 |
To The Corporation Of The District Of Maple Ridge |
|
Maple-Ridge, British Columbia Subject: Your Worship Mayor Al Hogarth, members of City Council, I would like to take this opportunity to provide additional comments in regards to Maple Ridge's proposed Exotic Animal bylaw no 5755-1999. PIJAC Canada appeals to your Worship and the other members of the Maple Ridge City Council to seriously consider the following information. PIJAC Canada recognizes the need for municipalities to regulate ownership of animals within their jurisdiction. We agree with the principle that municipalities have a responsibility to regulate companion animals on the basis of the potential threats they may bring to public health and public safety. But we also believe that municipalities should recognize the present involvement of their provincial and federal agencies in areas like commercial trade, conservation and threat to native ecosystems. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES), to which Canada is a signatory party, is enforced through Canada's own federal set of laws and regulations (W.A.P.P.R.I.I.T.A). Further protection is awarded through provincial regulations like British Columbia's Wildlife Act. The decision by Maple Ridge City Council to regulate areas already enforced by other agencies, would only result in a duplication of services, difficulty in enforcement (as municipal bylaw officers do not possess the necessary expertise to carry out the exercise) and would inevitably result in a duplication of costs for which residents of Maple Ridge are already accountable. We believe
the bylaw as proposed will be detrimental to the many residents
and businesses of Maple Ridge who derive a great deal of satisfaction
from their association with these less traditional pets. We intend
to impress upon you in the following paragraphs that some of
the arguments presented to you to justify such an exercise are
misleading and based on outdated information. We are convinced
that your decision to go ahead with the present version of this
bylaw will in fact bring results opposite to the objectives initially
sought by city council. The need for clarification You were
told at the January 9th meeting that all Maple Ridge pet establishments
had been consulted on this bylaw. This statement is false.
To this day, some of Maple Ridge's pet stores are still unaware
of the proposed bylaw and the profound effects some of these
changes will have on their operation. a) All sugar gliders offered for sale as pets originate from multiple generations of captive-bred individuals (none of them are taken from the wild). b) Information as to their nutrition, housing requirements and veterinary care is readily available. c) This specie poses no threat to native wildlife and native ecosystems or to public health and public safety. In view of these
points, PIJAC Canada requests that a specific mention to exempt
sugar gliders be added to point
8. a) We feel the need to prohibit all snakes to be completely unnecessary for the same reasons stated in our previous point. b) The way it is presently written, the Bylaw suggests that all reptiles (snakes, turtles, and lizards) are venomous. This is false. As for the notion of poisonous animals, their ability to produce poison is largely influenced by the animal's natural diet and environment. Captive husbandry practices already take care of these concerns and make it a non-issue. In view of these points, PIJAC Canada requests that the prohibition of ownership be focused on all venomous animals.
PIJAC Canada strongly opposes Council's use of the all-inclusive points no: 18 (birds), 21 (turtles) and 22 (snakes). Perhaps
the best way to justify our position lies in addressing some
of the concerns expressed by some of you at the January 9th council
meeting. a) No more than our domestic pets with visceral larva migrans, toxoplasmosis, rabies, cat scratch fever, etc. b) In fact, pet birds, turtles and snakes
are less likely to transmit diseases to humans than your
common dog or cat. This information is verified through a publication
by Dr. Daniel S. Shapiro, M.D., Assistant
Professor of Medicine, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine,
Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
(See enclosed chart). a) Anyone who wishes to claim that our domestic pets are incapable of the same behaviour must be blind to the high number of dog bites reported each year. b) Breed registries like the Canadian Kennel Club, are quick to identify certain recognized breeds as having specific abilities in the areas of dominance and aggression. PIJAC Canada has
yet to hear of a box turtle or corn snake attack on people. Absolutely, it can! That's why the general feeling and ongoing objective is to ensure that any animal kept as a pet is derived from a self-sustaining captive population. We must remember however that the reasons attributed to declining wildlife populations are a lot more complex than capture or collection. While international mechanisms such as CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora) are already in place to control the commercial trade in wild caught specimens, very few changes can be reported on the alarming rate of habitat destruction and global warming. In fact, for some species, their only chance for survival rests with successful captive breeding programs almost always managed by the serious hobbyists/breeders. Many of
them are dedicated individuals and conservationists that have
contributed greatly to the body of knowledge associated with
successful maintenance and propagation of animals in captivity. a) Animal shelters are full of dogs and cats whose novelty has worn off. b) Ignorance as to what an animal needs to be properly kept in captivity is not restricted to less traditional pets. c) Educating the public as to what the
animal needs is the answer. Every
day shelters across the country investigate complaints of dogs
tied outside all day without the proper food, water or shelter.
Again the fault does not lie in the type of pet, but in the
lack of education of the owner. a) The veterinary profession as a whole has been extremely proactive in this regard. b) They have access to a large quantity of specialized lectures, continuing education seminars and peer-reviewed journals (such as Seminars in Exotic and Avian Pet Medicine, Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery, Bulletin of the Association of Amphibian and Reptile Veterinarians, etc.), as well as having Board Certification in less traditional avian species available to them since 1993. c) One just has to look in the yellow pages to notice the growing number of veterinarians adding exotic and small animal medicine to the list of services they provide to the community. d) Never in our history have owners of pet snakes, birds and turtles had access to such a quality of information from qualified veterinarians, well structured hobby groups/associations and the scientific community. e) It is now easy to meet the housing, nutritional and behavioural requirements of these animals in captivity. This is evidenced by the remarkable increase in the number of captive breeding operations and captive breeding success stories observed over the last ten years. f) It is a well-known fact that unlike dogs and cats, specific conditions are essential in order for reptiles or birds to breed successfully in captivity. In other words, these animals don't just breed because they are bored or have nothing else to do! As a direct result of this, the number of healthy captive-bred specimens has increased dramatically in the last five years. It is also a well known fact that captive-bred makes for an overall better quality pet. Their gentle dispositions and overall good physical health make them more appealing to prospective pet owners g) Better-informed owners have contributed to tailoring the demand towards species more suitable to pet ownership. More difficult species popular five years ago have now given way to more robust species, better suited to life in captivity. h) There is plenty of evidence to support
the claim that the physical, behavioural and nutritional
needs of all birds and reptiles presently available as pets are
easily met in captivity.
Conclusion The proposed bylaw 5755-1999 fails to meet these objectives for the following reasons: 1. It discriminates on the type of pets responsible pet owners are allowed to keep within the limits of the municipality. 2. It will prohibit ownership of numerous species already well established as pets within Maple Ridge. These species pose no greater threat to public health and safety than the average dog or cat. Information as to their proper housing and care is readily available. 3. The proposed list appearing in Schedule A is provides for broad restrictions that do not rest on any documented evidence that would suggest threats to public health or public safety. The basis on which many of the species are prohibitive seems to rest on misinformation and the lack of interest in some of these less traditional pets. 4. As written, bylaw 5755-1999 would commit the resources of the municipality of Maple Ridge towards the application of legal principles well beyond the municipality's area of jurisdiction. This will create confusion, complicate the enforcement and inevitably lead to a waste of human and financial resources. PIJAC Canada wishes to thank council for the opportunity to present its views on by-law 5755-1999. We respectfully requests that Council reject the proposed Schedule A and replace by our association's list of prohibitive species. Sincerely,
Louis McCann, B.Sc. CC/ Mr. Arie Johnston, President, PIJAC Canada
(British Columbia) |