Ideas on what to do to attract more people that wish to live in Bruderheim

Curb the danger posed by dogs that roam freely

Dogs — often without a dog tag — that roam freely were being discussed in the unofficial portion of the June 15, 2005 town council meeting as one of the issues that needs to be addressed to make our town more friendly and a safe place to attract newcomers, especially those with children or planning to have children.

In the open discussion session (not recorded in the minutes of the meeting) after the official part of the town council meeting was over, one man recounted the many instances of finding dogs in his backyard (right across the road from the seniors' centre).  He and his wife have six children.  Naturally, they are concerned about their children's and their own safety.  However, regardless of which authorities they contacted on the many occasions of finding loose dogs (some of them being extremely large ones), no-one ever did anything about the problem they are forced to endure.  They gained from the experience nothing other than the knowledge that all of the authorities involved, from the staff at our town office to Strathcona Bylaw Enforcement, including the RCMP in Fort Saskatchewan, have nothing better to offer than the advice that nothing can be done about a particular dog problem unless someone gets hurt first.

Just a few days ago Hazel Zacharko got bitten in a number of places by a Golden Retriever on the loose, as she walked along the passage way from her house to the school.  Being a nice person, eager to get along with her neighbours, she laid no charges, even though that was not the first time that dog got loose and bit someone.  However, the owners of the dog had him put down.  It is too bad that Hazel had to endure what could easily have been prevented.  On the other hand, we should all count ourselves lucky that it was not a child on the way to school who got bitten, quite possibly far more seriously than Hazel was.  Hazel received a tetanus shot.  Tetanus shots pose some danger because they far more frequently cause serious and potentially deadly allergic reactions than many people know.  Nevertheless, let's hope that Hazel will not need rabies shots.  The dog that bit her was crazy.  As I said, it has been put down, but did anyone test it for presence of rabies?

Would it not have been much easier and painless for everyone to make absolutely sure that the dog was secure and under total control at all times?

A few weeks ago Pete Lukawesky walked along Highway 45 and was at the railroad crossing when he had an encounter with a dog accompanied by his owner, one of our town councillors.  The councillor did not have that dog on a leash, and the dog came running towards Pete. 

Pete is a healthy man, but only relatively so.  He has had a serious heart attack and open-heart surgery.  He exercises daily, by walking, to keep himself fit.  When the dog came running at him, Pete froze; and the town councillor called the dog back.  No harm done in a harmless incident, right?  Not quite so.  It could have been far more serious for Pete than that it was just he who froze.  His heart could have stopped, and no-one but the owner of the dog would have known how that came to happen.  For the rest of his life he would have been burdened by the knowledge that is was his fault that a man and neighbour got killed.

What would anyone know if anything happens and the owner of the dog that caused serious injury or death is not even around?  Even if the owner of the dog is known, the most likely answer from the owner would be something along the lines of, "My dog is a good dog.  He is a friendly dog, especially with children.  He loves children!  He never attacked anyone.  There is no possible way my dog did what you say he did."

That could quite possibly be the case with the unlicenced dog found by Leo Genier in the morning of June 24th, 2005.  That dog is one of a trio, one of whom is sufficiently fierce and aggressive that he put a good scare into the bylaw enforcement officer that came to check the situation. 
   Apparently the bylaw enforcement officer knows how to handle dogs well.  He breeds them, and he breeds Rottweilers.  At least one of those three problem dogs came right out of his kennel.  He sold that dog to the current owner of one more dog than our bylaws permit on a property.
   Faye and Angus McGillivray have two Pekinese.  It was one of those three Rottweilers that a few weeks ago just about ripped one of Faye's and Angus' Pekinese.  It's a good thing that that time around it was only a little dog that confronted those Rottweilers that came to visit.  It could just as well have been one of our town's children that could have thought what nice doggies those Rottweilers were and wanted to play with them.  Faye managed to get a hold of the owner of the Rottweilers that day.  She came and got her dogs, but not before they had begun a fight with another dog across the back alley.

Many of Bruderheim's residents will not go for walks unless they carry sturdy sticks or solid walking canes with them to defend themselves against dogs when necessary.  One elderly man out walking his small dogs every day never goes without a good stick to ward off loose dogs that attack his two little friends.  He used that stick on a good number of occasions.

Considering those circumstances, one has every right to think that Bruderheim is in a state of emergency of its residents, brought about by dog owners that know that they can flout our ineffective dog bylaws with impunity.

Still, whichever of these problems are brought to the attention of our town council at their meetings, none of those issues are on record.  The discussion of those issues is not part and parcel of the official portion of the town council meetings and is therefore not recorded.  I can't blame the town council for that.  They have to protect themselves against the consequences of their inaction.  It would never do, when liability settlements are being discussed in court, to show that they officially recognized such a serious problem and did nothing to correct it, right?

Therefore, for your protection, you are well advised to keep a good record of any such problem you report.   Keep a camera handy, capable of reporting date and time for each photo that you take on such occasions.  Such still-photographs can be used as evidence in court.

Update 2005 07 10:

Leo Genier was  busy yesterday trimming the weeds in the back alley at Jack Lambert Sr.'s house when a few people walked through the back alley.  The Rottweilers next door went wild.  Eventually a board in the fence keeping them in broke.  One of the Rottweilers escaped and began running after a little girl on her bike at the East-end of the alley.  Leo tried to hold the dog back and managed catch him just before he had a chance to pounce on the little girl.   Maybe the dog just wanted to play with the little girl, but who wants to wait and find out whether that is all a dog wants to do?   The bylaw-enforcement officer eventually came and picked-up the dog.  The dog did not wear a licence tag.  It is a good thing that only the one dog escaped.  Two more of them, all riled up, might have been more than Leo could have handled.  As active as Leo is, he is a bit too old to have to cope with things like that.    It would be a good thing not to let little girls around there play without supervision.  Mind you, there have been reports (as identified at the top of this page) of loose and large dogs being found in backyards when people left their house.  Should any residents be constantly in fear for the safety of their children in their own backyards?

Is that dog trying to get out or is he just looking things over?

Can he get out?  His buddy did make it out.  What does it take to make this one try hard enough to make it?