reduce the fleet from our to three service vehicles without
significantly effecting service.
4.8 STAFFING
4.8.1 SERVICE DELIVERY CONCERNS
Virtually everyone we spoke with outside of City staff had some unkind words about the way
they, or people they knew, had been treated at the Shelter. This is a significant public relations
issue that requires the City's prompt attention. Since these comments were received from a
variety of sources, they should give rise to concerns about the potential impact on the public
image of Animal Services.
We learned that this was not experienced each and every time when complainants visited the
shelter, nor was it happening with all staff members. -
7 C
L' .
We pondered therefore, whether it -was appropriate to include those allegations in this report,
particularly since the individual staff members responsible for any alleged "unprofessional
conduct" were not identified. However, the role of staff is absolutely crucial in delivering such
high profile public service, and the fact that we heard comments about staff rudeness and about
an uncaring and unhelpful attitude from a variety of sources, has persuaded us to mention it in
this report.
We used to regularly hear those types of complaint twenty or more years ago, when the
individuals who were hired to be "dog catchers" were required to have few, if any good people
skills (see Appendix "A "). However, most of the public has different expectations today. We
aacknowledge that working with the public in an animal service environment is frequently
difficult. Nevertheless, unprofessional conduct can no longer be excused today. If stress and
Ig job burnout are identified as the cause for such conduct, efforts should be made to relocate staff
to less volatile working environments.
4 4.8.2 JOB DESCRIPTIONS
We reviewed the Job Descriptions of Animal Services Clerk, Animal Services Officer, Animal
Services Working Foreman/Woman, and Manager of Animal Services.
The job descriptions were in line with similar ones we have seen in this field. We noted that
all positions required either good public relation skills or the ability to deal tactfully with the
public, skills that we consider essential for individuals working in an animal service
environment. Because the relationship of people and their pets is frequently extremely close,
a great deal of sensitivity is required by animal service staff when dealing with the pet owning
public.
4.8.3 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING
Because the Animal Services section itself does not have measurable standards of performance
at the present time, it is difficult to measure staff contribution. Staff are expected to meet
performance standards as established by the City's Performance Management process.
Individual employees' performance will be linked to Animal Services Section goals, once these
have been established.
Since the Manager's position is currently vacant, we were not able to determine the type and
degree of direction given staff by the Manager. In fact, other than updated job descriptions we
saw little evidence of the past Manager's influence on providing a sense of direction to the
operation.
Training of Animal Services Staff is a combination of on-the-job training combined with skills
enhancement through training and coaching sessions inside and outside the City.
During 1991 - 1992 training, development, skills enhancement and coaching have included
sessions on: Customer Service, Stress Management, Stress Assessment, Management Skills and
Group Problem Solving.
4.8.4 REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS
The organizational reporting relationships called * for the Manager of Animal Service to report
to the Director of the Parks Division. Since the departure of the Manager in May 1993, an
interim reporting relationship has been established, which requires the Working Forewoman to
report directly to the Parks Manager, whose office is located in another wing of the same
building that houses the Shelter.
It appears that this reporting system adequately responds to the day -to -day needs of the
operation.
Given the structure of Oshawa Animal Services and the current workload, we question the need
for a full -time Manager of Animal Services. Given the field experience of staff and two
certified Animal Health Technicians on staff, Animal Services now has sufficient personnel with
technical skills. What it needs is a skilled administrator who can provide leadership, direction
and general supervision of the organization, and who can guide program development and
implementation strategies.
Although initially there may be a sufficient workload for a full -time Manager, we believe once
programs and implementation strategies are in place, that the workload can be handled on a two
to three day per week basis.
4.8.5 STAFF INTERVIEWS
We interviewed the five Animal Services staff in two groups, one group of three and one of two.
Three staff members have been working with Animal Services for a long period of time long
period of time (up to 20 years), and two have joined the staff during the last three years. The
two latest staff additions are certified Animal Health Technicians, one of whom is the Working
Forewoman, and since the departure of the Animal Control Manager in March 1993, has been
reporting directly to the Parks Manager.
During our interviews we found all staff to be courteous, pleasant, and open about their roles,
why they worked at animal service, their perception of Oshawa Animal Services, past and
present, and how they felt about the move from an enforcement to a service focus.
Since we have worked with staff in similar organizations as they were changing their focus from
enforcement to service, we anticipated some of the comments we heard.
941
Staff expressed the belief that they were "doing a good job ", that responses to service requests
were prompt and effectively handled, and, that in their opinion, they were delivering excellent
service to the community. Each one of them stated' that they liked what they were doing,
although we sensed that the level of compensation and the ability to work overtime was an
important reason why some of them worked at Animal Services. All of them expressed concern,
about the future of Oshawa Animal Services.
All animal service workers operate in the public. eye in a field that generates a lot of emotions.
For such workers one of the key requirements is the ability to liaise well with the public. There
are situations, of course, where "strong arm" tactics may be required, but in the majority of
cases this will be unnecessary, even counterproductive. For an animal service agency to be
effective, it is important that all staff have a sensitivity for public relations.
We have no doubt that some of the current staff members have the ability and the attitude
required to work in such an environment. However, we question whether all of them have the
ability to adjust from a "control" to a "service" environment. We have seen similar situations
d in other agencies where some staff members had difficulty making the adjustment to the
® detriment of the agency as a whole. Although animal skills will always be important, work in
an animal "service" environment requires much greater reliance on good interpersonal and
problem solving skills. Without a detailed staff training needs evaluation we are not prepared
to state how many of current staff can successfully adjust without a fundamental change in
attitude and without additional interpersonal skills training.
4.9 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT
We reviewed the following City by -laws:
► NO. 105 -85 AS AMENDED BY BY -LAWS NO. 45 -91 AND NO. 62 -88
► NO. 81 -83 AS AMENDED BY BY -LAWS NO. 5 -89, NO. 58 -87 AND NO. 64-86
► NO. 77 -90.
We also reviewed the enforcement procedures, as outlined in the Animal Services Policy and
Procedure Manual.
Although we have some questions about certain provisions in some of the by -laws which to us
appear to be open to challenge, and about some of the recommended enforcement procedures,
since those by -laws have been in use for a number of years, we suspect that they are probably
working.
We were advised by shelter staff that few by -law infractions are taken to court, and that no "set
fines" have been established for any of the by -laws infractions.
Although we do not promote the routine use of tickets or summonses as problem solving tools,
there are times when a ticket, served on the spot, is appropriate. To that end we would suggest
r
T1
Staff expressed the belief that they were "doing a good job ", that responses to
p service requests
were prompt and effectively handled, and, that in their opinion, they were delivering excellent
service to the community. Each one of them stated that they liked what they were doing,
although we sensed that the level of compensation and the ability to work overtime was an
important reason why some of them worked at Animal Services. All of them expressed concern
about the future of Oshawa Animal Services.
All animal service workers operate in the public_ eye in a field that generates a lot of emotions.
For such workers one of the key requirements is the ability to liaise well with the public. There
are situations, of course, where "strong arm" tactics may be required, but in the majority of
cases this will be unnecessary, even counterproductive. For an animal service agency to be
effective, it is important that all staff have a sensitivity for public relations.
We have no doubt that some of the current staff members have the ability and the attitude
required to work in such an environment. However, we question whether all of them have the
ability to adjust from a "control" to a "service" environment. We have seen similar situations
in other agencies where some staff members had difficulty making the adjustment to the
detriment of the agency as a whole. Although animal skills will always be important, work in
an animal "service" environment requires much greater reliance on good interpersonal and
problem solving skills. Without a detailed staff training needs evaluation we are not prepared
to state how many of current staff can successfully adjust without a fundamental change in
attitude and without additional interpersonal skills training.
L 4.9 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT
We reviewed the following City by -laws:
► NO. 105 -85 AS AMENDED BY BY -LAWS NO, 45 -91 AND NO. 62 -88
► NO. 81 -83 AS AA1ENDED BY BY -LAWS NO. 5 -89, NO. 58 -87 AND NO. 64-86
► NO. 77 -90.
We also reviewed the enforcement procedures, as outlined in the Animal Services Policy and
Procedure Manual.
Although we have some questions about certain provisions in some of the by -laws which to us
appear to be open to challenge, and about some of the recommended enforcement procedures,
since those by -laws have been in use for a number of years, we suspect that they are probably
working.
We were advised by shelter staff that few by -law infractions are taken to court, and that no "set
fines" have been established for any of the by -laws infractions.
Although we do not promote the routine use of tickets or summonses as problem solving tools,
there are times when a ticket, served on the spot, is appropriate. To that end we would suggest
0
that the City give consideration to the establishment of "set tines ", at least for the more common
offences, such as "dog -at- large" or "fail to license ".
4.10 THE ROLE OF PRIVATE ANIMAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
As an animal service agency changes from an enforcement to a service mode, the public will
increase it's demand for the type of services the agency provides. The agency's literature should
clearly outline what services are available and when and where to obtain help elsewhere. From
time to time all animal service agencies receive requests for assistance with rodent or insect
control. Those types of calls are best left to private, licensed Pest Control Operators.
During recent years businesses specializing in the removal of "nuisance" wildlife have appeared.
Although most of the animals they handle are regulated under the Ontario Game and Fish Act,
these businesses are currently not licensed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Unfortunately,
this has attracted some operators who have had little experience in wildlife handling, and others
who have demonstrated some unethical practices.
The Province has introduced legislation (Bill 162, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act)
which includes provisions for the licensing and training of wildlife control agents and
rehabilitators.
4.11 BUDGET r i
J
Since our mandate was to review the operational side of the City's Animal Services, we only
took a cursory look at the budget. We did not undertake a detailed analysis.
We found the overall 1992 budget expenditures in line with those of other area municipalities,
given the number of animals handled and the number of investigations /service calls completed.
4.12 ANIMAL LICENSING, REGISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
We were advised that the City currently licenses in the neighbourhood of 3,000 dogs. (3,120 in
1990; 3,100 in 1991 and 2,800 in 1992). Considering other municipalities of similar size and
make -up, we estimate the total Oshawa dog population to be between 6,000 and 7,000.
Although there is no general rule, many municipalities licence between 55% and 60% of their
estimated dog population.
The number of licensed dogs in Oshawa is estimated to represent approximately 50% of the total
population.
Although the City provides a fee reduction if a dog is spayed or neutered, we were not able to
find information on the percentage of licensed animals that had been sterilized, nor on the
percentage of annual renewals vs. new licence sales. Both are important numbers. Owners of
sterilized animals also tend to exhibited a more responsible attitude towards animal ownership
generally, and would therefore also be the group most receptive towards the new micro -chip
technology of permanent animal identification, and getting more animals permanently identified
assists in licence renewals and will ultimately reduce shelter inventory.
Knowing the number of annual licence renewals permits effective strategizing around campaigns
to get more of the previously unlicensed dogs licensed.
We understand that dog licensing in Oshawa is marketed through advertisements in the local
newspaper, and through a written reminder, which is included with the City's tax bill. The
latter probably does little to change the frequently held public perception that dog licensing is
"just another tax" and not a public registration system that permits prompt unification of lost
animals and their owners.
Public resistance to licensing and a general lack of appreciation for the purpose of licensing are
still wide spread. Owners of unlicensed dogs commonly offer one of two excuses. They either
believe that they should not have to license their pet unless owners of other pets, particularly
owners of cats, are required to do likewise, or they feel that their dog does not need a licence
if it never leaves their property.
Since the majority of straying dogs do not bear any form of identification, they represent a
significant percentage of the animals that require sheltering. This reality should be considered
in future licensing campaigns.
Probably one of the most common questions we hear about licensing is: "What do I get for my
money ? ".
Responsible pet owners will certainly tire of buying a licence every year if it provides no
tangible benefits and helps fund the control of a problem they do not cause.
Proponents of the "free ride home" concept, which gives licensed dogs a free ride home, unless
they are habitual offenders, point to this program as a tangible benefit. (Dogs which are
otherwise identified are also returned home, but not "free ", unless the owner purchases a licence
on the spot).
Simply mandating licensing, or using disguised threats of penalties, will not ensure wholesale
compliance, and enforcement is expensive.
Some agencies have found, that when all the costs associated with the sale and enforcement of
licensing are considered, that their licensing programs makes little money, in fact in some cases
it loses money.
Having someone knock on doors helps to increase the number of licensed dogs in the year it is
done. However, in the following year some of those dog owners will play the same game:
E
"catch me if you can."
Unless or until dog owners recognize that there are benefits (free rides home etc.) derived from
licensing their animals; and that cat owners are also required to register their animals; and that
responsible behaviours like having an animal sterilized and permanently identified are rewarded
through discounts, licensing will continue to be seen a "just another tax ".
We suggest that a detailed cost/benefit analysis might reveal that "free" licenses may actually
be cost effective. Careful analysis might reveal that more identifiable animals would mean fewer
animals in the shelter, that the savings in sheltering cost could more than offset any losses in
licensing revenues. Since there would be not cost for the license to the dog owner, there would
also be no excuse not to license an animal, and automatic fines for non - compliance would make
sense under those circumstances.
Because of the direct relationship between animal identification and the need to provide shelter
space, the issue of licensing should receive a careful review by the City.
4.13 PUBLIC RELATIONS AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Municipal animal services agencies have traditionally been placed in an adversarial stance with
pet owners due to their historic by -law enforcement role.
During the last ten years the strict law enforcement focus has shifted in many agencies. They
have recognized that there are positive aspects to pet ownership which can be promoted along
with a controlling function. Leashing and stoop & scoop requirement , campaigns to deal with
interference from animal noise and odour, providing play areas for people and their pets, etc.,
all focus on the need to integrate animals into the community.
Many of those programs have a positive focus. They provide an opportunity for sensible by -law
enforcement, where more individuals come to understand the reasons for, and the value of
animal services.
Such change does not come about automatically. Programs need to be designed in line with the
agency's mission statement, and efforts have to be made to reach out to the community to
promote such concepts.
This requires a shift from being re- active to becoming pro- active. Municipal animal services
are now involved in activities such as "Responsible Pet Ownership Week ", "Days in the Park"
and "Neighbourhood Fairs ", where the emphasis is on encouraging pet owners to learn more
about community expectations and how they can meet them.
We examined the handouts used by Oshawa Animal Services. All but three of the items (Stoop
& Scoop bag, a Survey form and a Written Warning form) were materials from other City
Departments or from the Province. There is nothing wrong with that. The materials from the
Parks Division indicated where to write or phone for more information about parks, and the
materials from the Province informed us- where to get more information from the Provincial
government. However, none of the materials from Animal Services provided the address of the
Shelter. The written warning gave a telephone number but no address.
If people don't know where to go or where to call, it should not be surprising that people don't
know that the City has pets available and where they can get them. A rubber stamp can easily
add this very important information to any handout, no matter who originally published it. As
well, some thought needs to be given to producing a simple brochure that tells the community
what services are available and how to access them.
4.14 SERVICE EVALUATION
There are numerous indicators to measure performance of an animal service agency. (e.g.:
increases in licensed animals; reduction in animals needing to be sheltered, etc.). However,
these are program based. Since the focus on service as opposed to law enforcement is a new
direction for Oshawa Animal Services, program development should become an immediate
second step after the mandate and goals have been established, no matter what service delivery
model is chosen. Programs should include appropriate benchmarks for evaluating performance
and, if the City continues to provide the service, should tie into the City's performance
management process.
i
5. ANIMAL SERVICE MODELS
There are three basic animal service models in use in Ontario today. They are listed here,
together with any.advantages and disadvantages from a municipal perspective, as we see them.
All of those models, as well as some hybrids, were given due consideration in arriving at our
recommendations.
The predominant current models are:
5.1 MODEL NO. 1: ALL MUNICIPAL ANIMAL SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY THE
MUNICIPALITY FROM A MUNICIPALLY OWNED AND OPERATED SHELTER
FACILITY.
This is the way services are currently provided in a number of municipalities in Ontario,
including the Cities of Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke, York, Mississauga, Brampton,
Burlington, Whitby, and of course Oshawa.
Advantages from a municipal perspective:
► Ability to pursue strictly municipal objectives;
► Complete control over program planning, service changes and additions and
program implementation;
► Ability to carry out ongoing evaluations and to make ongoing adjustment in
the delivery of service; and,
► Immediate accountability by service providers.
Disadvantages from a municipal perspective:
► Cost: wages in the public sector tend to be above those in those sections of
the private sector which would be interested in providing animal services.
Municipal purchases of vehicles, supplies and services usually have to meet
specific guidelines and criteria which increases operating costs.
► There may be some real or perceived duplication of some municipal animal
services when a local Humane Society or other animal welfare agency is
providing animal welfare programs in a municipality that operates its own
animal services.
5.2 MODEL NO.2: ALL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT EITHER
BY:
A) A PRIVATELY OWNED ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL OPERATOR
OR COMPANY,
OR
B) BY A PRIVATE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION, LIKE A HUMANE
SOCIETY.
Private operators or companies are currently providing animal services in a number of rural
municipalities of Ontario, where there are often fewer and less varied demands for such services.
The City of London is the only major Ontario City where animal services are provided by a
private operator.
Private operators most often own their own sheltering facility, but on occasion may contract with
a veterinarian or private kennel for sheltering space.
Humane Societies contracting for municipal animal services usually operate out of their own
shelter. Such arrangements exist among others in Hamilton, St. Catherines, Guelph, Welland,
Oakville, and Niagara Falls.
Advantages from a municipal perspective:
► Costs: since wages in the private sector interested in providing animal
services, tend to be lower than in the public sector, such services may initially
be provided at lower costs. However, there are examples where staff of
some private agencies have, through collective bargaining, been able to
achieve equity with civic employees working in similar positions (Public
Works), with the corresponding cost increases having to be borne by the
municipality in subsequent years.
► An "arms length" relationship with animal related issues. Although this may
be true at first glance, in reality this is still a City service, no matter who
provides it, and elected municipal officials and designated staff will still need
% to deal with these issues.
1 Disadvantages from a municipal perspective:
► Loss of control: although at first glance the headaches, often associated with
operating an animal service agency may appear to have disappeared, when
,'129:,
there is public dissatisfaction or concern about a private agency's operating
procedures, direction, change in philosophy etc., the public will demand that
the City "do something about it ".
Operating at arms length makes it much more difficult to get immediate
action, and this can further aggravate a situation.
► Costs: although initial service cost quoted by an outside agency often appears
to be less than the cost of operating the service by the municipality, there
have been examples where contract costs have kept escalating beyond
expectations to the point where the municipalities had to consider taking the
service back.
In addition, depending on the shelter facility used by the contracting agency,
there may be future requirements to contribute to capital costs to upgrade or
renovate the shelter facilities.
5.3 MODEL NO.3: THE MUNICIPALITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL "OUTSIDE OR
FIELD SERVICES ", WHILE THE SHELTERING OF ALL ANIMALS
IMPOUNDED,PICKED UP, OR RECEIVED AND RELATED SERVICES ARE
PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT BY A PRIVATE AGENCY, USUALLY A
HUMANE SOCIETY.
Under this arrangement the municipality usually provides by -law enforcement, licensing etc.
while the sheltering organization, usually a humane society, receives, cares for, releases and
adopts out animals.
Usually the Humane Society continues to operate as an animal welfare agency as well, offering
services such as cruelty to animal investigations, animal rescue etc.
Such arrangement exist in the City of Toronto, where the Toronto Humane Society provides
shelter services at it's facility; in the Region of Ottawa Carleton, where the Humane Society of
Ottawa Carleton provides shelter services at its facility, and in Kingston, where the Kingston
Humane Society provides shelter services at it's facility.
Advantages from a municipal perspective:
► Not having to deal with the "animals for research" issue. In this type of
arrangement it is common practice for all impounded animals, that have not
been redeemed, to be donated to the Humane Society for adoption purposes
at the end of the redemption period.
This places the Humane Society in the position as the "bona fide donee"
')o1
S, �:t '� .±.-_ �•.:�a'u:Ix.S ^a:�_:.i:Y1�- va_...u..�.... w �...
under the Animals for Research Act. In our letter of April 22, 1993 to the
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food we have requested a written
response whether such arrangements is considered meeting the criteria of the
Act.
e Not having to deal with animal sheltering issues.
► Not having to build or maintairi animal holding facility.
Disadvantages from a municipal perspective:
► Costs: unless the sheltering agency pays significantly lower wages, the cost for
this arrangement tends to be higher than either model 1 or 2.
Some obvious overlaps will drive up costs, such as two telephone systems,
supervision and management and municipal office space for field operations,
to name just a few.
► Loss of control: although another agency does the sheltering of the animals,
it is still a municipal service and, no matter what the contract, when the
public is not satisfied about a sheltering issue, such complaints still require
responses from City officials.
► Working relationships: unlike Models one and two, co- operation between
both agencies is essential in this type of arrangement. However, the City has
usually no control over shelter staffing, and this can result in personality
clashes at either the staff, supervisory or management levels.
► "Buck passing "; although the role of each agency may be clearly defined in
the contract, when it comes to interpretations, things are not always as clear,
particularly when both agency provide field services.
People get upset when they think they are helpful by reporting something that
needs attention, and are told by someone at agency A that this is an issue for
agency B and to phone there, only to be told by someone at agency B that
agency A should not have said that, since this was clearly something that
agency A should have looked after.
Unfortunately "buckpasssing" happens quite often in this type of
arrangement, and while this can be corrected, the damage to public relations
can't be undone. Because two issues are rarely the same, this type of playing
"ping -pong" with the public is very difficult to eliminate.
"x
6. THE ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH ACT
The ONTARIO ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH ACT regulates the acquisition, keeping and
treatment of animals used by operators of research facilities in Ontario, facilities that supply
animals to such research facilities, and municipal pounds.
The decision by the City of Oshawa not to sell any dog or cat to the operator of a registered
research facility has had an impact on the operation of the Oshawa pound, particularly as it
affects shelter space.
In order to gain an appreciation of that impact, we have included the applicable sections of the
Act, together with our comments and explanations where we saw them appropriate.
6.1 THE POUND
6.1.1. DEFINITIONS IN THE ACT
The Act defines a pound as "premises that are used for the detention, maintenance or disposal
of dogs or cats that have been impounded pursuant to a by -law of a municipality, but does not
include any premises or part thereof, that are not used by any person or body of persons,
including the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or any society affiliated
therewith, for the detention, maintenance or disposal of dogs or cats so impounded ";
6.1.2 COMMENTS
Animals housed at a pound generally fall into one of four broad categories. These are:
a) animals that have been impounded as a result of having been apprehended, while
found to be in contravention of a municipal by -law, by an, individual who is
authorized by a municipality to enforce municipal animal control by -laws;
b) animals that have been picked up by residents, either on public or private
property while such animals were off the property of their owners and not under
the control of anyone. Sometimes such animals are confined by finders on their
own property, while they attempt to find the animals' owner(s), and at other times
such animals are turned over to an animal service/welfare agency, with the
expectation that someone losing a pet would probably look there first.
C) owned animals that have been surrendered by their owners to the agency for the
purpose of locating a new owner (adoption) or for euthanasia only;
+.. �:. s::. �: cn- �., �:. .:i�iu�l:..xa.�_4no+a�ti..tii3�a' "'�'.u'ia`�R:"`'an'�.o:�...'� '. �" as. �., yy. __w:tic,.il�v..v;adw�_+'- �..���• --- ."- .,.+..- .i.,.�__"__•_ _._.
d) animals that have been confined in a pound for isolation or observation pursuant
to the Public Health Act or the Animal Contagious Diseases Act (Canada).
The term of importance in this discussion is "impounded ", as defined in the Act.
Since only animals which have been "impounded pursuant to a by -law" are subject to the
provisions of the Animals for Research Act (Section 1 (f) ), we need to identify which animals
in the above four categories meet that "impounded" criteria.
Obviously animals in categories c) and d) have not been "impounded" and animals in category
a) clearly have been.
It would appear, from the wording of Resolution 968, as amended by Resolution 969, before the
resolution was passed, that animals dropped off by their owners were regularly sent to research
facilities, since the resolution states in part:
".... and thus animals collected by our animal control staff on regular patrol
or dropped off by owners are being sent to these research facilities upon
request;"
As we interpret the Act, there is no requirement to surrender any animal where ownership has
been legally transferred to a pound unless sale for research has been specifically requested.
Of course, a municipality may decide to voluntarily sell any owned animal to a research
institution that has been surrendered without disposal restrictions.
This leaves the animals identified in category b). Are they considered impounded, as defined by
the Act?
During the years that the Consultant J.H. Bandow was directly involved in managing a humane
society which operated a municipal animal pound in Ontario serving six municipalities, he did
not consider any animal as described in category b) as having been impounded, unless the finder
of such animal was prepared to give evidence in a court of law that such animal had been
observed, or picked up by the finder, while in contravention of a municipal animal control by-
law (e.g. dog -at- large) that provided for impoundment.
Although this definition does not exist in the Act, such animals were considered "lost and found"
as distinct from "impounded ". In order not to confuse them with impounded animals, those
animals were distinctly identified with special kennel cards, and never recorded as impounds.
The same pound still identifies incoming "lost and found" animals the same way today.
Although this interpretation was never confirmed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, to
the best of our knowledge, this interpretation has never been challenged by the Ministry.
While it may be argued that a finder, who confines a straying animal on his property, has no
legal right to take custody of someone else's property, we have argued the point with Ministry
officials that unless such citizen provides evidence that there has been a contravention of a
municipal animal control by -law that provides for impoundment, no known offence has been
proven.
This interpretation obviously has a significant impact on the number of animals that are subject
to the provisions of the Act.
We therefore wrote the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food on April 22, 1993 and
requested written clarification.
As of June 20, 1993 a written response had not been received.
If this interpretation were to be applied in the City of Oshawa, we believe that this would
significantly reduce the number of "impounds ".
The Oshawa records we reviewed are not clear however, on how many of the animals identified
in the Index Logs as "stray dog picked up" were picked up by an Animal Control Officer on
public or private property after having been observed in contravention of a by -law that provides
for the impoundment of the animal, and how many were picked up as "lost" animals, confined
by residents in the interest of public and the animals' safety.
A case by case examination of individual Animal Services records would be necessary to come
up with that number.
LJ
t-
6.2 DISPOSAL OF IMPOUNDED DOP ,
GS AND CATS
6.2.1 REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS IN THE ACT
The Act provides for a minimum redemption period of three days for dogs and cats impounded
under a municipal by -law, however a local municipality may, by by -law, establish a period
which is longer (Section 20 (1) and (2)).
For the purpose of this report the following excerpts from the Act, which deal with the
disposition of impounded dogs and cats, are of particular interest.
The Act provides in Section 20 (6):
"After the redemption period has expired and subject to subsection (7), the
operator of a pound shall not destroy or cause, to permit to be destroyed any dog
or cat that is in the pound but he may,
(a) return the dog or cat to the rson who o owned it before it
came into the possession of the operator of the
pound,subject to the payment of such damages, fines and
expenses as are required by law;
` (b) sell the dog or cat, dispose of it by gift or hold it in
possession for sale or disposal by gift to a bona tide
purchaser or donee,
(i) as a pet,
(ii) for use in hunting, or
(iii) for working purposes; or
(c) sell the dog or cat to the operator of a registered research
facility in Ontario who has requested the operator of the
pound to sell him a dog or cat as the case may be.
Notwithstanding subsection (5) and (6), the operator of a pound may destroy, or cause
or permit to be destroyed any dog or cat that has been impounded in the pound where
(a) the person who owned the dog or cat before it came into
the possession of the operator of the pound has requested
in writing that the dog or cat be destroyed;
(b) an inspector or veterinarian has ordered that the dog or cat
1 _.
be destroyed pursuant to subsection (11);
(c) the dog or cat has been impounded in the pound for the
redemption period and the operator of the pound has
satisfied all requests referred to in clause (6) (c) from
operators of research facilities; or
(d) during the redemption period, the dog or cat is in a pound
and,
(i) is ill or injured and in his opinion is incapable of being
cured or healed as to live thereafter without suffering,
and
(ii) he has satisfied all requests referred to in clause (6) (c)
from operators of research facilities."
Also of note is Section 20 (11), which states:
"An inspector or veterinarian may order a dog or cat destroyed,
(b) where the dog or cat,
(i) is in a pound, supply facility or research facility,
(ii) has not, where it is in the pound, been redeemed
by its owner within the redemption period, and,
(iii) is, in the opinion of the inspector or veterinarian, not suitable for
use in research by reason of ill health, injury, malnutrition,
excessive age or other infirmity."
6.2.2 COMMENTS
From our discussions with staff of Oshawa Animal Services and with others, we have learned
that at times the Oshawa facility is filled to capacity, and that residents with found or owned
dogs and cats, who want to take them to the City's shelter are advised that there is no room.
A number of steps should be given consideration to help reduce the number of animals that
require holding for extended periods of time. Those steps form part of our recommendations and
are repeated here for appropriate reference:
1. Only animals that have been impounded pursuant to a by -law
W
t,
(Section 1 (t) Animals for Research Act) should be considered as falling under the
provisions of the Act.
2. All Animal Services staff should satisfy themselves that those confined stray or straying
Y g
animals, which are either picked up from a resident by an Animal Services Officer or
which are admitted to the shelter by a resident, are not owned animals disguised as strays
by an owner who does not want to pay applicable surrender fees. Most shelters recognize
that some dog and cat owners will surrender their own animals as strays when there are
no options about the payment of fees.
We agree that individuals who use a shelter should pay towards it's operating costs.
Nevertheless, in most cases it is probably more cost effective to accept animals at "no
charge" from individuals who are either unwilling or unable to pay surrender fees, than
accepting them as "strays" that require extra holding time.
r3. All animals that have not been redeemed within the time period provided for in the City's
legislation, and for which a new bona fide purchaser or donee has not been found within
a reasonable period of time, should be routinely examined by a Veterinarian to determine
whether in the Veterinarian's opinion, ill health, injury, malnutrition, excessive age or
other infirmity makes those animals not suitable for use in research. (Section 20 [11 (iii)])
4. Efforts should be made to increase the number of animal redemptions. In order to
increase redemption rates, licensing needs to be promoted as a benefit (positive) and not
` as a tax (negative). Shelter hours should provide some "after hours" opportunities for
redemption and adoption of animals.
5. All identifiable animals should be taken directly home.
Where implemented, the "free ride home" for identifiable animals has proven to be
successful in improving redemption rates. Any loss of revenue from a drop in pound fees
rtends to be off -set by reduced sheltering costs and more available sheltering space.
6. City recognized volunteer groups and agencies that can assist in locating new homes for
animals at the shelter should be encouraged to work with shelter staff, and should be
provided with eligible animals for adoption purposes free of charge.
r
I
7. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 CONCLUSIONS
Animal services available in the City of Oshawa are comparable to animal care and control or
animal services provided by Ontario municipalities of similar size. We compared a number of
animal service performance indicators with the City of St. Catherines, which is comparable in
size and make -up, and found that services in Oshawa compared favourably.
The City of Oshawa has generally been well served by it's Animal Services in the past.
Although we have identified a number of deficiencies, we are confident that these can be
overcome. Indeed, if most of our recommendations were implemented, it would place the City
among the leaders in Canada in the way it delivers animal services to the community.
We believe that it would NOT be in the best interest of the City to start dismantling the Animal
Services at this time. The City has recently invested considerable amounts of money in a new
shelter, the vehicles used by Animal Services are in excellent condition, and the City has staff
with considerable experience in municipal animal service work and in by -law enforcement.
We have carefully weighed all available options. We acknowledge that there are individuals and
organizations in the community who have expressed interest in providing animal services under
contract to the City. However, it is our belief that those interested, currently have neither a good
enough understanding of what such undertaking involves, nor the necessary background or
experience to take over such functions at this time.
Representatives of the Oshawa and District Humane Society have advised us of their plans for
major shelter construction. However, we have not seen any documentation for us to review or
comment on. We will admit that we did not undertake an exhaustive investigation of any
interested party, but have based our recommendations on what we heard and saw during the
course of this study. This situation may very well be different in a year or two.
During our discussions it became evident that the issue of contracting out animal services had
been discussed internally by some of the groups. We would have therefore anticipated receiving
at least a written overview how those interested groups envisaged providing the service. One
point that was repeatedly made was that the services could be provided cheaper. We agree that
potentials for savings exist. However, we have seen or heard nothing that would give us the
confidence to recommend contracting out to any of the existing groups at this time.
We agree that there may not have been sufficient time for groups to prepare a proposal outline
in time for our meetings on May 11, 1993, and to be fair we did not ask for any. Yet, since
there was already an understanding by those we met with on May 11, 1993 that our role was
to review animal service in Oshawa, and to consider alternate ways of service delivery,
we were surprised that, a month later, we still had not seen even an outline of a proposal from
anyone that would demonstrate an understanding or a conceptual awareness of what it takes to
deliver this service, and how this was intended to be done.
Once again, to be fair, we did not ask for any proposal. However, at the conclusion of the May
11, 1993 meetings we invited individuals and organizations to contact us if there was anything
they wanted to share with us.
7.2 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER OPTIONS TO DELIVER ANIMAL SERVICES
All three options referred to in Chapter 5 of this report were given careful and serious
consideration.
7.2.1 OPTION 1: THE CITY CONTINUES TO DELIVER ANIMAL SERVICES
Although we have identified a number of deficiencies in the way the City currently delivers
animal services, this option is still the model of choice, and we recommend that the City
continue to deliver animal services.
The City has a modern attractive facility and has experienced staff, albeit that some changes
need to be made, to deliver quality animal services to the community. The fact that it has
already taken the initial steps towards z service focus by changing it's name from "control" to
"service," and has committed itself to continue making the service more "use friendly ", leads
us to believe that the City has recogniz -ed that a more servici, oriented approach to animal
services is what the public wa-Ats.
We have provided a number of specific .Gcommendations, which we U. Jieve will overcome
most, if not all, the deficier :i s wr notici d.
We suggest that these recd rirnendations be considered an integral part of our overall
recommendation for a City operatcd animal service.
7.2.2 OPTION 2: TO SPLIT ' RE k °ONSIBILITIES FOR ANIMAL SERVICES. THE
HUMANE SOCIEi Y WOULD PROVIDE SHELTERING SERVICES
UNDER CONTRACT TO THE CITY, AND THE CITY WOULD
PROVIDE ERFI=OF,CE..MENTI'UU °i'SiDE /FIELD SERVICES.
We gave this option a long, hard loop:. However the current shelter operated by the Humane
Society is unsuitable for this purpose. We understand that the Humane Society has plans to
upgrade it's facility. However, for such an arrangerr.►er►t to be considered at. This time, would
require the Humane Society to use the City's animal shtJter.
We believe that the Humane Society would probably do a superior job if it were responsible for
�. t
the adoption service only. We do not believe that the awareness and comprehension or
experience exists to recognize that pound operations are not the same as operating an adoption
service, and that frequently decisions will be unpopular and public confrontations negative.
Of course the decision not to surrender animals for research would continue to apply to the
Oshawa pound, no matter who operates it, and the Humane Society operating the pound, would
be confronted with the same animal holding issue as the City.
At this point the Province has not publicly stated that it sees the arrangement which currently
exists between the Toronto Humane Society and the City of Toronto, whereby the City "donates"
all impounded animals at the end of their redemption period to the Toronto Humane Society for
adoption purposes, to be in compliance with the Animals for Research Act.
Based on our experience, we also suggest that such arrangement of shared responsibilities works
best when there is absolute separation between both agencies. No matter how well intentioned,
having both agencies work out of the same facility, is a recipe for headaches. These, and some
of the other reasons previously eluded to in our general discussions on service options in Chapter
5, convinced us that this was not a viable option at this time.
7.2.3. OPTION 3: TO HAVE THE LOCAL HUMANE SOCIETY, OR A PRIVATE
CONTRACTOR TAKE OVER ALL ANIMAL SERVICES FROM THE
CITY.
This option was the first to be rejected. Apart from a proposal to cut costs and to provide more
user friendly staff at the shelter, we saw and heard nothing that would give us the confidence
to suggest that the local Humane Society is currently in a position to take over all aspects and
responsibilities for animal services in the City of Oshawa.
We want to make it clear here that this is not a criticism of the Humane Society. We believe that
the Humane Society is doing an excellent job to find homes for unwanted animals, primarily
cats, and to promote aspects of responsible pet ownership.
However that is not quite the same as providing by -law enforcement and other services, where
frequently human concerns will need to take precedence over animal concerns.
During our discussions with groups and individuals there was passing reference to a private
individual or company providing animal services. We are not aware of any private contractor
currently in the Oshawa area who would be in a position to take on this responsibility.
Perhaps someone might come forward if the City were to go out to tender. However, we would
suspect that the City would need to consider leasing it's shelter facility in order to attract
someone to bid on the contract.
4Q,
7.3 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE SERVICE DELIVERY
The following are specific recommendations arising out of this study. Some are inter - related.
The recommendations are listed by their occurrence in the body of the report which are indicated
in parentheses. Bold print indicates high priority recommendations, although recommendations
have not been numbered in order of priority.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the City identify the reasons for the existence of Animal Services in a mission „ /10”
statement, to provide focus to program planning and program implementation. (4.3) `. k ,yb
2. That the City develop programs around the mission statement with specific annual
implementation strategies that are realistic, achievable, and measurable. (e.g. in f
1994 Animal Services will increase the number of licensed dogs by 5 %; or return
every identifiable dog or cat directly home to its owner, etc.) Ideally all Animal
Service staff should be involved in the development of those strategies. (4.3)
3. That the City consider the appointment of an Animal Services Manager (part-time)
who has the ability to creatively move Animal Services through the changes from an
enforcement to a service focus. (4.8.4).
4. That the City use its Performance Management System to direct, coach and
reinforce the performance of Animal Services staff, with particular attention on
good interpersonal and problem solving skills, to assist staff in the transition from
an enforcement to a service focus..( 4.8.1 & 4.8.3)
5. That animals in the shelter be clearly ( e.g. different coloured cage tags) identified
whether they have been impounded pursuant to a by -law or have been otherwise
received. (4.6.2 & 6.1.2)
8. That all animals that have not been redeemed within the redemption period, and for
which for some reason it may be difficult to rind a purchaser or donee, be routinely
examined by a Veterinarian to determine, whether in the opinion of the
Veterinarian, ill health, injury, malnutrition, excessive age or other infirmity makes
those animals makes those animals not suitable for research, so they don't have to
be held at the shelter unnecessarily. (4.6.2 & 6.1.2)
9. That the City prominently display the address and telephone number of the City
shelter on all hand -out materials. (4.13)
R
10. That the City develop and distribute an information brochure that provides
information on when and what animal services are available. (4.13)
11. That the City identify, in writing, what it considers "emergencies" for stand -by
response. (4.4)
12. That the City continue the process of changing the emphasis and focus from one of
"control" to one of "service ". (4.3)
13. That the City consider investing in a good computer based shelter animal management
system. There are a number of excellent, proven systems on the market. Some of them
are available from $ 1500,00. up. (4.6.1 & 4.6.2)
14. That the City review the Animal Services Policy and Procedure Manual. We noticed a
number of unclear statements and some of the terminology were not clear to us. (4.5.3)
15. That the City explore the "free ride home" concept for identifiable animals.(4.12)
16. That the City release eligible animals for adoption free of charge to City recognized
groups which are helping to locate new homes for City shelter animals. (4.6.2)
17. That the City review current hours of shelter operation with a view to increasing access
to the public. (4.4)
18. That every effort be made to confirm that stray and straying animals turned over to
Animal Services are in fact strays, and not owned animals turned over as strays to
eliminate having to pay surrender fees. (4.6.2 & 6.2.2)
19. That the City continue to encourage Animal Services staff to attend training and
development opportunities. (4.8.3)
20. That the City routinely review it's animal by -laws, to confirm that they still support the
City's animal service goals.(4.9)
21. That the City consider reviewing the penalties in it's animal legislation, and consider
establishing a number of "set fines" for the most common repeat offences. (4.9)
22. That the City review it's dog licensing program and consider a more innovative
marketing approach. (4.12)
23. That the City participate in community outreach strategies like the provincial annual
"Responsible Pet Ownership Week ", or "The Year of the Cat ". (4.13)
41,
24. That the City require animal service programs to have specific benchmarks to measure
performance. (4.14)
25. That the City review Animal Services' vehicle use with a view to reducing the Animal
Services fleet from four to three vehicles. (4.7.3)
During 1991 - 1992 training, development, skills enhancement and coaching have included
sessions on: Customer Service, Stress Management, Stress Assessment, Management Skills and
Group Problem Solving.
4.8.4 REPORTING RELATIONSHIPS
The organizational reporting relationships called "for the Manager of Animal Service to report
to the Director of the Parks Division. Since the departure of the Manager in May 1993, an
interim reporting relationship has been established, which requires the Working Forewoman to
report directly to the Parks Manager, whose office is located in another wing of the same
building that houses the Shelter.
It appears that this reporting system adequately responds to the day -to -day needs of the
operation.
Given the structure of Oshawa Animal Services and the current workload, we question the need
for a full -time Manager of Animal Services. Given the field experience of staff and two
certified Animal Health Technicians on staff, Animal Services now has sufficient personnel with
technical skills. What it needs is-a skilled administrator who can provide leadership, direction
and general supervision of the organization, and who can guide program development and
implementation strategies.
Although initially there may be a sufficient workload for a full -time Manager, we believe once
programs and implementation strategies are in place, that the workload can be handled on a two
to three day per week basis.
4.8.5 STAFF INTERVIEWS
We interviewed the five Animal Services staff in two groups, one group of three and one of two.
Three staff members have been working with Animal Services for a long period of time long
period of time (up to 20 years), and two have joined the staff during the last three years. The
two latest staff additions are certified Animal Health Technicians, one of whom is the Working
Forewoman, and since the departure of the Animal Control Manager in March 1993, has been
reporting directly to the Parks Manager.
During our interviews we found all staff to be courteous, pleasant, and open about their roles,
why they worked at animal service, their perception of Oshawa Animal Services, past and
present, and how they felt about the move from an enforcement to a service focus.
Since we have worked with staff in similar organizations as they were changing their focus from
enforcement to service, we anticipated some of the comments we heard.
y41
C�
F1
n
C'
n
1
Staff expressed the belief that they were "doing a good job ", that responses to service requests
were prompt and effectively handled, and, that in their opinion, they were delivering excellent
service to the community. Each one of them stated' that they liked what they were doing,
although we sensed that the level of compensation and the ability to work overtime was an
important reason why some of them worked at Animal Services. All of them expressed concern
about the future of Oshawa Animal Services.
All animal service workers operate in the public. eye in a field that generates a lot of emotions.
For such workers one of the key requirements is the ability to liaise well with the public. There
are situations, of course, where "strong arm" tactics may be required, but in the majority of
cases this will be unnecessary, even counterproductive. For an animal service agency to be
effective, it is important that all staff have a sensitivity for public relations.
We have no doubt that some of the current staff members have the ability and the attitude
required to work in such an environment. However, we question whether all of them have the
ability to adjust from a "control" to a "service" environment. We have seen similar situations
in other agencies where some staff members had difficulty making the adjustment to the
detriment of the agency as a whole. Although animal skills will always be important, work in
an animal "service" environment requires much greater reliance on good interpersonal and
problem solving skills. Without a detailed staff training needs evaluation we are not prepared
to state how many of current staff can successfully adjust without a fundamental change in
attitude and without additional interpersonal skills training.
4.9 MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT
We reviewed the following City by -laws:
► NO. 105 -85 AS AMENDED BY BY -LAWS NO. 45 -91 AND NO. 62 -88
► NO. 81 -83 AS AMENDED BY BY -LAWS NO. 5 -89, NO. 58 -87 AND NO. 64-86
. NO. 77 -90.
We also reviewed the enforcement procedures, as outlined in the Animal Services Policy and
Procedure Manual.
Although we have some questions about certain provisions in some of the by -laws which to us
appear to be open to challenge, and about some of the recommended enforcement procedures,
since those by -laws have been in use for a number of years, we suspect that they are probably
working.
We were advised by shelter staff that few by -law infractions are taken to court, and that no "set
fines" have been established for any of the by -laws infractions.
Although we do not promote the routine use of tickets or summonses as problem solving tools,
there are times when a ticket, served on the spot, is appropriate. To that end we would suggest
d �
� - 942
I
that the City give consideration to the establishment of "set tines ", at least for the more common
offences, such as "dog -at- large" or "fail to license ".
4.10 THE ROLE OF PRIVATE ANIMAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
As an animal service agency changes from an enforcement to a service mode, the public will
increase it's demand for the type of services the agency provides. The agency's literature should
clearly outline what services are available and when and where to obtain help elsewhere. From
time to time all animal service agencies receive requests for assistance with rodent or insect
control. Those types of calls are best left to private, licensed Pest Control Operators.
During recent years businesses specializing in the removal of "nuisance" wildlife have appeared.
Although most of the animals they handle are regulated under the Ontario Game and Fish Act,
these businesses are currently not licensed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Unfortunately,
this has attracted some operators who have had little experience in wildlife handling, and others
who have demonstrated some unethical practices.
The Province has introduced legislation (Bill 162, An Act to amend the Game and Fish Act.)
which includes provisions for the licensing and training of wildlife control agents and
rehabilitators.
4.11 BUDGET
Since our mandate was to review the operational side of the City's Animal Services, we only
took a cursory look at the budget. We did not undertake a detailed analysis.
We found the overall 1992 budget expenditures in line with those of other area municipalities,
given the number of animals handled and the number of investigations/service calls completed.
4.12 ANIMAL LICENSING, REGISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
We were advised that the City currently licenses in the neighbourhood of 3,000 dogs. (3,120 in
1990; 3,100 in 1991 and 2,800 in 1992). Considering other municipalities of similar size and
make -up, we estimate the total Oshawa dog population to be between 6,000 and 7,000.
Although there is no general rule, many municipalities licence between 55% and 60% of their
estimated dog population.
The number of licensed dogs in Oshawa is estimated to represent approximately 50% of the total
population.
Although the City provides a fee reduction if a dog is spayed or neutered, we were not able to
find information on the percentage of licensed animals that had been sterilized, nor on the
percentage of annual renewals vs. new licence sales. Both are important numbers. Owners of
sterilized animals also tend to exhibited a more responsible attitude towards animal ownership
generally, and would therefore also be the group most receptive towards the new micro -chip
technology of permanent animal identification, and getting more animals permanently identified
assists in licence renewals and will ultimately reduce shelter inventory.
Knowing the number of annual licence renewals permits effective strategizing around campaigns
to get more of the previously unlicensed dogs licensed.
We understand that dog licensing in Oshawa is marketed through advertisements in the local
newspaper, and through a written reminder, which is included with the City's tax bill. The
latter probably does little to change the frequently held public perception that dog licensing is
"just another tax" and not a public registration system that permits prompt unification of lost
animals and their owners.
Public resistance to licensing and a general lack of appreciation for the purpose of licensing are
still wide spread. Owners of unlicensed dogs commonly offer one of two excuses. They either
believe that they should not have to license their pet unless owners of other pets, particularly
owners of cats, are required to do likewise, or they feel that their dog does not need a licence
if it never leaves their property.
Since the majority of straying dogs do not bear any form of identification, they represent a
significant percentage of the animals that require sheltering. This reality should be considered
in future licensing campaigns.
Probably one of the most common questions we hear about licensing is: "What do I get for my
money ?" .
Responsible pet owners will certainly tire of buying a licence every year if it provides no
tangible benefits and helps fund the control of a problem they do not cause.
Proponents of the "free ride home" concept, which gives licensed dogs a free ride home, unless
they are habitual offenders, point to this program as a tangible benefit. (Dogs which are
otherwise identified are also returned home, but not "free ", unless the owner purchases a licence
on the spot).
Simply mandating licensing, or using disguised threats of penalties, will not ensure wholesale
compliance, and enforcement is expensive.
Some agencies have found, that when all the costs associated with the sale and enforcement of
licensing are considered, that their licensing programs makes little money, in fact in some cases
it loses money.
Having someone knock on doors helps to increase the number of licensed dogs in the year it is
done. However, in the following year some of those dog owners will play the same game:
�f 1
I
"catch me if you can."
Unless or until dog owners recognize that there are benefits (free rides home etc.) derived from
licensing their animals; and that cat owners are also required to register their animals; and that
responsible behaviours like having an animal sterilized and permanently identified are rewarded
through discounts, licensing will continue to be seen a "just another tax ".
We suggest that a detailed cost/benefit analysis might reveal that "free" licenses may actually
be cost effective. Careful analysis might reveal that more identifiable animals would mean fewer
animals in the shelter, that the savings in sheltering cost could more than offset any losses in
licensing revenues. Since there would be not cost for the license to the dog owner, there would
also be no excuse not to license an animal, and automatic fines for non - compliance would make
sense under those circumstances.
Because of the direct relationship between animal identification and the need to provide shelter
space, the issue of licensing should receive a careful review by the City.
4.13 PUBLIC RELATIONS AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Municipal animal services agencies have traditionally been placed in an adversarial stance with
pet owners due to their historic by -law enforcement role.
During the last ten years the strict law enforcement focus has shifted in many agencies. They
have recognized that there are positive aspects to pet ownership which can be promoted along
with a controlling function. Leashing and stoop & scoop requirement , campaigns to deal with
interference from animal noise and odour, providing play areas for people and their pets, etc.,
all focus on the need to integrate animals into the community.
Many of those programs have a positive focus. They provide an opportunity for sensible by -law
enforcement, where more individuals come to understand the reasons for, and the value of
animal services.
Such change does not come about automatically. Programs need to be designed in line with the
agency's mission statement, and efforts have to be made to reach out to the community to
promote such concepts.
This requires a shift from being re- active to becoming pro - active. Municipal animal services
are now involved in activities such as "Responsible Pet Ownership Week ", "Days in the Park"
and "Neighbourhood Fairs ", where the emphasis is on encouraging pet owners to learn more
about community expectations and how they can meet them.
We examined the handouts used by Oshawa Animal Services. All but three of the items (Stoop
& Scoop bag, a Survey form and a Written Warning form) were materials from other City
Departments or from the Province. "There is nothing wrong with that. The materials from the
Parks Division indicated where to write or phone for more information about parks, and the
materials from the Province informed us' where to get more information from the Provincial
government. However, none of the materials from Animal Services provided the address of the
Shelter. The written warning gave a telephone number but no address.
If people don't know where to go or where to call, it should not be surprising that people don't
know that the City has pets available and where they can get them. A rubber stamp can easily
add this very important information to any handout, no matter who originally published it. As
well, some thought needs to be given to producing a simple brochure that tells the community
what services are available and how to access them.
4.14 SERVICE EVALUATION
There are numerous indicators to measure performance of an animal service agency. (e.g.:
increases in licensed animals; reduction in animals needing to be sheltered, etc.). However,
these are program based. Since the focus on service as opposed to law enforcement is a new
direction for Oshawa Animal Services, program development should become an immediate
second step after the mandate and goals have been established, no matter what service delivery
model is chosen. Programs should include appropriate benchmarks for evaluating performance
and, if the City continues to provide the service, should tie into the City's performance
management process.
tip° 4 6
5. ANIMAL SERVICE MODELS
There are three basic animal service models in use in Ontario today. They are listed here,
together with any advantages and disadvantages from a municipal perspective, as we see them.
All of those models, as well as some hybrids, were given due consideration in arriving at our
recommendations.
The predominant current models are:
5.1 MODEL NO. 1: ALL MUNICIPAL ANIMAL SERVICES ARE PROVIDED BY THE
MUNICIPALITY FROM A MUNICIPALLY OWNED AND OPERATED SHELTER
FACILITY.
This is the way services are currently provided in a number of municipalities in Ontario,
including the Cities of Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke, York, Mississauga, Brampton,
Burlington, Whitby, and of course Oshawa.
Advantages from a municipal perspective:
► Ability to pursue strictly municipal objectives;
► Complete control over program planning, service changes and additions and
program implementation;
► Ability to carry out ongoing evaluations and to make ongoing adjustment in
the delivery of service; and,
► Immediate accountability by service providers.
Disadvantages from a municipal perspective:
► Cost: wages in the public sector tend to be above those in those sections of
the private sector which would be interested in providing animal services.
Municipal purchases of vehicles, supplies and services usually have to meet
specific guidelines and criteria which increases operating costs.
► There may be some real or perceived duplication of some municipal animal
services when a local Humane Society or other animal welfare agency is
providing animal welfare programs in a municipality that operates its own
En
animal services.
5.2 MODEL NO.2: ALL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT EITHER
BY:
A) A PRIVATELY OWNED ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL OPERATOR
OR COMPANY,
OR
B) BY A PRIVATE CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION, LIKE A HUMANE
SOCIETY.
Private operators or companies are currently providing animal services in a number of rural
municipalities of Ontario, where there are often fewer and less varied demands for such services.
The City of London is the only major Ontario City where animal services are provided by a
private operator.
Private operators most often own their own sheltering facility, but on occasion may contract with
a veterinarian or private kennel for sheltering space.
Humane Societies contracting for municipal animal services usually operate out of their own
shelter. Such arrangements exist among others in Hamilton, St. Catherines, Guelph, Welland,
Oakville, and Niagara Falls.
Advantages from a municipal perspective:
► Costs: since wages in the private sector interested in providing animal
services, tend to be lower than in the public sector, such services may initially
be provided at lower costs. However, there are examples where staff of
some private agencies have, through collective bargaining, been able to
achieve equity with civic employees working in similar positions (Public
Works), with the corresponding cost increases having to be borne by the
municipality in subsequent years.
► An "arms length" relationship with animal related issues. Although this may
be true at rust glance, in reality this is still a City service, no matter who
provides it, and elected municipal officials and designated staff will still need
to deal with these issues.
Disadvantages from a municipal perspective:
► Loss of control: although at first glance the headaches, often associated with
operating an animal service agency may appear to have disappeared, when
M
there is public dissatisfaction or concern about a private agency's operating
procedures, direction, change in philosophy etc., the public will demand that
the City "do something about it ".
Operating at arms length makes it much more difficult to get immediate
action, and this can further aggravate a situation.
► Costs: although initial service cost quoted by an outside agency often appears
to be less than the cost of operating the service by the municipality, there
have been examples where contract costs have kept escalating beyond
expectations to the point where the municipalities had to consider taking the
service back.
In addition, depending on the shelter facility used by the contracting agency,
there may be future requirements to contribute to capital costs to upgrade or
renovate the shelter facilities.
5.3 MODEL NO.3: THE MUNICIPALITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL "OUTSIDE OR
FIELD SERVICES ", WHILE THE SHELTERING OF ALL ANIMALS
IMPOUNDED,PICKED UP, OR RECEIVED AND RELATED SERVICES ARE
PERFORMED UNDER CONTRACT BY A PRIVATE AGENCY, USUALLY A
HUMANE SOCIETY.
Under this arrangement the municipality usually provides by -law enforcement, licensing etc.
while the sheltering organization, usually a humane society, receives, cares for, releases and
adopts out animals.
Usually the Humane Society continues to operate as an animal welfare agency as well, offering
services such as cruelty to animal investigations, animal rescue etc.
Such arrangement exist in the City of Toronto, where the Toronto Humane Society provides
shelter services at it's facility; in the Region of Ottawa Carleton, where the Humane Society of
Ottawa Carleton provides shelter services at its facility, and in Kingston, where the Kingston
Humane Society provides shelter services at it's facility.
Advantages from a municipal perspective:
► Not having to deal with the "animals for research" issue. In this type of
arrangement it is common practice for all impounded animals, that have not
been redeemed, to be donated to the Humane Society for adoption purposes
at the end of the redemption period.
This places the Humane Society in the position as the "bona fide donee"
.,,... ........._..i. ..: dui .11J..LL]iY'�:i+v+:'.+li1S.u1b `s���i _...•— __....__.. _ ..
under the Animals for Research Act. In our letter of April 22, 1993 to the
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food we have requested a written
response whether such arrangements is considered meeting the criteria of the
Act.
► Not having to deal with animal sheltering issues.
► Not having to build or maintain animal holding facility.
Disadvantages from a municipal perspective:
► Costs: unless the sheltering agency pays significantly lower wages, the cost for
this arrangement tends to be higher than either model 1 or 2.
Some obvious overlaps will drive up costs, such as two telephone systems,
supervision and management and municipal office space for field operations,
to name just a few.
► Loss of control: although another agency does the sheltering of the animals,
it is still a municipal service and, no matter what the contract, when the
public is not satisfied about a sheltering issue, such complaints still require
responses from City officials.
► Working relationships: unlike Models one and two, co- operation between
both agencies is essential in this type of arrangement. However, the City has
usually no control over shelter staffing, and this can result in personality
clashes at either the staff, supervisory or management levels.
► "Buck passing "; although the role of each agency may be clearly defined in
the contract, when it comes to interpretations, things are not always as clear,
particularly when both agency provide field services.
People get upset when they think they are helpful by reporting something that
needs attention, and are told by someone at agency A that this is an issue for
agency B and to phone there, only to be told by someone at agency B that
agency A should not have said that, since this was clearly something that
agency A should have looked after.
Unfortunately "buckpasssing" happens quite often in this type of
arrangement, and while this can be corrected, the damage to public relations
can't be undone. Because two issues are rarely the same, this type of playing
"ping -pong" with the public is very difficult to eliminate.
... 'X i �G
6. THE ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH ACT
The ONTARIO ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH ACT regulates the acquisition, keeping and
treatment of animals used by operators of research facilities in Ontario, facilities that supply
animals to such research facilities, and municipal pounds.
The decision by the City of Oshawa not to sell any dog or cat to the operator of a registered
research facility has had an impact on the operation of the Oshawa pound, particularly as it
affects shelter space.
In order to gain an appreciation of that impact, we have included the applicable sections of the
Act, together with our comments and explanations where we saw them appropriate.
6.1 THE POUND
6.1.1. DEFINITIONS IN THE ACT
The Act defines a pound as "premises that are used for the detention, maintenance or disposal
of dogs or cats that have been impounded pursuant to a by -law of a municipality, but does not
include any premises or part thereof, that are not used by any person or body of persons,
including the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals or any society affiliated
therewith, for the detention, maintenance or disposal of dogs or cats so impounded ";
6.1.2 COMMENTS
Animals housed at a pound generally fall into one of four broad categories. These are:
a) animals that have been impounded as a result of having been apprehended, while
found to be in contravention of a municipal by -law, by an individual who is
authorized by a municipality to enforce municipal animal control by -laws;
b) animals that have been picked up by residents, either on public or private
property while such animals were off the property of their owners and not under
the control of anyone. Sometimes such animals are confined by finders on their
own property, while they attempt to find the animals' owner(s), and at other times
such animals are turned over to an animal service/welfare agency, with the
expectation that someone losing a pet would probably look there first.
C) owned animals that have been surrendered by their owners to the agency for the
purpose of locating a new owner (adoption) or for euthanasia only;
'-3-Z.
Nl�
. Ae6. u. s._ 4ua.. _.,�:::.i.�a.z�.:��'�:J,�.uJ.e" �W ^.J. `L _ _•..l'•t, i...n,u.an...l.,.....a...+.._u _._ _
d) animals that have been confined in a pound for isolation or observation pursuant
to the Public Health Act or the Animal Contagious Diseases Act (Canada).
The term of importance in this discussion is "impounded ", as defined in the Act.
Since only animals which have been "impounded pursuant to a by -law" are subject to the
provisions of the Animals for Research Act (Section 1 (f) ), we need to identify which animals
in the above four categories meet that "impounded" criteria.
Obviously animals in categories c) and d) have not been "impounded" and animals in category
a) clearly have been.
It would appear, from the wording of Resolution 968, as amended by Resolution 969, before the
resolution was passed, that animals dropped off by their owners were regularly sent to research
facilities, since the resolution states in part:
".... and thus animals collected by our animal control staff on regular patrol
or dropped off by owners are being sent to these research facilities upon
request;"
As we interpret the Act, there is no requirement to surrender any animal where ownership has
been legally transferred to a pound unless sale for research has been specifically requested.
Of course, a municipality may decide to voluntarily sell any owned animal to a research
institution that has been surrendered without disposal restrictions.
This leaves the animals identified in category b). Are they considered impounded, as defined by
the Act?
During the years that the Consultant J.H. Bandow was directly involved in managing a humane
society which operated a municipal animal pound in Ontario serving six municipalities, he did
not consider any animal as described in category b) as having been impounded, unless the finder
of such animal was prepared to give evidence in a court of law that such animal had been
observed, or picked up by the finder, while in contravention of a municipal animal control by-
law (e.g. dog -at- large) that provided for impoundment.
Although this definition does not exist in the Act, such animals were considered "lost and found"
as distinct from "impounded ". In order not to confuse them with impounded animals, those
animals were distinctly identified with special kennel cards, and never recorded as impounds.
The same pound still identifies incoming "lost and found" animals 'the same way today.
Although this interpretation was never confirmed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, to
i
the best of our knowledge, this interpretation has never been challenged by the Ministry.
While it may be argued that a finder, who confines a straying animal on his property, has no
legal right to take custody of someone else's property, we have argued the point with Ministry
officials that unless such citizen provides evidence that there has been a contravention of a
municipal animal control by -law that provides for impoundment, no known offence has been
proven.
This interpretation obviously has a significant impact on the number of animals that are subject
to the provisions of the Act.
We therefore wrote the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food on April 22, 1993 and
requested written clarification.
As of June 20, 1993 a written response had not been received.
If this interpretation were to be applied in the City of Oshawa, we believe that this would
significantly reduce the number of "impounds ".
The Oshawa records we reviewed are not clear however, on how many of the animals identified
in the Index Logs as "stray dog picked up" were picked up by an Animal Control Officer on
public or private property after having been observed in contravention of a by -law that provides
for the impoundment of the animal, and how many were picked up as "lost" animals, confined
by residents in the interest of public and the animals' safety.
A case by case examination of individual Animal Services records would be necessary to come
up with that number.
J
7.3 SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE SERVICE DELIVERY
The following are specific recommendations arising out of this study. Some are inter - related.
The recommendations are listed by their occurrence in the body of the report which are indicated
in parentheses. Bold print indicates high priority recommendations, although recommendations
have not been numbered in order of priority.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That the City identify the reasons for the existence of Animal Services in a mission, /Jo' A.
statement, to provide focus to program planning and program implementation. (4.3) J"
'PRv1j�c
2. That the City develop programs around the mission statement with specific annual
implementation strategies that are realistic, achievable, and measurable. (e.g. in r
1994 Animal Services will increase the number of licensed dogs by 5 %; or return
every identifiable dog or cat directly home to its owner, etc.) Ideally all Animal
Service staff should be involved in the development of those strategies. (4.3)
3. That the City consider the appointment of an Animal Services Manager (part-time) Q/S `4
who has the ability to creatively move Animal Services through the changes from an
enforcement to a service focus. (4.8.4).
4. That the City use its Performance Management System to direct, coach and
reinforce the performance of Animal Services staff, with particular attention on
good interpersonal and problem solving skills, to assist staff in the transition from
an enforcement to a service focus.( 4.8.1 & 4.8.3)
5. That animals in the shelter be clearly ( e.g. different coloured cage tags) identified
whether they have been impounded pursuant to a by -law or have been otherwise
received. (4.6.2 & 6.1.2)
8• That all animals that have not been redeemed within the redemption period, and for
which for some reason it may be difficult to find a purchaser or donee, be routinely
examined by a Veterinarian to determine, whether in the opinion of the
Veterinarian, ill health, injury, malnutrition, excessive age or other infirmity makes
those animals makes those animals not suitable for research, so they don't have to
be held at the shelter unnecessarily. (4.6.2 & 6.1.2)
9. That the City prominently display the address and telephone number of the City
shelter on all hand -out materials. (4,13)
�1
6.2 DISPOSAL OF IMPOUNDED DOGS AND CATS
6.2.1 REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS IN THE ACT
The Act provides for a minimum redemption period of three days for dogs and cats impounded
under a municipal by -law, however a local municipality may, by by -law, establish a period
which is longer (Section 20 (1) and (2)).
For the purpose of this report the following excerpts from the Act, which deal with the
disposition of impounded dogs and cats, are of particular interest.
The Act provides in Section 20 (6):
"After the redemption period has expired and subject to subsection (7), the
operator of a pound shall not destroy or cause, to permit to be destroyed any dog
or cat that is in the pound but he may,
(a) return the dog or cat to the person who owned it before it
came into the. possession of the operator of the
pound,subject to the payment of such damages, fines and
expenses as are required by law;
(b) sell the dog or cat, dispose of it by gift or hold it in
possession for sale or disposal by gift to a bona tide
purchaser or donee,
(i) as a pet,
(ii) for use in hunting, or
(iii) for working purposes; or
(c) sell the dog or cat to the operator of a registered research
facility in Ontario who has requested the operator of the
pound to sell him a dog or cat as the case may be.
Notwithstanding subsection (5) and (6), the operator of a pound may destroy, or cause
or permit to be destroyed any dog or cat that has been impounded in the pound where
(a) the person who owned the dog or cat before it came into
the possession of the operator of the pound has requested
in writing that the dog or cat be destroyed;
(b) an inspector or veterinarian has ordered that the dog or cat
r
6.2 DISPOSAL OF IMPOUNDED DOGS AND CATS
6.2.1 REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS IN THE ACT
The Act provides for a minimum redemption period of three days for dogs and cats impounded
under a municipal by -law, however a local municipality may, by by -law, establish a period
which is longer (Section 20 (1) and (2)).
For the purpose of this report the following excerpts from the Act, which deal with the
disposition of impounded dogs and cats, are of particular interest.
The Act provides in Section 20 (6):
"After the redemption period has expired and subject to subsection (7), the
operator of a pound shall not destroy or cause, to permit to be destroyed any dog
or cat that is in the pound but he may,
(a) return the dog or cat to the person who owned it before it
came into the. possession of the operator of the
pound,subject to the payment of such damages, fines and
expenses as are required by law;
(b) sell the dog or cat, dispose of it by gift or hold it in
possession for sale or disposal by gift to a bona tide
purchaser or donee,
(i) as a pet,
(ii) for use in hunting, or
(iii) for working purposes; or
(c) sell the dog or cat to the operator of a registered research
facility in Ontario who has requested the operator of the
pound to sell him a dog or cat as the case may be.
Notwithstanding subsection (5) and (6), the operator of a pound may destroy, or cause
or permit to be destroyed any dog or cat that has been impounded in the pound where
(a) the person who owned the dog or cat before it came into
the possession of the operator of the pound has requested
in writing that the dog or cat be destroyed;
(b) an inspector or veterinarian has ordered that the dog or cat
be destroyed pursuant to subsection (ll);
(c) the dog or cat has been impounded in the pound for the
redemption period and the operator of the pound has
satisfied all requests referred to in clause (6) (c) from
operators of research facilities; or
(d) during the redemption period, the dog or cat is in a pound
and,
(i) is ill or injured and in his opinion is incapable of being
cured or healed as to live thereafter without suffering,
and
(ii) he has satisfied all requests referred to in clause (6) (c)
from operators of research facilities."
Also of note is Section 20 (11), which states:
"An inspector or veterinarian may order a dog or cat destroyed,
(b) where the dog or cat,
(1) is in a pound, supply facility or research facility,
(ii) has not, where it is in the pound,, been redeemed
by its owner within the redemption period, and,
(iii) is, in the opinion of the inspector or veterinarian, not suitable for
use in research by reason of ill health, injury, malnutrition,
excessive age or other infirmity."
6.2.2 COMMENTS
From our discussions with staff of Oshawa Animal Services and with others, we have learned
that at times the Oshawa facility is filled to capacity, and that residents with found or owned
dogs and cats, who want to take them to the City's shelter are advised that there is no room.
A number of steps should be given consideration to help reduce the number of animals that
require holding for extended periods of time. Those steps form part of our recommendations and
are repeated here for appropriate reference:
Only animals that have been impounded pursuant to a by -law
it
0
C�
I)
(Section 1 (f) Animals for Research Act) should be considered as falling under the
provisions of the Act.
2. All Animal Services staff should satisfy themselves that those confined stray or straying
animals, which are either picked up from a resident by an Animal Services Officer or
which are admitted to the shelter by a resident, are not owned animals disguised as strays
by an owner who does not want to pay applicable surrender fees. Most shelters recognize
that some dog and cat owners will surrender their own animals as strays when there are
no options about the payment of fees.
We agree that individuals who use a shelter should pay towards it's operating costs.
Nevertheless, in most cases it is probably more cost effective to accept animals at "no
charge" from individuals who are either unwilling or unable to pay surrender fees, than
accepting them as "strays" that require extra holding time.
3. All animals that have not been redeemed within the time period provided for in the City's
legislation, and for which a new bona fide purchaser or donee has not been found within
a reasonable period of time, should be routinely examined by a Veterinarian to determine
whether in the Veterinarian's opinion, ill health, injury, malnutrition, excessive age or
other infirmity makes those animals not suitable for use in research. (Section 20 [11 (iii)])
4. Efforts should be made to increase the number of animal redemptions. In order to
increase redemption rates, licensing needs to be promoted as a benefit (positive) and not
as a tax (negative). Shelter hours should provide some "after hours" opportunities for
redemption and adoption of animals.
5. All identifiable animals should be taken directly home.
Where implemented, the "free ride home" for identifiable animals has proven to be
successful in improving redemption rates. Any loss of revenue from a drop in pound fees
tends to be off -set by reduced sheltering costs and more available sheltering space.
6. City recognized volunteer groups and agencies that can assist in locating new homes for
animals at the shelter should be encouraged to work with shelter staff, and should be
provided with eligible animals for adoption purposes free of charge.
7. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 CONCLUSIONS
Animal services available in the City of Oshawa are comparable to animal care and control or
animal services provided by Ontario municipalities of similar size. We compared a number of
animal service performance indicators with the City of St. Catherines, which is comparable in
size and make -up, and found that services in Oshawa compared favourably.
The City of Oshawa has generally been well served by it's Animal Services in the past.
Although we have identified a number of deficiencies, we are confident that these can be
overcome. Indeed, if most of our recommendations were implemented, it would place the City
among the leaders in Canada in the way it delivers animal services to the community.
We believe that it would NOT be in the best interest of the City to start dismantling the Animal
Services at this time. The City has recently invested considerable amounts of money in a new
shelter, the vehicles used by Animal Services are in excellent condition, and the City has staff
with considerable experience in municipal animal service work and in by -law enforcement.
We have carefully weighed all available options. We acknowledge that there are individuals and
organizations in the community who have expressed interest in providing animal services under
contract to the City. However, it is our belief that those interested, currently have neither a good
enough understanding of what such undertaking involves, nor the necessary background or
experience to take over such functions at this time.
Representatives of the Oshawa and District Humane Society have advised us of their plans for
major shelter construction. However, we have not seen any documentation for us to review or
comment on. We will admit that we did not undertake an exhaustive investigation of any
interested party, but have based our recommendations on what we heard and saw during the
course of this study. This situation may very well be different in a year or two.
During our discussions it became evident that the issue of contracting out animal services had
been discussed internally by some of the groups. We would have therefore anticipated receiving
at least a written overview how those interested groups envisaged providing the service. One
point that was repeatedly made was that the services could be provided cheaper. We agree that
potentials for savings exist. However, we have seen or heard nothing that would give us the
confidence to recommend contracting out to any of the existing groups at this time.
We agree that there may not have been sufficient time for groups to prepare a proposal outline
in time for our meetings on May 11, 1993, and to be fair we did not ask for any. Yet, since
there was already an understanding by those we met with on May 11, 1993 that our role was
to review animal service in Oshawa, and to consider alternate ways of service delivery,
we were surprised that, a month later, we still had not seen even an outline of a proposal from
anyone that would demonstrate an understanding or a conceptual awareness of what it takes to
deliver this service, and how this was intended to be done.
Once again, to be fair, we did not ask for any proposal. However, at the conclusion of the May
11, 1993 meetings we invited individuals and organizations to contact us if there was anything
they wanted to share with us.
7.2 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER OPTIONS TO DELIVER ANIMAL SERVICES
All three options referred to in Chapter 5 of this report were given careful and serious
consideration.
7.2.1 OPTION 1: THE CITY CONTINUES TO DELIVER ANIMAL SERVICE=S
Although we have identified a number of deficiencies in the way the City currently delivers
animal services, this option is still the model of choice, and ,ve recommend that the City
continue to deliver animal services.
The City has a modern attractive facility and has experienced staff, albeit that some changes
need to be made, to deliver quality animal services to the community. The fact that it has
already taken the initial steps towards z service focus by changing it's name from "control" to
"service," and has committed itself to continue making the service more "use friendly ", leads
us to believe that the City has recognized that a more servic . oriented approach to animal
services is what the public wa.Af.s.
We have provided a number of specific riecommendatiorts, which we }lieve will overcome
most, if not all, the deficiencies we, noticed.
We suggest that these recontrrtGndations be considered an integral part of our overall
recommendation for a City operated animal service.
7.2.2 OPTION 2: TO SPLIT RE 'k ONSIBILITiES FOR ANIMAL SERVICES. THE
HUMANE SOCIETY WOULD PROVIDE SHELTERING SERVICES
UNDER CONTRACT TO THE CITY, AND THE CITY WOULD
PROVIDE ENS!�=OF,' iCE- 6ENTI'U ' 'SIDE /FIELD SERVICES.
We gave this option a long, bard loon . However the current shelter operated by the Humane
Society is unsuitable for this purpose. We understand that the Humane Society has plans to
upgrade it's facility. Howevcr, for such an arrangement to be considered at this time, would
require the Humane Society to use the City's animal sk: ter.
We believe that the Humane Society would probably do a superior job if it were responsible for
the adoption service only. We do not believe that the awareness and comprehension or
experience exists to recognize that pound operations are not the same as operating an adoption
service, and that frequently decisions will be unpopular and public confrontations negative.
Of course the decision not to surrender animals for research would continue to apply to the
Oshawa pound, no matter who operates it, and the Humane Society operating the pound, would
be confronted with the same animal holding issue as the City.
At this point the Province has not publicly stated that it sees the arrangement which currently
exists between the Toronto Humane Society and the City of Toronto, whereby the City "donates"
all impounded animals at the end of their redemption period to the Toronto Humane Society for
adoption purposes, to be in compliance with the Animals for Research Act.
Based on our experience, we also suggest that such arrangement of shared responsibilities works
best when there is absolute separation between both agencies. No matter how well intentioned,
having both agencies work out of the same facility, is a recipe for headaches. These, and some
of the other reasons previously eluded to in our general discussions on service options in Chapter
5, convinced us that this was not a viable option at this time.
7.2.3. OPTION 3: TO HAVE THE LOCAL HUMANE SOCIETY, OR A PRIVATE
CONTRACTOR TAKE OVER ALL ANIMAL SERVICES FROM THE
CITY.
This option was the first to be rejected. Apart from a proposal to cut costs and to provide more
user friendly staff at the shelter, we saw and heard nothing that would give us the confidence
to suggest that the local Humane Society is currently in a position to take over all aspects and
responsibilities for animal services in the City of Oshawa.
We want to make it clear here that this is not a criticism of the Humane Society. We believe that
the Humane Society is doing an excellent job to find homes for unwanted animals, primarily
cats, and to promote aspects of responsible pet ownership.
However that is not quite the same as providing by -law enforcement and other services, where
frequently human concerns will need to take precedence over animal concerns.
During our discussions with groups and individuals there was passing reference to a private
individual or company providing animal services. We are not aware of any private contractor
currently in the Oshawa area who would be in a position to take on this responsibility.
Perhaps someone might come forward if the City were to go out to tender. However, we would
suspect that the City would need to consider leasing it's shelter facility in order to attract
someone to bid on the contract.
10. That the City develop and distribute an information brochure that provides
information on when and what animal services are available. (4.13)
11. That the City identify, in writing, what it considers "emergencies" for stand -by
response. (4.4)
12. That the City continue the process of changing the emphasis and focus from one of
"control" to one of "service ". (4.3)
13. That the City consider investing in a good computer based shelter animal management
system. There are a number of excellent, proven systems on the market. Some of them
are available from $ 1500,00. up. (4.6.1 & 4.6.2)
14. That the City review the Animal Services Policy and Procedure Manual. We noticed a
number of unclear statements and some of the terminology were not clear to us. (4.5.3)
15. That the City explore the "free ride home" concept for identifiable animals.(4.12)
16. That the City release eligible animals for adoption free of charge to City recognized
groups which are helping to locate new homes for City shelter animals. (4.6.2)
17. That the City review current hours of shelter operation with a view to increasing access
to the public. (4.4)
18. That every effort be made to confirm that stray and straying animals turned over to
Animal Services are in fact strays, and not owned animals turned over as strays to
eliminate having to pay surrender fees. (4.6.2 & 6.2.2)
19. That the City continue to encourage Animal Services staff to attend training and
development opportunities. (4.8.3)
20. That the City routinely review it's animal by -laws, to confirm that they still support the
City's animal service goals.(4.9)
21. That the City consider reviewing the penalties in it's animal legislation, and consider
establishing a number of "set fines" for the most common repeat offences. (4.9)
22. That the City review it's dog licensing program and consider a more innovative
marketing approach. (4.12)
23. That the City participate in community outreach strategies like the provincial annual
"Responsible Pet Ownership Week ", or "The Year of the Cat ". (4.13)
49
24. That the City require animal service programs to have specific benchmarks to measure
performance. (4.14)
25. That the City review Animal Services' vehicle use with a view to reducing the Animal
Services fleet from four to three vehicles. (4.7.3)
APPENDIX A: ANIMAL CONTROL IN ONTARIO
THE EARLY YEARS
The following brief historical overview of animal control in Ontario is provided as background
to the comments and recommendations in this report.
During the early years of settlement of this country, most people lived in rural or small urban
communities, and dogs as well as cats had much more of a utilitarian role than they have today.
During those years the purpose of dog control was to apprehend or to shoot feral and stray dogs
to protect farmers' animals which represented their livelihood.
The first animal control legislation in Ontario was enacted in 1865. The legislation, entitled "AN
ACT TO IMPOSE A TAX ON DOGS TO PROVIDE FOR THE BETTER PROTECTION OF
SHEEP IN UPPER CANADA" was the "GREAT- GRANDFATHER" of "THE DOG
LICENSING AND LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT" which, until recently,
was the primary provincial enabling legislation under which most municipal dog control by -laws
were enacted.
In those early years the "dog tax" money collected by municipalities was used to establish
specific municipal compensation funds. The money in those funds was used to compensate
farmers for the losses of sheep (later expanded to include other livestock), caused by straying
or feral dogs.
Dog tags, which were issued upon payment of the tax, were visible proof that the dog tax had
been paid and helped identify owners of dogs that were caught worrying, injuring or killing
livestock.
Identification of offending dogs was important to municipalities in order to recover the costs of
damages from the owners of offending dogs.
DOGS IN URBAN CENTRES
As urban communities grew in size and complexity, so did the dog (and cat) population.
Increasing emphasis was placed on finding ways to accommodate the larger number of dogs,
which were now primarily kept as pets rather than as working animals.
The Province of Ontario responded by broadening the scope and authority for municipalities to
enact by -laws on pet registration, licensing and control.
96
DEALING WITH STRAY, FERAL AND STRAYING DOGS
Today most dog problems in urban centres are caused by "straying" rather than "stray or feral"
dogs. It is important to understand the differences between the two categories, since they require
different approaches in order to achieve long term effective control.
Although there are exceptions, experience has shown that "straying" dogs generally fall into two
basic categories.
Dogs in the first category:
► have owners;
are frequently licensed;
► frequently have their licence tag affixed;
► are generally well cared for;
► have either accidentally escaped, or have been accidentally let out;
► frequently have no road or traffic sense.
Owners of those dogs are generally responsible and are usually very concerned when they realize
that their dogs have disappeared They will usually take immediate steps to locate their animals,
are generally supportive and appreciative of the services and assistance provided by their animal
control agency, particularly when the agency demonstrates an understanding that accidental
escape of dogs can and does happen.
In most municipalities dogs in this category make up at least one half of the dogs handled.
Dogs in the second category:
have owners;
► are frequently not licensed, or even when they are licensed, often do not have
their licence tag affixed;
► are usually fed at home;
► are frequently either deliberately let out to run the neighbourhood, or are confined
in a way that makes escapes inevitable and a regular occurrence;
► unless apprehended, regularly return home.
Owners of those dogs can generally be termed irresponsible. They frequently wait a while before
they start looking for their dogs if they have not returned home. They believe that their animals
will eventually return. They are the ones who will state that they have the right to let their dogs
run the neighbourhood ( "after all, what harm can a pet dog do "). They often see animal care and
control legislation as an imposition, and animal control agencies as a.waste of tax payers money.
These individuals are often the source of difficult confrontations for animal care and control
staff.
"A4,
"Stray" or feral dogs, on the other hand, have no owner and no regular home base. Thev
generally forage for food, and may find some residents who will leave food out for them. They
sleep wherever they can find shelter. They generally keep their distance from humans and
frequently roam in groups. Because they tend to keep their distance from humans, they are
frequently difficult to apprehend.
Twenty -five to thirty years ago a lot of the dogs found running at large in both urban and rural
communities were "strays ", and it was generally agreed that apprehension was the key to
satisfactory control. Those were the days when packs of dogs were roaming urban streets and
rural neighbourhoods, and the role of the "dog catcher" was to catch and impound them.
In those days dog "round -ups" were a common sight. A number of dog control vehicles and
officers would converge on a neighbourhood and try and pick up as many dogs as they could.
Those caught were "impounded" and taken to the pound. Since most of them were "strays ", very
few of them were ever claimed and most of them were euthanized. Thus pounds got the
reputation as "places were they kill animals ".
To be hired as a dog catcher, applicants had to be physically fit, agile, and be able to handle
dogs. Since catching stray dogs was the primary activity, there was little emphasis and little
perceived need for dog catchers to have good people skills.
However, this "round -up and destroy" approach did not solve the dog problems. Although
thousands of dogs were rounded up and removed from municipal streets, new ones kept
appearing. Animal Control Agencies felt caught in a vicious cycle.
It became obvious that many of those dogs were not "strays ", but "straying" animals.
Unfortunately, redemption rates were low since the owners of those dogs were largely
irresponsible. Not wishing to pay redemption fees or penalties, they simply got new dogs instead
of redeeming their apprehended animals from the pound. And, since there was no change in
owner behaviour, the cycle kept repeating again and again. During those years, many
municipalities disposed of up to 20% of their estimated dog population annually without ever
r seeing much of an improvement.
LOOKING FOR DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS
Some animal control agencies recognized that they were not solving the problem. In order to
reduce the increasing numbers of dogs winding up in pounds and shelters, some managers of
animal control and animal welfare agencies started to promote spay /neuter programs to combat
what they termed the "pet overpopulation problem ". Others believed that there wasn't a pet
overpopulation problem but an overpopulation of irresponsible owners, and that a greater effort
should be made to go after those irresponsible owners and to penalize them. They promoted
amendments to by -laws that provided for greater restrictions (leashing, restricting numbers etc.)
and for increased fines for convicted offenders.
Neither strategy had any significant immediate impact. Large numbers of unidentifiable dogs still
wound up in pounds and shelters. Owners, whose dogs were picked up, were often reluctant to
redeem them from pounds because of larger penalties. Some shelters introduced escalating fines
9 65
for owners whose dogs were apprehended more than once in a given time period. However, this
frequently compounded the problem. Instead of redeeming their animals, some owners, realizing
that they faced significant tines, found it easier and cheaper to get new dogs.
Although this approach resulted in fewer dog round -ups and greater emphasis on dealing with
dog owners, offenders still saw Animal Control Officers as the "dog catchers" who interfered
with the way they thought dogs should be kept, and whose only interest was to pick up dogs so
that they could kill them.
Unfortunately, because of the many dogs that were not redeemed, a large number of them had
to be euthanized. This only served to reaffirm the image of animal control officers as "the
butchers who kill animals."
THE NEED FOR ADEQUATE RESOURCES
The fact that stricter laws had little impact on reducing the "dog problem" also demonstrated that
merely changing laws was not enough. At times laws were changed to address public complaints,
yet the needed resources to provide adequate enforcement were often not provided. Animal
control agencies invariably had to fight for such resources.
Enforcement costs money. Even today, when many animal control agencies have been given a
whole range of added responsibilities and more laws to enforce, most of them are not provided
with sufficient resources to provide effective service or enforcement of their animal care and
control by -laws.
A NEW APPROACH
Agencies which are now showing results in solving animal related problems and concerns are
employing a new strategy. For the first time in many years these agencies can demonstrate
significant results.
Their strategy is to not to pick up more animals, or to penalize more owners or to generate more
fines, but to focus on reducing animal housing costs and enlisting public support to solve
community animal problems through a pro- active approach of working with individual owners,
and community and neighbourhood groups to help animal owners integrate their animals into the
community.
For instance, instead of warning owners of the potential penalties for failing to license their dog,
animal owners are made aware of the benerit that licensing has for the owner, for the animal
and for the community.
A number of agencies have adopted the "free ride home" concepi, whereby any identifiable
animal that is picked up either by a resident or by an animal control officer, is given a free ride
home. No penalties and no pound fees are charged, unless the owner is a habitual offender.
In the City of Toronto, for instance, in 1992, 1906 (69 %) out of a total of 2855 stray, straying
6, 6
i
r�
and impounded dogs were re- united with their owners, and 765 (28 %) were returned home on
the spot, without ever having to see the inside of the shelter. This approach reduces the pressure
on shelter space, reduces housing costs, the pressure to find new homes for unredeemed
animals, and euthanasia rates. In 1992 out of those 2855 stray, straying and impounded animals
only 84 needed to be euthanised. (None were sold to research institutions)
During the last year a number of other municipalities in Ontario have explored or implemented
a similar approach.
T 967