FOUND reading glasses Hiddingh Steps stream, Nov 4th toddlers booties & toy binoculars stony bridge, Nov 6th two leads on bench at lookout, Nov 11th all handed in to office in the Volunteer Firefighters building Wanted Safety in Numbers - Any dogs and their owners interested in walking together over the weekends, please contact Christine at lepetitvignoblegmail.com Animal by-law for Cape Town TMNP Environmental Management Programme Walking with Dogs in the TMNP Muggings updates, June 2009 Emergency Numbers The in email addresses is actually a graphic. This is done to avoid webcrawlers recognizing email addresses and spamming them.

A second version of the draft animal bylaw for the City of Cape Town which contains provisions relating to domestic dogs & cats has been released. The period for public comment is now over, but you can read the FDW comment that was sent in to council, at the end the following summary of the bylaw... Summary of items of particular interest to dog owners: The city has kept a residual power to determine the number of dogs that may be kept on any premises. In the absence of any such determination the number of dogs over six months that may be kept in a dwelling unit, ie roughly speaking a flat, is two; in a dwelling house is three; in a large dwelling house, ie on an erf more than 600 sq metres, is four; on an agricultural property, ie land zoned for agricultural uses, is six; any other type of premises, eg could include a caravan, boat or tent or other structure, up to three. Permits to keep more than the prescribed number can be applied for. First requirement is a written report from an authorised official who has inspected the premises. Permits are attached to a particular person and particular premises and may not be transferred. For the first six months after promulgation of the bylaw, applications to keep a greater than allowable number of dogs will be granted up to a maximum of six on any premises subject to the owner not replacing any dog that dies or is disposed of. Registration of dogs (ie licensing). This is a new introduction. Must be done within three months of dog's birth or within 30 days of acquisition. The amount of the fee will be determined and there may be a reduced fee for sterilized dogs. There will be a nine month transitional period for registration. Prohibitions: No bitches on heat in public places. Urging or failing to prevent a dog from attacking or worrying etc any person or animal except in defence of person or property. Keeping a dog if faeces not regularly removed and disposed of. Keeping a dog which barks more than six minutes in any hour or more than three minutes in any half hour. NEW. Keeping a dog which causes a disturbance or nuisance in the neighbourhood by barking, yelping, whining, or charging vehicles, animals, persons etc outside its own premises. Generally causes a disturbance to local inhabitants. The following will come into force six months after promulgation of the bylaw - Allowing a dog with an infectious disease in a public place. Vicious dogs must be muzzled and under control. May not trespass on private property or be a hazard to traffic. May not be a potential source of danger to persons outside the premises. Must be leashed in public places except areas designated by the council as free-running areas. All dogs (ie of any age!!) must be microchipped or carry name, address, phone no or reference to an animal welfare organisation. Also provisions prohibiting harassing dogs, fireworks, organised dog fighting. Dog pounds: Includes provision for sale or destruction after 10 days. Confinement: Premises where dogs are kept must be adequately fenced unless dogs confined in some other manner. Council employees: Dogs must not be a source of danger to council employees entering to carry out their duties. A notice to the effect that a dog is kept on premises must be adequately displayed. Removal of excrement: Except for dogs assisting blind persons - must be removed, placed in a container and disposed of in a receptacle provided for disposal of litter or refuse. Persons walking dogs in a public place must carry sufficient plastic or paper bags. Sterilisation: may be undertaken by an authorised official who deems it necessary. Dogs (includes bitches) must be sterilised unless kept in permitted kennels or registered with certain dog breeders associations. Does not include dogs owned prior to date of promulgation of the bylaw. Contraventions of the bylaw. Penalties are a fine or imprisonment for not more than two years. Ordering the destruction of the animal concerned. Friends of the Dog Walkers have sent our comments to the council, see below best regards Geraldine Attention Senior Inspector Peter Lottering City of Cape Town Animal Bylaw. Second draft. 2009 Comments from Friends of the Dog Walkers Broadly speaking we feel that some provisions of this proposed bylaw particularise too much by imposing too many detailed restrictions. It should be confined to legitimate and socially desirable aims of preventing and penalising cruelty to animals together with matters relating to broad principles of public health and nuisance to surrounding neighbours. It is disappointing that a number of concerns raised by ourselves over the first draft have not been addressed in this second version. Section 2. Restrictions on number of dogs and licnesing. We do not comment on the detailed restrictions on the number of dogs per premises which appear generous. Nevertheless the council is straying from its essential objective which should relate directly to matters of health and public nuisance. Restrictions on numbers are by nature arbitrary and the municipality would do better to focus on using its powers to clamp down on the real individual offenders. With regard to the introduction of licensing, how will the municipality enforce this? Section 5. Subsection (e). Prohibition on keeping any dog which barks for more than 6 minutes in any hour or more than 3 minutes in any half hour. This proposal certainly should be removed entirely. As drafted, a barking incident of either duration need only happen once to empower the municipality not only to penalise the owner with a fine but confiscate the dog. Have the drafters of this bylaw gone barking mad?? No account is taken for the reason for the dog's barking. It might be triggered by an intruder or a stranger at the door or the arrival of security personnel when an alarm goes off, or even the arrival of baboons. It takes no account of the preponderance of violent crime in the city. One of the best ways to discourage opportunistic criminals is to make it clear that there is a dog on the premises which barks to warn to its owners. At the initial meeting of the working group to discuss the first draft animal bylaw the late Ivan Toms wisely suggested that provisions for the control of nuisance-related behaviour of dogs should be left to the general laws governing nuisance. In fact this section, which by subsection (f) "prohibits the keeping of any dog which by barking, yelping, howling or whining… causes a disturbance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood" adequately covers the problem of excessive barking. Moreover, noise disturbance by dogs, or for that matter from any source, depends to some extent on the level of tolerance of the neighbours and account should be taken of the general noise level of the area. Our suburbs are noisy places, there is amplified sound from radios and TV, garden machinery, children in swimming pools, etc. Why pick on noise from barking dogs in isolation? Excessive barking should certainly be dealt with and it could even require intervention from anti-cruelty organisations. Setting a specific time limit on the barking is a clumsy attempt to introduce an objective measure and offers an opportunity to the vindictive or neurotic neighbour. There ought to be a requirement that a complaint be lodged by at least two neighbouring householders in place of a specified period of barking where subsection (f) is contravened. Section 5(g)(vi) …" the council may designate public places…..as free running..areas..." There should be an obligation on the part of the council to designate sufficient free running areas in all neighbourhoods. There are some areas within the municipal borders where there is nowhere at all where a dog may be allowed to run free. Section 7. Seizure, impounding and destruction of dogs. As there is a requirement for microchipping or other identification to be carried on dogs (section 5(h)) why is there no obligation on the pound master to contact the owner? If a dog carrying some type of identity is destroyed or disposed of without attempting to contact the owner the poundmaster should be liable for the value of the dog. We consider that the time period of not less than ten days for disposal or destruction of a dog is too short. The dog may have been stolen and subsequently escaped or the owner might be away and have left the dog in the care of a domestic or other carer. Section 9. Fencing of property. We are concerned that should this requirement be universally enforced it will lead to the incidence of dogs being permanently tied up. Does this not constitute cruelty? Is it illegal? Does the city envisage a pogram of loose running dogs in townships and informal areas? Section 12. Removal of excrement. The city should take responsibility for providing receptacles. There are many suburban streets where dogs are regularly walked but there are no receptacles whatever. Please do not hope that many dog owners will carry around a bag of excrement until they return home, to leave it in their own bin encouraging flies for up to a week. We suggest the drafters of this bylaw carry out an experiment and take two dogs out on a lead while toting around some bags of faeces. How are you going to enforce these measures when the metro police are already unable to prevent all the other illegal activities taking place daily in this city? We are mindful of some very ugly incidents highlighted by the media when dog owners have been roughly handled by metro police personnel for an offence which in the scale of things should rate as minor in contrast to the piles of builders' refuse littering the sidewalks, general litter and illegal vendors around robots which the council seems unable to control. Our group, Friends of the Dog Walkers, have negotiated with Table Mountain National Park on all dog-related matters for over five years. The parties have agreed on a rule whereby certain areas are designated as areas where all dog faeces must be removed and placed in the bins that are provided. In those parts of the Park where dogs run free (which is most of the Park area) the dog handlers must make sure that the dogs do not defecate on the paths, they may do it in the bushes. We suggest an appropriate solution for the city should be to follow this solution and make rules to ensure that no faeces whatever be left on the ground in public parks and certain designated areas such as, obviously, SeaPoint beachfront, beaches that can be accessed to service the bins, etc. Also, no faeces may be left on hard or gravelled pavements or any areas with mown grass. Elsewhere, if there are shrubs, bushes, groundcover etc, let the dogs be allowed to go in there where their faeces will quickly biodegrade in the air instead of the pathogens being preserved in the protection of the plastic. The council should consider the environmental effect of putting all the dog faeces in Cape Town, a biodegradable substance, in plastic bags and carting off to dumpsites. Surely the idea is to get rid of plastic and not to create more of it. On the subject of receptacles, we suggest the city should take more responsibility and undergo more research on suitable containers that ideally should be dedicated for the purpose and supply the more expensive bio-degradable bags. Also, there is no point in providing bins unless they are frequently cleaned out. At least twice a week especially in summer is essential. Does the city have the capacity for this? We enclose some interesting examples of bins and services offered in other countries which demonstrate how backward are the facilities offered in Cape Town. The municipality should consider contracting out to a service provider to offer and service suitable dedicated bins. Please examine carefully these advertisements taken from internet sites that we have provided with this comment and take note that legislation in the European Union classifies dog faeces as toxic waste which must be separately disposed of. 13. Sterilisation. We made this point before with the first draft of the bylaw and we make it again. Sterilisation is socially desirable and organisations such as SASHA should be given all the support possible including financial support. But to introduce forced sterilisation of, in effect, dogs that are not pedigreed is not even neo-facist. Pedigree dogs are beautiful and highly valued but they are the property of the well-to-do and regretfully years of inbreeding by irresponsible breeders has led to the development of particular breeds that are genetically inclined to certain defects and diseases. The cross-breeds make excellent and practical pets for people who do not want to show their dogs and cannot afford huge veterinary bills. Dog Breeding. We have been advised that there is an increasing tendency for puppies to be sold at too early an age and this leads to behavioural problems in later life as well as affecting the health of the pups. Certainly four or five weeks old is too early and we suggest that council take advice and impose a minimum age for the separation of puppies from their mother. Please alter the definition of "kennels" under (b) which includes "dogs ..bred for commercial purposes" so as to make clear that where dogs are kept as household pets and their puppies are sold the owners are not bound by the structural requirements relating to kennels in section 27. Appended: Pictures and advertisements from other countries of receptacles for dog faeces in public places provided by municipalities. Pamphlet on Walking with Dogs in the Table Mountain National Park produced by TMNP. From Friends of the Dog Walkers: Geraldine Goncalves, Val Bennett, Roy Joynt, Carol de Gendt, Christopher Walker, Taryn Blyth, Neil van der Spuy 19 Amhurst Avenue, Newlands 7700.   Phone 021 6717451

Web Master: Pam Newby (021) 447-2820 or 082-5646257