A recent dog attack in Colwood has led to potential changes in the city’s animal control bylaws. The incident, where a Colwood woman’s dog, Farley, was attacked by another dog, has raised concerns over the current bylaw’s effectiveness in addressing aggressive dog behavior.
In January, Farley, a five-year-old duck toller, was bitten by another dog. Despite the severity of the attack, the dog responsible will not be classified as “dangerous,” a decision that has left the victim shocked. The incident has highlighted gaps in Colwood’s existing bylaws, which city officials are now seeking to amend.
Byron Grant, Colwood’s bylaw manager, acknowledged that the city’s current Animal Control Bylaw lacks adequate measures for assessing and categorizing aggressive dog behavior. “Our current bylaw’s model and subjective metric to determine if a dog should be declared dangerous has too high a threshold,” Grant explained. “Having a middle ground assessment level/designation of ‘aggressive’ would have likely satisfied all stakeholders in this case.”
The Capital Regional District (CRD), contracted by Colwood for dog attack investigations, has proposed a new “Animal Responsibility Bylaw” that would introduce a category for “aggressive dogs,” alongside the existing “dangerous dogs” designation. The new bylaw would create a middle ground, allowing for dogs that exhibit repeated aggressive behaviors—such as hostile barking, snapping, or chasing—to be classified as “aggressive.” This designation could be removed if the dog undergoes proper training.
A “dangerous dog,” on the other hand, is defined as one that has caused serious injury or death, or is likely to do so. These dogs are subject to stricter regulations, including mandatory containment, specific leash lengths, and the use of a muzzle.
Saanich already has a similar bylaw in place, while the city of Victoria handles its own dog attack investigations. However, the CRD’s investigation into Farley’s attack has faced criticism. Despite the seriousness of the incident, the CRD concluded that the offending dog did not meet the criteria for being designated as “dangerous.”
Cindy Andrew, the victim’s representative, disagreed with the CRD’s findings, questioning the investigative process. She pointed out that investigators initially attempted to close the case without fully considering police, medical, and veterinary reports. Additionally, the dog’s owner referred to a “dog psychologist,” who claimed the dog was “aggressive” but not “dangerous,” a notion that Andrew found concerning.
While the CRD maintains confidence in its investigation, Andrew is calling for improvements to ensure more consistent and transparent criteria in future dog attack investigations.
“The growing number of incidents as communities expand means we need better processes, with clear and consistent criteria,” Andrew stated. “This is a call to action for the CRD to improve their approach.”
Related topics:
3 Great Home Remedies to Settle Your Dog’s Upset Stomach
Dog Euthanized Following Severe Neglect by Owner
The Most Common Dog Names Have 2 Syllables
