TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND ... - London, Ontariocouncil.london.ca/meetings/CNC...

Agenda Item # Page #

1

RECOMMENDATION

That, on the recommendation of the Director – Environmental Programs & Solid Waste, the following actions BE TAKEN:

(a) The following timetable for Expanding the Scope for Animal Welfare Initiatives as Part of the City‘s Animal Services Program BE APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE and serve as a guide for the upcoming discussion on these matters:

Summary of General Steps and Activities Timeframe 2011/2012

Submission of Expanding the Scope for Animal Welfare Initiatives as Part of the City‘s Animal Services Program to Community & Neighbourhoods Committee (CNC)

June 14

Public Participation meeting at CNC and CNC provides direction and recommendation to Municipal Council

July 19

Recommendation from CNC provided to Council July 25

Dates for future meetings include CNC (August 16), Council (August 29), Services Review Committee (to be determined) and Senior Management Team (to be determined)

July/August

Develop Expression of Interest (EOI) and/or Request for Proposals (RFP) and/or Implementation Strategies for Various Components of the Animal Services Program

August/ September

Release EOI and/or RFP October

Evaluate Submissions December

Present Recommendations to Standing Committee and Council February 2012

(b) A public meeting BE HELD on July 19, 2011,to receive public input on the details proposed in Expanding the Scope for Animal Welfare Initiatives as Part of the City‘s Animal Services Program and new information relevant to these matters;

(c) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to prepare background details, strategies, animal welfare benefits, financing options and implementation plans focused on increasing activities in the following areas, with a particular emphasis on cats:

i) spay/neuter programs ii) community-based adoption programs iii) animal foster and adoption facility or facilities;

(d) Civic Administration BE APPROVED to hire technical or research specialists to assist with animal welfare programs and policies at a cost not to exceed $20,000 and with the funding to be provided from the Animal Welfare Reserve which is funded by unspent licence fees earmarked for animal welfare initiatives in the operating budget; and

(e) This report BE REFERRED to the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee for information and input.

TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE

MEETING ON JUNE 14, 2011

FROM: JAY STANFORD, M.A.; M.P.A. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS & SOLID WASTE

SUBJECT: EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF ANIMAL WELFARE INITIATIVES AS PART OF THE CITY’S ANIMAL SERVICES PROGRAM

Signed Copies are available in the City Clerk's Office

60 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


2

PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER

Relevant reports that can be found at http://www.london.ca/Council/meetingpackages.htm include:

Upcoming Major Animal Services Reports, Community & Neighbourhoods Committee (CNC) May 17, 2011, Agenda Item #16

Update on Major Upcoming Committee Reports and Major Council Approved Projects, CNC Meeting, February 1, 2011, Agenda Item #4

Updates on Requests, New Initiatives and Priorities for Animal Care, Control & Welfare in the City of London, ETC Meeting, February 8, 2010, Agenda Item #8.

City of London Animal Care & Control Program Report of Statistics and Performance

Indicators for 2007 and 2008, ETC Meeting, November 16, 2009, Agenda Item #15.

City of London Animal Care & Control Program Report of Statistics and Performance Indicators for 2005 and 2006, ETC Meeting, August 7, 2007, Agenda Item #15.

Improvements to Animal Welfare – Amendments to the Animal Care & Control Agreement

and Upcoming Initiatives, ETC meeting July 9, 2007, Agenda Item #16.

BACKGROUND

PURPOSE: The primary purposes of this report are:

Provide Community & Neighbourhoods Committee (CNC), Municipal Council and the community with a Guidance Document for Decisions on Expanding the Scope for Animal Welfare Initiatives as Part of the City‘s Animal Services Program.

Provide an update on animal welfare initiatives being coordinated and/or delivered by City staff.

In accordance with the agreement between the London Animal Care Centre (LACC) and the City of London, the contractor provides various statistics on a monthly basis and an annual basis. This report provides numerous statistics and observations for the period from 2007 to 2010 with a focus on new data for 2009 and 2010. Data from 2007 and 2008 where previously released in November 2009.

CONTEXT: In 2000, the competitive tender for supply for Animal Control, Pound and Licensing Services was awarded to London Animal Care Centre (LACC), the same contractor which has provided animal control services on behalf of the Corporation since 1982. An agreement was signed January 1, 2000. On July 16, 2007, Municipal Council approved numerous revisions to the existing agreement. The current is in place until December 31, 2012. During the summer of 2007, London Municipal Council passed a number of initiatives to assist animal welfare in London and established an annual expenditure budget of $100,000, which continued in 2009 and 2010. In 2008, a new City staff position entitled Animal Welfare Coordinator was filled. Over the next one to two months, CNC and Municipal Council have the opportunity to thoroughly review the components of an expanded Animal Services Program (primarily focused on cats and dogs) including obtaining community input, seeking clarification and additional details from City staff and other animal services specialists, for the purpose of building a stronger, community-based program for London pets, community stray animals, pet owners (pet guardians), the community and visitors.


Page 161 of 345

http://www.london.ca/Council/meetingpackages.htm

lkucera

Text Box


3

DISCUSSION: This CNC report has been divided into three parts:

Part A: Guidance Document for Decisions on Expanding the Scope for Animal Welfare Initiatives as Part of the City’s Animal Services Program

The Guidance Document contains a series of ―14 Discussion Guides‖ that have been designed to help focus dialogue on the key challenges and opportunities for the future direction of the Animal Services Program. The Discussion Guides cover the following topics: Animal Services Delivery Models 1. What are the different types of animal service delivery models used in municipalities? 2. What are the key components of a forward-thinking animal services model? 3. What adjustments should be made to the current City of London animal services model and

how it contracts for services? Animal Welfare Programs – Cats and Dogs 4. What are the methods for identifying cats and dogs? 5. What role should spay/neuter programs play? 6. What programs are effective for managing community (feral) cats? 7. What role should foster homes for unwanted animals play? 8. Should the City revise the number of cats and dogs permitted per household? 9. Should the City of London become a partner in a large-scale animal foster and adoption

facility? 10. What is the current and potential role for community partners? 11. What is the current and potential role for the Provincial Government? Financing and Implementation Decisions 12. How should we finance animal services? 13. How quickly do we implement the changes? Other Animal Services Decisions 14. What other initiatives are still under review by City staff?

Part B Overview of Animal Welfare Activities for 2009 and 2010 The overall focus of the animal welfare initiatives are captured in five main areas:

To provide direct benefits for licenced/identified animals.

To inform owners about responsible pet ownership (e.g., licensing requirements, animal care).

To inform potential owners about the value and commitment required in owning an animal.

To provide a second chance for animals that have been abandoned or become strays.

To coordinate, assist and/or grow animal welfare initiatives that already exist in London. In 2009 and 2010 more time was definitely spent dealing with community generated cats than dogs. Further details are contained in Part B.

Part C: City of London’s Animal Care & Control Program Statistics and Performance Indicators for 2007 and 2008 along with previously released details for 2005 and 2006

Details on the City of London‘s Animal Care & Control Program Statistics and Performance Indicators for 2009 and 2010 are covered in the following sections: 1. Background 2. General London Animal Care Centre Statistics 2007 to 2010 3. Statistics for Animal Returns, Claims and Adoptions 4. Other Ontario and Canadian Animal Service Statistics and Performance Indicators 5. Euthanasia Rates within the City of London versus Other Canadian, United States Cities

and Counties 6. City of London‘s Animal Care & Control Program Cost - 2007 to 2010


Page 162 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


4

To support these sections, further details are contained in five appendices: Appendix A General Animal Control and Welfare Statistics and Performance Indicators 2009

to 2010 Appendix B LACC Statistics for Services Beyond Contractual Requirements - 2007 and 2010 Appendix C Return Rates, Claim Rates and Adoption Rates – Dogs & Cats - 2007 to 2010 Appendix D Euthanasia Rates within the City of London versus Other Canadian, U.S. Cities

and Counties Appendix E City of London‘s Animal Care & Control Program Cost - 2007 to 2010

REPORT OVERVIEW

City of London Vision and Mission Statement for Animal Services

The Vision: London, a city where all pets have a caring, respectful and responsible home.

The Mission: To increase awareness, partnerships & community capacity building by:

1. Ensuring by-laws protect and support Londoners, visitors and companion animals,

2. Promoting responsible actions for individuals, families and organizations, and

3. Supporting community animal welfare initiatives.

PART A Guidance Document for Decisions on Expanding the Scope for Animal Welfare Initiatives as Part of the City’s Animal Services Program

Part A contains a Guidance Document with ―14 Discussion Guides‖ (previously listed on page 3 of this report) designed to assist in answering a question or questions. Each one provides an overview or a summary and, where possible, includes comments from the public opinion survey research and additional staff comments. It is difficult to further summarize these discussion guides. A significant amount of input, dialogue and research has been undertaken over the last 18 months when research for this overall initiative was underway. The details provided in the 14 Discussion Guides have come from many sources and have been pulled together by City staff for additional discussion. The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) has made contributions through the 18 month period and further back. One public opinion poll was undertaken by Nordex Research on December 8 & 9, 13 & 14, 2010 during the 18 month period when research for this overall initiative was under way. Previously an online panel survey was conducted Canada-wide and in London between September 22 and October 1, 2008. Both reports are appended to Part A. The purpose of the Nordex Research survey was to obtain opinions from Londoners on a number of key animal welfare areas, feedback on areas that may change in the future, opinions on some areas being considered for future direction and opinions on current satisfaction with some existing services. The Ipsos Reid survey covered a broader set of subject matters including veterinary services, pet food and other products and services.

The details of Part A become the foundation of a comprehensive Animal Services Program that can be identified as having the following activities: 1. Valued Services & Community Compassion 2. Animal Welfare 3. Education & Awareness 4. Monitoring, Analysis & Public Reporting 5. Community Partnerships 6. Pet Identification 7. Community Patrol 8. By-law Enforcement 9. Shelter Facility 10. Fostering & Adoption Facility or Facilities


Page 163 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


5

PART B Overview of Animal Welfare Activities for 2009 and 2010 During the summer of 2007, London Municipal Council passed a number of initiatives to assist animal welfare in London and established an annual expenditure budget of $100,000, which continued in 2009 and 2010. The funds for this annual expenditure come from dog licences and cat identifications, and not from property taxes. There are a number of activities that have been initiated in London to enhance animal welfare during this period:

Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) On March 27, 2008, AWAC held their inaugural meeting at City Hall. In 2009 and 2010, AWAC continued to report and advise Municipal Council, through the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee (formerly Environment and Transportation Committee) on issues relating to animal welfare within London. Some of the contributions of AWAC include, conducting research, reporting on findings and making recommendations to Municipal Council on issues relating to animal welfare for domestic animals, urban wildlife and animals for use in entertainment.

Feral Cat Colony Demonstration Project On September 29, 2008, Municipal Council approved a demonstration project for up to 7 feral cat colonies under community management and City coordination. The project involved establishing a Trap Neuter Release (TNR) Program and included participation from colony care takers, animal rescue groups, members from the veterinary community and City staff. By the end of 2009, this project achieved an approximate 80% completion rate over the seven colonies and supported in having approximately 106 cats fixed.

Feral and Stray Spay Neuter In an effort to proactively target the feral cat colonies and the stray cat population from becoming unmanageable, the City of London established a program to subsidize a portion of the cost of spaying, neutering and rabies vaccination. In 2009, 314 feral and stray cats were trapped, spayed/neutered and returned and in 2010, 344 cats were involved.

Low-Income Spay Neuter The City of London has provided a subsidy to help offset the cost of these procedures for qualified low-income Londoners. In 2009, approximately 286 cats had been fixed at a cost of $30,630 and 3 dogs at a cost of $420. In 2010, 196 cats were fixed at a cost of $22,300 and 32 dogs at a cost of $6,600.

Animal Welfare Awareness Activities Super Adoption day was initiated in 2008. This was an initiative intended to introduce the public to our shelters and rescue community, to stimulate adoption and to provide education to the public. Super Adoption Day has continued and was held in April of 2009 and 2010. In 2009, Leads Employment Services in London and ARF (Animal Rescue Foundation) organized a premier dog event called Pawlooza which showcased dog related activities including rescue, adoption, pet supplies, training, etc. This was attended by approximately 9,000 people. The City of London was one of many sponsors and in 2010 had a booth presence to promote our dog parks, and our programs.

Off-Leash Dog Parks Information boxes were installed at each dog park location to provide information on the rules of the dog parks and general information about pet ownership. Municipal staff continues to help London dog owner‘s with information displayed and provided at the 3 off-leash dog parks. Municipal staff from Customer Relations and Compliance continues to work with the City‘s Parks Planning area in efforts to establish a 4th off-leash park in the City.

PART C: City of London’s Animal Care & Control Program Statistics and Performance Indicators for 2009 and 20010 along with previously released details for 2007 and 2008

Overall the total number of animals (cats, dogs, injured wildlife) sheltered increased by about 223 or by 7% compared to 2007. The number of community generated stray dogs sheltered in 2010 decreased by 5% compared with 2007. The number of community generated stray cats sheltered in 2010 increased by 19% compared with 2007.


Page 164 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


6

The number of dog licences and cat identifications sold has remained very similar between 2007 and 2010. All revenue from the sale of dog licences and cat identifications is retained by the City of London.

Just over 9 out of every 10 community generated dogs (93%) managed by LACC are either reunited with their owner or adopted. As noted above, with respect to adoptions, some dogs are adopted through partnering organizations. With respect to cats, basically just about 3 out of every 10 community generated cats (32%) managed by LACC are either reunited with their owner or adopted. It must be noted that like dogs, some cats are adopted through partnering organizations.

The number of community generated dogs euthanized at the shelter has decreased by 37% since 2007 to 96 dogs. This represents the lowest number of dogs euthanized on record. LACC‘s services, increasing owner responsibility coupled with services from partnering organizations and Londoners‘ kindness and willingness to adopt have helped to lower these numbers.

The number of community generated cats euthanized at the shelter has increased by 32% since 2007 to 1,420 cats. This is a direct reflection of the increased number of cats dropped off at the shelter. The economic downturn in 2009 and 2010 has taken its toll on cats in two ways. First, the shelter experienced many owned cats being dropped off as ‗strays‘ when it was clear that these were owned cats. Second, the number of Londoners willing to adopt cats from the shelter and rescue groups was lower than in previous years, despite focused efforts on adoption promotion and outreach activities.

Fifteen municipalities are part of the Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) process.

Eight of the 15 municipalities report a few statistics dealing with dog and cat licensing and in 2009 a new category was added called Percent Recovery of Animal Control Costs. For all 3 performance indicators, London ranks number 1 for the reporting municipalities:

For the number of licenced/registered dogs per 100,000 people, London has 27% more

licenced/ registered dogs than the second ranked community (Hamilton) For the number of licenced/registered cats per 100,000 people, London has over 110%

more licenced/ registered cats than the second ranked community (Ottawa) For the estimated percent recovery of animal control costs, London recovers 18% more

of its costs than the second ranked community (Ottawa) The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies annually collects shelter statistics from its

membership. Data for 2008 was collected from August until October 2009. The shelters supplying data were broken down as follows:

40% indicated that they are an open admission shelter (i.e., cats or dogs are not turned

away) 44% indicated that they were not an open admission shelter (e.g., the shelter does not

have to accept animals) 12% indicated that they were a ―no kill shelter;‖ however the term was not defined.

With respect to the percentage of cats and dogs being euthanized at these 100 shelters, the table below indicates that the similarities in these data noting that about 50% of the Humane Society shelters do not have to take cats and dogs if their shelter is full or they have other reasons. The open admission shelter services contracted by the City of London are consistent, on average, with humane societies that are not all open admission.

2008 Data Humane Societies (mix of Open and Restricted

Admission)

LACC (Open Admission) Shelter

Dogs Euthanized 19% 18%

Cats Euthanized 54% 58%

Total Dogs & Cats Euthanized 43% 44%

A benchmark for euthanasia rates has been established in the United States that indicates ―For most cities in most parts of the U.S., 5.0, is for all practical purposes the threshold of achieving no-kill animal control, as on average about five animals per 1,000 humans will be too severely injured, ill, or dangerous to save‖ (article entitled ―Shelter killing drops after upward spike‖) July/August 2005, ANIMAL PEOPLE. This threshold was confirmed as still


Page 165 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


7

being appropriate for 2010. London has been below the threshold of 5.0 euthanasias per 1,000 residents since 2004.

The lowest number reached in London was in 2008 at 3.6. In 2010, the number increased to 4.7. Since 2002, there has been over a 40% reduction in the number of animals euthanized per 1,000 residents in London. There is much more work to be done as the municipalities with lower rates represent excellent opportunities to tap into existing experience. However, compared to this established benchmark, London is doing very well and this has been confirmed through a review of other U.S. cities within a 10 hour drive of London.

The responsible owners of pit bull dogs continue to diligently licence their pets on an annual basis according to City of London By-law PH-12. However, there is a significant segment of this ownership group that refuses to comply with this requirement. This portion of pit bull owners is consistently delinquent and contributes to significant workload as part of daily activity in the enforcement of PH-12.

Services provided by LACC outside the terms of the agreement with the City have ensured that stray cats and dogs with a licence or identification, are quickly reunited with their owners. This represents the greatest value of having a licence or identification and is a key part of the return rate explained in the next section. For example, LACC‘s Free Ride Home Program returns about 5 dogs per week to their owner because they were wearing their licence and there were no previous issues with the dog or owner.

This report does not cover services (e.g., animal care, adoptions, etc.) provided through the London Humane Society (LHS) or animal rescue/support groups operating in London or nearby, such as:

All Breed Canine Rescue

Animalert

Animal Love Foundation

Animal Outreach

Animal Rescue Foundation

Backyard Friends

Cats-R-Us

Holly‘s Hope Cat Rescue

London Dog Owner‘s Association

Loyal Dog Rescue

Pet Friends 4 Life

Tiny Paws

This report does acknowledge that in 2008, 2009 and 2010 a number of cats and dogs were transferred from LACC to a select number of animal rescue groups (partnering organizations in the City of London and Southwestern Ontario). City staff are grateful for all volunteer activities that occur with the animal rescue groups and acknowledge the very important contributions these groups and individuals make to London and its animals.

COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: In February 2010, London Municipal Council approved a work program, timetable and framework for animal care, control and welfare. Over the last 18 months many individuals and organizations have provided various kinds of input, direct animal welfare program participation and community involvement. This ongoing input has helped to shape the content of this document. Listed below are the four general categories of input received:

Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) – Meets monthly. The mandate of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is to advise the Municipal Council on issues relating to animal welfare within the City of London by conducting research, reporting on findings and making recommendations to Municipal Council on issues relating to animal welfare for domestic animals, urban wildlife and animals for use in entertainment. Farm animals do not, however, fall within the mandate of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. Issues and initiatives relating to animal welfare within the City of London include animal control legislation (municipal, provincial and federal); licensing and other fees; public education and awareness programs; off-leash dog parks; adoption programs; spay/neuter programs; feral cats; discussing and understanding animals in entertainment; and enforcement.

Animal Rescue & Animal Support Organizations Discussion Session – Saturday, May 14,

2011 (8:30am to Noon) including presentations from City staff, AWAC, Cooperative for Companion Animals (includes many animal rescue groups as members), London Dog Owners Association and London Animal Welfare Association.


Page 166 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


8

Ongoing input via emails, project work, meetings and discussion sessions with individuals or members of the groups animal rescue groups listed above.

Details and comments provided from other animal care and control agencies and animal

welfare organizations in other municipalities City staff are grateful for all this ongoing input, advice and opportunity to learn and share ideas and participate in actions.

PREPARED BY: PREPARED BY:

RON OKE

ANIMAL WELFARE COORIDNATOR

LOU POMPILII

MANAGER, CUSTOMER RELATIONS &

COMPLIANCE

PREPARED AND RECOMMENDED BY: REVIEWED & CONCURRED BY:

JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A.

DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS &

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

PAT McNALLY, P. ENG.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PLANNING,

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING

SERVICES

Y:\Shared\Administration\Committee Reports\CNC 2011 06 Animal Services Main Report.docx

APPENDICES: Part A: Guidance Document for Decisions on expanding the Scope for Animal Welfare

Initiatives as Part of the City‘s Animal Services Program Part B: Overview of Animal Welfare Activities for 2009 and 2010 Part C: City of London‘s Animal Care & Control Program Statistics and Performance Indicators

for 2007 and 2008 along with previously released details for 2005 and 2006

c. John Braam, P. Eng., Director of Water & City Engineer Animal Welfare Advisory Committee


Page 167 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


9

PART A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR DECISIONS ON

EXPANDING THE SCOPE FOR ANIMAL WELFARE INITIATIVES AS PART OF THE CITY’S ANIMAL SERVICES

PROGRAM Page Animal Services Delivery Models 1. What are the different types of animal service delivery models used in

municipalities? 11 2. What are the key components of a forward-thinking animal services

model? 14 3. What adjustments should be made to the current City of London animal

services model and how it contracts for services? 20 Animal Welfare Programs – Cats and Dogs 4. What are the methods for identifying cats and dogs? 22 5. What role should spay/neuter programs play? 25 6. What programs are effective for managing community (feral) cats? 28 7. What role should foster homes for unwanted animals play? 31 8. Should the City revise the number of cats and dogs permitted per household? 34 9. Should the City of London become a partner in a large-scale animal foster

and adoption facility? 37

10. What is the current and potential role for community partners? 41

11. What is the current and potential role for the Provincial Government? 45 Financing and Implementation Decisions 12. How should we finance animal services? 46 13. How quickly do we implement the changes? 49

Other Animal Services Decisions 14. What other initiatives are still under review by City staff? 50

PUBLIC OPINION TELEPHONE SURVEY AND ONLINE PANEL SURVEY

Nordex Research carried out a survey research project on behalf of the City‘s Animal Services Area of the Environmental & Engineering Services Department on December 8 & 9, 13 & 14, 2010. The commissioned sample size was 300 and collected through systematic, proportional random sampling. The structured proportions included a set number of respondents for each ward in the city. This survey is regarded reliable +/- 5.5% at 95% confidence levels, assuming 65% and 35% of the sample question proportions.


Page 168 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


10

The purpose of the survey research was to obtain opinions from Londoners on a number of key animal welfare areas, feedback on areas that may change in the future, opinions on some areas being considered for future direction and opinions on current satisfaction with some existing services. The complete report and survey instrument are found after Part C of this report. Specific areas of questioning and analysis are provided in the following areas:

Pet Ownership: Present and Past

Sources of Pet Ownership

Likelihood of Finding a Pet at the City‘s Homeless Shelter

Willingness to Pay Set Fees for Cats or Dogs at City Shelter or Rescue Group

City Problems with Stray Cats and Dogs?

Bad Neighbours?

Unprovoked Dog Attack in the Neighbourhood?

Pets Per Household?

The Planned Lifespan for Sequestered Stray Cats and Dogs

The City as Primary Steward for Homeless Cats & Dogs?

Financing the City‘s Shelter Service for Homeless & Stray Dogs and Cats

Subsidizing Rescue Groups on Sheltering?

Expanding Subsidies for Spaying and Neutering

Larger, Permanent Homeless Shelter?

Drop-off Service for Abandoned Pets?

Satisfaction with City Animal Services

Profiles of Current Pet Owners, Previous Owners and Non-Owners: Segmentation Analysis

Survey Demographics Parts of the survey research that pertain to specific areas in Part A Guidance Document for Decisions on Expanding the Scope for Animal Welfare Initiatives as Part of the City‘s Animal Services Program are noted under those items in an areas called Public Opinion. Ipsos Reid carries out their research by using an online survey to conduct a random sampling of pet and non-pet owners from Ipsos Reid‘s proprietary Canadian online panel. The panel consists of over 221,000 members. The panel is balanced on all major demographic information to mirror Statistics Canada census information. In total, 333 surveys were completed in London, Ontario. The data was collected between September 22 and October 1, 2008. The purpose of the findings was to gather information from Londoners pertaining to the following very broad pet subject matters. The complete PowerPoint presentation and report is found after Part C of this report.

Pets in the Household

Pet Services

Pet Insurance

Veterinary Services

Pet Food

Other Products and services

Information services for pet care and pet services

Animal charities

Public services for pets and pet owners


Page 169 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


11

Animal Service Delivery Models 1. What are the different types of animal service delivery models

used in municipalities?

Overview

The four primary services provided by the London Animal Care Centre (LACC) under contract to the City of London include: 1. Animal Control - a function designed primarily for the protection of residents and

visitors to London. Specifically the mandate covers control of: stray dogs sick, injured, or dying domestic or wild animals except those animals provided for

by the London Humane Society The services are delivered seven days a week, with some conditions. Other key features specified include: all animal related matters affecting public safety rescue matters where animals are in distress 24 hour "Emergency" service

2. By-law and Dog Owners’ Liability Act Enforcement which covers:

enforcing City of London by-laws: - PH-3 Animal Control By-law - PH-4 Dog Licensing & Control By-law - PH-5 Public Pound By-law - PH-12 Pit Bull Dog Licensing By-law

issuing Provincial Offences Notice (PONs) as follows: - Part I Certificates (can be paid out of court) - Part I Summons (requires the recipient to appear in court) - Part III Summons (requires the recipient to appear in court)

issuing Notice of Contravention (NOCs) - typically issued to allow a pet owner time to purchase identification

issuing Verbal and Written warnings: - PH-3, Animal Control By-law - PH-4, Dog Licensing & Control By-law - PH-12, Pit Bull Dog Licensing By-law

enforcing applicable provisions of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) and any regulations there under: - Investigation and enforcement on a complaint basis - Assist London Police Services (LPS) as requested by LPS or the City - Animal Control Officers to patrol for pit bulls as part of regular activities - Swearing (not serving) of Part III summons information under DOLA - Complete documentation of activities

3. Dog Licensing and Cat Identification Program which includes:

obtaining all necessary particulars before issuing the dog licences and cat identifications

issuing all dog licences and cat identifications, and receiving and collecting licence and identification fees including the renewal

process 4. Shelter (Pound) Services for stray animals - the facility, located at 121 Pine Valley

Boulevard, is designed to receive stray animals primarily from animal control officers, and, to a lesser extent, from the general public. The shelter is operated in accordance with the provisions of the Public Pound By-law, the Pounds Act, Animals for Research Act, the Municipal Act and all other applicable legislation. The shelter is


Page 170 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


12

constructed and maintained in accordance with Ontario regulation 17/80. Care and cleanliness within the pound complies with the standards designated by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas (OMAFRA).

All the above services are delivered under contract to the City by the London Animal Care Centre (LACC). In addition, the following services are provided directly by LACC (not under contract):

Adoption services for domestic animals

Domestic animal transfer services to partnering organizations in London and Southwestern Ontario

Outreach activities (education in schools & community groups, public relations events, etc)

Enhanced practices (e.g., Free Ride home, Meet Your Match adoption initiative, lost pet licensing matching services) to reunite pets and their owners

Many specific animal welfare initiatives are coordinated by City staff and can be found in Part B of this report. A. What about other Municipalities?

Data on a number of municipalities that provide animal services programs has been compiled. One key observation that became evident during the review of information is that the delivery of animal care and control services is quite different in many of the municipalities/organizations contacted. To review the data, it has become necessary to group the results into one of three Service Delivery Models: Model #1: One Service Provider – municipality financially supports one main service

provider, either public or private, and has limited involvement with other animal care providers in the municipality. Generally, municipalities fund open-admission shelters. Humane Societies/SPCAs likely operate in the municipality with informal relationships.

Model #2: Split Services Provider – municipality financially supports one main service

provider, either public or private, and establishes a financial relationship with another service provider in the municipality for specific services (e.g., pound services)

Model #3: Comprehensive Service Provider - municipality contracts with the Humane

Society/Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to deliver traditional municipal services (i.e., open-door shelter) in conjunction with the primary mandate of the Humane Society/SPCA.

Table B-1: Municipalities/Organization Contacted, 2010

Location Estimated Population

Served 2010

Service Provider Type of Service Delivery Model

In-house/ Outsourced

London 365,000 London Animal Care Centre

One Service Provider

Outsourced

1 Windsor 220,000 Windsor Essex County Humane Society

Comprehensive Service Provider

Outsourced

2 Cambridge 130,000 Cambridge & District Humane Society


Outsourced


Page 171 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


13

Location Estimated Population

Served 2010

Service Provider Type of Service Delivery Model

In-house/ Outsourced

3 Kitchener-Waterloo

330,000 Kitchener-Waterloo Humane Society


Outsourced

4 Hamilton 520,000 City of Hamilton One Service Provider

In-house

5 Mississauga 730,000 City of Mississauga One Service Provider

In-house

6 Brampton 490,000 City of Brampton One Service Provider

In-house

7 Kingston 120,000 City of Kingston/ Kingston Humane

Split Services provided

In-house

8 Ottawa 850,000 City of Ottawa/ Ottawa Humane Society

Split services provided

In-house

9 St. Thomas 40,000 City of St. Thomas One Service provider

In-house

10 Toronto 2,500,000 City of Toronto One Service Provider

In-house

11 Niagara Falls 86,000 Niagara Falls Humane Society


Outsourced

12 Pickering/Ajax/ Whitby

340,000 Pickering/Ajax/Whitby Animal Services

One Service Provider

In-house

13 St. Catharines 134,000 Lincoln County Humane Society


Outsourced

14 Winnipeg 650,000 City of Winnipeg One Service Provider

In-house

15 Calgary 1,100,000 City of Calgary Split Services Provided

In-house

16 Edmonton 800,000 City of Edmonton Split Services Provided

In-house


Page 172 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


14

Animal Service Delivery Models 2. What are the key components of a forward-thinking animal services

model?

Overview

The Part A report of this overall report to the Community & Neighbourhoods Committee contains key components of forward-thinking animal services model. Specific examples from the City of Calgary and the City of Edmonton are listed in this section. Details provided under the Asilomar Accord in #10 What is the current and potential role for community partners? are also very important to this discussion. A. Factors to Consider

These are some of the key factors to consider:

Establishing Guiding Principles is key. The following list contains a sample of key guiding principles:

Public Safety: The public has the right to be safe from animals and to avoid animal nuisances

Humane Treatment: All animals shall be treated humanely

Coordinated Services: The City‘s Animal Services should be coordinated and integrated with other services and programs as appropriate and with clear definition and reporting expectations

Accountability/Transparency: The City‘s Animal Services programs must be accountable and transparent to the public

Continuous Improvement: The quality of animal services shall be continuously improved. Continuous improvement is a mindset

Sustainability: The City‘s Animal Services shall be provided in a fiscally responsible and sustainable manner

Understand current priorities and future direction. For example, currently London has a challenge with cats and stronger action is required in this area:

Implement a very visual and/or high volume spay/neuter program to reduce the number of cats being born.

Take care of ―community‖ (feral) cats including establishing more colony caretakers.

Promote and encourage responsible and respectful cat ownerships (guardianship) including having the cat identified with a London tag and microchipped.

Increase adoption of existing spayed/neutered cats from animal shelters and animal rescue groups (and not from other sources).

Changing the mindset about pets and animals in the community. An excellent emerging example is the discussion about pet owners versus guardians as noted in The Guardian Campaign (next page).


Page 173 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


15

THE GUARDIAN CAMPAIGN (Reprinted from website www.guardiancampaign.com)

IDA‘s (Pharmacy) Guardian Campaign promotes the use of ―guardian‖ instead of ―owner‖ when referring to our animal companions. This shift promotes a more compassionate relationship between people and other species. The term ―guardian‖ does not change legal standing, but it does more accurately describe the responsibility we have for the wellbeing, treatment, care, and quality of life of our animal friends. The Guardian Campaign Mission Statement The Guardian Campaign strives to bring about a more just, humane world by modeling responsible, caring and respectful language and behavior toward the animals and the people we encounter at home, in school and in our community. The Guardian Campaign Goals

To reinforce and improve levels of respect, responsibility and compassion toward all beings by encouraging children and adults to consider themselves and others as "guardians" of the animals in their community, rather than "owners" of property.

To acknowledge through this verbal change the deep bond that forms between people and their animal companions.

To recognize and appreciate the persons who consistently provide a safe, healthy, and loving environment for animals.

To raise a new generation of children who have strongly internalized these ideals, and who will in turn better serve their communities as responsible guardians and citizens.

To reconnect neighborhoods by restoring the values of empathy, protection, care and consideration toward family members, neighbors, children and animals in each community.

To accomplish a historical shift toward a more humane public standard regarding animals by incorporating the term ―animal guardian" into local and state ordinances.

To render animal abuse, neglect, and abandonment socially unacceptable and to help increase child abuse and animal abuse case cross-reporting.

To affect an increase in the number of animals rescued and adopted into good homes, a sustained reduction in the number of animals killed in shelters, and a sustained reduction in the number of animals sold for personal and/or commercial profit.

B. What about other Municipalities?

Two municipalities outside of Ontario have been chosen (Calgary and Edmonton, next pages). Other data have been compiled as experience suggests that many programs in Ontario have excellent initiatives under way, but no municipalities appear to have reached the level of Calgary and the expectations set for Edmonton. It must be noted that legislation and regulation at the Provincial Government level is very important to local by-laws especially, when it comes to enforcement.


Page 174 of 345

http://www.guardiancampaign.com/

lkucera

Text Box


16

CITY OF CALGARY ANIMAL & BYLAW SERVICES

Mission Statement: ―To encourage a safe, healthy, vibrant community for people and pets through the development, education, and compliance of bylaws that reflect community values‖. Calgary encourages responsible pet ownership through licensing, public education and enforcement. Calgary has and strives to obtain compliance to the Responsible Pet Ownership Bylaw. Calgary has demonstrated that investing in your pets provides the ability for Calgary to offer more off-leash dog parks, more care for cats, etc. Calgary has become the most widely discussed Animal Services Program in North America has it has gone through tremendous change over 15 years to create to create high save rates for cats and dogs and created its own financing stream based on licensing revenues and donations. It no longer requires budget allocated from the taxpayers of Calgary. Education and Awareness Calgary has Public education programs that teach citizens how to be responsible and knowledgeable pet owners that are geared towards increasing understanding and voluntary compliance to by-laws and decreasing misconception about pet ownership. Programs include:

Public Education School Programs for ECS – Grade 6 o Junior Bylaw Project : Grade 6 -Simulates problem solving citizen engagement

process o Think Responsibly (on-line school program): Grades 4 – 7

Educate cats and dogs owners about responsible pet ownership

Offer school programs at no charge

Deliver public education programs Animal Welfare Services include:

Provide no-cost spay and neuter for the pets of low income Calgarians

Reunite lost cats and dogs with their owners

Operate the Pet Drive Home program

Manage animal adoption program

Run our volunteer animal socialization programs

Park patrols Monitoring, Analysis & Public Reporting Calgary Animal Services will continue to target the following areas:

Operate the subsidized spay/neuter program through their clinic

Increase number of licensed cats

Increase number of licensed dogs to 100%

Research lifetime licence with microchip

Work towards 100% return to owner

Increase use of Drive Home Program

Increase the Trap Neuter Return program with Partners

Introduce a 5th principle of RPO – Ethical Procurement

Be a best practice city in animal management

No More Homeless Pets within 5 years Community Partnerships Calgary‘s Responsible Pet Ownership Program requires a working partnership with its key stakeholders:

Regulatory – The City of Calgary, The Province of Alberta

Humane – Calgary Humane Society (SPCA), Animal Rescue Foundation, MEOW Foundation

Medical/Service Providers – Calgary Vets, AVMA, breeders, trainers, pet stores

Provide funding to veterinary clinics for emergency medical care for injured stray cats and dogs.

continued


Page 175 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


17

Pet Identification Licensing fees, not tax dollars, will continue to fund the following Calgary‘s Animal Services programs and services. Licence renewal notices automatically sent out with easy payment options available Dog Licensing Program (92% compliance)

All dogs 3 months and older require a licence

Zero tolerance for unlicensed dogs - $250 penalty Cat Licensing Program: (45% compliance)

Cat licensing became mandatory – 2007 January 1

$250 fine for an unlicensed cat

Cats with permanent ID (tattoo or microchip) are not required to wear a tag Community Patrol

Animal Control Officers patrol the Community

Help neighbours resolve their animal related conflicts. By-law Enforcement

Approximately 24 Animal Control Officers respond to and investigate complaints

Enforce the Responsible Pet Ownership bylaw Shelter Facility Animal Services Centre Clinic (2,100 sq. ft.) opened July 6, 2009 fully funded from cat licence revenue. The clinics goals; spay and neuter City owned pets, increase adoptions and perform minor surgery

1,950 sq. m. facility with a capacity to hold 88 cats and 84 dogs

Features include:

aggressive isolation kennel, Ventilation system, Waste management system, Warm atmosphere for animals, staff and public

feed lost cats and dogs in our vet-operated facility

provide medical care to adoptable cats and dogs in our state of the art clinic

Fostering and Adoption Facility or Facilities

Foster Homes/Breed Rescue

Primarily for conditioning

Prior to adoption placement

CITY OF EDMONTON ANIMAL CARE & CONTROL

Goal: ―Ensure everyone's safe, healthy and peaceful enjoyment of Edmonton neighbourhoods‖. Edmonton‘s Animal Licensing and Control By-law makes owners responsible for their pet‘s actions, helps return lost pets to their owners, and ensures pets are a positive addition to the community. Owners are responsible for licensing, spaying or neutering and controlling their pet. Education and Awareness Education and awareness is primarily focused through the Animal Care and Control Centre. In 2009, Edmonton implemented an Enhanced Education Campaign specifically designed to reach renters to support the following: Responsible Pet Ownership - Licensing Requirements Re-homing options, and adoption services - Where to take pets Do‘s and don‘ts - Can they afford a pet This was conducted through newsletters, seminars trade shows and monthly meetings. There are a number of educational opportunities that are used to promote Responsible Pet Ownership at events, expos and local parks.

continued


6 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


18

Animal Welfare

Reunite lost cats and dogs with their owners and operate the Free Ride Home program

Edmonton does not capture at-large cats. Strays and at large cats can be brought to their Animal Care and Control Centre

Adoptable animals are transferred to Edmonton‘s Humane Society and other rescue groups after extended stays at the Animal Care and Control Centre.

Pets entering the centre are posted on a web link to help match lost pets.

Provide off-leash parks

Monitoring, Analysis & Public Reporting The staff at the Animal Care and Control Centre monitors and analyses the data and information that goes through the centre. Community Partnerships

Edmonton has established partnerships with rescue groups and the Edmonton Humane Society.

Pet Identification The City of Edmonton implemented an improved licensing program as licensing is viewed as the cornerstone of Responsible Pet Ownership. The city licenses 68,000 dogs and 36,000 cats and with 98% of licensed cats and 85% of licensed dogs being spayed or neutered they recognize a direct link between licensing and responsible ownership. Pet licences are affordable and available online or in person at the Animal Care and Control Centre. All cats and dogs six months and older must be licensed. The fine for having an unlicensed animal is $250. The pet licence fee structure encourages owners to spay or neuter their pets, to reduce the high number of unwanted cats and dogs. Enhanced Lost and Found Edmonton was one of the first municipalities to use PetLynx which allows pet finders and owners to input lost or found pet information on the web. Community Patrol

Animal Control Officers help owners ensure their pets are a positive addition to the community. This is done through education programs, mediating neighbour disputes, providing advice, and enforcement.

Officers also patrol neighbourhoods for stray animals and return lost pets to their owners.

Animal Control Officers are sworn peace officers, giving them the ability to write tickets and lay charges that require a pet owner to appear in court.

They assist the Edmonton Police Service with aggressive or injured animals, Provincial Brand Inspectors with loose livestock, and provincial Conservation Officers with wildlife inside city limits.

By-Law Enforcement

Edmonton has no Arbitrary Pet Limits

Animal Control Officers respond to and investigate complaints Shelter Facility

2,120 sq. m facility with a capacity to hold 150 cats and 120 dogs

Houses almost 8,000 lost pets found in Edmonton each year

Reduces stress and makes disease control easier to manage

Fostering and Adoption Facility or Facilities

Animal Care and Control Centre functions as a one-stop shop for adoption, licensing, stray animal care and enforcement services

Large public service area for private meetings with pet owners when needed.

The City of Edmonton has a good working relationship with the Edmonton Humane Society which just opened its new facility ―The Chappelle centre‖ which is a 46,000 sq. ft. facility which was co-funded through donations and money from the province.


Page 177 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


19

C. Public Opinion

The following result(s) are found in the Nordex Research Pets & Strays Survey, December 2010. The report is found at the back of Part C. Table 9. Do you think stray or homeless cats and dogs should be euthanized (killed) if not adopted within 10-30 days, or should the city have a no-kill policy for adoptable stray cats and dogs? 1) euthanized in 10-30 days 19.0% 2) no-kill policy 54.3% 3) don‘t know/can‘t say 18.0% 4) refuse 0.7% 5) longer than 30 days 8.0%

Staff Comment The details found in Part A of this report become the foundation of a comprehensive Animal Services Program that can be identified as having the following activities: 1. Valued Services & Community Compassion 2. Animal Welfare 3. Education & Awareness 4. Monitoring, Analysis & Public Reporting 5. Community Partnerships 6. Pet Identification 7. Community Patrol 8. By-law Enforcement 9. Shelter Facility 10. Fostering & Adoption Facility or Facilities


Page 178 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


20

Animal Service Delivery Models 3. What adjustments should be made to the current City of London animal services model and how it contracts

for services?

Overview

Based on details found in the previous two items (#1 and #2), the table below provides the best available understanding from City staff on the opportunities to introduce adjustments to the Animal Services Program. Guiding Principles, as noted before, are often translated into clear service expectations in a request for proposals (RFP) or tender exercise. For example, these items become key in any RFP or tender:

Coordinated Services

Accountability/Transparency

Continuous Improvement

Sustainability A municipality can also become quite involved in an RFP and tender by clearly indicating how it will be involved in the program at rollout. For example, a municipality could provide:

veterinarian services or a veterinarian

vehicles and other equipment

facilities

shared databases Another key part is to ensure a competitive procurement process. In the past, the City of London Animal Care & Control tender was designed to be available to any interested and qualified organizations wishing to bid on the services. It will be key service requirements and expectations are easily understood and that the interested parties from the private and not-for-profit sectors are aware of the process.

Key Service Elements

How is This Element Currently Handled?

Potential Changes to Model and How Some

Services can be Provided Under

Contract

Preliminary Comments

1. Valued Services & Community Compassion

Commitment from the City is not obvious

Must be more prominent

This is a key part of ―marketing‖ the program

2. Animal Welfare

In-house plus a number of initiatives delivered in an informal partnership with animal rescue or animal support groups

In-house plus move to a formal partnership with animal rescue or animal support groups

Clear expectations and accountability for all participants is key

3. Education & Awareness

Some activity delivered in the city by animal rescue or animal support groups and by LACC

In-house

A formal partnership with a trained animal services educator

Clear expectations and accountability for all participants is key

4. Monitoring, Analysis & Reporting

In-house In-house Public reporting needs to move to an annual basis and more frequent updates


Page 179 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


21

Key Service Elements

How is This Element Currently Handled?

Potential Changes to Model and How Some

Services can be Provided Under

Contract

Preliminary Comments

5. Community Partnerships

Informal partnerships with animal rescue or animal support groups

Formal partnerships with animal rescue or animal support groups

Clear expectations and accountability for all participants is key. There is a relationship with 2. Animal Welfare

6. Pet Identification

Outsourced (under contract)

In-house

Outsourced

RFP or tender

7. Community Patrol


Outsourced RFP or tender. These services are tied together and difficult to uncouple

8. By-law Enforcement


Outsourced

9. Shelter Facility


Outsourced RFP or tender

10. Fostering & Adoption Facility or Facilities

Not currently available Formal partnerships with animal rescue or animal support groups, veterinarians, community builders and investors

Request for Expression of Interest (EOI) or RFP. This is a very unique undertaking for a municipality but it is viewed as a high priority

Public Opinion

The following result(s) are found in the Nordex Research Pets & Strays Survey, December 2010. The report is found at the back of Part C. Table 10. How important is it for the City of London to retain primary responsibility for homeless cats and dogs, offering them shelter, food and care? a) cats 1) very important 37.3% Ratio: 4:1 2) somewhat important 39.7% 3) not so important 10.7% 4) not important at all 7.0% 5) don‘t know/can‘t say 5.3% b) dogs 1) very important 38.3% Ratio: 9:2 2) somewhat important 39.0% 3) not so important 10.7% 4) not important at all 6.7% 5) dk/can‘t say 5.3%

Table 16. How satisfied are you with the performance of the City of London in looking after the following animal services, if you can say? Very Sat‘d Somewhat Sat‘d Not So Sat‘d Not Sat‘d At All DK Ratio

Dog & cat licensing fees 29.0% 28.7% 4.0% 4.3% 34.0 7:1

Off-leash dog parks 36.7 26.0 4.7 7.3 25.3 5:1

Picking up strays 21.0 27.0 5.0 4.0 43.0 5:1

City Shelter for strays 17.3 28.0 7.3 2.4 45.0 5:1


Page 180 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


22

Animal Welfare Programs 4. What are the Methods of Identifying Cats and Dogs?

Overview

Licensing pets remains the most common form of pet identification. Many municipalities encourage the concept of Responsible Pet Ownership by differentiating licensing fees. Annual pet licensing fees are typically lower for pets that are spayed/neutered and/or receive permanent forms of identification like tattoos or microchips. In London there is differential licensing fees for cats and dogs that are spay /neutered and those who are not. There is no recognition given for pet owners that have permanently identified their pet through microchip or tattoo. In the cases of cats or dogs there is an expectation that the pet must wear a collar with a tag. Identification methods for pets remain a contentious issue amongst pet owners. Cat owners are concerned that the traditional collar can leave their pet vulnerable to predators or that tags affixed to a collar tend to breakaway and become lost. Microchips provide the best opportunity to reunite cats to their owner. Most agree that identification for dogs is best suited towards tags as there is a need for a physical tag to be present on the dog. The tag indicates to the general public that the dog is up-to-date on its rabies vaccinations. Possible Options

No change and continue the practice of annual licensing and a physical tag

Introduce Pet Tattoo method of permanent identification to our differential fee structure.

Introduce Microchipping as a method of permanent identification to our differential fee structure.

Combination of the above methods

A. Factors to Consider

Common Methods of Identification The common methods used to identify pets are licenses and tags, tattoos and microchips 1. Licenses or Tags

This is the most common form of identification as the tag is affixed to a collar.

The tag implies that the animal has been vaccinated for rabies.

No additional cost to the owner except the annual fee.

Requires information to be updated annually. Licensing fees across the province and country vary from municipality to municipality. The amount charged for licensing fees is often loosely based on certain goals or is set to offset the cost of certain programs so as to minimize the impact on property taxes. Many jurisdictions are moving towards directing the revenues from licensing fees to fund the costs of Animal Service instead of having funds come from the property tax rolls. The City of Calgary no longer requires budget allocated from the taxpayers of Calgary.


Page 181 of 345

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DogTags_license_fxwb.jpg

lkucera

Text Box


23

2. Tattoos

Tattoos can be done by the owner/breeder of the pet and are applied to the inner thigh or inner ear flap of the pet.

Tattoos can fade over time.

There are additional costs in tattoo expense for this option, plus the annual fee.

Records require owner to update their information. 3. Microchip Technology

Relatively new method so any potential health risks are unknown.

It is not easily removed once implanted.

The microchip can be read by pounds, shelters and veterinarians that have the chip readers.

Requires some mechanism requiring annual updating.

There is an additional one-time charge to implant the chip for the owner.

Microchip sometimes migrates. A Municipal Microchip License Program has been demonstrated to provide benefits to pet owners, the Municipality, veterinary clinics and even to pets. Many Municipalities have started encouraging microchip identification amongst pet owners by offering the following incentives to encourage its implementation:

A reduced annual fee for a municipal pet license using the microchip.

When stray pets are claimed at shelters or returned home by a control officer, the fine to the owner is reduced if the pet is microchipped.

Using the microchip for licensing may reduce municipal expenses, as tags no longer have to be supplied.

Lost collars or tags would no longer be an issue.

Animals spend less time in the shelter, if any at all. They are identified and returned home quicker, saving time and reducing shelter costs.

The microchip not only helps to identify stray pets, but also helps to identify owners of neglected, abused and abandoned animals, therefore promoting more responsible ownership.


Sample of identification methods across some Ontario municipalities:

City Cats sterilized but not

identified with a

microchip

Dogs sterilized but not

identified with a

microchip

Microchip License fee reduced if pets are

spayed or neutered

Issues physical tag annually

Burlington 0 25 No Yes Yes

Oshawa 25 25 Yes Yes Yes

Ottawa 12 12 No Yes Yes

Kitchener 0 23 No Yes Yes

Hamilton 0 26.5 No Yes Yes


Page 182 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


24

Staff Ranking of Possible Options

#1 Add Micro-chipping as a method of permanent identification to our differential annual fee structure. Cats with microchip implants would no longer be required to wear a physical tag.

#2 Add both micro-chipping and pet tattoos as a method of permanent identification to our differential annual fee structure. A that is Cat micro-chipped would no longer be required to wear a physical tag.

#3 Add pet tattoo as a method of permanent identification to our differential annual

fee structure.

#4 Continue with current practice.


Page 183 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


25

Animal Welfare Programs 5. What Roles Should Spay / Neuter

Programs Play?

Overview

There are concerns with animal overpopulation in London and across the country. This has resulted in our shelters and rescue organizations being at capacity or very close, especially for cats. To successfully solve this problem, pet owners should be encouraged to spay or neuter their animals. In terms of importance, Spay / Neuter would be second behind licensing and identification. Licensing provides a mechanism to link the owner to a lost pet and the funding needed to be able to offer a spay/neuter program. Spay / Neuter and Licensing are the only proactive measures used to reduce the number of pets in the pound and to decrease the population. All other methods are reactive or defensive measures. Possible Options

No change to current program

Increase budgets for both Targeted Spay/Neuter Programs (low-income) as well as

Trap, Neuter, Return Programs

Increase budget for Targeted Spay Neuter (low-income) programs

High Volume Spay/ Neuter Clinic


1. Targeted Spay Neuter Programs The City of London provides a subsidy to help offset the cost of spay / neuter procedures for qualified low-income Londoners. Households in London with limited financial resources have very little to no disposable income after making choices between buying foods, paying bills and covering their high rental costs. Their ability to pay for the spaying / neutering of their pet, at a cost that can range between $180 and $450, is an expense they cannot afford or justify. Unwanted puppies and litters can be the result of owners not being financially capable of paying to fix their animal, forcing the owner to surrender or sometimes abandon the animal and possibly creating more unwanted animals in the City of London. In London, to be eligible for the targeted spay/neuter program, participants must be currently on Ontario Works, Ontario Disability Support Program, receiving Assistance for Children with Severe Disability or on the Ontario Student Assistance Program and residing in subsidized housing. Benefits of Spay/ Neuter Programs

There is demonstrated value in spaying and neutering pets for the owner, the animal and the community. Effective programs have reduced the number of animals going into shelter, increasing capacity in shelters, reducing the number of animals euthanized and reducing complaints in the community, ultimately saving taxpayers money. The type of program chosen is determined by the severity of the problem, the size of municipality, funds available, community involvement, willingness of veterinarians and resources available.


Page 184 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


26

What are some of the common methods? There are numerous types of spay/neuter programs being implemented in Canada and the United States, the four most common are highlighted below:

Financial Assistance Programs o Requires application, qualification and verification of eligibility. Apply for help,

with proof of income to determine qualification.

Co-Payment/Subsidy o In this model, veterinarians reduce their fees, the animal owner pays a portion

and rescue organizations pay the difference.

Low Cost / High Volume Spay Neuter Clinic. o These Clinics are owned and operated by the municipality, or a veterinarian, the

Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) or Humane Society organization. Private organizations or people cannot own these facilities.

Voucher Program o a redemption coupon is provided to assist with the cost of the spay/neuter. o Voucher programs are offered by municipalities as well as animal rescue groups

through donations.

2. Trap Neuter Return Programs for Feral / Stray Cats

Spay/neuter initiatives are effective and proactive measures to control and reduce community (feral) cats. Trap Neuter Return helps control the population of discarded cats that are already surviving outdoors. Community cats are breeding exponentially, with a female cat being able to conceive at approximately 6 months of age, having 3 liters per year and about 5 kittens per litter. In the absence of a TNR program, pound facilities who receive these animals must keep them for the required redemption period. They would receive food and medication to prevent the transfer of disease, but would inevitably be euthanized as their temperament often becomes a liability issue and the cat cannot be placed for adoption. Furthermore, these cats take the space of cats who have been lost and are more suitable for adoption. Very few municipalities have waged any concerted effort to deal with this growing problem. In September of 2008, the City of London approved a Trap Neuter Return pilot program. The programs allowed the City to focus on the Trap Neuter Return of 7 colonies, and study the effect over a period of time. This was a community driven initiative, but utilized the expertise of the rescue groups that specialize in Trap Neuter Return.


Page 185 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


27


City Targeted Spay

Neuter to focus on

lower income groups

Trap Neuter

Return for un-owned outdoor

cats

Operate their own

Clinic

Provide Funding to

Rescue Groups to assist with

TNR

Provide Voucher to assist with

cost of spay / neuter

Burlington Yes Yes No Yes No

Oshawa Yes Yes No No No

Ottawa Yes Yes Yes No No

Kitchener No Yes No No No

Hamilton No Yes No No No

C. Public Opinion

The following results are found in the Nordex Research Pets & Stray Survey, December 2010. The report is found at the back of Part C. Table 13. The City of London is thinking about expanding a program that subsidizes the spaying and neutering of pets; a program that costs up to $75,000 per year coming from pet licensing fees. To what extent do you favour or oppose expanding this spaying & neutering program? 1) very much favour 50.7 % Ratio: 5:1 2) somewhat favour 26.0 % 3) somewhat oppose 6.0 % 4) very much oppose 10.3 % 5) don‘t know 7.0 %


#1 City of London should move towards establishing a High Volume Spay / Neuter clinic. This facility could be used for Targeted as well as Trap Neuter Return spay/ neuter surgeries. This option would facilitate the greatest number of spay/ neuter surgeries. The challenge will be financing this initiative (more details to follow).

#2 Increase current Animal Welfare budget in order to increase funding to Targeted

Spay Neuter Programs and Trap, Neuter Return Programs in order to address the overpopulation problem within our city.

#3 Increase current funding for Targeted Spay Neuter as a proactive approach to

prevent unfixed pets from developing behaviours which cause their abandonment and keep current levels of funding for Trap, Neuter, Return the same.

#4 Increase funding for Trap, Neuter Return Programs and keep current levels of funding for Targeted Spay Neuter Programs (low-income) the same

#5 Maintain current funding levels.


Page 186 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


28

Animal Welfare Programs 6. What Programs Are Effective for

Managing (Feral) Cats?

Overview

According to American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), a cat born and raised in the wild, or who has been abandoned or lost and reverted to wild ways in order to survive, is considered a free roaming or feral cat. While some feral cats tolerate a bit of human contact, most are too fearful and wild to be handled. Ferals often live in groups, called colonies, and take refuge wherever they can find food—rodents and other small animals and garbage. They will also try to seek out abandoned buildings, deserted cars, even dig holes in the ground to keep warm in winter months and cool during the summer heat.

Feral cats produce 2 to 10 kittens during any month of the year. An adult female may produce 3 litters per year where food and habitat are sufficient. Cats may be active during the day but typically are more active during twilight or night. House cats live up to 27 years. Feral cats, however, probably average only 3 to 5 years. They are territorial and move within a home range of roughly 4 sq km. After several generations, feral cats can be considered to be totally wild in habits and temperament.

Community (feral) cats are a growing concern in the City of London because of this ability to reproduce. Our pound, shelter and rescue groups are usually at capacity because of the increasing number of cats. This surplus has created an environment where cats cannot be adopted even when advertised as ―Free to Good Home‖ reducing them to an almost disposable commodity.

Possible Options

No change - keep funding at the same level

Increase funding for current program

A dedicated Spay/ Neuter facility for Community Cats

Provide greater support for the Colony managed model which could include access to High Volume Spay Neuter Clinic

Methods of Managing Community Cats

1. Ignore the problem 2. Allow people to continue to provide food and shelter but without no spay/ neuter

funding. 3. Trap and kill initiatives 4. Chemical sterility 5. Implement and invest in Trap, Neuter, Return

Ignore the problem Ignoring the problem has not worked as the cats continue to breed. The colonies grow based on the food supply in the area. Provide food and care but no spay/ neuter Many people have felt responsible to care for the irresponsible actions that created the problem. The cats did not create the problem, humans did and most people feel compelled to help but the problem continues to grow as the cats continue to breed.


Page 187 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


29

Trap and kill This method has been used for decades as a futile attempt to control the cat population. The problem is that people cannot catch every cat and the ones left over continue to breed and grow to the size of the food source. Currently, these cats are usually brought to local shelters where they have to wait out the redemption period. In many cases because their temperament is not suitable for adoption (e.g., liability concerns), they are euthanized. Chemical Sterility This is a relatively new concept. A chemical is put in the drinking water that works as a birth control. No long term studies exist to show the effectiveness of colony reduction. The use of the chemical is generally to prevent pregnancy until a more permanent solution is used. Trap Neuter Return The Trap Neuter Return program recognizes that the problem with the community cats started with human irresponsibility and the cats should not pay the ultimate price. The majority of people support this initiative because it is a humane method of population control. Current Situation in London Currently, the City of London has provided a subsidy to homeowners who wish to control the community cat population in their area. In 2009, 314 cats were altered at a cost of $29,000 and in 2010, there were 344 cats altered at a cost of $41,500. A. Factors to Consider

Environmental Considerations Many conservation groups have identified community cats as one of many reasons for numerous species of birds and small animals becoming close to extinction. The failure to take action will only accelerate this situation. Community cats share many of the feeding areas with other animals. Achieving a 70% trap neuter return rate of a colony would assist in reducing the size of the colony and lessen the impact on other animals. Social Considerations Currently there are rescue groups as well as private citizens who are willing to assist with Trap Neuter Return. The amount of volunteer support would drop significantly if a method that was not supportive of the community cats was used.

Financial Considerations Currently the amount negotiated with the veterinary community is $100 plus HST per cat which has been in place since December 2008. This includes Spay or Neuter / rabies vaccination and ear-tipping for identification. Situations occur where there was necessity to cover other medical costs that were detected. In order to make a significant impact, we need to have the ability to trap neuter return over 1,000 cats per year. Other Considerations City of London Bylaw PH-3 should be amended so a caretaker of community (feral) cats does not have to be licensed and any bylaws that pertain to pet limits do not apply. Formalized neighbourhood consent, waivers and training should be available, as well access to live trap rentals and agreements.


Page 188 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


30

B. What About Other Municipalities

Toronto Animal Services has a 900 sq. ft. High Volume Spay/ Neuter facility dedicated to Trap Neuter Return of Community (feral) cats. City of Orillia worked jointly with a veterinary college and an animal rescue group to implement Trap Neuter Return program The Cat Sanctuary on the grounds of Parliament Hill in Ottawa was established in the late 1970‘s in support of the community (feral) cats that roam the grounds of Parliament Hill to control the mouse population. C. Public Opinion

The following results are found in the Nordex Research Pets & Stray Survey, December 2010. The report is found at the back of Part C.

Table 5. To what extent do you think the City of London has a problem with stray cats and dogs?

Ratio: 11:10 negative a) Cats 1) a big problem 21.7 % 2) moderate problem 17.3 % 3) small problem 1 5.7 % 4) no problem 27.3 % 5) don‘t know/refuse 18.0 %

Ratio: 11:2 negative b) Dogs 1) a big problem 4.0 % 2) moderate problem 8.3 % 3) small problem 18.3 % 4) no problem 49.4 % 5) don‘t know/refuse 20.0 %

Table 6. Have you ever had a problem with a neighbour who allowed their dog or cat to roam around without much supervision? a) Dog 1) yes, current problem 5.7 % 2) yes, previous problem 7.7 % 3) no problem 84.6 % 4) don‘t know/refuse 2.0 % b) Cat 1) yes, current problem 21.0 % 2) yes, previous problem 6.3 % 3) no problem 70.7 % 4) don‘t know/refuse 2.0 %


#1 Establish a dedicated High Volume Spay/Neuter facility for Community Cats

which will work in tandem with a colony management system. The challenge will be financing this initiative (more details to follow).

#2 Establish a High Volume Spay Neuter facility for community cats and low income pet owners.

#3 Increase funding for current colony management program and provide direct funding to rescue groups who voluntarily provide Trap, Neuter Return services

#4 Keep current funding levels the same


Page 189 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


31

Animal Welfare Programs 7. What Role Should Foster Homes

for Unwanted Animals Play?

Overview

The foster care program is a life-saving extension of the animal adoption process. It provides temporary homes for animals not ready for adoption. Many municipalities employ Foster Care Programs to cut shelter costs, reduce euthanasia, and provide animals with better social stimulus. The London Humane Society and rescue groups utilize a foster care system, however most are at full capacity or very close, especially for cats. There is a need to increase the number of available spaces, especially for longer-term needs such as pregnant or nursing animals, medical recovery, socialization and pets of people escaping domestic violence. This can be achieved by reducing the barriers and restrictions to fostering animals such as the household pet limit and licensing requirements. Possible Options

Provide Support to Foster Homes for sick or injured

Provide Support Fostering for pregnant and nursing

Provide Support for Geriatric pets that are more difficult to place

All of the above Possible options to support Foster Homes 1. Revise City by-law to permit foster homes under a registration process. 2. Increase Registration age from 2 to 4-6 months. 3. Make no changes. 4. Increase pet limits to support foster homes. A. Factors to Consider

1. Household Pet Limits Household pet limits can prevent responsible homes and/or foster homes from temporarily housing pets in need. Some cities grant households with good pet ownership history an exemption, allowing them to foster pets beyond the stated limit. The distribution of foster home exemptions is typically entrusted to local animal care centers and can include the following restrictions: i. Number of foster pets allowed; ii. Length of time animals are allowed to be fostered; and. iii. Type/size of dwelling suitable for fostering animals. 2. Registration Age The age pets need to be registered forces breeders to rush to find homes for their kittens and puppies. Extending this from 2 to 4 months would allow for early spay / neuter of puppies and kittens prior to placement to help with population control.


Page 190 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


32

3. Licensing requirements Foster homes currently require licenses for all dogs and cats regardless of whether the animal is being kept for 1 day or 10 weeks. The associated fee is an extra cost for foster homes to bear. License tags are required for off-leash parks and would prevent an unlicensed dog in foster care from experiencing the social stimulus available at these parks.. B. What about other Municipalities?

City Cat Limit

in Bylaw

Bylaw exemption

Duration Dwelling Who approves Foster home?

Burlington 4 Number of animals exempt if in approved foster program

No No Animal Care mgr –Burlington Animal Shelter

Oshawa 6 Exemption applies to only fostered animals registered with animal services

8 months No Manager of Animal Services

Ottawa 5 Exemption if registered and licensed with the City.

No Registered with the City as premises providing foster care

By-Law Services

Kingston 6 On a property that is operating

a fostering program for cats

No No Under the authority of the Animal Shelter

Hamilton

(Proposes)

4 Allow up to 8 cats

No Owned single family dwelling on less than 5 contiguous acres owned by a rescue agent or foster home*

Manager of Animal control

* Hamilton bylaws are based on type of dwelling (multiple dwelling or single family), type of animal (dog or cat) and contiguous hectares in determining capacity.


Page 191 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


33


Roles For Foster homes #1 Support all fostering roles that help as a life saving extension for healthy pets #2 Support fostering homes working with LACC to provide long-term care pets (sick or injured, pregnant or nursing, geriatric, or overflow) #3 Support foster homes for the purpose of pregnant and nursing care #4 Support foster home for the purpose of geriatric Methods of Support for Foster Homes #1 Increase current pet limits which in turn would increase the capacity of foster homes. Provide either a licensing exemption or temporary tags in order that the foster home can be bylaw compliance. #2 Exempt approved foster homes from licensing and limit bylaws #3 Increase the age at which an animal has to be registered from 2 to 4-6 months to allow time for kitten and puppy litters to be of age for spay/ neuter and allow time to find suitable placement. # 4 Make no changes.


Page 192 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


34

Animal Welfare Programs 8. Should the City Revise the

Number of Cats and Dogs Permitted Per Household?

Overview

The City of London limits the number of pets to 3 dogs per household and 2 cats per adult. The majority of Ontario municipalities have household pet limits for reasons of health, safety and nuisance prevention. Pet limits also help to regulate against animal hoarding and high-volume, sub-standard dog-breeding operations (puppy mills). Animal rescue groups such as the SPCA and breeders clubs such as the American Kennel Club oppose household pet limits, arguing they fail to ensure animal welfare and add strain to recue shelters by preventing responsible breeders and pet owner from fostering pets in need. Calgary has no household limit on cat and dog ownership. This model has resulted in high claim rates, low euthanasia rates and high adoption rates for those animals not claimed. Possible Options

Make no change to household pet limits

Increase the limit of household pets

Increase cat limits and no change to dog limit

Eliminate cat limits and no change to dog limit

Eliminate household pet limits

Other adjustments A. Factors to Consider

1. Number of pets per household Household pet limits are used to prevent over-crowding, breeding stock, puppy mills, minimize nuisance complaints and ensure human health and safety. On the other hand, they prevent responsible owners from fostering animals in need. 2. Foster Home Exemption Several municipalities exempt responsible foster homes from household pet limits. This option alleviates the strain on rescue shelters while maintaining regulatory control over irresponsible owners and breeders. Municipalities can register and exempt the foster premises, exempt number of animals, exempt the animals over and above personal pets and exempt the foster home for a period of time. 3. Registration age The age at which a pet has to be registered is a period given to a breeder in order to welp a litter, provide first set of shots and place in appropriate home. The sooner a dog must be registered, the less time a breeder has to find a responsible home. The Animal Kennel Club suggests 8 to 12 weeks if required for healthy socialization and maturity. Similar to the Foster Home Exemption option, there are exemptions for the age at which the animal has to be registered.


Page 193 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


35


Pet Registration Age

Municipality Dogs Cats

London 2 months 2 months

Brampton 3 months N/A

Cambridge 3 months N/A

Cornwall 6 months N/A

Grimsby 2.5 months 2.5 months

Hamilton 3 months N/A

Kingston 5 months 5 months

Ottawa 5 months 5 months

Pembroke 3 months 3 months

Pickering 3 months 3 months

Sarnia 6 months N/A

Windsor / Essex 4 months 4 months

Municipality

Total # of animals

permitted # of dogs permitted

# of cats permitted

Foster Home Exemption

Toronto 6 3 - -

Ottawa 5 3 5 √

Mississauga 4 - - -

Hamilton (apartment)

2 2 2 √

Hamilton (single family dwelling)

4 4 4 √

Brampton - 3 6 -

Vaughan 6 3 3

Windsor - 2 4 √

Kitchener - 3 - -

Burlington 4 4 4 √

Greater Sudbury 4 2 4 -

Oshawa - 3 6 √

St. Catharines - 3 8 -

Barrie - 3 6 -

Cambridge - 3 - -


Page 194 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


36

C. Public Opinion

The following results are found in the Nordex Research Pets & Stray Survey, December 20 10. The report is found at the back of Part C. Table 8.The City of London currently places a household possession limit on pets. On average, it‘s between 5 to 7 pets per household. Do you support this limit, or should there be no limit on the number of pets per household? 1) existing limit 47.3 % 2) no limit 5.7 % 3) something else (e.g. fewer pets/hhld) 44.3 % 4) don‘t know/don‘t care 2.7 %


#1 Elimination of cat limits and minimally increase the dog limit. #2 Dog Limit remains the same, cat limit increases

#3 Limits remain the same with exemptions for foster care and approved TNR

colonies. Adjust the age at which a pet must be registered.

#4 Eliminate household pet limits #5 No change


Page 195 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


37

Animal Welfare Programs

9. Should the City Become a Partner in a Large-Scale Animal

Foster and Adoption Facility?

Overview

Municipalities across North America, including the City of London, are faced with a companion animal overpopulation crisis. Animal shelters are overwhelmed by the number of dogs and especially cats entering their facilities, while significantly fewer animals are adopted out. Inevitably, older animals and those with special needs or illnesses are less likely to be adopted and often face euthanasia. To address this issue, some shelters will attempt to relocate these ―unadoptable‖ animals to an out-of-shelter facility or place them in a foster home until an adoptive home is found. However, more often than not, shelters turn to volunteer-run rescue groups for assistance. In general, local animal welfare groups try to rescue animals scheduled for euthanasia and attempt to place them in permanent homes. Some rescue groups will place the animal in a foster home, while other groups operate placement facilities that provide temporary housing. The majority of these groups will provide shelter and care for these animals indefinitely; this can range from a couple of weeks to the lifetime of the animal. This practice combined with euthanizing only in dire health situations (rather than for space) is referred to as a no-kill policy. It is important to note that most city-run shelters do not exercise this policy because they operate open shelters. Open shelters must accept all animals that arrive at their facilities and, as a result, some animals have to be euthanized to accommodate for the influx of new arrivals, especially during kitten/puppy season. Possible Options

City of London provides/obtains a vacant facility and develops a partnership with interested qualified partners to assist in the financing and/or operations.

City of London partners with other regional municipalities to cost share a larger and more comprehensive facility with a veterinary clinic, adoption and volunteer co-ordinator on site.

City to examine other similar opportunities

No change


Current Situation in London: Currently, the City of London contracts the London Animal Care Centre (LACC) to maintain and enforce the city‘s animal care and control policies/bylaws. The LACC operates an open shelter with an adoption centre onsite as well as offering off-site adoptions at local PetSmarts facilities, where customers can view and adopt these cats and dogs on the spot. Animals that are not adopted are returned to the shelter. LACC does not have access to alternative placement facility for animals reaching the end of their shelter holding period. Animals picked up by the LACC are held for a period of four days, which is one day more than the provincial standard. Following the holding period, the animal becomes the property of the LACC and undergoes an evaluation to determine its temperament, health and likelihood of being adopted.


Page 196 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


38

Other animal welfare organizations within London, such as the London Humane Society, Animal Rescue Foundation of Ontario, Animal Alert, Animal Outreach and Cats-R-Us utilize foster care programs. Many of these organizations do not have a physical shelter to house animals; rather, the number of animals that they accept/rescue is limited to the number of available volunteer foster homes. These foster homes are already at capacity and it is not likely that the number of foster homes will increase dramatically enough to significantly change the current and dire situation. Challenges and/or Problems in London: Besides the overpopulation of cats and dogs in London, the lack of available and willing volunteer foster homes are the biggest challenges faced by animal welfare groups in London, the London Humane Society is just one of the many organizations that seems to constantly seek out foster homes, especially during the height of kitten season (typically in June). As it stands, the City of London is performing reasonably well in certain areas of the animal care and control program as shown by the consecutively low animal euthanasia rates. Other areas unfortunately need improvement, notably, the lack of a City-supported foster networks/placement facility. Preliminary Research: Animals housed in shelters for long periods of time often experience high levels of stress that may result in irrevocable physical and behavioral abnormalities. These animals also have increased risk of disease that can quickly spread amongst animals housed in closed quarters. To minimize the stressful effects of shelter life and reduce the euthanasia rates, animal shelters committed to humane treatment of companion animals, have turned to foster programs and alternative placement facilities. Through these initiatives, numerous municipal animal services and animal welfare groups have experienced great success in achieving the above objectives, as well as increasing adoption rates. In general, foster programs place companion animals in the care of temporary caregivers until a permanent adoptive home is found. The majority of animal groups that rely on foster homes cover the costs of veterinary care, food and occasionally, beds, crates (for dogs), litter box/litter (for cats) and toys. Placement facilities refer to off-site (out-of-shelter) locations where animals are housed until they are adopted. Some of the examples of placement facilities are actually adoption centres, while others are sanctuaries. These adoption centres temporarily house adoptable animals and are typically located in areas that are more esthetic and easily accessible by the public. Sanctuaries tend to be situated on large, rural pieces of property, where animals can live out the remainder of their lives or until an adoptive family is found. B. What about other Municipalities?

Examples of Successful Adoption Facilities in Ontario and British Columbia Animal Aide – St. Thomas, Ontario This volunteer-run non-profit organization has been a well established animal welfare group in Elgin County since 1993. Their primary focus has been on rescuing, fostering and re-homing cats, but when the situation arises, they will also take in dogs. Typically, they take in over 400 cats a year and 100 dogs. Animal Aide operates a cat adoption centre/shelter, where cats/kittens are housed in cages until an adoptive home is found. However, they also rely on a network of foster homes due to the high volume of feline intakes. They do not have any paid staff, so all donations, membership/adoption fees and proceeds from their retail store (Tabby‘s Treasures, located next to their cat adoption centre) go directly into the programs that they offer, operational costs and veterinary bills. They have actively liaised with local animal care and shelter facilities, such as the City of St. Thomas‘ Animal Control Services, to help maintain and improve the animal control


Page 197 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


39

bylaws and the collection/interim care and placement processes of stray, abandoned and surrendered animals. Pet Friends 4 Life- St Thomas Ontario This is a private charity that operates a 9000 sq. ft. shelter in the industrial area of St Thomas. The concept is open and without cages with the exception of an isolation ward. The cats are free to roam and exhibit the behaviours that are normal for cats thus reducing stress. Niagara Falls Humane Society – Niagara Falls, ON Like other humane societies, this organization provides shelter for unwanted and mistreated dogs, cats and small animals until a permanent home is found. In addition to this, they have been successfully operating a cat adoption centre in a local mall (Niagara Square Shopping Centre). The cat adoption centre is modeled after the Erie County SPCA‘s cat adoption centre at Walden Galleria Mall, located just outside of Buffalo in the U.S. This adoption centre can house as many as 40 cats at a time. The Niagara Falls Humane Society approached the mall management staff with this proposal and worked with them to sort out any logistical/operational concerns. London has recently opened a similar adoption centre such as the one Niagara Falls at the Oxbury Mall Shopping Centre at Highbury Avenue and Oxford Street. This new facility should result in greater exposure for both the animals the LACC and the residents of the City. Richmond Animal Protection Society (RAPS) RAPS was founded in 1989 by dedicated cat lovers who recognized the dangers to cats living on city streets and in 1999, through a generous donation, the group was able to establish a shelter. The shelter sits on 6 acres of serene, suburban farmland. There are 2 main buildings and 12 smaller ones, including a kitten house and 2 feline "AIDS" houses. RAPS operate the largest cat sanctuary in North America, providing a permanent home for over 800 animals. The facility is staffed by approximately 100 volunteers and received money though donations and revenue from the RAPS thrift store. C. Public Opinion

The following results are found in the Nordex Research Pets & Stray Survey, December 2010. The report is found at the back of Part C. Table 3. If you were looking for a cat or dog, perhaps in addition to one you (may) already have, how likely are you to consider finding one at the city‘s homeless shelter or an animal rescue organization? Very Somewhat Not so Not likely Don‘t Ratio

Likely Likely Likely at all know 1) Cat % 44.3 16.3 4.7 27.7 7.0 2:1 2) Dog% 44.0 17.3 8.7 22.3 7.7 2:1


Page 198 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


40

Table 4. If you were interested in finding a pet, or an additional pet, from the City‘s shelter or a rescue group, how willing would you be to pay up to $100.00 for a cat or up to $300.00 for a dog?

Ratio: 11:10 negative a) Cat 1) very willing 26.3% 2) somewhat willing 17.0% 3) not so willing 11.7% 4) not willing at all 35.7% 5) dk/can‘t say 9.3% Ratio: 11:10 b) Dog 1) very willing 28.0% 2) somewhat willing 21.3% 3) not so willing 13.3% 4) not willing at all 31.0% 5) dk/can‘t say 6.4%

Table 14. In the future, the City of London is also considering a larger, permanent facility to accommodate many more homeless dogs and cats -- to be paid out of property taxes and private funds. To what extent do you favour or oppose this initiative for a new, larger facility? 1) very much favour 34.3% Ratio: 5:2 2) somewhat favour 32.7% 3) somewhat oppose 11.3% 4) very much oppose 17.0% 5) don‘t know 4.7 %


#1 City of London provides/obtains a vacant facility and develops a partnership with

interested qualified partners to assist in the financing and/or operations. The focus of the facility should be long-term care and adoptions for cats. Dogs would also be part of the operation and programming.

#2 City of London partners with other municipalities to cost share a larger and more

comprehensive facility with a veterinary clinic, adoption and volunteer co-ordinator.

#3 City to examine other similar opportunities #4 No change


Page 199 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


41

Animal Welfare Programs 10. What is the Current and Potential

Role for Community Partners?

Overview

Firstly, we need to thank the London Humane Society and animal rescue partners for their tireless dedication to helping the pets and others animals in London. These groups spend countless hours performing the following activities:

Helping the residents of London who need to surrender their pets.

Trap Neuter Return of stray and feral cats.

Providing foster homes for pregnant, nursing and injured strays.

Finding adoptive homes.

Removing the pets with long-term needs from London Animal Care Centre.

Education on care of pet animals.

Enforcing provincial legislation pertaining to Animal Cruelty (London Humane Society).

All these efforts continue to ensure that the euthanasia rate remains low in the City of London. Asilomar Accords Asilomar Accords was created by an assembled group of professionals that put aside their differences of opinion to create an open and transparent reporting system with the goal of reducing the euthanasia of healthy treatable pets. The group consisted of representatives from various Animal Control agencies, Humane Societies, SPCA‘s and rescue groups. Their Guiding Principles are identified in the box on the next page. The mission of those involved in creating the Asilomar Accords is to work together to save the lives of all healthy and treatable companion animals. They agreed to recognize that all stakeholders in the animal welfare community have a passion for and are dedicated to the mutual goal of saving animals' lives. They acknowledge that the euthanasia of healthy and treatable animals is the sad responsibility of some animal welfare organizations that neither desired nor sought this task. They believe that the euthanasia of healthy and treatable animals is a community-wide problem requiring community-based solutions. They also recognize that animal welfare organizations can be leaders in bringing about a change in social and other factors that result in the euthanasia of healthy and treatable animals, including the compounding problems of some pet owners'/guardians' failure to spay and neuter; properly socialize and train; be tolerant of; provide veterinary care to; or take responsibility for companion animals. And, as animal welfare stakeholders, they agreed to foster a mutual respect for one another. They also encourage those other organizations to do the same.


Page 200 of 345

http://www.theuksportsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/partnerships.jpg

lkucera

Text Box


42

ASILOMAR ACCORDS GUIDING PRINCIPLES (Reprinted from website www.asilomaraccords.org)

1. The mission of those involved in creating the Asilomar Accords is to work together to save

the lives of all healthy and treatable companion animals.

2. We recognize that all stakeholders in the animal welfare community have a passion for and are dedicated to the mutual goal of saving animals' lives.

3. We acknowledge that the euthanasia of healthy and treatable animals is the sad

responsibility of some animal welfare organizations that neither desired nor sought this task. We believe that the euthanasia of healthy and treatable animals is a community-wide problem requiring community-based solutions. We also recognize that animal welfare organizations can be leaders in bringing about a change in social and other factors that result in the euthanasia of healthy and treatable animals, including the compounding problems of some pet owners'/guardians' failure to spay and neuter; properly socialize and train; be tolerant of; provide veterinary care to; or take responsibility for companion animals.

4. We, as animal welfare stakeholders, agree to foster a mutual respect for one another. When

discussing differences of policy and opinion, either publicly or within and among our own agencies, we agree to refrain from denigrating or speaking ill of one another. We will also encourage those other individuals and organizations in our sphere of influence to do the same.

5. We encourage all communities to embrace the vision and spirit of these Accords, while

acknowledging that differences exist between various communities and geographic regions of the country.

6. We encourage the creation of local "community coalitions" consisting of a variety of

organizations (e.g., governmental animal control agencies, nonprofit shelters, grassroots foster care providers, feral cat groups, funders and veterinary associations) for the purpose of saving the lives of healthy and treatable animals. We are committed to the belief that no one organization or type of organization can achieve this goal alone, that we need one another, and that the only true solution is to work together. We need to find common ground, put aside our differences and work collaboratively to reach the ultimate goal of ending the euthanasia of healthy and treatable companion animals.

7. While we understand that other types of programs and efforts (including adoption, spay and

neuter programs, education, cruelty investigations, enforcement of animal control laws and regulations, behavior and training assistance and feral cat management) play a critical role in impacting euthanasia figures, for purposes of this nationwide initiative we have elected to leave these programs in the hands of local organizations and encourage them to continue offering, and expanding upon, these critical services.

8. In order to achieve harmony and forward progress, we encourage each community coalition

to discuss language and terminology which has been historically viewed as hurtful or divisive by some animal welfare stakeholders (whether intentional or inadvertent), identify "problem" language, and reach a consensus to modify or phase out language and terminology accordingly.

9. We believe in the importance of transparency and the open sharing of accurate, complete

animal-sheltering data and statistics in a manner which is clear to both the animal welfare community and the public.

10. We believe it is essential to utilize a uniform method for collecting and reporting shelter data,

in order to promote transparency and better assess the euthanasia rate of healthy and treatable animals. We determined that a uniform method of reporting needs to include the collection and analysis of animal-sheltering data as set forth in the "Animal Statistics Table." These statistics need to be collected for each individual organization and for the community as a whole and need to be reported to the public annually (e.g., web sites, newsletters, annual reports). In addition, we determined that each community's "Live Release Rate" needs to be calculated, shared and reported annually to the public, individually by each organization and jointly by each community coalition. Both individual organizations and community coalitions should strive for continuous improvement of these numbers. The


Page 201 of 345

http://www.asilomaraccords.org/

lkucera

Text Box


43

"Animal Statistics Table" and formulas for calculating the "Live Release Rate" are set forth in Section IV of these Accords.

11. We developed several standard "definitions" to enable uniform and accurate collection,

analysis and reporting of animal-sheltering data and statistics. We encourage all communities to adopt the definitions which are set forth in Section III, and implement the principles of these Accords.

12. While we recognize that many animal welfare organizations provide services to companion

animals other than dogs and cats, for purposes of this nationwide initiative we have elected to collect and share data solely as it relates to dogs and cats.

13. We are committed to continuing dialogue, analysis and potential modification of this vision

as needs change and as progress is made toward achieving our mission.

14. Those involved in the development of the Asilomar Accords have agreed to make a personal commitment to ensure the furtherance of these accords, and to use their professional influence to bring about a nationwide adoption of this vision.

Possible Options for Rescue Groups

Foster Care Co-ordination and Foster Home Recruitment and Training through community

partners Contract Community Partners with the operation of a sanctuary or long-term care facility Have Community Partners provide education at schools, libraries, etc Possibly fund Rescue Partners directly for Trap Neuter Return Rescue partners can use their charitable status to initiate fundraising for large scale

projects such as Spay/neuter facility or Animal Sanctuary Rescue partners could also use their charitable status to solicit donations for

emergency medical care to low income individuals or pet retention programs.


Expertise The City of London is very fortunate to have a Humane Society and approximately 14 rescue groups that assist with London‘s initiatives. Each group has certain specialties and come with different skill sets so it may be difficult to determine what group or combination of groups is the most suited for a specific task. Accountability Clear expectations to account for any money issued would be required. There may be a need to develop formats in order to get usable data Co-operation Codes of Conduct may be necessary. The ultimate goal is long term and requires everyone to work as a cohesive unit. For the most part we all agree on the goals but the conflict has been ―how we get there‖. Since the City of London is being looked at for funding then the final say is with city. Financial Currently the animal welfare initiatives are funded through a clause with London Animal Care Centre with an annual expenditure of $100,000 which comes from licensing and cat identification. In order to offer more programs or increase the levels of the current ones, all groups must aggressively promote and support licensing and identification in order for these revenues to increase. The goal has to be sustainability.


Page 202 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


44

B. What About Rescue Groups in Other Municipalities

Richmond Animal Protection Society Since February 2007, Richmond Animal Protection Society (RAPS) was awarded the city contract to take over the operations of the animal shelter. The shelter has a capacity to provide a permanent home to 800 cats. RAPS has now expanded to two facilities. RAPS provides education, does TNR and uses volunteers to put feed at approximately 10 feeding stations throughout Richmond, has a Helfer Wellness Fund to help offset the veterinary cost for injured homeless pets and promote and co-ordinate Adoption. Calgary Animal Services The success of Responsible Pet Ownership programs require the working relationship of three key stakeholders. Calgary breaks that down to:

Regulatory- City of Calgary/ Province

Humane- SPCA and Animal Rescue Groups

Medical Service Providers They all have a responsibility in promoting and educating the public on all aspects of responsible pet ownership. Traditionally, Calgary Animal Services concentrated on dogs with Calgary Humane Society and Meow Foundation focusing on cats. Hamilton / Burlington Animals that end up at the city-run facility are only adoptable through the SPCA service adjacent to it, or through the use of animal rescue groups. The SPCA, a nonprofit animal welfare organization, and Animal Control share the same building on Dartnall Road. Other Municipalities In late 2010, the SPCA is starting a low cost spaying program for low income earners. It has a feral cat program in which it spayed or neutered 300 cats in 2009 and about 600 this year. Animal Control, besides transferring cats to the SPCA, saved approximately 1,244 cats in 2010 through transfers to four animal rescue groups. Many municipalities contract bylaw enforcement and pound service and some contract the pound services only to groups such as the Humane Society or to OSPCA C. Public Opinion

The following results are found in the Nordex Research Pets & Stray Survey, December 20 10. The report is found at the back of Part C.

Table 2. Have you ever acquired a cat or dog by the following means? Cat % Dog% No% Don’t Know 1) some other means 20.7 16.0 59.3 4.0 2) a local breeder 1.0 22.7 72.3 4.0 3) Humane Society 6.3 6.0 83.7 4.0 4) local farmer 4.0 6.3 85.7 4.0 5) city‘s homeless shelter 5.0 4.0 87.0 4.0 6) pet store 3.3 4.3 88.4 4.0 7) animal rescue group 2.0 2.3 91.7 4.0


Page 203 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


45

Animal Welfare Programs 11. What Is the Current and Potential Role for the Provincial Government?

Overview

The Provincial Government plays a significant role in the area of Animal Welfare. Traditionally, the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, which was amended through Bill 50, was intended to help protect animals. Municipal governments are generally given the authority to protect people from animals that are owned by irresponsible owners through various nuisance bylaws. The Shelter and Pounds serving residents and located in Ontario municipalities are generally regulated through the Animals for Research Act (ARA) and the Pounds Act and administered through the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Pounds and shelter as well as municipalities and rescue groups, are also affected by the Veterinarians Act, which establishes regulations set by the College Of Veterinarians. Dog Owner’s Liability Act (DOLA) is the provincial legislation that is used to control ―dangerous Dogs‖ specifically Pit Bull dogs. Possible Options

Solicit the government to help create more uniform policies related to Animal Welfare throughout the province as it pertains to dogs and cats.

Look towards the Province to help solicit and support initiative with the College of Veterinarians of Ontario to assist with different service delivery models for spay/neuter.

Current Situation

The Provincial Government plays an important role in the area of Animal Welfare and municipalities and service providers face challenges in implement many initiatives that are under the direct control and administration of the Province. These initiatives are often unique to specific jurisdiction and can be more effectively administered locally, through targeted groups. The Provincial Government needs to establish clear areas of jurisdiction for the delivery of Animal Welfare Services in the Province and provide the tools to allow municipalities and service providers to effectively respond to level of need in their communities. There are many areas where the Province can lead by establishing targeted province-wide directive to facilitate effective changes. An example includes what the Nova Scotia Provincial government did by setting standards for the care of circus animals. Outcomes

Seek cooperation from the Province to assist with addressing provincial legislation that deters municipal animal welfare activities (e.g., follow the lead of the Province of Alberta)

Seek provincial assistance to help with other regulatory bodies (CVO) to help loosen their bylaws to allow a more focused effort in service delivery to animals.

Seek provincial financial support for individual initiatives (Spay/Neuter Clinic)


Page 204 of 345

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://farm1.static.flickr.com/116/253611957_24b0600f96.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/63447395@N00/253611957/&usg=__lArJG90GWP3m6mUOsjyA8a2WSsk=&h=500&w=333&sz=196&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=PlZADXp9GJwduM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=87&prev=/search?q=ONTARIO+PROVINCIAL+GOVERNMENT&hl=en&safe=active&sa=G&biw=1007&bih=741&gbv=2&tbm=isch&ei=0R7tTfHhMcLk0QGkm6CtAQ

lkucera

Text Box


46

Financing and Implementation Decisions

12. How Should we Finance Animal Services?

Overview

Adding more animal welfare programs and initiatives will increase costs. Most Ontario municipalities fund the majority of their animal services programs through property taxes with a percentage from licensing/identification fees. The City of London Animal Services Program in 2010 was a 50/50 split between a contribution from taxes and licensing/identification fees. In 2010, gross program costs were $2,365,800, less total revenues of $1,191,380 for a net program cost of $1,174,420 (or about $7.00 per London household). Households that own pets pay more as they pay licencing/identification fees.

Possible Options

Taxes

Licencing/Identification Fees

Adoption fees

Donations, private investors, corporate sector

Combination A. What about other Municipalities?

Fifteen municipalities are part of the Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) process. Eight of the 15 municipalities report a few statistics dealing with dog and cat licensing and in 2009, a new category was added called Percent Recovery of Animal Control Costs. OMBI includes a number of regional municipalities that do not have responsibility for animal services as these are typically delivered at the local level. Data are reported below for those municipalities that participate in this portion of the exercise with additional comments after the table.

Number of Dog Licences/Registration Issued Per 100,000 Population (rank)

Number of Cat Licences/Registration Issued Per 100,000 Population (Rank)

Estimated Percent Recovery of Animal

Control Costs (Rank)

Barrie 2,676 (6) 778 (5) 10% (8)

Hamilton 5,859 (2) (a) 35% (3)

London 7,460 (1) 3,703 (1) 53% (1)

Ottawa 3,553 (4) 1,745 (2) 45%(b) (2)

Sudbury 3,664 (3) 903 (4) 32% (4)

Thunder Bay 2,338 (7) 605 (6) 13% (7)

Toronto 2,310 (8) 1,192 (3) 28%(b) (5)

Windsor 3,494 (5) (a) 22%(b) (6)

Notes: a) Hamilton and Windsor do not licence/register cats b) Licence revenue data for these three communities was incomplete in the OMBI database.

These data were obtained from budget documents in these three municipalities therefore accurate details should be obtained directly from these municipalities


Page 205 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


47

For all 3 performance indicators, London ranks number 1 for the reporting municipalities: For the number of licenced/registered dogs per 100,000 people, London has 27%

more licenced/ registered dogs than the second ranked community (Hamilton)

For the number of licenced/registered cats per 100,000 people, London has over 110% more licenced/ registered cats than the second ranked community (Ottawa)

For the estimated percent recovery of animal control costs, London recovers 18%

more of its costs than the second ranked community (Ottawa) The following details are listed on the City of Calgary Animal Services webpage:

The City of Calgary encourages responsible pet ownership through licensing, public education and enforcement. Licensing fees, not tax dollars, fund the following programs and services: Reunite lost cats and dogs with their owners. Operate the Pet Drive Home program. Educate cats and dogs owners about responsible pet ownership. Enforce the Responsible Pet Ownership bylaw. Shelter and feed lost cats and dogs in our vet-operated facility. Manage our animal adoption program. Offer school programs at no charge. Deliver public education programs. Run our volunteer animal socialization programs. Help neighbours resolve their animal related conflicts. Provide funding to veterinary clinics for emergency medical care for

injured stray cats and dogs. Operate the no-cost spay and neuter program for the cats and dogs of

eligible Calgarians. Provide medical care to adoptable cats and dogs in our state of the art

clinic. Basically licensing fees for dogs and cats cover full programs costs. There will also be a percentage that is generated from corporate and private citizen donations. Currently Calgary has about 90% of their dogs licenced and about 53% of the cats licenced. Further research is being conducted on the City of Edmonton. In addition, City staff are trying to obtain additional details from Ontario municipalities that do not belong to OMBI.

B. Additional Work by City Staff

Further work is underway by City staff to better understand the following:

The estimated number of dogs in London

The estimated number of cats in London

Percentage of dogs licenced

Percentage of cats licenced

Programs to maximize value for pet owners (guardians) versus optimum licensing fees

More details will be presented on July 19, 2011 at the Public Participation Meeting on this item


Page 206 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


48

C. Public Opinion

The following result(s) are found in the Nordex Research Pets & Strays Survey, December 2010. The report is found at the back of Part C. Table 11.What do you think is the best way to finance the city‘s shelter service for homeless and stray dogs and cats? 1) the current approach: 50% from property taxes; 50% from pet licensing 49.0% 2) 100% from property taxes 6.7% 3) 100% revenues from pet licensing 25.0% 4) some other financing (e.g. mainly private donations) 9.7% 5) don‘t know/don‘t care 9.6%

Table 4. If you were interested in finding a pet, or an additional pet, from the city‘s shelter or a rescue group, how willing would you be to pay up to $100.00 for a cat or up to $300.00 for a dog? a) cat 1) very willing 26.3% Ratio: 11:10 negative 2) somewhat willing 17.0% 3) not so willing 11.7% 4) not willing at all 35.7% 5) dk/can‘t say 9.3% b) dog 1) very willing 28.0% Ratio: 11:10 2) somewhat willing 21.3% 3) not so willing 13.3% 4) not willing at all 31.0% 5) dk/can‘t say 6.4% Table 12. In addition to the city‘s own sheltering services, in order to meet additional demand the city is considering subsidizing local rescue groups out of city general revenues? To what extent do you favour or oppose this subsidy program? 1) very much favour 30.0% Ratio: 3:1 2) somewhat favour 36.0% 3) somewhat oppose 9.0% 4) very much oppose 13.7% 5) dk/can‘t say 11.3%


Page 207 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


49

Financing and Implementation Decisions

13. How Quickly do We Implement the Changes?

Overview

The key variables associated with implementing changes are generally:

Available budget

Qualified partners and contractors

Facilities and related locations Listed below is the initial proposed timetable.

Summary of General Steps and Activities Timeframe 2011/2012

Submission of Expanding the Scope for Animal Welfare Initiatives as Part of the City‘s Animal Services Program to Community & Neighbourhoods Committee (CNC)

June 14

Public Participation meeting at CNC and CNC provides direction and recommendation to Municipal Council

July 19

Recommendation from CNC provided to Council July 25

Dates for future meetings include CNC (August 16), Council (August 29), Services Review Committee (to be determined) and Senior Management Team (to be determined)

July/August

Develop Expression of Interest (EOI) and/or Request for Proposals (RFP) and/or Implementation Strategies for Various Components of the Animal Services Program

August/ September

Release EOI and/or RFP October

Evaluate Submissions December

Present Recommendations to Standing Committee and Council February 2012


Page 208 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


50

Other Animal Services Decisions 14. What Other Initiatives are Still

Under Review by City Staff?

Overview

A number of items from Municipal Council have been directed to City staff for review, analysis and staff recommendations. The Companion Animal Welfare Task Force report as well as reports submitted from the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee had approximately 19 different animal welfare requests and new initiatives. These requests and initiatives were categorized by Level of Effort and prioritized. Still Under Review

A. Do Current Bylaws of the City Create a Barrier to Animal Welfare? B. Circuses C. Hawking And Falconry D. Sale of Pets in Pet stores E. Puppy Mills F. Wildlife Rehabilitation G. Establishment of a 4th Off-leash Dog Park H. Expanding Animal Care and Control Services to the City Parks I. Cat Care Program A. Do Current City Bylaws Create a Barrier to Animal Welfare? The effectiveness of the animal services and its bylaws has a direct impact on the quality of life within the City by delivering enforcement in a manner that promotes public safety and the protection of property by encouraging responsible pet ownership, enforcing the City‘s by-laws, returning lost animals that are licensed to their owners and reducing euthanasia rates. Bylaws exist, not as an excuse for enforcers to go looking for problems, but as a rationale for action when problems come to the attention of authorities. Traditionally, bylaws were a punitive measure enacted based on the repetition of unwanted behaviours by numerous individuals which pose a risk or affect the quality of life for the citizens of London. The process of reviewing each section under bylaws is a massive undertaking. The bylaws that will be affected are:

PH-3 Animal Control Bylaw

PH-4 Dog Licensing and control Bylaw

PH-7 Dogs Off-Leash Areas Bylaw

PH-12 Pit Bull Dog Licensing Bylaws The direction of the initiatives in the preceding document will determine the outcome of subsequent bylaws. B. Circuses On a recommendation of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, the City of London is looking at the current situation with respect to Circuses and Performing Animal Exhibitions.


Page 209 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


51

Currently, there is only one circus that comes to London on an annual basis. The John Labatt Centre recently hosted an event that focused on rodeo and bull-riding. City staff has looked at numerous attempts to ban these types of performances and the Federal and Provincial statutes (e.g., Charter of Rights) that have been used to set precedent and prevent the municipality‘s ability to deny these exhibitions. We are also looking at the cost justification of this action considering the number of animal circuses have dwindled down to one per year and there are only a very limited number of other shows involving performing animals. C. Licensed Falconers Birds of Prey are kept in the Province for various reasons including hunting, abatement falconry (pest control), captive breeding and rehabilitation. Abatement falconry is the use of birds of prey to scare (not kill) nuisance birds away from airports where, according to Federal Aviation of the USA, bird strikes cost $500 million annually and in some cases lead to loss of human life. The birds used in Falconry are heavily protected through provincial and federal conservation acts and policies. The act of falconry is considered hunting and requires a license with an apprenticeship period. These policies and licences make entrance into this activity extremely restrictive making the number of actual falconers in London very low. D. Sale of Dogs and Cats in Pet Stores Several municipalities in British Columbia have looked at legislation to stop the sale of puppies and kittens in pet stores as an attempt to remove a resource used by puppy mills to sell their animals. The Toronto Sun reported that the City of Toronto‘s licensing and standards committee voted to require pet stores to buy cats and dogs from breeders certified by the City of Toronto and provide proof of where the animals were purchased. Reputable breeders would include registered humane societies, registered shelters, municipal animal shelters and rescue groups. Some areas use similar legislation to ―Lemon Laws‖ which requires information about where the pets come from and a return period if the animal is taken to a veterinarian and it was determined there was something wrong. This legislation does not prevent the stores from promoting pets or adopting pets supplied by local pounds, OSPCA, Humane Societies or rescue groups. E. Puppy Mills Currently, there is no effective legislation found that prevents the operation of Puppy Mills in Canada or the United States. Puppy Mills exist currently because of the lack of a legal definition of a puppy mill. Most definitions are colourful and descriptive conveying similar points as the following: PUPPY MILL refers to a high-volume, sub-standard dog-breeding operation, which sells purebred or mixed breed dogs, directly or indirectly to unsuspecting buyers. Some of the characteristics common to puppy mills are: (a) Sub-standard health and/or environmental issues; (b) Sub-standard animal care, treatment and/or socialization; (c) Sub-standard breeding practices which lead to genetic defects or hereditary disorders; (d) Erroneous or falsified certificates of registration, pedigrees and/or genetic background.


Page 210 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


52

Terms such as substandard, large scale, high volume lacks definition to be enforceable. Bylaws have to be clear, concise with some aspects that are measureable in order for enforcement to work. At this point in time limiting the number of pets is the only viable method F. Wildlife Rehabilitation

In consultation with an authorized wildlife custodian, there are only 7 foster homes operating in the London area. Of the 7 some rescue high needs animals usually for 24 hours while the others would be approved to care for 1 litter usually raccoons or squirrels for a season. In Ontario, Wildlife Rehabilitators are highly regulated by the Ministry of Natural Resources through the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. Minimum standards for this industry has been established through the International Wildlife Rehabilitation Council (IWRC) and the National Wildlife Rehabilitators Association (NWRA). People wishing to become wildlife custodians are encouraged to volunteer with authorized wildlife custodians. All new applicants must pass an Ontario Wildlife Rehabilitation Exam. The district office provides home-study materials. Wildlife rehabilitation is an important service that would benefit the City of London and additional research is required to address the appropriate bylaw changes. G. Establishing a 4th Dogs Off-leash Park Currently, Parks Planning is doing site evaluations to determine the next potential sites. Several sites have been evaluated based on specific criteria but were not suitable. There may be discussions and feasibility studies of implementing smaller areas or runs in parks where a large off-leash park is not suitable. H. Expanding Animal Control Services in City Parks

Staff is evaluating the pros and cons of expanding animal care and control services to:

The City of London‘s 3 off-leash dog parks

All the City of London parks

In evaluating this type of initiative, we must look at the challenges with respect to geography, time allocation, manpower constraints and method to best cover these areas effectively. I. Cat Care Program The goal is to develop resources to educate people on Responsible cat ownership with specific focus on spays /neuter, licensing and permanent identification. There are many resources currently available that have been produced that emphasize these ideas. Staff is looking at the advantages of using information produced by experts in the field or producing information that best matches the City of London‘s goals


Page 211 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


53

PART B Overview of Animal Welfare Activities for 2009 and 2010

BACKGROUND

The overall focus of the animal welfare initiatives are captured in five main areas:

To provide direct benefits for licensed/identified animals.

To inform owners about responsible pet ownership (e.g., licensing requirements, animal care).

To inform potential owners about the value and commitment required in owning an animal.

To provide a second chance for animals that have been abandoned or become strays.

To coordinate, assist and/or grow animal welfare initiatives that already exist in London. The general breakdown of the proposed animal welfare activities and expenditures dealing with cats and dogs was initially envisioned to be approximately 50/50 across these general areas noted below. This spilt has not been accurate as substantially more funds have been required for cats. Initiatives Geared to Responsible Dog Ownership and Community Programs (Dog Care Program):

Implementation of activities to benefit licensed dogs, with a targeted focus being directed towards Off-leash Parks

Dog Ownership & Partnership Program Adoption Initiatives

Initiatives Geared to Responsible Cat Ownership and Community Programs (Cat Care Program):

Implementation activities to benefit cats and the community, with a targeted focus being directed towards Spay/Neuter Programs

Understanding and managing feral cats in London Cat Ownership & Partnership Program Adoption Initiatives

During the summer of 2007, London Municipal Council passed a number of initiatives to assist animal welfare in London and established an annual expenditure budget of $100,000, which continued in 2009 and 2010. The funds for this annual expenditure come from dog licenses and cat identifications, and not from property taxes. Another source of funding dedicated to cats is the funds returned to the City by LACC based on the reduction in the number of confined cats created by the community and previously picked up by LACC as per the terms of the contract with the City. If these cats do not show up at the shelter, the City is reimbursed. The new initiative is referred to as the Cat Care Initiative. In 2009 and 2010, very little funding was available from this source because many Londoners dropped off cats at the shelter. OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES IN 2009 AND 2010

There have been a number of activities initiated in London to enhance animal welfare. These key initiatives are detailed below: Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) On March 27, 2008, AWAC held their inaugural meeting at City Hall. In 2009 and 2010, AWAC continued to report and advise Municipal Council, through the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee (formerly Environment and Transportation Committee) on issues relating to animal welfare within London. Some of the issues and initiatives relating to animal welfare within the City of London include, animal control legislation (municipal, provincial and federal); licensing and other fees; public education and awareness programs; off-leash dog parks; adoption programs; spay/neuter programs; feral cats; discussing and understanding animals in entertainment; and enforcement. Some of the contributions of AWAC include, conducting research, reporting on findings and making recommendations to Municipal Council on issues relating to animal welfare for domestic


Page 212 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


54

animals, urban wildlife and animals for use in entertainment. Farm animals do not, however, fall within the mandate of AWAC. Feral Cat Colony Demonstration Project On September 29, 2008, Municipal Council approved a demonstration project for up to 7 feral cat colonies under community management and City coordination. The project involved establishing a Trap Neuter Release (TNR) Program to address a growing feral cat population in the City. Animal rescue groups provided the expertise and trapping knowledge and the City provided support with equipment and finances to help cover the costs of the Spay / Neuter and rabies shot. The veterinary community graciously provided support by reducing cost to meet the challenge. By the end of 2009, this project achieved an approximate 80% completion rate over the seven colonies and supported in having approximately 106 cats fixed. The approved budget for this project was set at $17,000. It is important to note that this project exceeded its projected goal at initiation, which was to achieve a minimum TNR of 75% of the total population of cats at each site. See Appendix A for complete report. Feral and Stray Spay Neuter In an effort to proactively target the feral cat colonies and the stray cat population from becoming unmanageable, the City of London established a program to subsidized a portion of the cost of spaying, neutering and rabies vaccination. In 2009, 314 feral and stray cats were TNR‘d at a cost of $29,000 and in 2010, 344 cats were TNR‘d at a cost of $41,500. Note: there were a very small number of cats that were euthanized under TNR for health reasons. This is still an outcome and is included in the number and costs. Low-Income Spay Neuter In tough economic times, many pet owners struggle to afford the cost of fixing their pets as their disposable income becomes stretched. The City of London has provided a subsidy to help offset the cost of these procedures for qualified low income Londoners. In 2009, approximately 286 cats had been fixed at a cost of $30,600 and 3 dogs at a cost of $420. In 2010, 196 cats were fixed at a cost of $22,300 and 32 dogs at a cost of $6,600. Super Adoption Day Super Adoption day was initiated in 2008. This was an initiative intended to introduce the public to our shelters and rescue community, to stimulate adoption and to provide education to the public. Super Adoption Day has continued and was held in April of 2009 and 2010. This event has been very successful in finding homes for abandoned and rescued pets in London. Pawlooza In 2009, Leads Employment Services in London and ARF (Animal Rescue Foundation) organized a premier dog event which showcased dog related activities including rescue, adoption, pet supplies, training, etc. This was attended by approximately 9,000 people. The City of London was one of many sponsors and in 2010 had a booth presence to promote our dog parks, and our programs. Other Initiatives – Special Cat Trapping and Cat Fostering Trial Initiatives In 2010, the City recognized that certain pets required a longer period of care when being transferred from London Animal Care Centre to a foster home operated by one of the rescue groups. Time was needed to reduce the stress and provide specific care needs of these animals. Pets that come into the London Animal Care Centre that were pregnant, mothers with nursing kittens /puppies, injured pets requiring minor rehab were the main considerations for this initiative. In 2010, one new cat rescue group (specializing in trap neuter return) and the re-launch of a previously established cat rescue group (specializing in pregnant cats and mothers with nursing kittens) participated with in-kind time to match some funding to help offset costs. In total, about $21,000 was spent on these kinds of initiatives.


Page 213 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


55

Off-Leash Dog Parks Information boxes were installed at each dog park location to provide information on the rules of the dog parks and general information about pet ownership. Municipal staff continues to help London dog owner‘s with information displayed and provided at the 3 off-leash dog parks. Municipal staff from Customer Relations and Compliance continues to work with the City‘s Parks Planning area in efforts to establish a 4th off-leash park in the City. By-law and Municipal Policy Reviews and Research Work, research and support were continued in 2009 and 2010 and on-going in 2011 in the following areas:

Animals in entertainment, in particular, circuses.

Falconry.

Review of City By-laws PH3 (Animal Control By-law), PH4 (Dog Licensing and Control By-law) and PH12 (Pit Bull Dog Licensing and Control By-law) as they relate to barriers to animal welfare.

Pet fostering and the role of foster homes.

Web based tools for lost, found and pet adoption.

Animal welfare performance measures and standards used in other jurisdictions.

Responsible pet ownership – review of other jurisdictions (i.e., who does what).

Large adoption and shelter facilities.

Responsible Pet Owners and Cat Care Program. ANIMAL WELFARE RESERVE FUND As previously noted, Municipal Council approved an annual expenditure budget of $100,000 for animal welfare initiatives in 2007. The funds for this annual expenditure come from dog licenses and cat identifications and not from property taxes. Any unspent funds from this allocation, along with unspent funds from the Cat Care Initiative are placed into the animal welfare reserve.

Year Funds Remaining from

$100,000 Allocation

Cat Care Initiative (a)

Total Balance

2006 $62,825 No program $62,825 $62,825

2007 $64,270 $8,525 $72,795 $135,620

2008 $50,135 $21,027 $71,162 $206,782

2009 $21,519 $12,816 $34,334 $241,116

2010 $0.00 $0.00 $200(b) $241,316

Notes: a) The Cat Care Initiative started in August 2007. The City is re-imbursed $37 (2010) for cats

that do not show up at the shelter through delivery from Londoners. In 2009 and 2010, very little funding was available from this source because many Londoners dropped off cats at the shelter.

b) This amount was a donation towards off leash dog parks.


Page 214 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


56

Appendix A Feral Cat Colony Demonstration Project

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the status of the Feral Cat Demonstration Project with the purpose of establishing this as a permanent Trap, Neuter Return (TNR) program. Overview Spay/ Neuter initiatives are the only proactive measures to control and reduce community (feral) cats. Trap Neuter Return helps control the population of the discarded cats that are already surviving outdoors. (Note: targeted spay neuter to assist low income Londoners spay neuter their pets prevents the unwanted behaviours of cats such as marking, yowling, spraying etc. that causes the cat to be put outside. This is a separate program offered b the City). Community cats are breeding exponentially with a female cat being able to conceive at approximately 6 months of age, having 3 litters per year and with about 5 kittens per litter. Shelter facilities that receive community (feral) cats must keep them for the required redemption period. They would receive food and other required care. Community cats pose many challenges on an open admission shelter as they rarely have the space available to provide the necessary socialization required for community cats. In a shelter environment, community cats take the space of cats that have been lost and are more suitable for adoption. These situations currently exist at the LACC shelter. CONTEXT

On September 29, 2008, council passed a recommendation to establish a pilot project

consisting of up to 7 colony sites to implement a colony management system that involves Trap, Neuter and Return (TNR). Budget for the demonstration was estimated to range between $7,750 and $17,000. Establishing Colony Sites It was important to establish sites that represent a good cross-section of London‘s demographics. Sites would represent rural, residential and commercial as well as small, medium and large sized colonies. A media campaign tied into National Feral Cat Day (October 16) which used radio spots as well as poster and flyers, was used to bring about awareness for the problem. It also provided a means to find potential sites for demonstration. A veterinary dinner meeting was held Wednesday November 26, 2008 to illicit support for TNR and establishes basic protocols. The colony management method is only successful if it is a community based effort. Everyone in the neighborhood must be in support of the initiative. The colony caretakers would be responsible for identifying and tracking of all the colony cats as well as ongoing feeding, sheltering and care. The community caretakers would be able to identify new cats attaching to the colony and would be able to continue trapping once the majority of the colony has been through TNR. Methodology would be assessed over the course of the demonstration and the program would adapt and be modified based on situations and feedback.

Equipment Research was completed to determine the appropriate equipment required to do TNR. Live Traps were chosen based on recommendations from people and groups that have been involved with TNR. The traps must provide optimum safety for people doing the trapping and doing post-recovery care by ensuring there is always a barrier between the cat and hands of the caretaker.


Page 215 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


57

Outdoor Shelters were also made available to the colony managers to protect the cats from cold weather.

Demonstration Project Projected Cost

Category Item Total cost

Humane Traps/ Dividers $2,440

Outdoor Shelters $1,470

Advertising

Radio $3,030

Flyers and poster $290

Veterinary dinner $1,550 $4,870

Related costs/ Misc $140

Veterinary Services Spay/ Neuter $8,230

Total 17,150

The live traps would not be annual expenses of the program although there would be a need to replace if they become broken or worn. Outdoor shelters may be required from time to time based on need. Advertising was used to create awareness and would not be required again.

Colony Spay/Neuter Goal An article written by Merritt Clifford posted by Animal People indicates a 70% threshold is effective at reducing feral cat population and virtually eliminates the possibility of rabies being spread. Our goal is to achieve a minimum TNR of 75% of the total population of cats at each site with the help of Rescue volunteers. After receiving training, during the TNR process, the colony manager could TNR the remaining cats with minimum support freeing up the bulk of the resources for another site.

Colony Statistics Colony statistics are based on current data. Unfortunately, cats that have escaped their owners or have been abandoned attach themselves to these colonies in order to survive. Continued support with spay neuter is necessary to prevent the colony from increasing.

Colony Location Total # of cats

Spay/ neuter

Adopted Left colony

Died in surgery

Fetus

Ended

Remain

1 residential 29 25 ** 14 1 1 * 12

2 residential 25 21 ** 5 6 1 * 13

3 residential 9 7 0 0 0 14 9

4 residential 14 10 4 9 1 19 1

5 commercial 5 4 0 0 0 0 5

6 commercial 26 21 1 0 0 33 25

7 rural 22 18 0 6 1 * 13

Total 130 106 24 24 4 66 78

Notes:

* Colonies 1, 2, and 7, the statistics did not include fetus termination.

** 21 cats were spay or neutered under the city program between the two colonies, the remaining cats were spay or neutered by the colony managers.

Current as of 30/11/2010


Page 216 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


58

Notes, Results, Observations and Changes The overall Feral Cat Colony Demonstration was a greater success than anticipated considering the short period of time required to monitor the effects of attrition as a result of Trap Neuter Return on each colony. The following are some of the results and observations from the 7 colonies:

Number of cats spay/neutered as percentage of total population known is 82%. Factoring in the ones that died in surgery 85% of colony was completed

Overall population reduction of 40% over all 7 colonies.

Colonies 3, 4, 5, and 6 have a combined total of 53 cats and over those colonies there were 66 fetus terminations.

Original cost of $100 per cat was established for spay, neuter and rabies vaccination. With increasing costs and HST it was necessary to look at absorbing at least the HST amount to established price.

Situations did come up where surgery revealed a life threatening problem that was untreatable and in a couple of instances the cat had a reaction to the anesthetic and for humane reasons was euthanized. The veterinary clinics have been generous to charge only a minimum amount per cat for TNR but unavoidable circumstances presented themselves where there was a need to cover the costs such as testing for FIV for cats exhibiting symptoms, antibiotics for infections, euthanasia of adult cats, and euthanasia of mature fetus and treatable problems that presented itself during surgery. It would be only fair to assist in these costs as the veterinary community cannot be expected to cover all expenses outside of the $100.

Depending on the situation, initial vet costs for spay may start at approximately $180 and neuter $160. Other important care activities such as an exam, vaccinations, surgery, etc. can exceed $300 in some cases. The in-kind costs from vets were very important to the project and may have represented more than $8,000. The in-kind cost for food was impossible to calculate at the sites because the areas cannot be strictly controlled. There were many people providing food apart from the colony manager. In-kind time from animal rescue groups was on top of this as well.

Lost contact with the manager for colony #3. Numerous attempts were made by phone, email and visitation.

3 colony cats were turned in to the London Animal Care Centre and returned to site.

Residential areas have the most challenges due to geograghy, fencing, boundaries, traffic and disruptions as well as getting communal support from neighbors.

In residential areas, there is greater success trapping feral cats when the ground is frozen and snow covered (November to April). Reason is the warm weather provides a greater amount of alternative food sources such as moles, mice, grubs, insects and garbage. In the winter, the only food source is what the program provides.

Residential areas have a greater influx of new cats which tend to be more stray, abandoned or lost house cats. Many were not true feral. It is very important to be invisible to the public to prevent disruption of the colony by sightseers, to control the food source as the colony has capacity to expand to the amount of food available, prevent abandonment of unwanted pet cats and kittens and reduce the possibility of abuse of the colony cats.

Rural areas and barn cats are easier because cats are somewhat social and there is more containment and control over food sources.

Commercial areas had the greatest number of the true feral cats. Challenges come from co-ordinating a time where there is minimal commercial traffic and distractions.

Originally large spay/neuter days were set up at different veterinary clinics. Large spay days required a lot of planning. It was difficult to plan all the elements from staging areas, large


Page 217 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


59

number of experienced trappers, people to provide transport to and from vet offices and a veterinary clinic large enough to support a large trap and find someone with space large enough to monitor recovery care for the cats for 24 hours. Once the day was established there was huge pressure to catch a sufficient number of cats to justify the resources. We did have low trap numbers on two occassions, one because of bad weather and other due to the uncooperative nature of the cat. As result of this we went to booking spaces not days because it was easier to trap smaller numbers, allowed more veterinarians to participate, and less manpower was necessary. The number of veterinary clinics participating was 15.

During the site evaluation process, there was contact from an individual requesting consideration for TNR site. These areas have been trapped two or three times prior by one or more different rescue groups. This would merely be looked at as a clean up operation because the neighborhood was not engaged in the solution of the problem. Emphasis should be on providing assistance to community areas that want to fix their own problem.

Although rescuing animals is noble, there should be a clear distinction between TNR (with the focus of Trap Neuter and Return) and the role of Rescue Groups. Any animals deemed adoptable would not be covered by TNR funds if an adoption fee is to be charged for the adoption of that animal. There is already a revenue stream and covering the surgical cost would only dilute monies for TNR , Low Income Spay Neuter programs and other programs. Colony managers would be exempt if they are looking for homes for kittens and adoptables as they do not receive adoption fees or financial support for food and care.

Animal rescue groups continue to play an vital role in TNR. The City would still reimburse for TNR areas that the public comes directly to a rescue group for so long as the invoices indicate the cats were ear-tipped. Approvals could be given by area.

Other Municipalities Entering into TNR Programs

March 1,2010, Port Colborne Council carried a motion to approve $4,000 for TNR project through a local rescue group.

April 2010, the City of Orillia allocated $20,000 for surgery costs related to a TNR pilot project running between April and August of 2010. The City entered into agreements with a local rescue (Comfie Cat Shelter), Orillia Branch of OSPCA and representatives from the veterinary program at Georgian College's Orillia campus.

Toronto Animal Services established a 900 sq. ft. spay neuter facility for the purpose of altering Toronto‘s feral cat population.

Final Thoughts, Next Steps and Potential Direction The original seven sites will only require a minimum amount of help to spay or neuter the remaining cats as well as any newcomers. The bulk of the resources can be reallocated to new sites. We will be tracking all TNR cats for the purpose of identifying problem areas and to ensure that TNR cats that are brought into London Animal Care Centre are returned to the area they were picked up in. The City continues to receive calls regarding community cats and the desire to establish colonies. Currently, the scope of the Trap Neuter Return program has been to assist individuals with smaller colonies of 2 or 3 cats with the intent to prevent growth to a larger colony. These people with smaller areas could receive instruction and borrow a city owned trap. These cats may be somewhat socialized but they will remain un-owned and returned to the outdoor area where they were found. They will be cared for by the person who has been feeding and providing an outdoor shelter. These cats will also be ear-tipped.

In a future phase, it is possible to go from 7 to 12 more medium to large sites over the next two years with the added goal of a permanent program. The veterinary community has been extremely generous by keeping costs to $100. We need to review the cost price per cat as their costs have increased. There is a need to establish prices for situations encountered such as humane euthanasia of adult cat, humane euthanasia of


Page 218 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


60

mature fetus because of cost associated for the drugs used to terminate fetus and the disposal costs, and antibiotics for abscess. Orillia is budgeting for $116 per cat as a base amount. There is a need to cover on a case by case basis, flea and de-worming medications when there is no other alternative but to allow the cats to recover in a person‘s house or basement and especially if they have pets. There is a need to develop a clear understanding roles and parameters for partners involved with TNR including a letter of understanding for caregivers, colony managers and rescue groups. Colonies would need to be registered and be approved. City Bylaws PH-3 needs to be reviewed as currently they can be interpreted as not permitting feral cat colonies with a caretaker. PH-3 currently does not support TNR initiatives and could be interpreted as punishing the Good Samaritan for caring for the cats that were allowed to be at large or abandoned by their original owner. For example, the City of St. Thomas bylaw 53-96 exempt areas where TNR is preformed from bylaws pertaining to animal control so long as the area is preapproved by the municipality.


Page 219 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


61

PART C City of London’s Animal Care & Control Program Statistics

and Performance Indicators for 2009 and 2010

Details on the City of London‘s Animal Care & Control Program Statistics and Performance Indicators for 2009 and 2010 are covered in the following sections: 7. Background 8. General London Animal Care Centre Statistics 2007 to 2010 9. Statistics for Animal Returns, Claims and Adoptions 10. Other Ontario and Canadian Animal Service Statistics and Performance Indicators 11. Euthanasia Rates within the City of London versus Other Canadian, United States Cities

and Counties 12. City of London‘s Animal Care & Control Program Cost - 2007 to 2010 To support these sections, further details are contained in five appendices: Appendix A General Animal Control and Welfare Statistics and Performance Indicators 2009

to 2010 Appendix B LACC Statistics for Services Beyond Contractual Requirements - 2007 and 2010 Appendix C Return Rates, Claim Rates and Adoption Rates – Dogs & Cats - 2007 to 2010 Appendix D Euthanasia Rates within the City of London versus Other Canadian, U.S. Cities

and Counties Appendix E City of London‘s Animal Care & Control Program Cost - 2007 to 2010

1. Background The four primary services provided by the London Animal Care Centre (LACC) under contract to the City of London in 2009 and 2010 included: 1. Animal Control - a function designed primarily for the protection of residents and visitors to

London. Specifically the mandate covers control of: stray dogs sick, injured, or dying domestic or wild animals except those animals provided for by the

London Humane Society The services are delivered seven days a week, with some conditions. Other key features specified include: all animal related matters affecting public safety rescue matters where animals are in distress 24 hour "Emergency" service

2. By-law and Dog Owners’ Liability Act Enforcement which covers:

enforcing City of London by-laws: - PH-3 Animal Control By-law - PH-4 Dog Licensing & Control By-law - PH-5 Public Pound By-law - PH-12 Pit Bull Dog Licensing By-law

issuing Provincial Offences Notice (PONs) as follows: - Part I Certificates (can be paid out of court) - Part I Summons (requires the recipient to appear in court) - Part III Summons (requires the recipient to appear in court)

issuing Notice of Contravention (NOCs) - typically issued to allow a pet owner time to purchase identification

issuing Verbal and Written warnings: - PH-3, Animal Control By-law - PH-4, Dog Licensing & Control By-law - PH-12, Pit Bull Dog Licensing By-law

enforcing applicable provisions of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) and any regulations there under: - Investigation and enforcement on a complaint basis - Assist London Police Services (LPS) as requested by LPS or the City - Animal Control Officers to patrol for pit bulls as part of regular activities


Page 220 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


62

- Swearing (not serving) of Part III summons information under DOLA - Complete documentation of activities

3. Dog Licensing and Cat Identification Program which includes:

obtaining all necessary particulars before issuing the dog licences and cat identifications issuing all dog licences and cat identifications, and receiving and collecting licence and identification fees including the renewal process

4. Shelter (Pound) Services for stray animals - the facility, located at 121 Pine Valley

Boulevard, is designed to receive stray animals primarily from animal control officers, and, to a lesser extent, from the general public. The shelter is operated in accordance with the provisions of the Public Pound By-law, the Pounds Act, Animals for Research Act, the Municipal Act and all other applicable legislation. The shelter is constructed and maintained in accordance with Ontario regulation 17/80. Care and cleanliness within the pound complies with the standards designated by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Areas (OMAFRA).

All the above services are delivered under contract to the City by the London Animal Care Centre (LACC). In addition, the following services are provided directly by LACC (not under contract):

Adoption services for domestic animals

Domestic animal transfer services to partnering organizations in London and Southwestern Ontario

Outreach activities (education in schools & community groups, public relations events, etc)

Enhanced practices (e.g., Free Ride home, Meet Your Match adoption initiative, lost pet licensing matching services) to reunite pets and their owners

This report does not cover services (e.g., animal care, adoptions, etc.) provided through the London Humane Society (LHS) or animal rescue/support groups operating in the City of London, such as:

All Breed Canine Rescue

Animalert

Animal Love Foundation

Animal Outreach

Animal Rescue Foundation

Backyard Friends

Cats-R-Us

Holly‘s Hope Cat Rescue

London Dog Owner‘s Association

Loyal Dog Rescue

Pet Friends 4 Life

Tiny Paws

This report does acknowledge that in 2008, 2009 and 2010 a number of cats and dogs were transferred from LACC to a select number of animal rescue groups (partnering organizations in the City of London and Southwestern Ontario). City staff are grateful for all volunteer activities that occur with the animal rescue groups and acknowledge the very important contributions these groups and individuals make within London.

2. General London Animal Care Centre Statistics 2007 to 2010 The traditional statistics compiled by LACC are included in Appendices A and B for the last 4 years. Statistics for 2007 and 2008 have been previously released but are provided again for comparative purposes. Data for 2009 and 2010 are new. Some observations are as follows:

Overall the total number of animals (cats, dogs, injured wildlife) sheltered in 2010 increased by about 223 or by 7% compared to 2007. The number of community generated stray dogs sheltered in 2010 decreased by 5% compared with 2007. The number of community generated stray cats sheltered in 2010 increased by 19% compared with 2007. This increase in community cats being delivered to the shelter occurred despite the City‘s elimination of the confined cat pickup program in August 2007. Previously LACC picked up confined cats in the community as per the terms of the contract. The number of cats arriving at the shelter from the community has returned to levels experienced in 2005 and 2006.

The number of dog licences and cat identifications sold has remained very similar between 2007 and 2010. All revenue from the sale of dog licences and cat identifications is retained by the City of London (see Appendix E). There is a onetime fee paid to LACC for each new dog licence or cat identification sold to cover the costs of processing, mailing, system maintenance and administration.


Page 221 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


63

The responsible owners of pit bull dogs continue to diligently licence their pets on an annual basis according to City of London By-law PH-12 (Pit Bull Dog Licensing By-law). However, there is a significant segment of this ownership group that refuses to comply with this requirement. This portion of pit bull owners is consistently delinquent and contributes to significant workload as part of the daily activity of enforcement of By-law PH-12. In addition, the owner of a pit bull dog within London is required under By-law PH-12 to notify the Poundkeeper of any change to address or ownership so the licensing database can be updated and movement tracked. This obligation is rarely fulfilled and due to the transient nature of some pit bull dog owners many of the pit bull dogs licenced originally have now moved or the dog has been given away. This adversely affects the renewal numbers and causes a reduction in the licenced pit bull dogs on file. It is believed that many of the pit bull dogs previously licenced with the City are still within the boundaries of the City. These dogs and their owners continue to be discovered as part of enforcement calls or regular patrols and subsequently reinstated. With a certain portion of pit bull dogs always in delinquent status, transient populations and the inability to add new dogs to this licence database due to regulation, it is not surprising that licenced pit bulls have declined in the City. Workload remains significant, however there has been some reduction in put bull service calls and telephone inquiries. These remain very time consuming as Officers deal with many challenges in seeking long-term compliance with both Municipal and Provincial statutes.

The number of community generated dogs euthanized at the shelter has decreased by 37% since 2007 to 96 dogs. This represents the lowest number of dogs euthanized on record. LACC‘s services, increasing owner responsibility coupled with services from partnering organizations and Londoners‘ kindness and willingness to adopt have helped to lower these numbers.

The number of community generated cats euthanized at the shelter has increased by 32% since 2007 to 1,420 cats. This is a direct reflection of the increased number of cats dropped off at the shelter. The economic downturn in 2009 and 2010 has taken its toll on cats in two ways. First, the shelter experienced many owned cats being dropped off as ‗strays‘ when it was clear that these were owned cats. Second, the number of Londoners willing to adopt cats from the shelter and rescue groups was lower than in previous years despite focused efforts on adoption promotion and outreach activities. Furthermore, the reality of euthanasia stems directly from the increasing number of community generated strays. Without commitment to a long term and aggressive spay / neuter program to address the overpopulation issue, stray cat numbers will continue to rise. As the number of unwanted stray cats in the City increases, more cats are consequently delivered to the shelter and left unclaimed and are not adopted directly impacting euthanasia decisions.

One additional note is that about 40% of cats euthanized had a recognized illness. A number of cats treated did respond and were adopted, however space and incoming cats arriving daily limit the options for long-term treatment. The amount of space (e.g., foster homes, longer-term care facility) required to nurse these cats back to health is not currently available in London or area.

Services provided by LACC, outside the terms of the agreement with the City (Appendix B), have ensured that stray cats and dogs with a licence or identification are quickly reunited with their owners. This represents the greatest value of having a licence or identification and is a key part of the return rate explained in the next section. For example, LACC‘s Free Ride Home Program returns about 5 dogs per week to their owner because they were wearing their licence and there were no previous issues with the dog or owner.

Further data contained in Appendices A and B are used as part of the discussion in Section 3. Continuous Improvement – Challenges at Open Shelters and Adjustments Made at LACC’s Shelter Background Details provided in this Background section have been obtained from LACC staff and include details from two key resource books:

Infectious Disease Management in Animal Shelters (Editors Lila Miller and Kate Hurley) - Chapter 8 - Feline Upper Respiratory Disease (prepared by Dr. Janet Scarlett), 2009.


Page 222 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


64

Shelter Medicine for Veterinarians and Staff (Editors Lila Miller and Stephen Zawistowski), 2004. Sheltering community generated strays presents many challenges. This is in large part due to the fact that the majority of animals arriving into a shelter environment have limited or no prior exposure to veterinary care (e.g., vaccination schedule, etc.). In addition, many of these animals, after being strays, have been exposed to a wide range of infectious diseases which they are either harbouring or exhibiting upon entry into the shelter. This presents unique challenges for shelter environments where large numbers of animals are held over extended periods of time. Upper Respiratory Infection (URI) in cats, represents the most prevalent, visible and difficult to manage infectious agent in animal shelters. Essentially unvaccinated cats arrive at the shelter with undetected virus that can spread quickly. With that in mind, the focus is on the management of the frequent and chronic infections while protecting those cats not exhibiting symptoms. Management strategies are varied, but are primarily focused on reducing the stress on cats while in the shelter environment. Researchers have noted that 90% of all recurrent cases of URI are directly related to stress. In addition, the length of time spent in shelters is a significant risk factor for the development of URI. The risk of contracting URI rises significantly after spending 5 days in a shelter and increases between 5-13% daily thereafter. Treatment and vaccination are important aspects of the management strategy, but it must be acknowledged that treating URI in shelter cats differs from that of owned cats. Shelter cats are often highly stressed compromising their ability to resist infection. Vaccines are available for the agents that most commonly cause disease, but they do not work to prevent infection rather assist in lessening the severity of respiratory signs. The reasons for shelter groups being at highest risk are many, however, the basic reasons are due to unvaccinated cats entering the shelter, stress caused by entering a new environment, the increase in the number of cats entering and being cared for in shelter, the length of time spent within the shelter and the high number of at risk cats (kittens, young cats, aged cats) accepted by the shelter from the community. The open door nature of the shelter results in many weeks where it is not unusual to see 25 or more cats per day entering the shelter. Dr. Janet Scarlett, the director of Maddie‘s Shelter Medicine Program describes Upper Respiratory Tract Disease (URTD) as one of the most common and vexing problems for staff managing the health of cats in animal shelters. Dr. Scarlett goes on to say that the agents which cause URTD are common, highly infectious, and well adapted to cause disease, particularly in highly vulnerable shelter populations. Treating URTD in shelter cats differs from that of owned cats as shelter cats are often highly stressed compromising their ability to resist infection. Vaccines are available for the agents that most commonly cause disease, but they uniformly fail to prevent infection and often only lessen the severity of respiratory signs, rather than prevent them. URTD is the most common infectious syndrome in shelter animals. Many stray and unvaccinated cats harbour clinically silent or subtle calicivirus or herpesvirus infections which are the most common causes of all URTD cases. These cats will be entering shelters regularly. Most shelters live with the ambiguity of the subclinical carrier state and attempt to minimize transmission through good cleaning and disinfection, isolation of clinical cases and appropriate management strategies. It is no secret then that respiratory tract disease represents the most prevalent, visible, and difficult to manage infectious problem in all animal shelters. Feline URTD is ubiquitous in cat populations and those housed in groups (such as shelters) are at highest risk of URTD. The reasons for shelter groups being at highest risk are many, however the basic reasons are due to unvaccinated cats entering the shelter, stress caused by entering a new environment, the increase in the number of cats entering and being cared for in a shelter, the length of time spent within the shelter and the high number of at risk cats (kittens, young cats, aged cats) accepted by the shelter from the community. LACC‘s Strategy to Reduced Upper Respiratory Infection (URI) LACC worked in consultation with ASPCA (American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) professionals throughout 2009 & 2010 to discuss and examine URI challenges. Part of this consultation was a site visit in 2010. Throughout this timeframe many initiatives were discussed as opportunities to enhance the current program at LACC. Eight initiatives have been undertaken with detail provided by LACC below. As noted above, the main goal was to assist in reducing the stress of cats entering the shelter environment, noting that 90% of recurrent URI cases are stress related.


Page 223 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


65

1. Enhanced Enrichment Any source of stress (emotional, physical, and environmental) can potentially reduce the immune function (including responsiveness to vaccination) and increase shelter cats‘ susceptibility to the development of URTD or prolong their recovery. The goal is to reduce stress through provision of additional enrichment to cats entering the LACC shelter including:

soft music in shelter areas

toys

additional blankets, hidey boxes / Bags

treats / barley grass

neutral colours & plants in rooms

volunteers - enrichment through play, petting and interaction 2. Enhanced Segregation of Cat by grouping / Improved traffic flows

The segregation of incoming cats has always been a priority within the shelter environment. Young animals are not immunocompetent and risk exposure to infectious disease when introduced in close proximity to the adult population. Segregating by age is an important component of infection control. Feral cats may never have been vaccinated, are typically highly stressed and potentially infectious. Any unvaccinated cats within the population, constitutes a break in the window of protective immunity within the group. Any cats displaying signs and symptoms of illness must be segregated to limit the risk to the healthy population. Enhancements made include:

shelter renovations to assist with separation of specific wards

Pediatric Ward - new stainless steel cages added to new ward

Isolation Ward - all cats displaying symptoms - treatment and medication provided

Feral / Wild Cat Ward - addition of caging to create quiet isolation away from people and other animals

general cats - addition of new Stainless Steel Caging

reduce stress by enhancing traffic flow in shelter - eliminate dog / cat interaction 3. Vaccination on Intake

Animals come to the shelter from many different levels of owner care or lack of care. Most shelter animals have not received prior benefit from a routine preventative health care regiment. The resulting stress of entering a shelter, the shelter environment itself and several other factors contribute to an increased risk for developing illness. The likelihood of exposure to disease is often very high, and the consequences of infection potentially severe for both the affected animal and the shelter population. A well designed vaccine program can be the life saving tool to keep shelter animals healthy. Some vaccines provide protection within a few days or even a few hours of administration and can drastically reduce the frequency and severity of life threatening disease in the shelter and after release to adopters or rescue groups. It is important to remember that vaccination is not a magic potion for disease prevention. Even the best vaccines require time to provide protection and animals may enter the shelter already incubating the disease.

Most incoming strays are not vaccinated or are not up to date with vaccinations

Goal of vaccination on intake is to promote additional protection for incoming stray cats

Boosts antibodies to assist in fighting virus / secondary infection which cause URI (herpes, calici)

4. Parasite Control on Intake

Internal and external parasites may not always be apparent, but they are often uncomfortable for felines, potentially contagious to other animals and humans and they are draining to the immune system as a whole. LACC addresses all external parasites found during physical examinations to ensure the comfort of the incoming cat, to protect the present cat population, to reduce the overall immunocompromise and to reduce the potential of disease transmission to other animals and staff in light of other zoonotic disease threats. The goal of boosting the individual immunity level and reducing discomfort for sheltered cats is to create a situation where each animal is better equipped to resist illness and disease.

Treat parasites (when present) on incoming strays immediately

If parasites present impact immune system, drains strength and increases stress


Page 224 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


66

5. Sanitation procedures / protocols Sanitation is the root of a healthy animal shelter environment and a key component in maintaining the health of the animals housed in the shelter environment. In addition to regular reviews and assessments of the stringent sanitation and disinfection protocols currently in place, an evaluation of all surfaces and animal holding areas was undertaken to ensure that surfaces that could potentially harbour disease were replaced with impervious stainless steel.

Review procedures to ensure being completed in same fashion every time

Introduction of spot cleaning - less invasive, less stressful, reduces movement in shelter

Cleaning + Sanitation - not equal - very distinct

6. Standardized Treatment Protocol / Procedures There is no ‗magic potion‘ that can be provided to cats with URTD which will specifically eliminate the disease. Current medications are broad spectrum antibiotics used to build the immunity of the compromised animal to protect against secondary infections. Because URI in cats is primarily viral, treatment should rely mainly on supportive care while allowing the cat‘s immune system to do its job. Within the shelter environment, cats displaying signs or URTD are removed from the general population and segregated. Once segregated, supportive care & treatment are provided and health is monitored by staff and veterinarian.

7. Enhanced Adoption Programs

New initiatives include:

Meet Your Match adoption initiative, Fee waived adoptions, PetsMart satellite adoption centres, Transfers to other Municipalities, 2 for 1 adoption promotions, advertising and website promotion

Modification of adoption hours

Waiting lists / Wish lists for potential adopters 8. Reduction in Length of Stay

One of the most significant risk factors for the development of URTD, based on the results of two studies and anecdotal reports is the length of time spent in the shelter. The risk of contracting URTD rose significantly after spending about 5 days in the shelter and increased between 5% and 13% daily thereafter in these studies (Edinboro, Janowitz et al. 1999; Dinnage et al).

Identification of areas in process that diminish opportunity to move cats quickly through shelter - 100% Spay & Neuter = waiting for appointments - particularly pediatric spays / neuters (1- 3 additional weeks in wait time)

Reduced holding times by implementing own on-site Spay /Neuter suite - provide surgery immediately upon completion of redemption period

In house Spay / Neuter suite reduces stress - no transport from shelter to veterinarian, ability to recover in quiet area of shelter without need for additional handling and movement

3. Statistics for Animal Returns, Claims and Adoptions Detailed in Appendix C are the return rate, claim rate and adoption rate for cats and dogs. Each function is explained below. The return rate for cats and dogs is a function of the stray cat or dog wearing its licence or identification and LACC being able to find its owner through one of three initiatives: Free Ride Home Program Returned by Phone Returned by Phone After Hours

In these cases, the cat or dog is not impounded at the shelter. The claim rate for dogs and cats is a function of the stray dog or stray cat making it back to the owner because the owner claims the animal at the shelter versus the number of strays managed at the shelter. Using its own financial and human resources, LACC operates an adoption program. This is not a mandated program as part of the contract with the City of London. The adoption rate is derived based on the animals that are adopted via LACC from those animals that are not


Page 225 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


67

claimed by their owners (some cats and dogs do not have owners) plus animals that are surrendered by their owners. The success of an adoption program relies on the desire of individuals and families that wish to give an animal a second chance. Also included in this statistics is the work of Animal Rescue groups who foster then adopt cats and dogs. This is a separate line item reported in Appendices B and C. The Combined Return/Claim/Adoption Rate blends together all activities.

Return, Claim and Adoption Rates for Dogs 2007 2008 2009 2010

Return Rate (as a % of all dogs managed) 60% 56% 55% 51%

Claim Rate (as a % of dogs that enter the shelter) 55% 58% 60% 59%

Adoption Rate (as a % of unclaimed dogs) 57% 57% 62% 68%

Combined Return/Claim/Adoption Rate 92% 92% 93% 93%

Return, Claim and Adoption Rates for Cats 2007 2008 2009 2010

Return Rate (as a % of all cats managed) 8% 8% 5% 5%

Claim Rate (as a % of cats that enter the shelter) 6% 6% 4% 6%

Adoption Rate (as a % of unclaimed cats) 30% 35% 30% 25%


To summarize, basically just over 9 out of every 10 community generated dogs (93%) managed by LACC are either reunited or adopted. As noted above, with respect to adoptions, some dogs are adopted through partnering organizations. With respect to cats, basically just about 3 out of every 10 community generated cats (32%) managed by LACC are either reunited or adopted. It must be noted that like dogs, some cats are adopted through partnering organizations. When comparing the percentage change in return, claim and adoption rates between 2007 and 2010 (table on next page), the data show very little overall change with dogs, in part, because the Combined Return/ Claim/Adoption Rate has stayed high for four years. During this period the return rate has slid while the adoption rate has increased. As noted in Section 1, the challenge with respect to the increase in the number of cats being delivered to the shelter since 2007 has had a direct impact on the Combined Return/Claim/ Adoption Rate. These numbers are consistent with many other Canadian municipalities. Fortunately, there are some communities that are leading the way with respect to cats.

Return, Claim and Adoption Rates for Dogs 2007 2010 %’age Change from 2007

Return Rate (as a % of all dogs managed) 60% 51% -15%

Claim Rate (as a % of dogs that enter the shelter) 55% 59% 2%

Adoption Rate (as a % of unclaimed dogs) 57% 68% 19%

Combined Return/Claim/Adoption Rate 92% 93% 1%

Return, Claim and Adoption Rates for Cats 2007 2010 %’age Change from 2007

Return Rate (as a % of all cats managed) 8% 5% -38%

Claim Rate (as a % of cats that enter the shelter) 6% 6% 0%

Adoption Rate (as a % of unclaimed cats) 30% 25% -17%

Combined Return/Claim/Adoption Rate 38% 32% -16%

Although some of these trends are encouraging and provide a solid foundation for further improvements, it is clear that substantially more work is required with community generated cats. In its simplest form, these are the key pieces that must occur to substantially reduce the number of cats euthanized per year in London:


Page 226 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


68

Implement a very visual and/or high volume spay/neuter program to reduce the number of cats being born.

Take care of ―community‖ (feral) cats including establishing more colony caretakers. Promote and encourage responsible and respectful cat ownerships (guardianship) including

having the cat identified with a London tag and microchipped. Increase adoption of existing spayed/neutered cats from animal shelters and animal rescue

groups (and not from other sources). 4. Other Ontario and Canadian Animal Service Statistics and Performance

Indicators Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) – Data for 2009

Fifteen municipalities are part of the Ontario Municipal Benchmarking Initiative (OMBI) process. Eight of the 15 municipalities report a few statistics dealing with dog and cat licensing and in 2009, a new category was added called Percent Recovery of Animal Control Costs. OMBI includes a number of regional municipalities that do not have responsibility for animal services as these are typically delivered at the local level. Data are reported below for those municipalities that participate in this portion of the exercise with additional comments after the table.

Number of Dog Licences/Registration Issued Per 100,000 Population (rank)

Number of Cat Licences/Registration Issued Per 100,000 Population (Rank)

Estimated Percent Recovery of Animal

Control Costs (Rank)

Barrie 2,676 (6) 778 (5) 10% (8)

Hamilton 5,859 (2) (a) 35% (3)

London 7,460 (1) 3,703 (1) 53% (1)

Ottawa 3,553 (4) 1,745 (2) 45%(b) (2)

Sudbury 3,664 (3) 903 (4) 32% (4)

Thunder Bay 2,338 (7) 605 (6) 13% (7)

Toronto 2,310 (8) 1,192 (3) 28%(b) (5)

Windsor 3,494 (5) (a) 22%(b) (6)

Notes: (a) Hamilton and Windsor do not licence/register cats (b) Licence revenue data for these three communities was incomplete in the OMBI database.

These data were obtained from budget documents in these three municipalities therefore accurate details should be obtained directly from these municipalities

For all 3 performance indicators, London ranks number 1 for the reporting municipalities: For the number of licenced/registered dogs per 100,000 people, London has 27% more

licenced/ registered dogs than the second ranked community (Hamilton)

For the number of licenced/registered cats per 100,000 people, London has over 110% more licenced/ registered cats than the second ranked community (Ottawa)

For the estimated percent recovery of animal control costs, London recovers 18% more of

its costs than the second ranked community (Ottawa) Canadian Federation of Humane Societies The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies annually collects shelter statistics from its membership. Data for 2008 was collected from August until October 2009. Results were received from 100 shelters – 88 of these were humane societies/SPCAs, including British Columbia and Ontario branches and 12 were rescue organizations. This represents about a 60% response rate from humane societies/SPCAs. How these shelters characterize their operations is very important as it impacts the statistics: 40% indicated that they are an open admission shelter (i.e., cats or dogs are not turned away) 44% indicated that they were not an open admission shelter (e.g., the shelter does not have to

accept animals) 12% indicated that they were a ―no kill shelter;‖ however the term was not defined.


Page 227 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


69

With respect to the percentage of cats and dogs being euthanized at these 100 shelters, the table below indicates that there are many similarities in the data, noting that about 50% of the Humane Society shelters do not have to take cats and dogs if their shelter is full or they have other reasons. The open admission shelter services contracted by the City of London are consistent, on average, with humane societies that are not all open admission.

2008 Data Humane Societies (mix of Open and Restricted

Admission)

LACC (Open Admission) Shelter

Dogs Euthanized 19% 18%

Cats Euthanized 54% 58%

Total Dogs & Cats Euthanized 43% 44%

These data emphasize the challenge with cats at shelter facilities Canada-wide and the need for increased investment and commitment towards cats.

5. Euthanasia Rates within the City of London versus Other Canadian, United

States Cities and Counties Euthanasia rates are important because so many animal welfare initiatives (e.g., adoption programs, spay/neuter, etc.) are designed to reduce the euthanasia of healthy and treatable cats and dogs. Public data in Canada on the number of cats and dogs euthanized has improved in the last couple of years but it is still limited. What appears to be the most comprehensive statistics on this subject matter are published by ANIMAL PEOPLE for numerous cities and counties in the United States and for 4 cities in Canada. The most recent data compiled are from July/August 2010. In the July/August 2005 ANIMAL PEOPLE article and reported in previous City reports, the following was noted:

―For most cities in most parts of the U.S., 5.0, is for all practical purposes the threshold of achieving no-kill animal control, as on average about five animals per 1,000 humans will be too severely injured, ill, or dangerous to save‖ (article entitled Shelter killing drops after upward spike), July/August 2005, ANIMAL PEOPLE; article on line at www.animalpeoplenews.org).

City staff contacted Merritt Clifton in May 2010 to receive additional comments and insight and to share London data for the upcoming issue of ANIMAL PEOPLE (summer 2011). The number of 5 euthanasias per 1000 residents annually still remains an appropriate measurement threshold for comparisons. However, it is recognized that programs should be targeting lower than this to continue to push forward with stronger animal welfare programs. Key points raised by Merrit Clifton in earlier discussions indicated that comparisons require the following:

Must merge both city shelter and any humane shelter statistics together.

Best comparators will be those with similar climate to London (i.e., northern U.S. cities and counties). Appendix D contains U.S. cities and counties that represent the best available comparators with London.

Data for London are on the next page. London has been below the threshold of 5.0 euthanasias per 1,000 residents since 2004. Based on data presented in the previous sections, the number of animals euthanized per 1,000 residents has gone up to 4.7 in 2010. This increase in due to the increased number of cats being delivered to the shelter and lower claim and adoption rates than in previous years. The lowest number reached was in 2008 at 3.6. Since 2002, there has been over a 25% reduction in the number of animals euthanized per 1,000 residents in London. The number peaked in 2008 at over a 40% reduction. This peak was due in large part to it being the first full year in which pickup of cats was eliminated as a service to Londoners. Since that time the public has become accustomed to delivering cats to the shelter free of charge. Therefore, numbers have returned to rates seen prior to the change. There is much more work to be done. However, compared to this established benchmark, London is doing very well.


Page 228 of 345

http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/

lkucera

Text Box


70

Year Animals Euthanized per 1,000 Residents

Population (a)

Number Euthanized at City

Shelter

Cats / Dogs

Estimated Number

Euthanized at London Humane

Society(b)

Estimated Total Number of Cats

& Dogs Euthanized

2010 4.7 365,200 1,420 96 200(c) 1,716

2009 4.5 362,000 1,337 102 200(c) 1,639

2008 3.6 358,800 947 143 200(c) 1,290

2007 4.2 355,600 1,075 153 200(c) 1,498

2006 5.0 352,400 1,372 206 192 1,770

2005 5.0 352,000 1,406 190 157 1,753

2004 4.6 348,100 1,364 133 110 1,607

THRESHOLD = 5.0 Euthanasias per 1,000 Residents

2003 5.3 344,300 1,411 255 158 1,824

2002 6.4 340,400 1,524 293 352 2,169

(a) Population data provided by the City of London Planning & Development Department (b) 2002 to 2006 data provided by the London Humane Society (c) 2007 to 2010 data is an estimate based on the 5 year average between 2002 and 2006

Comparison with Other Canadian, United States Cities and Counties For the first time in 10 years, ANIMAL PEOPLE has also reported data on 4 Canadian cities; Toronto (2008), Calgary (2008), Edmonton (2008) and Montreal (2007) and a nation-wide estimate for Canada (Animal People July/ August). The table below highlights primarily 2008 data for the United States, Canada and the 4 cities reported in ANIMAL PEOPLE.

Animals Euthanized per 1,000 Residents Year

Population 2008

Total Number of Cats & Dogs Euthanized

United States 11.6 2008 307,007,000 3,560,658

Canada 4.2 2008 33,213,000 139,495

Toronto 2.1 2008 2,632,000 5,526

Calgary 3.1 2008 1,043,000 2,803

London 3.6 2008 358,800 1,290

Edmonton 6.5 2008 782,000 5,107

Montreal 7.4 2007 1,621,000 12,000

In 2008, London was below the estimated Canadian average. This also represents London‘s lowest rate of animals euthanized per 1,000 residents. As noted, in 2010 the London rate has increased to 4.7. Table D-1 in Appendix D (Euthanization Rates – Best Available Comparator Group for City of London - Data for Northern Cities/Counties in the United States Between 2005 and 2009) indicates two important items:

There are a number of cities and counties with lower euthanasia rates than London and each represents opportunities to learn from proven experience on what may assist London improve its programs and convince more Londoners to become responsible pet owners.

The euthanasia rate in the City of London (2005 to 2010) is below many U.S. cities and counties where statistics have been reported in a comparable manner and within a 10 hour drive of London. This illustrates that many initiatives in London or at the City (e.g., the City‘s licensing and identification program, LACC‘s pet adoption program, animal rescue group activities) are performing reasonably well.


Page 229 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


71

Table D-2 in Appendix D (Euthanization Rates – Best Available Data for any Published Cities in North America, 2005 – 2009) indicates that there are a number of better performing cities and counties across the U.S. that may have interesting programs and approaches worth exploring. It is important to note that some of these cities and counties may have larger budgets available, varying responsibilities (animal control versus humane society), and other opportunities unique to their locale (advanced transfer arrangements) similar to San Francisco.

6. City of London’s Animal Care & Control Program Cost - 2007 to 2010 The net program cost for the City‘s Animal Care and Control Program was $1,174,421 in 2010 (Appendix E). On a per household basis this amount translates to $7.08 per household in 2010. It is important to note that pet owners that buy licences or tags pay more than this average amount as it is these revenues (from pet owners) that reduce overall program cost. In 2007, the City introduced a number of animal welfare initiatives and the activity increased in the following years. Payments for contracted services to LACC in 2010 were $1,960,009 for the six main service categories provided under this contract (additional details provided at the beginning on Part A):

Animal Control Services

Pound Services

Animal Control Services - Pit Bulls

Pound Services - Pit Bulls

Muzzling by-law and appeals

Licensing and identifications – one-time fee for new licences/identification. This amount has increased by about 7% over the last 4 years (basically inflation each year). Total program expenditures equalled $2,365,802 which included the services for animal welfare initiatives and coordination which are outlined in Part B. Dog licensing and cat identification fees equalled $1,191,381 in 2010 based on 26,449 licenced dogs and 12,603 identified cats. These fees significantly offset the expenditure for animal control services to the City. In 2010, 50% of animal care & control program costs were covered by fees. Licensing revenue was down by 1% ($15,600) in 2010. It is important to note that the City loses licences/identifications every year due to owner‘s moving out or away, owners reporting dogs and cats deceased, owners failing by neglect or intent to update address information and owner choosing to simply not renew their licence/identification until they are caught and required to do so. Were it not for the active delinquent licence/identification program, the ‗new‘ licences/identifications would not offset this attrition and without the ‗new‘ sales to replace the true attrition of licences/identification, the City would see a steady decline in licence numbers. Actively pursuing delinquent tags and the continual focus on obtaining new tags both play a large factor in replacing the attrition and contributing to modest gains in the program. The licensing/ identification programs are a constant and daily priority for LACC without which a steady decline in tags and revenue would become the norm. The licensing and identification focus continues to be the very best activity for saving the lives of community pets.


Page 230 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


72

APPENDIX A List of General Animal Control and Welfare Statistics and Performance Indicators

2007 to 2010

A-1 Shelter Statistics 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Total number of Community generated animals sheltered

3,269 3,140 3,662 3,492

2 Total number of animal related complaints/investigations

9,240 11,758 11,833 12,210

A-2 Dog Licensing & Cat Identification Activities 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Number of dog licences sold for current year 24,878 25,636 27,020 26,449

2 Number of dog licences ‗pre-sold‘ for new year 10,449 10,676 10,620 10,709

3 Number of cat identification tags sold for current year

12,715 12,958 13,414 12,603

4 Number of cat identification tags ‗pre-sold‘ for new year

5,041 4,989 4,796 4,734

5 Number of new households with a 1st time dog licence

4,128 4,670 4,516 4,625

6 Number of new households with a 1st time cat identification tag

3,112 2,843 2,413 2,369

A-3 Dog Activities 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Community generated strays sheltered 785 811 701 747

2 Number surrendered by owner 0 0 0 0

3 Number wearing a tag and claimed 52 43 61 40

4 Number wearing a tag and not claimed 0 0 0 0

5 Number community generated strays not wearing a tag, claimed & purchased tag

372 423 358 400

6 Community generated strays not wearing a tag, not claimed & not suitable for placement into new home

153 143 102 96

7 Number surrendered and not suitable for placement

0 0 0 0

8 Number of DOA dogs 9 8 6 7

A-4 Pit bull Activities 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Number of Pit bull dogs impounded 69 60 35 34

2 Number of Pit bull dogs licenced 685 681 580 520

3 Number completed compliance process & claimed subject to incremental enforcement

16 23 22 17

4 Number of Pit Bull related service calls 1,977 2,045 1,713 1,362

5 Number of Written Warnings issued PH-12 544 631 527 431

6 Number of Part I Certificate of Offence Notices issued PH-12

120 200 165 167

7 Number of Part III Summons issued PH-12 1 15 4 0


Page 231 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


73

A-4 Pit bull Activities (continued) 2007 2008 2009 2010

8 Number of Written Warnings issued DOLA 337 364 267 256

9 Number of Part III Summons issued DOLA 0 0 0 1

10 Number of Pit Bull related telephone inquiries 1,140 506 735 578

A-5 Biter/Aggressive Dog Activities 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Number of dog bite investigations 256 272 311 272

2 Number of ―Muzzle Orders‖ issued 49 72 55 53

3 Number of ―Notice of Caution‖ 102 108 110 104

A-6 Cat Activities 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Community generated strays sheltered 1,764 1,629 2,035 2,096

2 Number surrendered by owner 0 0 0 0

6 Number wearing a tag and claimed 5 5 3 7

7 Number wearing a tag and not claimed 0 0 0 0

8 Number community generated strays not wearing a tag, claimed & purchased tag

94 85 83 114

10 Number surrendered, placed with new tag into new home

0 0 0 0

11 Community generated strays not wearing a tag, not claimed & not suitable for placement into new home

623 487 727 848

12 Number surrendered and not suitable for placement

0 0 0 0

13 Number of DOA cats 88 108 52 44

14 Number of unvaccinated community generated cats impounded with Feline Panleukopenia or other pandemics and not adoptable

452 460 610 572

A-7 Wildlife/Other Activities 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Number of sick/injured wildlife impounded 526 518 816 537

2 Number of sick/injured wildlife sent to Wildlife Custodian

37 40 58 38

3 Number of ‗other‘ domestic animals impounded 97 66 52 61

4 Number of DOA wildlife 65 63 68 47

5 Number of telephone calls referred to Wildlife Custodian

777 500 402 294


Page 232 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


74

APPENDIX B London Animal Care Centre

Statistics for Services Beyond Contractual Requirements - 2007 and 2010 (LACC’s additional services to London pet owners)

Dog Claim Activities 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Number stray, wearing a tag & returned to owner on ―Free Ride Home‖ program

314 306 227 249

2 Number stray wearing a tag & returned to owner by phone

728 600 474 434

3 Number stray wearing a tag & returned to owner by After Hours Emergency Officer

115 137 147 110

Dog Adoption Activities 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Number placed with new tag into new home 201 131 106 169

Dog Transfer Activities 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Number transferred to partnering organizations 0 62 65 34

Cat Claim Activities 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Number stray, wearing a tag & returned to owner on ―Free Ride Home‖ program

9 2 0 4

2 Number stray wearing a tag & returned to owner by phone

128 106 83 77

3 Number stray wearing a tag & returned to owner by After Hours Emergency Officer

20 25 26 20

Cat Adoption Activities 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Number placed with new tag into new home 466 428 342 338

Cat Transfer Activities 2007 2008 2009 2010

1 Number transferred to partnering organizations 0 70 218 144


Page 233 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


75

APPENDIX C

Return, Claim and Adoption Rates - Dogs & Cats - 2007 to 2010 (Data from Annual Performance Statistics - Appendix A)

Dog Statistics 2007 2008 2009 2010

LACC's Free Ride Home Program 314 306 227 249

Returned by Phone using Tag 728 600 474 434

Returned by Phone by After Hours 115 137 147 110

Total Returned 1,157 1,043 848 793

Community generated strays sheltered 785 811 701 747

Total Managed 1,942 1,854 1,549 1,540

Return Rate for Dogs 2007 2008 2009 2010




Total Returned 1,157 1,043 848 793

Return Rate 60% 56% 55% 51%

Claim Rate for Dogs 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number wearing a tag and claimed 52 43 61 40

Number not wearing a tag, claimed and purchased tag 372 423 358 400

Total Claimed 424 466 419 440

Community generated strays sheltered 785 811 701 747

Number of dogs dead on arrival (DOA) 9 8 6 7

Total Available to be Claimed 776 803 695 740

Claim Rate 55% 58% 60% 59%

Adoption Rate for Dogs 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number placed with new tag into new home 201

131 106 169 Number transferred to rescue groups, placed in new

home -

62

65


0 0 0 0

Total Adopted 201

193

171

203

Total Available to be Claimed 776

803

695

740 Number surrendered by owner - - - -

776

803

695

740 Less - the number claimed

424

466

419

440 Number available for adoption 352

337

276

300

Adoption Rate 57% 57% 62% 68%

Combined Return/Claim/Adoption Rate for Dogs 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Returned 1157 1,043 848 793


Total Adopted 201 193 171 203

Total 1,782

1,702

1,438

1,436

Total Managed 1,942 1,854 1,549 1,540



Page 234 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


76

APPENDIX C (continued) Return, Claim and Adoption Rates - Dogs & Cats - 2007 to 2010

(Data from Annual Performance Statistics - Appendix A)

Cat Statistics 2007 2008 2009 2010




Total Returned 157 133 109 101 Community generated strays sheltered 1,764 1,629 1,629 1,629

Total Managed 1,921 1,762 1,738 1,730

Return Rate for Cats 2007 2008 2009 2010

LACC's Free Ride Home Program 9

2

- 4 Returned by Phone using Tag

128

106

83

77 Returned by Phone by After Hours 20

25

26

20 Total Returned

157

133

109

101

Return Rate 8% 8% 6% 6%

Claim Rate for Cats 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number wearing a tag and claimed 5

5

3

7 Number not wearing a tag, claimed and purchased tag

94

85

83

114 Total Claimed 99

90

86

121

Community generated strays sheltered 1,764

1,629

1,629

1,629 Number of cats dead on arrival (DOA)

88

108

52

44 Total Available to be Claimed 1,676

1,521

1,577 1,585

Claim Rate 6% 6% 5% 8%

Adoption Rate for Cats 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number placed with new tag into new home 466

428

342

338 Number transferred to rescue groups, placed in new

home -

70

218


0 0 0 0

Total Adopted 466

498

560

482

Total Available to be Claimed 1,676

1,521

1,577

1,585 Number surrendered by owner - - - -

1,676

1,521

1,577

1,585

Less - the number claimed 99

90

86

121 Number available for adoption

1,577 1,431

1,491

1,464

Adoption Rate 30% 35% 38% 33%

Combined Return/Claim/Adoption Rate for Cats 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Returned 157 133 109 101


Total Adopted 466 498 560 482

Total 722

721

755

704

Total Managed 1,921 1,762 1,738 1,730



Page 235 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


77

APPENDIX D Euthanasia Rates within the City of London versus Other U.S. Cities and Counties

Table D-1: Euthanization Rates – Best Available Comparator Group for City of London - Data for Northern Cities/Counties in the United States Between 2005 and 2009(a)

Municipality State/

Province


Population (in thousands)

Total Number of Cats & Dogs

Euthanized

Brookhaven New York 1.0 2009 500 475

Parke-Vermillion Indiana 1.5 2009 17 25

New York City(b) New York 2.1 2009 8,300 17,080

Toronto Ontario 2.1 2008 2,632 5,526

St. Charles County Missouri 2.4 2009 349 820

Oakland County Michigan 2.6 2009 1,202 3,125

Calgary Alberta 3.1 2008 1,043 2,803

London Ontario 3.6 2008 359 1,290

Dane County Wisconsin 3.8 2009 477 1,797

Mason County Michigan 3.9 2007 30 166

Duluth Minnesota 4.0 2009 86 344

London Ontario 4.2 2007 356 1,498

London Ontario 4.5 2009 362 1,639

London Ontario 4.6 2004 348 1,607

London Ontario 4.7 2010 365 1,716

Snohomish Washington 4.7 2005 639 3,000

Milwaukee Wisconsin 4.8 2005 1,700 8,162

London Ontario 5.0 2006 356 1,770

London Ontario 5.0 2005 352 1,753


Livingston County Michigan 5.9 2009 183 1,084

St. Louis Missouri 5.9 2009 356 2,105

Portland/Multnomah Oregon 6.1 2009 2,049 12,500

Edmonton Alberta 6.5 2008 782 5,107

Chicago Illinois 6.7 2008 2,851 19,228

Macomb County Michigan 7.2 2007 833 6,000

Montreal Quebec 7.4 2007 1,621 12,000

Jefferson City Missouri 8.5 2009 224 1,900

Porter County Indiana 8.7 2007 160 1,384

Dayton/Montgomery Ohio 10.1 2009 538 5,431

Philadelphia Pennsylvania 10.5 2008 1,611 15,286

Kansas City Missouri 10.9 2008 452 4,912

Quad Cities Illinois 12.7 2009 312 3,944

Sangamon County Illinois 14.7 2008 195 2,857

St. Clair County Michigan 15.3 2007 170 2,600

Source: ANIMAL PEOPLE; July/August 2010 (with the exception of London data) Notes: (a) represents cities and counties in close proximity to London (within approximately a 10 hour

drive and/or with a similar climate). (b) New York City is unique because of its high population density due to the number of high-rise

buildings.


Page 236 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


78

Table D-2: Euthanization Rates – Best Available Data for any Published Cities in North America (2005 – 2009)

Municipality State


Population (in thousands)

Total Number of Cats & Dogs Euthanized

Brookhaven New York 1.0 2009 500 475

Mission Viejo California 1.0 2005 166 165

New Castle/Sussex Delaware 1.2 2009 727 880

San Juan Capistrano California 1.3 2007 37 48

San Francisco California 1.3 2009 815 1,031

Parke-Vermillion Indiana 1.5 2009 17 25

New York City(a) New York 2.1 2009 8,300 17,080

Toronto Ontario 2.1 2008 2,632 5,526

Whidbey Island Washington 2.2 2009 60 132

St. Charles County Missouri 2.4 2009 349 820

Montrose Colorado 2.5 2009 16 383

Huntington Beach California 2.5 2006 194 485

Oakland County Michigan 2.6 2009 1,202 3,125

Calgary Alberta 3.1 2008 1,043 2,803

Reno/Washoe Nevada 3.5 2009 414 1,453

London Ontario 3.6 2008 359 1,290

Dane County Wisconsin 3.8 2009 477 1,797

Mason County Michigan 3.9 2007 30 166

Duluth Minnesota 4.0 2009 86 344

San Diego California 4.0 2007 2,942 11,700

London Ontario 4.2 2007 356 1,498

London Ontario 4.5 2009 362 1,639

London Ontario 4.6 2004 348 1,607

London Ontario 4.7 2010 365 1,716

Snohomish Washington 4.7 2005 639 3,000

London Ontario 5.0 2006 356 1770

London Ontario 5.0 2005 352 1,753


Los Angeles City California 5.1 2009 3834 19,561

Planco Texas 5.3 2009 268 1,430

Santa Barbara California 5.3 2008 405 2,136

Livingston County Michigan 5.9 2009 183 1,084

St. Louis Missouri 5.9 2009 356 2,105

Salt Lake City Utah 6.0 2005 1,061 6,370

Portland/Multnomah Oregon 6.1 2009 2,049 12,500

Weld County Colorado 6.2 2009 244 1500

Edmonton Alberta 6.5 2008 782 5,107

Chicago Illinois 6.7 2008 2,851 19,228

Los Angeles Total California 6.8 2007 9,503 64,457

Montreal Quebec 7.4 2007 1,621 12,000

Source: ANIMAL PEOPLE; July/August 2010 (with the exception of London data) Notes: (a) New York City is unique because of its high population density due to the number of high-

rise buildings.


Page 237 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


79

APPENDIX E City of London’s Animal Care & Control Program Cost - 2005 to 2008

The figures presented in this Appendix have been transferred from the City‘s budgeting and program monitoring system. Notes are added at the bottom of the table to assist the reader.

Notes Operating Cost/Revenue

Area 2007 2008 2009 2010

Expenditures

a. All Purchased Services - LACC

$1,833,513 $1,889,131 $1,926,290 $1,960,009

b. Equipment & Vehicles $109,396 $119,647 $121,284 $115,847

c. Purchased Services - Other $59,242 $49,979 $615 $203

d. Transfers and Animal Welfare Coordination

$64,904 $103,513 $58,829 $65,763

e. Animal Welfare $0 $0 $161,580 $223,980

Total Expenditures $2,067,055 $2,162,270 $2,268,598 $2,365,802

Revenues

f. User Fees $1,116,368 $1,152,840 $1,206,977 $1,191,381

Total Revenues $1,116,368 $1,152,840 $1,206,977 $1,191,381

g. Net Program Cost $950,687 $1,009,430 $1,061,621 $1,174,421

Estimated Number of Households 159,550 161,650 163,750 165,850

Net Cost Per Household $5.96 $6.24 $6.48 $7.08

Notes:

a. Expenditures are for the following services: Animal Control Services; Pound Services; Animal Control Services - Pit Bulls; Pound Services - Pit Bulls; Muzzling by-law and appeals; onetime fee for new licenses/identification.

b. Expenditure covers internal and external rental of Animal Control Officer vehicles, telephones and radio equipment.

c. For 2007 and 2008, expenditure covers animal welfare initiatives. In 2006, the entire annual amount was listed but not spent (The unused balance was transferred to the Animal Welfare Reserve Fund). For 2009 and 2010, this line represents some minor miscellaneous costs.

d. For 2007 and 2008, this line represents a combination of i) City Hall licensing/ID revenue transferred to LACC and then returned as a User Fee, ii) and the amount of unspent Animal Welfare funding transferred to the reserve fund and iii) animal welfare coordination. Between 2006 and 2007, the City's Animal Care & Control Program underwent major financing revisions and introduced new services. For 2009 and 2010 this line represents only licensing fees transferred from City Hall to LACC then returned.

e. All Animal Welfare costs are now contained in a separate account.

f. As of 2006, all dog licensing and cat identification fees are retained by the City of London.

g. Net program costs reflect the amount that must be paid for out of the City‘s general operating budget (i.e., paid by taxes).


Page 238 of 345

lkucera

Text Box

Introduction Nordex Research carried out a survey research project on behalf of the Environmental Services

section of the city’s Engineering Dept. on Dec. 8 & 9, 13 & 14, 2010. The commissioned sample size was

300 and collected through systematic, proportional random sampling. The structured in proportions

included a set number of respondents for each ward in the city. This survey is regarded reliable +/- 5.5%

at 95% confidence levels, assuming 65% and 35% of the sample question proportions.

We decided not to structure in a gender split of 50-50, given the results of our pre-test. Instead,

we accommodated to the “natural” response pattern that favoured females. Two-thirds of the sample is

female (see back page) -- which is comparable to, for example, the retail marketplace. Thus, we accepted

that “consumer market” in “pets and strays” is dominated by females.

On other demographics, we again observe that baby boomers (age 45-65) are dominating this

survey. This is a standard outcome given the huge size of this demographic cohort.

Contrary to most surveys, this exercise has yielded a significantly large number of lower income

earners (< $45k family incomes, 43%). Lower income families will gradually become the new norm in

London as the population ages and retires. (Retirees lose about half their gross income compared to

working years. Moreover, for a large number of respondents, the recession is still having adverse effects.)

Also contrary to usual survey results in London, we attracted a large number of service workers

(15%) to our survey. The size of this cohort is consistent with our findings on the number of lower

income earners.

More consistent with past norms, professionals & managers, retirees and homemakers are

dominant cohorts in the “occupational” categories. And similarly, homeowners, as opposed to renters,

also dominate the survey.

We organized our geographical boundaries along the 14 wards of the city. We also framed 7

districts together by combining two wards into one district. For example, we nominally placed Wards 7 &

8 as the “Northwest” and District 1; Wards 9 & 10 as the “Southwest” and District 2; Wards 5 & 6 as

“New North, Old North and Cherryhill” and District 3; Wards 2 & 3 as the “Northeast” and District 3;

Wards 1 & 4 as “Adelaide to Highbury & the Hamilton Rd. area” and District 5; Wards 12 & 14 as

“Suburban South and Southeast” and District 6, and finally Wards 11 &13 as “Old West, Old South & the

Core” and District 7.


Page 239 of 345

2

Pet Ownership: Present and Past

Our respondents were otherwise organized into three pet groupings: current owners or care-givers

of pets (dogs & cats), previous pet owners and care-givers and non-pet owners & non-care givers. On dog

ownership or care-giving, each category was taken up by about one-third of respondents. Fifty per cent of

respondents have never owned or cared for a cat; 21% are current owners or care-givers, and close to 30%

are previous cat owners or care-givers. See Table 1.

Table 1. Have you ever owned or cared for a dog or cat?

a) dog 1) yes (a) now 31.7% (b) previously 35.0 2) no 33.3

b) cat 1) yes (a) now 20.7% (b) previously 29.3 2) no 50.0

Demographics

Current dog owners are most likely to be: 26-44 years of age, 66-80 years, middle and upper

income earners, professionals & managers, services workers and retirees, homeowners, and live in

Districts 4 and 7 (Northeast, and Old West, Old South & the Core).

Previous dog owners are most likely to be: baby boomers (45-65), males, upper income earners,

professionals, managers and retirees, renters, and residents of District 2 (Southwest).

Non-dog owners are most likely to be: females, lower income earners, homemakers, renters, and

residents of Districts 3, 5 and 6 (New North, Old North, Cherryhill, Adelaide to Highbury & the Hamilton

Rd. area, the Suburban South and Southeast).

Current cat owners are most likely to be: baby boomers (45-65), females, lower income earners,

and homeowners.

Previous cat owners are most likely to be: 66-80, lower income earners, homemakers & retirees,

and residents of District 5 (Adelaide to Highbury & the Hamilton Rd. area)

Non-cat owners are most likely to be: 26-44, males, upper & middle income earners, and

residents of District 3 (New North, Old North & Cherryhill).

Sources of Pet Ownership

We asked respondents about where they acquired their pet(s) and offered 7 categories from which

to choose. See Table 2 below. The primary source for acquiring a cat or dog was the residual category,

“some other means.” The sources cited in this category were: friends, family, strays, the Internet (e.g.

Kijiji), veternarians, and newspaper ads. Next in importance were local breeders, particularly for dogs.

Third-ranked were the Humane Society, local farmers, the city’s homeless shelter, and pet stores. The


Page 240 of 345

3

least likely source was an animal rescue group – although rescue groups as the 4th ranked category were

not far behind the foregoing 3rd

ranked categories. See Table 2.

Table 2. Have you ever acquired a cat or dog by the following means?

% Cat Dog No DK1

1) some other means 20.7 16.0 59.3 4.0

2) a local breeder 1.0 22.7 72.3 4.0

3) Humane Society 6.3 6.0 83.7 4.0

4) local farmer 4.0 6.3 85.7 4.0

5) city’s homeless shelter 5.0 4.0 87.0 4.0

6) pet store 3.3 4.3 88.4 4.0

7) animal rescue group 2.0 2.3 91.7 4.0

Demographics

As a matter of statistical significance, the occupational categories professionals & managers,

service workers, students and homemakers were significantly disinclined to use the Humane Society as a

source for pets.

Likelihood of Finding a Pet at the City’s Homeless Shelter

By a 2:1 ratio2 -- and thus by a modestly positive rating -- respondents as a whole claimed they

are likely to use the city’s homeless shelter to acquire a cat or a dog; about 44% say they are “very

likely.” See Table 3. This stated intent somewhat contradicts past behaviour cited in Table 2.

Table 3. If you were looking for a cat or dog, perhaps in addition to one you (may) already have, how

likely are you to consider finding one at the city’s homeless shelter or an animal rescue organization?

% Very Likely Somewhat Likely Not So Likely Not Likely At All DK Ratio

1) cat 44.3 16.3 4.7 27.7 7.0 2:1

2) dog 44.0 17.3 8.7 22.3 7.7 2:1

Demographics

Those most likely to search for a cat at the city’s homeless shelter or a rescue organization are

baby boomers (45-65). Those least likely to make such a search are 66-80 year olds.

1 “DK” means don’t know

2 At Nordex, we have adopted ratio comparisons on aggregate data results where we compare positive and

negative results inside the response sets. (We ignore the “don’t know” category in each response set.) Over the

years, we have arrived at a series of interpretations on the popularity of products, services, policies, programs –

or even politicians -- using ratio comparisons. For example, while intuition might suggest that a 50% approval

rating is good result, such a rating usually means the result really represents a 50:50 split, i.e. it includes the

possibility of a 50% negative rating -- depending on the number of undecided. Since 50:50 split is actually a 1:1

rating. We regard a 1:1 rating as a poor rating, because it indicates that that there are a many people opposed or

dissatisfied with the product or program as are in support or satisfied. Thus ratio comparisons really turn on the

negatives. A 50% negative rating, or even 40% or 30% negative makes the product or program effectively

untenable. We normally consider a good rating to be a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio, and a popular program or politician

typically comes in at 6:1 ratio. In fact, good retail customer services ratings start at a 9:1 ratio, since a 10%

negative is barely acceptable among retailers. Indeed, retail managers would prefer to see negatives no higher

than 2% with 98% positives.


Page 241 of 345

4

Those most likely to search for a dog at shelter are 26-44s and professionals & managers; those

least likely are 66-80s i.e. retirees and senior homemakers.

Willingness to Pay Set Fees for Cats or Dogs at City Shelter or Rescue Group

As a whole, respondents are split on the idea of willingly paying $100 for a cat and $300 for a

dog at the city’s shelter or at a rescue group. Moreover, as a whole, respondents are polarized on the idea

of paying these fees i.e. there are fewer than normal respondents in the middle “willingness” categories.

See Table 4.

Table 4. If you were interested in finding a pet, or an additional pet, from the city’s shelter or a rescue

group, how willing would you be to pay up to $100.00 for a cat or up to $300.00 for a dog?

a) cat 1) very willing 26.3% Ratio: 11:10 negative

2) somewhat willing 17.0

3) not so willing 11.7

4) not willing at all 35.7

5) dk/can’t say 9.3

b) dog 1) very willing 28.0% Ratio: 11:10

2) somewhat willing 21.3

3) not so willing 13.3

4) not willing at all 31.0


Demographics

Those most willing to pay the $100.00 fee for a cat at a shelter are 26-44s; those least willing are

66-80s.

Those most willing to pay the $300.00 fee for a dog at a shelter are 26-65; those less willing or

not willing at all are 45-80s.

City Problems with Stray Cats and Dogs?

Respondents as a whole are split on the idea that the city has a problem with stray cats: 22% say

there’s a “big problem;” 17% say there’s a moderate problem, but 16% say the problem is “small” and

27% say there is no problem at all. The numbers in Table 5(a) also reveal they are somewhat polarized on

the idea.

On stray dogs, there is a greater consensus. Just short of a majority say there is no problem with

stray dogs and a further 18% say there is a “small” problem. Only 4% say there is a “big problem” and

8% say there is a “moderate” problem with stray dogs. See Table 5b.


Page 242 of 345

5

Table 5. To what extent do you think the city of London has a problem with stray cats and dogs?

a) cats 1) a big problem 21.7% Ratio: 11:10 negative

2) moderate problem 17.3

3) small problem 15.7

4) no problem 27.3

5) don’t know/refuse 18.0

b) dogs 1) a big problem 4.0 Ratio: 11:2 negative

2) moderate problem 8.3

3) small problem 18.3

4) no problem 49.4


Demographics

Residents of Wards 7 & 12 are most inclined to say there is no “stray cat” problem in their wards.

Presumably all other wards face a problem comparable to numbers in Table 5.

Residents of Ward 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are most inclined to say there is no “stray dog”

problem in theirs wards.

Bad Neighbours?

Up to one-fifth of respondents said they have had trouble with their neighbours on “roaming &

unsupervised” cats. When we include those who cited a “previous problem” with cats, the aggregate

complaint level rises to past one-quarter of respondents. See Table 6b.

Roaming, unsupervised dogs apparently constitute a lesser problem: 6% said they are a “current

problem” and an additional 8% said it was a “previous problem.” See Table 6a.

Table 6. Have you ever had a problem with a neighbour who allowed their dog or cat to roam around

without much supervision?

a) dog 1) yes, current problem 5.7%

2) yes, previous problem 7.7

3) no problem 84.6


b) cat 1) yes, current problem 21.0

2) yes, previous problem 6.3

3) no problem 70.7


Unprovoked Dog Attack in the Neighbourhood?

A surprising number of respondents recalled (an) unprovoked dog attack(s) in their

neighbourhoods (13%). The additionally surprising thing about these attacks was not just that they

occurred – and they were obviously serious events – but that respondents recalled these attacks occurring

years into the past, in one case “50 years ago.” The point is: dog attacks evidently become memorable

events for some respondents.


Page 243 of 345

6

Table 7. Have you ever personally experienced an unprovoked dog attack in your neighbourhood?

1) yes 13.0 When: 1) just recently

2) no 87.0 2) 3 wk ago

3) one month ago

4) 2 mo ago

5) summer 2010 (4)

6) in the past (3)

7) one year ago (2)

8) summer of 2008

9) 2 yr ago (3)

10) 2-3 yr ago

11) 2006

12) 5 yr ago (7)

13) 8 yr ago

14) 10 yr ago (3)

15) 10-15 yr ago

16) 15 yr ago

17) 15-20 yr ago

18) 1990 (3)

19) early 1980s

20) 1965

21) 50 yr ago

Pets Per Household?

Almost a majority were prepared to accept the existing city of London limit of 5-7 pets for the

average household size (47%). And yet, an additional 44% actively responded to our residual category,

“something else,” and our example “fewer pets per household.” These respondents were typically

surprised and some appalled by the high, current limit of pets per household, and stated they preferred the

limit to be lower. See Table 8.

Table 8.The city of London currently places a household possession limit on pets. On average, it’s

between 5 to 7 pets per household. Do you support this limit, or should there be no limit on the number of

pets per household?

1) existing limit 47.3%

2) no limit 5.7

3) something else (e.g. fewer pets/hhld) 44.3

4) don’t know/don’t care 2.7

Demographics

Those 26-44 were most likely to favour the existing limit on pets per household. Those 66-80

were most inclined to cite “something else” i.e. a limit of fewer pets per household.

The Planned Lifespan for Sequestered Stray Cats and Dogs

A clear majority of respondents indicated they preferred a “no-kill” policy for “adoptable stray

cats and dogs ” (54%). Up to 19% say they were satisfied with a 10-30 day limit before euthanization.

However, 8% of respondents gave us a response we did not request but accepted anyway: 24 of them said


Page 244 of 345

7

the period prior to euthanasia was too short and should be extended well beyond 30 days. Most said 60

days to 6 months. See Table 9.

Table 9. Do you think stray or homeless cats and dogs should be euthanized (killed) if not adopted within

10-30 days, or should the city have a no-kill policy for adoptable stray cats and dogs?

1) euthanized in 10-30 days 19.0%

2) no-kill policy 54.3

3) don’t know/can’t say 18.0

4) refuse 0.7

5) longer than 30 days 8.0

The City as Primary Steward for Homeless Cats & Dogs?

Respondents are very willing to accept the city’s role as the primary steward of homeless cats and

dogs. By at least a 4:1 ratio – very convincing majority support -- the city is seen as the primary delegate

for this civic task. See Table 10.

Table 10. How important is it for the City of London to retain primary responsibility for homeless cats

and dogs, offering them shelter, food and care?

a) cats 1) very important 37.3% Ratio: 4:1

2) somewhat important 39.7

3) not so important 10.7

4) not important at all 7.0

5) don’t know/can’t say 5.3

b) dogs 1) very important 38.3 Ratio: 9:2

2) somewhat important 39.0

3) not so important 10.7

4) not important at all 6.7


Demographics

Those 45-65 were most inclined to think a city role for homeless cat & dog husbandry is not

important; all the rest do think it is important

Financing the City’s Shelter Service for Homeless & Stray Dogs and Cats

A near majority of respondents (49%) favoured the city’s current financing model for paying the

expense of the city’s shelter service: 50-50 property taxes and revenues from pet licensing. Otherwise,

one-quarter of respondents would rather see 100% pet licensing financing. Few (7%) want expenses on

the property tax exclusively. However, added to the 25% who want pet owner financing, a further 10%

want financing principally from private donations. Thus, up to one-third of respondents favoured

“community” financing exclusively. See Table 11.


Page 245 of 345

8

Table 11.What do you think is the best way to finance the city’s shelter service for homeless and stray

dogs and cats?

1) the current approach: 50% from property taxes; 50% from pet licensing 49.0%

2) 100% from property taxes 6.7

3) 100% revenues from pet licensing 25.0

4) some other financing (e.g. mainly private donations) 9.7


Demographics

Those 18-44 are most inclined to favour the current 50-50 split on financing.

Those 45-65 are most inclined to favour 100% pet licensing revenues and “some other financing”

(e.g. “private donations”).

Subsidizing Rescue Groups on Sheltering?

Respondents as a whole were reasonably happy to see local rescue groups subsidized by the city

in relation to sheltering services. No spending figures were mentioned. As a cautionary note, however,

only 3 out of 10 are enthused by the idea (“very much favour”). A full one-third were soft supporters

(36%), and almost one-quarter opposed the idea of the subsidy. See Table 12.

Table 12. In addition to the city’s own sheltering services, in order to meet additional demand the city is

considering subsidizing local rescue groups out of city general revenues? To what extent do you favour or

oppose this subsidy program?

1) very much favour 30.0% Ratio: 3:1

2) somewhat favour 36.0

3) somewhat oppose 9.0

4) very much oppose 13.7


Demographics

Those 26-44 and service workers are most inclined to say they “very much favour” subsidies to

rescue groups; professionals & managers are notably tepid on subsidies; baby boomers hold split

opinions, and those most likely to be opposed are retirees.

Expanding Subsidies for Spaying and Neutering

By a 5:1 ratio – and thus a solidly enthusiastic response -- respondents as a whole favoured

expansion of the city’s spaying and neutering program, presumably beyond its $75,000 annual budget.

Indeed, a fully 50% “very much favour(ed)” such action. Up to 16% of respondents were opposed to the

idea. About one-quarter of respondents were soft supporters. See Table 13.


Page 246 of 345

9

Table 13. The city of London is thinking about expanding a program that subsidizes the spaying and

neutering of pets; a program that costs up to $75,000 per year coming from pet licensing fees. To what

extent do you favour or oppose expanding this spaying & neutering program?





5) don’t know 7.0

Demographics

Those most inclined to support the expansion of spaying and neutering are 26-65, professionals,

managers and office workers.

Seniors (66-80) are notably tepid on the subject.

Larger, Permanent Homeless Shelter?

Building a new, larger, permanent shelter for stray dogs and cats – presumably to support a no-

kill policy – attracted modest support from respondents as a whole. One-third were enthused by the idea;

one-third were soft supporters, and 28% opposed the idea. See Table 14.

Table 14. In the future, the City of London is also considering a larger, permanent facility to

accommodate many more homeless dogs and cats -- to be paid out of property taxes and private funds. To

what extent do you favour or oppose this initiative for a new, larger facility?





5) don’t know 4.7

Demographics

Those most inclined to favour a larger, new, permanent facility are 26-44 as well as professionals,

managers and service workers.

Those least inclined to support such a facility are 66-80s who are retired.

Drop-off Service for Abandoned Pets?

Nearly a majority of respondents as a whole (47%) did not mind a drop-off service for

prospectively abandoned pets if there was a fee attached. Most of the rest (37%) did not require a fee. For

a further 8% a fee based on income was preferred. (Most who favoured it did not offer commentary on

how this income-based fee would be executed.) See Table 15.


Page 247 of 345

10

Table 15. For you, what is the preferred approach when owners can no longer look after their pets?

1) a free drop-off service at a city shelter 37.0%

2) a fee-for-service city drop-off shelter 47.3

3) something else (e.g. fees based on income) 8.0

4) neither one 1.7


Demographics

Young adults, 18-25, were most likely to favour a free drop-off service; 26-44s most favoured a

paid drop-off service.

Satisfaction with City Animal Services

City services for dogs and cats are generally offered high satisfaction ratings; dog & cat licensing

attracted a 7:1 approval rating for respondents as a whole. Having noted this, the number of those who

were “very satisfied” was not high. Indeed, modest satisfaction tended to be the more generalized result.

And, on average, about 9% of respondents were overtly dissatisfied. Off- leash dog parks received the

highest volume of positive ratings and simultaneously the highest volume of negative ratings (63:12).

Finally, overall responses on all city pet services attracted a comparatively high “don’t know”

response, particularly for picking up and sheltering strays. Evidently, this indecision came mainly from

non-pet owners. See pages 15 and 17. See also Table 16.

Table 16. How satisfied are you with the performance of the city of London in looking after the following

animal services, if you can say?

% Very Sat’d Somewhat Sat’d Not So Sat’d Not Sat’d At All DK Ratio

Dog & cat licensing fees 29.0 28.7 4.0 4.3 34.0 7:1

Off-leash dog parks 36.7 26.0 4.7 7.3 25.3 5:1

Picking up strays 21.0 27.0 5.0 4.0 43.0 5:1

City Shelter for strays 17.3 28.0 7.3 2.4 45.0 5:1

Demographics

Service workers are notably satisfied with pet licensing fees.

Professionals, managers and service workers are significantly satisfied with the dog parks.

And, 26-44s are most satisfied with the city shelter for strays.

Profiles of Current Pet Owners, Previous Owners and Non-Owners: Segmentation Analysis

This section offers profiles of current dog and cat owners, previous dog and cat owners, and non-

owners, compared to the sample as a whole. The following data will present readers with how each

category or segment differs from each other and from the sample as a whole. The profiles exclude

demographic features; they appear immediately after Table 1.


Page 248 of 345

11

There are significant respondent cross-overs among the following segments. For example, current

dog owners are most positively correlated with respondents who are non-cat owners. Previous dog owners

are most likely to be previous cat owners. And, non-dog owners are most likely to be current cat owners

or non-cat owners. Thus, the old saw that dog and cat people differ is given empirical support in this

survey. Also, non-owners of both species tend to “flock” together.

Current Dog Owners – compared to the sample as a whole

Are split on the likelihood of finding a future dog at a shelter

But if inclined are willing to pay $300.00 for the animal

Think there is a “moderate” stray problem in London for dogs

Favour the existing limit on the number of pets per household

Favour a no-kill policy

Think it is important to retain a primary stewardship role for the city

Do not favour subsidies for rescue groups

Very much favour an expanded spaying and neutering program

Very much favour a new, larger, permanent facility for homeless dogs and cats

Are satisfied with pet licensing fees

Are very satisfied with the city’s stray pick up program

Are very satisfied with off-leash dog parks

Are generally satisfied with the city’s shelter facility.

Current dog owners, overall, offer reasonably clear support on most animal services and programs.

Previous Dog Owners – compared to the sample as a whole

Are somewhat likely to search for a pet a shelter

Are unwilling to pay $300.00 for a dog at shelter

Say there is no dog stray problem

Have had no problems with neighbours on roaming dogs

Favour euthanasia over a no-kill policy

Don’t think a city role as steward of homeless is important

Somewhat favour a subsidy program for rescue groups

In general favour an expanded spaying and neutering program

Are split on support for a new, larger, permanent facility for homeless animals


Page 249 of 345

12

Are undecided on dog & cat licensing fees

Are soft supporters the stray pick-up service

Are general supporters of dog parks.

Previous dog owner are typically tepid, ambivalent and undecided about animal services and programs.

Non-Dog Owners – compared to the sample as a whole

Are quite negative or don’t know on finding a pet at a shelter

Are very negative on paying for a dog at a shelter

Think the dog stray issue is a “small problem” or are undecided on the issue

Are undecided about euthanasia and the no-kill policy of stray pets

Say the city role on taking responsibility for homeless animals is “not so important”

Currently oppose subsidies to rescue groups

Very much oppose the expanded and spaying and neutering program

Very much oppose a new, larger, permanent facility for homeless animals

Are significantly undecided on city services for animals.

Non-dog owners tend to be negative on most animal services and programs.

Current Cat Owners – compared to the sample as a whole

Are in general likely to search for a new pet at a shelter

Are willing to pay $100.00 for a cat at a shelter

Think there is a big and moderate problem regarding stray cats in the city

Are inclined to experience current problems with neighbours over unsupervised cats

Favour the existing limit on pets per household

Favour a no-kill policy for strays

In general think the city’s role on stewardship is important

Very much favour subsidies to rescue groups

Very much favour expanding the spaying and neutering program

Are soft supporters of a new, larger, permanent facility for homeless animals

Tend to be quite satisfied with licensing fees and the city shelter for strays

More ambivalent about the stray pick up service and dog parks.


Page 250 of 345

13

Current cat owners are mainly positive about animal services and program, if slightly less positive than

current dog owners.

Previous Cat Owners – compared to the sample as a whole

In general like the idea of searching for a new cat at a shelter

In general are willing to pay $100.00 for a cat at a shelter

Think the stray cat problem is a moderate to small problem

Have not had a problem with their neighbours on roaming cats

Favour the existing limit on pets per household

Are soft supporters of the city’s role as steward of animals

Somewhat favour subsidizing rescue groups

In general favour expanding the spaying and neutering program

In general favour a new, larger permanent facility for homeless animals

Are quite satisfied with dog parks

Are ambivalent about the stray pick up service and the city’s shelter facility.

Previous cat owners are more positive than previous dog owners; indeed, they are positive on most

animal services and programs.

Non-Cat Owners – compared to the sample as a whole

Are not likely at all or are ambivalent about searching shelters for a cat

Not willing at all or are ambivalent about paying a $100.00 for a cat at a shelter

Think there is no problem or just a small problem with stray cats in the city

Have no problems with neighbours about roaming cats

Favour “something else” (fewer) re: pets per household

Favour euthanasia for stray animals past the hold limit

Think a city role assisting stray animals is unimportant

Very much oppose subsidies for rescue groups

Tend to be negative on expanding the spaying and neutering program

Very much oppose a new, larger permanent facility for stray animals

Are undecided about the licensing fees

Are very satisfied or undecided about the stray pick-up service and city shelter for strays


Page 251 of 345

14

Are split on dog parks either as soft supporter or entirely negative on such facilities.

Non-cat owners are ambivalent to negative on most animal services and programs.

Survey Demographics

Below is the demographic profile for our survey.

17. Age 18. Gender 19. Family Income 21. Residence

1) 18-25 5.7% 1) male 32.7% 1) <$45k/yr 43.0% 1) owner 75.0%

2) 26-44 24.3 2) female 67.3 2) $45-80/yr 27.3 2) renter 24.3

3) 45-65 45.3 3) >$80/yr 25.0 3) family/ 0.7

4) 66-80 19.3 4) dk 2.3 relative

5) >80 5.4 5) refuse 2.4

20. Occupation 22. Location (Ward) 23. District (Ward)

1) prof’s/mgr 20.7% Ward 1 7.0% District 1 (7/8) 14.3%

2) sales 2.0 2 8.4 2 (9/10) 14.7

3) service 14.7 3 6.7 3 (5/6) 15.7

4) office 5.3 4 7.3 4 (2/3) 15.0

5) constr’n/trades 2.7 5 8.0 5 (1/4) 14.3

6) factory 3.0 6 7.7 6 (12/14) 13.0

7) technical 2.3 7 7.3 7 (11/13) 13.0

8) student 5.7 8 7.0

9) farmer 0.3 9 7.3

10) homemaker 17.3 10 7.7

11) retired 19.7 11 7.3

12) unemployed 3.0 12 7.7

13) disabled 1.6 13 5.3

14) other 0.7 14 5.3

15) do/refuse 1.0


Page 252 of 345

October 2008 1 October 2008

The Business of Urban Animals

Market Research Report


Page 253 of 345

2 October 2008

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

– Background and Objectives 4

– Methodology 5

Detailed Findings 7

– Pets in the Household 8

– Pet Services 20

– Pet Insurance 38

– Veterinary Services 43

– Pet Food 49

– Other Products and Services 54

– Information Sources for Pet Care and Pet Services 57

– Animal Charities 60

– Public Services for Pets and Pet Owners 63


Page 254 of 345

October 2008 3

INTRODUCTION


Page 255 of 345

4 October 2008

Background and Objectives

At the first Banff Summit for Urban Animal Strategies in 2006, delegates clearly indicated that they required clarity of thought on how to manage urban animals. A lack of reliable statistics and information on constituent’s views hampers municipal leaders and legislators in their efforts to develop urban animal strategies and thus create and sustain a healthy community for pets and people.

The objectives of this research were as follows:

– Estimate incidence of pet ownership and the number of dogs and cats in Canada, as well as at the community level;

– Understand the demographics of Canadian dogs and cats:

• Age, gender, spayed/neutered, microchipped, licensed, tattooed, etc.

– Measure how much pet owners spend on their pets for the following services:

• Animal control and licensing

• Health and wellness

• Other animal services

• Adoption fees

– Determine where the pet owners are spending money on their pets;

– Identify and understand sources of pet care and animal health information among dog and cat owners; and,

– Determine pet owners’ and non-pet owners’ perceptions of publicly-funded pet-related services such as off-leash parks and pet recovery services.


Page 256 of 345

5 October 2008

Methodology

In order to fulfill these research objectives, an online survey was conducted with a sampling of

pet and non-pet owners from Ipsos Reid’s proprietary Canadian online panel. The Ipsos i-Say

panel consists of over 221,000 members. The panel is balanced on all major demographic

information to mirror Statistics Canada census information.

In total, 333 surveys were completed in London, Ontario.

The data was collected between September 22 and October 1, 2008.


Page 257 of 345

6 October 2008

Representativeness of Online Research

I am often asked, “But how representative of the Canadian population can an online study really

be?”

Some points to consider:

– 80%+ of Canadians have access to the Internet, either at home, work, or elsewhere;

– Sample is targeted to match Canadian demographic data (e.g., age, gender and income);

and,

– Side-by-side comparisons have been conducted between telephone and online research to

ensure the accuracy …

But nothing beats practical experience:

– During the 2007 Ontario election, Ipsos Reid collaborated with Global Television to make

political polling history. A full minute after the polls closed on Ontario’s provincial election,

Global Television did something no other media outlet has ever done – they immediately

declared a winner. Global left the other networks covering the election spinning their

wheels when they announced Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals as the victors in the race

with a majority government.

– The reason Global made the call was based on an online poll conducted by Ipsos Reid

throughout the day. A total of 7,210 respondents went out and voted and then came back

and logged into our website and answered questions about who they voted for and why.

The result: we were able to accurately predict the outcome of the election down to the last

percentage point.


Page 258 of 345

October 2008 7

DETAILED FINDINGS


Page 259 of 345

October 2008 8

Pets in the Household


Page 260 of 345

9 October 2008

Incidence Pet Ownership

40%

38%

15%

5%

3%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

<1%

<1%

<1%

<1%

Cats

Dogs

Fish

Birds

Rabbits

Hamsters

Guinea pigs

Turtles

Lizards

Frogs

Horses

Snakes

Ferrets

Gerbils

Rats

Other

Q1. How many of each of the following types of animals do you currently have as pets in your household?

Base (London): All respondents (n=333)

Cat-only

owners

26%

Dog-only

owners

24%Cat and dog

owners

14%

Non-owners

(i.e., no cat or

dog)

36%

64% of households in London have at least one cat or one dog. While the majority of dog/cat-owning households are either dog(s)-only or cat(s)-only households, 14% of households have at least one of each species.

Cat and dog

ownership is slightly

more common in

London relative to

the rest of Canada

(55%).


Page 261 of 345

10 October 2008

Cat and Dog Population Estimates

Q1. How many of each of the following types of animals do you currently have as pets in your household?

37.54% of Households Have a Dog 40.24% of Households Have a Cat

59,098 Households Have a Dog 63,353 Households Have a Cat

1.296 Dogs per Household 1.776 Cats per Household

76,590 Dogs in London 112,522 Cats in London

157,436 Households in London (Source: Statistics Canada 2006 Census)



Page 262 of 345

11 October 2008

Reasons For Not Having a Cat or Dog in Household

Q36. You indicated earlier that you do not have a cat or a dog in your household. Can you please share with us the main reasons why not?

39%

33%

24%

22%

16%

8%

5%

5%

1%

They do not fit my lifestyle/I travel too much

I just do not want one

Health reasons

Don't want the responsibility

Cost/too expensive

Don't like cats/dogs

Building I live in does not allow cats/dogs

Dog/cat passed away/not ready for another

Haven't found the right one yet, going to get one in the

future

Base (London): Non-cat/dog owners (n=120) Multiple mentions accepted.

Among those households not having a cat or a dog, the main reasons are that they do not fit their lifestyle or they simply do not want one.


Page 263 of 345

12 October 2008

Yes

12%No

88%

New Pets in Household in Next 12 Months


Q2a. In the next 12 months, do you intend to acquire any new pets for your household (not including offspring of your current pets)?

Q2b. Which of the following types of animals do you intend to acquire in the next 12 months?

44%

27%

12%

12%

7%

5%

5%

5%

2%

2%

2%

2%

Dog

Fish

Bird

Lizard

Cat

Guinea pig

Snake

Hamster

Turtle

Gerbil

Ferret

Hermit crabs

Base (London): Plan to acquire new pets in next 12 months (n=41)**

** Small base size, interpret with caution.

Multiple mentions accepted.

12% of households intend to acquire a pet in the next 12 months.

Dogs and fish are the most commonly sought after pets.


Page 264 of 345

13 October 2008

Age of Cat/Dog in Household

Base (London): Cats (n=238)

Q4. Please enter the age of your pet(s) in years in the space provided. If you have a pet that is less than one year old, please enter “0”.

8%

27%

14%

13%

20%

19%

Less than 1

year

1 to 3 years

4 to 5 years

6 to 7 years

8 to 9 years

10 years or

more

Base (London): Dogs (n=162)

Dogs

Mean

6 years

3%

32%

18%

16%

11%

21%

Less than 1

year

1 to 3 years

4 to 5 years

6 to 7 years

8 to 9 years

10 years or

more

Cats

Mean

6 years

In London, the average cat and dog is about 6 years old.

Kittens and puppies account for under 10% of the cat and dog populations.


Page 265 of 345

14 October 2008

Weight of Household Dog

Q5. Approximately, how much does each dog weigh?

29%

31%

40%

Less than 20 pounds

20 to 49 pounds

50 pounds or more


London’s dog population is slightly skewed towards the medium and large sized dogs,


Page 266 of 345

15 October 2008

Indoors only

63%

Some

outdoors

33%

Mostly

outdoors

4%

Indoor/Outdoor Pet

Q6. For each pet listed below, please indicate whether they spend their time indoors only, some outdoors or mostly outdoors.

Base (London): Cats (n=238) Base (London): Dogs (n=162)

Dogs Cats

Indoors only

10%

Some

outdoors

86%

Mostly

outdoors

4%

Dogs are much more prone to an outdoor lifestyle than cats.

In fact, nearly two-thirds of all cats in London are indoors only.


Page 267 of 345

16 October 2008

Origin of Pet


Q7a. For each pet listed below, please indicate where it came from. Q7ai/ii. You indicated that your [cat(s)/dog(s)] came from a source not mentioned, please specify.

45%

15%

9%

6%

5%

5%

2%

14%

Breeder

Friends/relatives

Humane

society/shelter

Give away/free

to a good home

Pet store

Adopted a stray

My pet's

offspring

Other


Dogs

23%

19%

19%

11%

10%

5%

4%

4%

5%

Friends/relatives

Humane

society/shelter

Adopted a stray

Pet store

Give away/free

to a good home

Breeder

Vet clinic

My pet's

offspring

Other

Cats

Multiple mentions accepted. Multiple mentions accepted.

Cats originate from a variety of places but most often come from friends/relatives, humane societies or adopted strays.

Dogs come from these same places but most often come from a breeder.

56% outside

the “system”

28% outside

the “system”

Relative to the

national average

(35%), slightly less

dogs in London

originate outside of

the system.

Relative to the

national average

(65%), less cats in

London originate

outside of the

system.


Page 268 of 345

17 October 2008

How Became Aware/Discovered Pet Was Available


Q7b. And, for each pet listed below, please indicate how you became aware or discovered that this pet was available. Q7bi/ii. You indicated another source where you became aware or discovered that your [cat(s)/dog(s)] was available, please specify.

25%

20%

19%

14%

6%

17%

Word-of-mouth

Online/website

Visit to

location where

it came from

Classified ads

Advertisement

Other


Dogs

34%

29%

4%

2%

2%

29%

Visit to

location where

it came from

Word-of-mouth

Online/website

Classified ads

Advertisement

Other

Cats


A visit to the location where the cat or dog came from and word-of-mouth are the most common means of becoming aware of the pet they adopted.

Online websites is another common source for finding a dog as a pet and are a more common information source for finding dogs than for cats.


Page 269 of 345

18 October 2008

Length of Time Have Had Pet


Q8. For each pet listed below, please indicate how long you have had it.

17%

26%

14%

15%

14%

15%

Less than 1

year

1 to 3 years

4 to 5 years

6 to 7 years

8 to 9 years

10 years or

more


Dogs

13%

30%

18%

15%

7%

18%

Less than 1

year

1 to 3 years

4 to 5 years

6 to 7 years

8 to 9 years

10 years or

more

Cats

Mean

5 years

Mean

5 years

The average cat and dog owners have had their pet for approximately 5 years.

In fact, just over half of all cats and dogs have been with the family for at least 4 years.

57% 57%


Page 270 of 345

19 October 2008

Amount Paid for Pet


Q9. Thinking back to when you first got each pet listed below, please indicate your best estimate of how much you paid for the pet.

27%

11%

7%

8%

7%

12%

9%

10%

6%

4%

Nothing

$1 to $99

$100 to $199

$200 to $299

$300 to $399

$400 to $499

$500 to $599

$600 to $799

$800 to $999

$1,000 or more


Dogs

58%

21%

13%

3%

2%

1%

1%

0%

<1%

<1%

Nothing

$1 to $99

$100 to $199

$200 to $299

$300 to $399

$400 to $499

$500 to $599

$600 to $799

$800 to $999

$1,000 or more

Cats

Mean

$324

Mean

$61

Given that many cats are giveaways or adopted strays and that many dogs are from a breeder, it is no surprise that dogs typically cost considerably more than cats.

Nonetheless, one-quarter of dogs did not cost anything.

Households in

London paid slightly

more for their dogs

relative to the

national average of

$286.

Households in

London paid slightly

more for their cats

relative to the

national average of

$53.


Page 271 of 345

October 2008 20

Pet Services


Page 272 of 345

21 October 2008

Services Pet Has Received (Ever)


Q10a. For each pet listed below, please indicate which services your pet has received.

81%

71%

22%

16%

9%

Spayed/neutered

Licensed

Microchipped

Tattooed

None of the

above


Dogs

89%

38%

5%

2%

7%

Spayed/neutered

Licensed

Microchipped

Tattooed

None of the

above

Cats

More dogs in London

have been licensed

relative to the rest of

Canada (54%).

More cats in London

have been licensed

relative to the rest of

Canada (15%).

While most cats and dogs have been spayed or neutered, most dogs have also been licensed.

Microchipping is much less common, particularly among cats.


Page 273 of 345

22 October 2008

Pet Received Service in Past Year

Q10b. For each service you indicated that your pet has received, please indicate if this service has been received in the past year.

57%

12%

6%

2%

Licensed

Spayed/neutered

Microchipped

Tattooed

Dogs

29%

13%

2%

<1%

Licensed

Spayed/neutered

Tattooed

Microchipped

Cats



Page 274 of 345

23 October 2008

Amount Paid to Have Pet Spayed/Neutered

Base (London): Cat spayed/neutered (n=213)

Q11b. For each pet listed below, please indicate how much you paid to have each pet spayed/neutered.

2%

14%

29%

19%

13%

23%

$1 to $49

$50 to $99

$100 to $149

$150 to $199

$200 or more

Pet already

spayed/neutered/included

in price

Base (London): Dog spayed/neutered (n=132)

Dogs

11%

27%

26%

9%

9%

18%

$1 to $49

$50 to $99

$100 to $149

$150 to $199

$200 or more

Pet already

spayed/neutered/included

in price

Cats

Mean

$106

Mean

$90

Spaying/neutering typically costs less than $150 and sometimes is included in the price of the pet.

The cost of spaying/neutering a dog is not substantially higher than the cost for a cat.


Page 275 of 345

24 October 2008

Agreement with Spaying/Neutering Pet Statements

Q11c. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements regarding spaying/neutering pets.

56%

46%

48%

37%

4%

20%

24%

19%

30%

8%

21%

22%

21%

15%

12%

5%

8%

12%

24%

2%

3%

4%

6%

52%

My vet highly recommends it

In the best interest of pet's

health

Good value for the money spent

Should be required for all

cats/dogs in community

Not necessary if pet lives mostly

indoors

Completely agree Somewhat agree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat disagree Completely disagree

Base (London): Cat/dog owners (n=213)

76%

70%

67%

67%

12%

Most pet owners acknowledge that spaying/neutering is recommended by their veterinarian, in the best interest of the pet’s health, a good value for the money spent and it should be required for all cats/dogs.

Furthermore, they disagree that it is only relevant if the pet lives mostly outdoors.


Page 276 of 345

25 October 2008

5%

4%

9%

82%

Very likely

Somewhat

likely

Somewhat

unlikely

Not at all

likely

4%

3%

6%

86%

Very likely

Somewhat

likely

Somewhat

unlikely

Not at all

likely

Total

Likely

8%

Total

Unlikely

92%

Total

Likely

9%

Total

Unlikely

91%

Likelihood of Having Pet Microchipped in Next 12 Months

Base (London): Cat not microchipped (n=225)

Q12a. For each pet listed below, please indicate how likely you are to have the pet microchipped in the next 12 months.

Base (London): Dog not microchipped (n=127)

Dogs Cats

Cats and dogs that have not been microchipped to date, are very unlikely to be microchipped in the next 12 months.


Page 277 of 345

October 2008 26

Agreement with Microchipping Pet Statements


Q12c. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements regarding microchipping pets.

23%

15%

11%

9%

41%

26%

18%

12%

26%

38%

54%

64%

6%

15%

10%

7%

5%

7%

7%

8%

Best way to ensure pet returned


indoors




64%

41%

29%

21%

Although pet owners believe that microchipping is a great way to ensure a pet is returned if it is lost, there is less agreement that it offers value for money or that it is recommended by their veterinarian.


Page 278 of 345

27 October 2008

1%

98%

<1%

<1%Very likely

Somewhat

likely

Somewhat

unlikely

Not at all

likely

Total

Likely

1%

Total

Unlikely

99%

4%

0%

4%

93%

Very likely

Somewhat

likely

Somewhat

unlikely

Not at all

likely

Total

Likely

4%

Total

Unlikely

96%

Likelihood of Having Pet Tattooed in Next 12 Months

Base (London): Cat not tattooed (n=233)

Q13a. For each pet listed below, please indicate how likely you are to have the pet tattooed in the next 12 months.

Base (London): Dog not tattooed (n=136)

Dogs Cats

Pet owners are not at all likely to have their pet tattooed in the next 12 months.


Page 279 of 345

28 October 2008

Agreement with Tattooing Pet Statements

14%

4%

17%

15%

8%

4%

51%

55%

68%

76%

9%

13%

9%

7%

8%

13%

13%

13%

2%


indoors

Best way to ensure pet returned





Q13c. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements regarding tattooing pets.

31%

19%

10%

5%

Pet owners do not have strong attitudes towards tattooing.


Page 280 of 345

29 October 2008

10%

7%

7%

75%

Very likely

Somewhat

likely

Somewhat

unlikely

Not at all

likely

Total

Likely

18%

Total

Unlikely

82%

47%

11%

15%

28%

Very likely

Somewhat

likely

Somewhat

unlikely

Not at all

likely

Total

Likely

57%

Total

Unlikely

43%

Likelihood of Having Pet Licensed in Next 12 Months

Base (London): Cat not licensed (n=147)

Q14a. For each pet listed below, please indicate how likely you are to have the pet licensed in the next 12 months.

Base (London): Dog not licensed (n=47)**

** Small base size, interpret with caution.

Dogs Cats

Among those with an unlicensed pet, dog owners are much more likely to get their dog licensed in the coming year than cat owners are.


Page 281 of 345

30 October 2008

66%

26%

3%

2%

0%

3%

$1 to $49

$50 to $99

$100 to $149

$150 to $199

$200 or more

Pet already

licensed/included

in price

Amount Paid to Have Pet Licensed

Base (London): Cat licensed (n=91)

Q14b. For each pet listed below, please indicate how much you paid to have each pet licensed.

Base (London): Dog licensed (n=115)

Dogs

77%

16%

4%

0%

0%

2%

$1 to $49

$50 to $99

$100 to $149

$150 to $199

$200 or more

Pet already

licensed/included

in price

Cats

Mean

$42

Mean

$37

Dog owners have a slightly higher perception of the price for licensing than cat owners.


Page 282 of 345

31 October 2008

Agreement with Licensing Pet Statements

23%

23%

12%

22%

13%

20%

19%

29%

14%

13%

22%

25%

32%

57%

38%

15%

14%

14%

2%

16%

20%

20%

13%

5%

21%


indoors

Should not be required

Licensing with municipality

ensures pet returned





Q14c. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements regarding licensing pets.

43%

42%

41%

36%

26%

Cat and dog owners do not have strong perceptions towards the benefits of licensing their pet with the municipality.

In fact, almost as many cat and dog owners believe that pet licensing should not be required, as those that believe that it should.


Page 283 of 345

32 October 2008

Q14d. Thinking about the most recent time you licensed each pet listed below, please indicate how you licensed the pet. Q14di/ii. You indicated another source where you licensed your [cat(s)/dog(s)], please specify.

How Licensed Pet

Base (London): Cat licensed (n=91)

30%

25%

14%

10%

9%

2%

10%

Mail

At a local animal shelter

Online

At another municipal location

At city hall

Telephone

Other

Base (London): Dog licensed (n=115)

Dogs

33%

30%

12%

8%

3%

1%

13%


Mail

Online


At city hall

Telephone

Other

Cats

Among those cats and dogs licensed, they were licensed at a wide variety of locations and most notably at a local animal shelter or by mail.

Less than 15% of cats and dogs were licensed online.

Relative to the

national average

(6%) more dogs

were licensed online

in London.


Page 284 of 345

33 October 2008

Preferred Method of Licensing Pets

50%

15%

10%

9%

9%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

1%

Online

Mail


At a vet clinic

At a pet store

Telephone

Don't want to licence/don't need it

At home/municipal employee visits home


Other

Don't know

Base (London): Respondents with licensed pets (n=128)

Q14e. From which of the following ways would you most prefer to be able to license your pet(s) in the future?

Among those owners that licensed their pet, they would most prefer to license them via an online website.


Page 285 of 345

34 October 2008

Preferred Method of Identifying/Recovering Lost Pets

36%

25%

10%

6%

3%

1%

19%

Licensing

Microchipping

Lost pet databases

Collar/name tag

Tattooing

Don't let them out/don't

leave them alone

None of the above


Q15. Which of the following means of identifying and recovering lost pets do you most prefer for your own pet(s)?

9% among Dog owners

25% among Cat owners

Licensing and microchipping are the most preferred means of identifying and recovering lost cats and dogs.

Nonetheless, 19% do not have a preferred means of identifying and recovering a lost pet.


Page 286 of 345

October 2008 35

Pet Insurance


Page 287 of 345

36 October 2008

Familiarity with Pet Insurance

6%

30%

52%

7%

5%

I have never heard of it

I have heard of it only

I have heard of it and know

a little about it

I have heard of it and know

a lot about it

I have pet insurance


Q16. Which of the following best describes your familiarity with pet insurance?

Know at Least

a Little

64%

Although only 5% of cat and dog owners have pet insurance for at least one of their pets, nearly two-thirds have heard of it and know a least a little about it.


Page 288 of 345

37 October 2008

Has

insurance

3%

Does not

have

insurance

97%

Has

insurance

8%

Does not

have

insurance

92%

Pets with Pet Insurance

Dogs Cats

Q17. For each pet listed below, please indicate whether or not you have pet insurance for it.


8% of dogs and 3% of cats have insurance.

Slightly more dogs

have insurance in

London, relative to the

national average (4%) .


Page 289 of 345

38 October 2008

Agreement with Pet Insurance Statements

12%

11%

10%

39%

39%

32%

38%

39%

47%

10%

8%

9%

2%

4%

4%

Protects against risk of

expensive pet medical bills

Provides financial protection in

case pet ill/injured

Provides peace of mind


Base (London): Respondents know at least a little about pet insurance (n=200)

Q19. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

51%

50%

42%

Pet owners are not entirely convinced that pet insurance will protect against expensive medical bills or provide financial protection in case their pet is injured or becomes ill.


Page 290 of 345

39 October 2008

Confidence in Covering Treatment Costs

31%

54%

15%

Very confident

Somewhat confident

Not at all confident


Total Confident

85%

Q20. In the unfortunate event that a pet becomes ill or injured, how confident are you that you would be able to cover the costs of treatment for your pet to recover?

Most pet owners, including those without pet insurance, are quite confident that they would be able to cover the cost of treatment if their pet were to become ill or injured.


Page 291 of 345

October 2008 40

Veterinary Services


Page 292 of 345

41 October 2008

9%

41%

21%

15%

7%

2%

4%

No visit in past

year

1 time

2 times

3 times

4 times

5 times

6 or more

times

Number of Veterinary Clinic Visits in Past Year


Q21. Thinking back over the past year, how frequently did each pet listed below visit a veterinary clinic for any reason?


Dogs

30%

50%

14%

4%

1%

0%

1%

No visit in past

year

1 time

2 times

3 times

4 times

5 times

6 or more

times

Cats

Mean

2 visits

Mean

1 visit

91% are

medicalized

70% are

medicalized

The majority of dogs and cats saw a veterinarian in the past year, particularly dogs.


Page 293 of 345

42 October 2008

Last Vaccination for Rabies


Q22a. For each pet listed below, please indicate the last time it received a vaccination for rabies.


Dogs

59%

20%

4%

6%

11%

In the past

year

In the past 2

years

In the past 3

years

4 or more

years ago

Never

Cats

77%

14%

4%

1%

4%

In the past

year

In the past 2

years

In the past 3

years

4 or more

years ago

Never

Most dogs and cats have been vaccinated for rabies in the past year.

Relative to the

national average

(58%) more dogs in

London have been

vaccinated for rabies

in the past year.

Relative to the

national average

(34%) more cats in

London have been

vaccinated for rabies

in the past year.


Page 294 of 345

43 October 2008

Last Vaccination for Any Diseases Other Than Rabies


Q22b. For each pet listed below, please indicate the last time it received a vaccination for any diseases other than rabies.


Dogs

53%

16%

3%

9%

19%

In the past

year

In the past 2

years

In the past 3

years

4 or more

years ago

Never

Cats

77%

9%

7%

1%

6%

In the past

year

In the past 2

years

In the past 3

years

4 or more

years ago

Never

Most cats and dogs have been vaccinated for diseases other than rabies at some point.


Page 295 of 345

44 October 2008

Agreement with Pet Vaccination Statements

57%

62%

52%

35%

8%

25%

19%

26%

31%

14%

11%

15%

13%

22%

14%

4%

4%

8%

19%

3%

4%

5%

4%

45%

Necessary part of pet ownership


Should be required for all pets



indoors



Q23. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

82%

81%

78%

66%

22%

Cat and dog owners clearly agree on the importance and benefits of pet vaccinations.

Not surprisingly, pet owners feel that veterinarians highly recommend vaccinating pets.


Page 296 of 345

45 October 2008

7%

44%

32%

11%

5%

1%

0%

$0

$1 to $249

$250 to $499

$500 to $999

$1,000 to

$2,499

$2,500 to

$4,999

$5,000 or more

27%

61%

8%

3%

2%

0%

0%

$0

$1 to $249

$250 to $499

$500 to $999

$1,000 to

$2,499

$2,500 to

$4,999

$5,000 or more

Amount Spent for Products and Services From Veterinarian in Past Year (Excluding Pet Food)


Q24. Considering all the products and services you received from the veterinarian in the past year, excluding pet food, how much would you estimate you spent at the veterinary clinic for each pet? For those pets that did not visit the veterinary clinic, please select $0.


Dogs Cats

Mean

$343

Mean

$150

The average cat and dog received $150 and $343 worth of veterinary services in the past year.


Page 297 of 345

October 2008 46

Pet Food


Page 298 of 345

47 October 2008

Q25. From which of the following locations did you most often purchase pet food for each pet listed below? Q25i/ii. You indicated a different location for purchasing your [cat’s(’)/dog’s(’)] pet food the most often at, please specify.

Locations To Purchase Pet Food Most Often

17%

25%

12%

22%

17%

1%

6%

Independent

pet store

Pet superstore

(e.g., PetSmart)

Veterinary

clinic

Grocery store

or supermarket

Mass

merchandisers/

discount stores

Warehouse

club stores

Other

Dogs

13%

20%

11%

41%

10%

3%

2%

Independent

pet store

Pet superstore

(e.g., PetSmart)

Veterinary

clinic

Grocery store

or supermarket

Mass

merchandisers/

discount stores

Warehouse

club stores

Other

Cats



Cat and dog owners purchase pet food from a variety of locations but the grocery store is cited as the most common location.


Page 299 of 345

48 October 2008

2%

33%

35%

20%

4%

2%

1%

2%

$0

$1 to $24

$25 to $49

$50 to $74

$75 to $99

$100 to $149

$150 to $199

$200 or more

1%

62%

29%

6%

0%

1%

0%

<1%

$0

$1 to $24

$25 to $49

$50 to $74

$75 to $99

$100 to $149

$150 to $199

$200 or more

Amount Spent Monthly for Pet Food


Q26. Considering all the food you purchased over the past month, how much would you estimate you spend on pet food for each pet listed below?


Dogs Cats

Mean

$43

Mean

$25

The average cat eats about $25 worth of food per month, while the average dog eats $43 per month.


Page 300 of 345

49 October 2008

Confidence in Safety of Pet Food Purchased

59%

39%

2%

Very confident

Somewhat confident

Not at all confident


Total Confident

98%

Q27. Overall, how confident are you in the safety of the food you purchase for your pet(s)?

Despite the pet food recalls over the past two years, cat and dog owners are definitely confident about the safety of the food that they buy.


Page 301 of 345

50 October 2008

Reasons for Confidence in Pet Food Safety

65%

59%

50%

43%

29%

25%

15%

7%

3%

2%

My pets are healthy

It is a well known pet food brand

I have been purchasing it a long

time

It was not named among the pet

food brands recalled during the

It is recommended by my

veterinarian

Government regulations/it is

inspected by a government

It is recommended by pet store

personnel

It is expensive

I never think about the safety of

the pet food I buy

Recommended by

breeder/agency/groomers/trainers

Base (London): Respondents confident in the safety of the food (n=209)

Q28. What are the main reasons that you are confident in the safety of the pet food you purchase for your pets?

Note: Only mentions of 2% or more are shown.

The fact that the pet is healthy, and that it is a well-known pet food brand they have been purchased it for a long time are reasons enough for pet owners to feel confident about the safety of the pet food that they buy.


Page 302 of 345

October 2008 51

Other Products and Services


Page 303 of 345

52 October 2008

Q29. For each pet listed below, please indicate if you have purchased any of the following products or services for that pet in the past year.

Products and Services Purchased for Pets

Dogs

53%

25%

8%

3%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

37%

Toys

Collars

Grooming

Boarding/kennels/pet

sitting services

Clothing

Pooper scooper/yard

cleaning services

Day care

Dog walking

Obedience/behaviour

training

None of the above

Cats



72%

55%

52%

19%

15%

8%

6%

5%

5%

10%

Toys

Collars

Grooming

Boarding/kennels/pet

sitting services

Clothing

Day care

Dog walking

Obedience/behaviour

training

Pooper scooper/yard

cleaning services

None of the above

Dogs tend to receive more additional products and services than cats do, particularly with regards to collars, grooming and clothing.


Page 304 of 345

53 October 2008

Mean Amount Spent on Products and Services for Pets in Past Year

$63

$34

$31

$16

$10

$8

$6

$3

$2

Grooming

Boarding/kennels/pet sitting

services

Toys

Collars

Obedience/behaviour

training

Day care

Clothing

Pooper scooper/yard

cleaning service

Dog walking


Q30. For each product or service listed below, please indicate your best estimate of how much you spent on it for all of your cats and/or dogs in the past year.

The average cat/dog owner spent over $140 for grooming, toys, boarding, and collars in the past year (including those that spent $0).

Training, clothing, dog walking, day care and cleaning services represent a significantly smaller share of the pet budget.


Page 305 of 345

October 2008 54

Information Sources for Pet Care and Pet Services


Page 306 of 345

55 October 2008

Sources Used to Find Pet Care and Pet Services

47%

38%

31%

24%

13%

11%

9%

9%

2%

28%

Veterinarians

Websites/online

Friends, family and colleagues

Pet store personnel

Pamphlets and brochures

Magazines

Newspapers

Television/radio programs

Books

None of the above


Q31a. Which, if any, of the following potential information sources did you personally use to learn about pet care and pet services during the past year?

Multiple mentions accepted.

Note: Only mentions of 2% or more are shown.

Veterinarians and websites are the two most commonly used sources of information regarding pet car and pet services.


Page 307 of 345

56 October 2008

23%

38%

37%

1%

1%

Extremely satisfied – 5

4

3

2

Not at all satisifed – 1

Total Satisfied

61%

Total Not Satisfied

2%

Satisfaction with Pet Care and Pet Services Information

Q31b. Overall, how satisfied are you with the information you have been looking for regarding pet care and pet services? Please use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means “not at all satisfied” and 5 means “extremely satisfied”.


Most cat and dog owners are fairly satisfied with the information they have been able to find regarding pet care and services.

Nonetheless, there are more than one-third of cat/dog owners who are not fully satisfied with the information they have been able to find, suggesting there is still room for improvement.


Page 308 of 345

October 2008 57

Animal Charities


Page 309 of 345

58 October 2008

Yes

50%

No

50%

Yes

24%

No

76%

Donations to Organizations

Q32. Thinking back over the past year, did you make any donations to organizations focussed on the well-being and welfare of animals?

Base (London): Cat/dog owners (n=213) Base (London): Non-cat/dog owners (n=120)

Cat/Dog Owners Non-Cat/Dog Owners

Cat and dog owners (50%) were more likely to have made a donation to an organization focused on the well-being of animals in the past year than non-owners (24%).


Page 310 of 345

59 October 2008

76%

12%

8%

3%

2%

0%

0%

0%

None

$1 to $49

$50 to $99

$100 to $249

$250 to $499

$500 to $749

$750 to $999

$1,000 or more

Amount of Donation in Past Year

Q33. Can you please tell us what your best estimate is of the total amount of money you donated to organizations focussed on the well-being and welfare of animals in the past year?

50%

23%

15%

6%

4%

2%

0%

1%

None

$1 to $49

$50 to $99

$100 to $249

$250 to $499

$500 to $749

$750 to $999

$1,000 or more

Mean

$19

Mean

$61



Not surprisingly, cat and dog owners donated more money to organizations focused on the well-being of animals than non-owners.

Pet owning

households in

London indicate

contributing more

than the rest of

Canada ($46).


Page 311 of 345

October 2008 60

Public Services for Pets and Pet Owners


Page 312 of 345

61 October 2008

Public Services Used in Past Year

55%

20%

2%

1%

39%

Pet licensing

Off-leash parks

Emergency services for pets

(e.g., oxygen masks for

cats/dogs)

Pet recovery services (e.g.,

lost and found services for

pets)

I have not used any of these

services in the past year

Base (London): Cat/dog owners (n=213) Multiple mentions accepted.

Q34. For each of the public services listed below, please indicate whether or not you have used each public service in the past year.

With the exception of pet licensing and off-leash parks, most cat and dog owners have not used any pet related public services in the past year.


Page 313 of 345

62 October 2008

60%

55%

42%

40%

29%

29%

25%

35%

43%

51%

54%

59%

54%

62%

5%

2%

8%

6%

12%

17%

13%

Licensing enforcement

Community education programs

related to pets to and pet

ownership

Pet licensing

Pet recovery services (e.g., lost

and found services for pets)

Emergency services for pets (e.g.,

oxygen masks for cats/dogs)

Off-leash parks

Disaster preparedness services for

pets

More Same Less

43%

42%

41%

34%

32%

21%

15%

54%

50%

54%

60%

63%

57%

68%

4%

8%

4%

6%

5%

22%

17%

Community education programs

related to pets to and pet

ownership

Off-leash parks

Pet recovery services (e.g., lost

and found services for pets)

Disaster preparedness services for

pets

Emergency services for pets (e.g.,

oxygen masks for cats/dogs)

Licensing enforcement

Pet licensing

More Same Less

Future Availability of Public Services

Q35. For each of the public services listed below, please indicate whether you would like to see more, less or the same amount of these services in your community in the future/



Almost half of cat/dog owners would like to see more education programs, followed by off-leash parks and pet recovery services.

Half non-cat/dog owners would like to see more licensing enforcement and education programs.


Page 314 of 345

63 October 2008

Contact Information

For more information, please contact:

David Webb

Associate Vice President

Ipsos-Reid

Guelph, ON

(519) 780-4704

[email protected]


Page 315 of 345


1

RECOMMENDATION

That, on the recommendation of the Director – Environmental Programs & Solid Waste, the following actions BE TAKEN:

(a) prior to the Municipal Council providing the Civic Administration with final direction with respect to raising chickens in poultry pens within residential zones, a public participation meeting BE HELD on August 16, 2011, to receive public input on this matter, in order to assist the Municipal Council in its decision-making process; and

(b) the information report dated June 14, 2011, entitled “Overview of Policies and By-laws from Other Municipalities that Deal with Backyard Chickens”, BE REFERRED to the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee for its input to the Municipal Council.


None

BACKGROUND

PURPOSE & CONTEXT: The primary purpose of this report is to address the outstanding clause from the Council Resolution dated May 3, 2010 regarding policies and by-laws of other municipalities for backyard chickens as noted below:

Council Resolution Clause Status

(a) The General Manager of Community Services BE REQUESTED to report back to the Community and Protective Services Committee in the Fall of 2010 with respect to a proposed plan for local food security, should the Municipal Council wish to proceed with such a plan, and to include in his report information on local food concerns, a local food chart, utilization of roof gardens, raising of chickens in poultry pens within residential zones, health considerations, environmental considerations, and any other information that would be relevant to the Municipal Council’s of whether or not it wishes to implement a local food security plan;

Council direction reviewed as part for the development of the Food (Security) Charter and raising chickens was not deemed as a high priority compared to other items and actions that form the basis of the Food Charter.

(b) The Director of Environmental Programs and Solid Waste BE REQUESTED to report back to the Environment and Transportation Committee, by September 30, 2010, with respect to the policies and by-laws of other municipalities as they relate to the raising of chickens in poultry pens within residential zones; and

Details contained in this Information Report.

(c) The Director of Environmental Programs and Solid Waste BE REQUESTED to review and report back at the May 10, 2010 meeting of the Environment and Transportation Committee with respect to a possible resolution to the current situation of Ms. L. Gerow, 172 West Rivertrace Walk, relating to the keeping of backyard chickens;

Council addressed this matter on May 17, 2010.

TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE


FROM: JAY STANFORD, M.A; M.P.A. DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS & SOLID WASTE

SUBJECT: OVERVIEW OF POLICIES AND BY-LAWS FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT DEAL WITH BACKYARD CHICKENS


Page 316 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


2

DISCUSSION: Overview of Activity with Backyard Chickens in Other Canadian Municipalities

The keeping of backyard hens is currently permitted in seven Canadian municipalities: Guelph, Brampton, Niagara Falls, Nanaimo, Victoria, Surrey and Vancouver. The City of Kingston has written a bylaw that has received two readings and is on the Council agenda on the 7th of June for its third and final reading. The topic has been or is being discussed/reviewed in other jurisdictions including Windsor, Fredericton, Calgary, Toronto, St. Catharines, Ottawa, Moncton, and Halifax. For information, details on the Chantecler breed of chicken are found in Appendix A. This is an endangered breed that was first developed in the province of Quebec. The goal was to create a breed of chicken that could withstand the climatic conditions of Canada and that could be used for both egg and meat production.

Southwestern Ontario

Permitted Not Permitted

Recently Considered in Municipality

No Activity Occurring on this Item

Guelph Waterloo Cambridge

Windsor Kitchener

Chatham-Kent

Sarnia

Other Areas of Ontario




Niagara Falls Kingston Peterborough

Brampton Ottawa Barrie

Toronto Sudbury

St. Catharines Hamilton

Other Areas of Canada




Vancouver Halifax Quebec City

Nanaimo Calgary

Victoria Edmonton

Surrey Saskatoon

Fredericton (a) Regina

Montreal

Moncton (b)

Charlottetown

Winnipeg

Notes:

a) Temporary variance for pilot program b) Moncton recently completed a pilot program in which one household was permitted to keep

four hens for one year. They are currently reviewing the result of this program and considering changes to their land use bylaw.


Page 317 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


3

City of London’s Existing Animal Control By-Law Under section 2.3 of the current Animal Control By-Law, backyard chickens fall under the category of a "Class 2 animal", which includes chicken, goose, turkey, duck and any domestic fowl. As per section 6.1 of the by-law, the keeping of Class 2 animals within the municipal boundaries of the City of London is prohibited. However, at the time the by-law came into effect, existing hencoops were grandfathered, as long as they complied with the requirements set out in sections 6.3 to 6.8 of the by-law. The requirements are summarized in the following table.

Summary of Policies and By-laws in Other Canadian Municipalities The following sections describe bylaws regulating the keeping of backyard chickens in eight Canadian municipalities. Kingston has been included as the bylaw is currently going through the political approval process.

Municipality 2010 Population Municipality 2010 Population

Guelph 125,000 Nanaimo 87,500

Brampton 490,000 Victoria 82,000

Niagara Falls 86,000 Surrey 450,000

Kingston 120,000 Vancouver 600,000

Details are identified in the following areas:

Permit and Registration

Number of Chickens

Structure Regulations

Lot Regulations

Waste Management

Chicken Coop Maintenance

Complaints and Fines Issued Permit and Registration Vancouver and Kingston are the only Canadian municipalities to require permits for the keeping of backyard chickens. The permit is free in Vancouver and proposed to cost $10 in Kingston and allows the City to know the number and location of chickens in the city and ensures that new chicken owners are aware of proper treatment and maintenance practices. Number of Chickens The allowable number of chickens on a single parcel of land ranges from two in Brampton to ten in Niagara Falls. Other cities like Guelph and Victoria do not regulate the number of hens permitted on a property.

Number Unspecified.

Structure All Class 2 animals shall be kept in a building, structure, yard, coop, pen or run.

Lot Any structure housing Class 2 animals shall be no less than 15 metres (49.2 feet) from any school, church, public hall, or store, dwelling or premises used for human habitation or occupancy other than premises occupied exclusively by the owner or keeper of such animals, birds or fowl or members of his immediate family.

Waste/

Slaughtering

All refuse resulting from the keeping of class 2 animals shall be kept in substantial air-tight containers until it is removed from the premises or dug into the earth in such a manner as to prevent odours arising therefrom.

Maintenance The inside walls of such a building as required under section 6.3 of this by-law (other than a dwelling), structure, coop, pens or run shall be lime-washed or painted at least once a year. All runs and outside areas of confinement shall be dug promptly as required to effectively prevent odours arising therefrom. All feed or other animal food shall be kept in rodent-proof containers.


Page 318 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


4

Municipality Hens Roosters

Guelph Unspecified Unspecified

Brampton 2 0

Niagara Falls 10 0

Kingston 6 0

Nanaimo 4 0

Victoria Unspecified Unspecified

Surrey 12 per acre 0

Vancouver 4 0

Structure Regulations Regulating the size and design of the coop or pen ensures the protection of chickens from predators as well as their humane treatment. Proper regulation can also mitigate any aesthetic concerns. Although not noted in the table below, chickens are not allowed to roam “at large” in four out of the seven Canadian cities. .

Municipality Structure Requirements

Guelph A building structure, coop, pen or run. Pens with floors kept free from standing water.

Brampton Each animal quarter shall be constructed so as to prevent the escape of the animals kept therein.

Niagara Falls The chicken coop shall be designed and constructed to ensure proper ventilation and sufficient space for the chickens.

Kingston Unspecified.

Nanaimo A minimum enclosure of 0.37 m² (4 ft²) must be provided per chicken.

Victoria Unspecified.

Surrey Adequate shelter must be provided. The width of the shelter should be 1.5 times the length of the animal, and the height should be the height of the animal plus 10%. It must be appropriate to the size of the animal and protect against heat, cold and wet conditions. The shelter should provide shade from sun at all times.

Vancouver Provide each hen with at least 0.37 m² of coop floor area, and at least 0.92 m² of roofed outdoor enclosure;

Provide and maintain a floor of any combination of vegetated or bare earth in each outdoor enclosure;

Provide and maintain, in each coop, at least one perch, for each hen, that is at least 15 cm long, and one nest box;

Lot Regulations Lot regulations stipulate the minimum size a property must be to house hens as well as the location the coop or pen must be on the property itself. Lot regulations can also restrict proximity to other land uses such as schools and commercial businesses.

Municipality Lot Requirements

Guelph At least 50 feet (15.2 metres) from any school, church or dwelling house other than the owner’s.

Brampton Each animal quarter shall be at least eight (8) metres (25 feet) from any dwelling, school, store or shop, and at least two (2) metres (six feet) from each boundary of the property on which it is located.


Page 319 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


5

Municipality Lot Requirements

Niagara Falls All lots housing chickens must have:

a) detached dwellings on them;

b) a frontage of at least 40 feet (12.2 m); and,

c) a depth of at least 100 feet (30.5 m).

The chicken coop shall be located at least 25 feet (7.6 m) from the rear lot line of the lot on which the chicken coop is located.

The chicken coop shall be located at least 15 feet (4.6 m) from any side lot line of the lot on which the chicken coop is located.

Kingston Hen coops and hen runs shall be a distance of at least 1.2 m from the rear lot line and at least 1.2 m from any side lot line of the dwelling lot on which the hen coop is located.

Hen coops and hen runs shall be located at least 15 m from any school.

Hen coops and hen runs shall be located at least 7.5 meters from any church or business.

Hen coops and hen runs shall be a minimum distance of 3 m from all windows and doors of dwellings that are located on an abutting property.

Hen coops and runs are not permitted in any front or side yard.

The keeping of hens shall only be permitted in residential zones. Tenants must obtain permission from the property owner to keep hens on the owner’s property.

Nanaimo Any structure containing chickens or ducks, whether portable or stationary, is subject to the setback requirements of the zone.


Surrey Minimum lot size of 0.4 hectares (1 acre).

Vancouver No regulations.

Waste Management To control odour and the risk of disease, cities regulate the proper storage and disposal of feces. It should be noted that once dried, feces can be used as a quality fertilizer with no risk of disease and minimal odour.

Municipality Waste Management Requirements

Guelph Unspecified.

Brampton All refuse resulting from the keeping of the animals shall be contained in air tight containers in such a manner as to prevent odours and shall be disposed of in a manner that will not create a public nuisance or health hazard.

Niagara Falls There must be hygienic storage of and prompt removal of chicken feces.

Kingston Stored manure shall be kept in an enclosed structure such as a compost bin in accordance with compost regulations, and no more than three cubic feet shall be stored at any one time .

Manure shall be disposed of in accordance with Municipal by-laws.

Home slaughter of hens is prohibited and any deceased hens shall be disposed of at a livestock disposal facility or through the services of a veterinarian.

Nanaimo Any diseased chicken is killed and the carcass destroyed;

No slaughtering of chickens occurs on the property;

Chicken manure and waste products are composted or disposed of to prevent odours.


Surrey Living areas must be regularly cleaned and sanitized, with excrement removed at least once daily.

Vancouver Store manure within a fully enclosed structure, and store no more than three cubic feet (85 L) of manure at a time;

Remove all other manure not used for composting or fertilizing;


Page 320 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


6

Chicken Coop Maintenance Maintenance regulations are used to ensure the health and safety of the hens, their owners and neighbours. If properly adhered to, risk of disease and vermin can be effectively mitigated.

Municipality Maintenance Regulations

Guelph Regularly cleaned and disinfected.

Brampton The appearance of each animal quarter shall be properly maintained, by regular painting, or shall be finished with permanent siding.

All equipment and material shall be kept within a building or structure, or under cover.

All food for the animals shall be kept in rodent proof containers.

Niagara Falls The chicken’s food supply must be protected against vermin.

The chicken coop must be maintained in accordance with good animal husbandry practices and, shall keep all vermin out.

Kingston Hen coops and hen runs shall be maintained in a clean condition and the coop shall be kept free of obnoxious odours, substances and vermin.

Nanaimo Structures housing chickens or ducks must be kept clean, dry, and free of odours.

Areas within and around structures are kept free of vermin.

Victoria No regulation.

Surrey Living areas must be regularly cleaned and sanitized, with excrement removed at least once daily.

Vancouver Maintain each hen enclosure in good repair and sanitary condition, and free from vermin and obnoxious smells and substances;

Construct and maintain each hen enclosure to prevent any rodent from harbouring underneath or within it or within its walls, and to prevent entrance by any other animal;

Keep a food container and water container in each coop;

Keep each coop locked from sunset to sunrise;

Remove leftover feed, trash, and manure in a timely manner;

Follow biosecurity procedures recommended by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency;

Not slaughter, or attempt to euthanize, a hen on the property.

Complaints and Fines (Tickets) Issued Overall there is very limited information on municipal details, complaints and fines. Available data from the eight Canadian municipalities surveyed suggests that chicken coops in those municipalities have not been generating many complaints and the number of impounded chickens is low. Nanaimo and Surrey have not provided any details on their programs. Victoria responded but had no details to offer.

Municipality Year Enacted

Approximate Number of Complaints

per Year

Estimated Number of Chickens

Impounded per Year

Number of Chicken Coops

Guelph 1 0 50 households

Brampton 1991 5 20 not available

Niagara Falls 1 0 not available

Nanaimo

Victoria not available not available not available

Surrey

Vancouver 2010 25 0 18 permits

Kingston 3rd Reading June 7, 2011 - - -


Page 321 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


7

Summary of By-laws in Three Cities in the United States The three US cities listed below are the most commonly referenced in all the literature available online. A separate listing of American municipal ordinances pertaining to chickens can be found at http://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/chickenlaws.html Number of Chickens

Municipality Hens Roosters

Portland, OR 3 Unspecified

New York, NY Unspecified Unspecified

Seattle, WA 3 (more in larger lots) Unspecified

Structure Regulations

Municipality Structure Regulations

Portland, OR Must not allow animals to roam at large

New York, NY Kept in coops and runways and prevent them from being at large

Seattle, WA Unspecified

Lot Regulations

Municipality Lot Regulations

Portland, OR Must not allow animals to roam at large

New York, NY Must not allow chickens to roam at large

Seattle, WA Standard lot size (5000 sq. feet or 465 m2), 1 extra chicken per 1000 sq. feet (93 m2).

Waste Management

Municipality Waste Management Regulations

Portland, OR Unspecified

New York, NY Unspecified

Seattle, WA Unspecified

Chicken Coop Maintenance

Municipality Chicken Coop Regulations

Portland, OR Chickens must be kept in a clean and sanitary condition, free of vermin, obnoxious smells and substances

New York, NY Coops shall be whitewashed or otherwise treated in a manner approved by the Department. Coops, runways and the surrounding area shall be kept clean.

Seattle, WA No regulation

PREPARED AND RECOMMENDED BY: REVIEWED & CONCURRED BY:

JAY STANFORD, M.A., M.P.A.

DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS &

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

PAT McNALLY, P. ENG.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PLANNING,

ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING

SERVICES

Y:\Shared\Administration\Committee Reports\CNC 2011 06 backyard chickens.docx

c. Ross Fair, M.P.A., Executive Director, Community Services Jim Barber, City Solicitor John Braam, P. Eng., Director of Water & City Engineer


Page 322 of 345

http://home.centurytel.net/thecitychicken/chickenlaws.html

lkucera

Text Box


8

Appendix A

Chantecler Chicken – The Endangered Canadian Breed

The Chantecler breed was first developed in the province of Quebec by Brother Wilfred Chatelain in 1907. His goal was to create a breed of chicken that could withstand the climatic conditions of Canada and that could be used for both egg and meat production. The Chantecler is very hardy, an excellent layer of brown eggs (even in winter months) with a well-fleshed breast. The breed is also noted for being calm, gentle, and personable. The last Chantecler was believed to have died at the University of Saskatchewan in 1979; however, small farmers had managed to keep the breed alive. Today, breeder’s clubs and associations work to keep the endangered breed alive. It is not known what encouragement is provided in the eight Canadian municipalities for homeowners with chickens to focus on the Chantecler breed. Breeders Clubs and Associations Sand Hill Preservation Center 1878 230th Street Calamus, Iowa 52729, (563) 246-2299 [email protected] www.sandhillpreservation.com

Ideal Poultry Breeding Farms, Inc. PO Box 591 Cameron, TX 76520-0591 215 West Main Cameron, TX 76520 254-697-6677 [email protected] www.ideal-poultry.com

The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy, Box 477, Pittsboro, NC 27312, (919) 542-5704, email [email protected], www.albc-usa.org

American Poultry Association, PO Box 306, Burgettstown, PA15021, email [email protected], www.amerpoultryassn.com

Society for the Preservation of Poultry Antiquities, Dr. Charles R.H. Everett, Secretary, 122 Magnolia Lane, Lugoff, SC, 29078, email [email protected]

Association Promoting and Breeding the Chantecler Fowl, Secretary: Andre Auclair, 2400 Rang St Louis, St Paulin, Quebec, JOK 3GO. 819-268-2037 Chantecler Resources: http://www.mypetchicken.com/chicken-breeds/Chantecler-B27.aspx http://www.cfagrf.com/Chantecler_chicken.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chantecler_(chicken) http://www.cherrycreekcanadians.ca/chantecler_sales.htm http://chanteclerfanciersinternational.org/] http://albc-usa.org/cpl/chantecler.html


Page 323 of 345

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sandhillpreservation.com/


http://www.ideal-poultry.com/


http://albc-usa.org/


http://www.amerpoultryassn.com/


http://www.mypetchicken.com/chicken-breeds/Chantecler-B27.aspx

http://www.cfagrf.com/Chantecler_chicken.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chantecler_(chicken)

http://www.cherrycreekcanadians.ca/chantecler_sales.htm

http://chanteclerfanciersinternational.org/

http://albc-usa.org/cpl/chantecler.html

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ TO:

CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE JUNE 14, 2011

FROM:

LYNNE LIVINGSTONE DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBOURHOOD AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

SUBJECT: BARRIERS AND CHALLENGES IN ACCESSING CHILD CARE IN LONDON

RECOMMENDATION

That, on the recommendation of the Director of Neighbourhood and Community Services, with the concurrence of the Executive Director of Community Services, the following report BE RECEIVED for information purposes.


Overview of Child Care in London and the City of London’s Role as a Consolidated Municipal Service Manager (CMSM) – February 15, 2011

Provincial Announcement on Early Learning and Child Care – May 10, 2010

Provincial Announcement Regarding Full-Day Learning for Four and Five Year Olds in Ontario – November 16, 2009

Full Day Learning for Four and Five Year Olds Pilot Projects in London– October 19, 2009

Update on Provincial Child Care Funding Allocations – September 28, 2009

Dr. Charles Pascal Report: With our Best Future in Mind, Implementing Early Learning in Ontario – July 20, 2009

BACKGROUND

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT In February 2011, a report was submitted to Community and Neighbourhoods Committee with respect to Child Care in London. That report summarized the child care situation within the City, the City of London’s role as the Consolidated Municipal Service Manager for London and Middlesex, and the current and emerging issues within child care as they relate to the City’s responsibilities as Consolidated Municipal Service Manager. Subsequent to the report’s presentation, the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee requested additional information on the barriers and challenges families are experiencing in accessing licensed child care services in London. The purpose of this report is to provide City Council with a summary of: 1. System level barriers and challenges within child care that affect all families in London;

2. Specific barriers and challenges faced by families that are eligible for Fee Subsidy; and

3. The actions and activities Neighbourhood and Community Services is undertaking to address

the barriers and challenges.

Child care and Early Childhood Education programs:

Are widely recognized as important elements that provide children with a solid learning and

developmental foundation on which success in school and life can be built;

Benefit parents by enabling them to work, go to school or participate in training; and

Are as important to Employers as are schools, hospitals and churches, as they support the

Employer’s ability to attract and retain young, qualified workers.

Because child care and early childhood education impacts the community at these three important levels, it is acknowledged that there is a strategic alignment between a viable and sustainable child care and early childhood education sector and the City of London’s Strategic


Page 324 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ Priorities of Economic Prosperity and Community Vitality. The City of London’s Role and Responsibilities The City is the designated Consolidated Municipal Service Manager (CMSM) for the City of London and the County of Middlesex. As the CMSM, the City has two main responsibilities:

Planning for the efficient delivery of Children’s Services, including child care and early

childhood education; and

Management and administration of mandated funding programs that support the child care

system.

This report discusses the barriers and challenges accessing child care from both the System

level and the mandated Fee Subsidy Program level perspectives.

System Barriers and Challenges Current Availability of Child Care Spaces

Number of Spaces - The number of licensed child care spaces in London has remained

relatively constant over the past five years. System wide, there is a general shortage of

Infants spaces (0 to 18 months), tightness in availability of Toddler spaces (19 to 30 months)

and adequate availability of Preschool (2.5 to 6 years) and School Age (6 to 12 years)

spaces. However, the implementation of Full Day Kindergarten in the public school system

will, over the next four years, move 4 and 5 year old children currently enrolled in Preschool

spaces from child care centres into schools, creating additional vacancies in child care

programs. As a result, child care centres will have to modify their business model to serve

younger children. Most are expected to be successful with this transition.

Age Group Spaces

Infant 454

Toddler 903

Preschool 2,999

JK/SK 717

SK 31

School Age 2,964

Total 8,068

Total (without school age) 5,104

Licensed and Operating Spaces in London (as of January 31, 2011):

Location of Spaces - In general, there is a relatively good geographic distribution of spaces in

the more mature neighbourhoods across the City. However, in newer and rapidly growing

neighbourhoods there tends to be fewer child care centres/spaces, because when new sub-

divisions are being considered, developers and planners do not always include planning for

child care in the same way as they do for Schools, Parks and other community assets. The

same is true for new Business Developments and Industrial Parks, where the Employer’s

need for child care for employees is not always fully considered.

Potential Shortage of Early Childhood Educators

Under the Day Nurseries Act, child care service providers must employ Registered Early

Childhood Educators (RECEs) in their programs. Implementation of Full Day Kindergarten is

causing movement of RECEs from traditional child care centres to much better paying

positions in the School Boards. A RECE shortage is anticipated for September 2012, when

Year 3 of the Full Day Kindergarten implementation begins, requiring several hundred

additional RECEs in schools. If RECEs do move to the School Boards, the resulting

shortage in child care centres could have an impact on their ability to retain their full Day

Nurseries Act licences.


Page 325 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ Future Availability of Child Care Spaces

If child care centres are not able to successfully transition to a viable business model serving

younger children in response to the implementation of Full Day Kindergarten, some Centres

may be forced to close. Additionally, it is anticipated that seasonal shortages (summer,

Christmas and March Break) of child care options for 4 and 5 year olds will develop as a

result of child care centres permanently re-purposing current spaces for these children in

order to serve younger age groups.

Barriers for Families Eligible for Fee subsidy The Provincially mandated Fee Subsidy programs provide financial assistance for child care fees to parents that meet certain Provincially prescribed eligibility criteria. In general, to be eligible for a Fee Subsidy, parents must be below a certain income threshold, and must be engaged in some approved activity (e.g. Working, In School, etc.) There are four issues that create barriers and challenges for eligible parents in accessing child care. These are: 1. Growth in Waiting List;

2. Shortfalls in Ontario Works Child Care Funding;

3. Gaps between the approved Fee Subsidy Per Diems Rates and Market Rates; and

4. A Shift in the Demographic Profile of Families Receiving Fee Subsidy and Related Financial

Issues.

Growth in Waiting List

A change in Provincial Fee Subsidy Guidelines in 2007 with respect to how eligibility is

determined has resulted in more families being deemed “eligible” for fee assistance. As well,

there are an increasing number of clients qualifying for Fee Subsidy through Ontario Works

or as a result of having very low income due to the economic situation. Despite this, there

have been only limited increases in budget allocation in recent years (e.g. 0% Provincial

increase from 2010 to 2011 in core funding streams). The combination of new eligibility

criteria coupled with the poor economy has created increased demand. Increased demand

combined with limited budget increases is resulting in a growing waiting list for Fee Subsidy

assistance. At present there are over 375 children on the Fee Subsidy waiting list for

placement in the next 45 days. It is anticipated that the waiting list could approach 500

families by August 2011.

Shortfalls in Ontario Works Child Care Funding

Child Care Fee Subsidies to eligible parents are provided under two legislative authorities –

the Day Nurseries Act and Ontario Works, with funding under the Day Nurseries Act

representing the larger of the two funding allocations.

Ontario Works Child Care Allocations and Expenditures 2004 - 2011

As detailed in the preceding table, expenditures for Ontario Works Child Care Fee Subsidy

have exceeded the funding allocation since at least 2004. In 2011, Ontario Works Child Care

Fee Subsidy expenditures will exceed the funding allocation by an estimated $1.57 million.

This funding shortfall is covered by a transfer of funds from the Day Nurseries Act Fee

2004 Actual $1,994,075 $3,134,165 (1,140,090)$

2005 Actual $2,150,450 $3,040,147 (889,697)$

2006 Actual $1,759,200 $2,792,105 (1,032,905)$

2007 Actual $2,060,319 $2,480,095 (419,776)$

2008 Actual $1,782,575 $2,668,483 (885,908)$

2009 Actual $1,759,200 $3,484,790 (1,725,590)$

2010 Actual $1,759,200 $3,316,658 (1,557,458)$

2011 Projected $1,759,200 $3,329,427 (1,570,227)$

Ontario Works Child Care Fee SubsidyProvincial

Funding

Allocation

Gross

Expenditures

Gross

Funding

ShortfallYear


Page 326 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ Subsidy allocation. As a result, there is less funding available for low income working

families, who are the intended beneficiaries of the Day Nurseries Act Fee Subsidy funding.

Gaps between the approved Fee Subsidy Per Diems rates and Market Rates

Families with an adjusted annual income of below $20,000 (which includes both Ontario

Works clients and low income working families) automatically receive a Fee Subsidy that is

equal to the child care provider’s current market rate – there is no cost to the family.

Families that have an adjusted annual income of between $20,000 and $40,000 are eligible

to receive a Fee Subsidy, with the amount of the Fee Subsidy that is paid to the child care

provider being adjusted based on the family’s income (i.e. lower family income equals higher

amount paid to the child care provider). However, the approved Per Diem rates that are

currently used to calculate the amount paid to the child care provider have been frozen at the

child care provider’s rate in 2004. The rationale for this freeze is that because the total child

care funding allocation has remained fairly constant over the past few years, the only way to

increase the Per Diems and close the gap would have been to reduce the number of child

care Fee Subsidy placements, which would have resulted in an even bigger wait lists for Fee

Subsidy.

Since child care providers do not have the capacity to absorb the difference between the

2004 and the 2010 rates, they have been forced to charge these subsidized families the

difference between the two rates through what is generally referred to as a “Top-Up” fee. As

the following graph indicates, the Top-Up gap between the Per Diem rates paid to child care

centres (i.e. the 2004 Market Rate) and the current Market Rate continues to increase.

$2.58

$4.06

$5.47

$6.22$7.63

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

Top Up Fee Oct. 2006 Top Up Fee Sept. 2007 Top Up Fee Sept. 2008 Top Up Fee Sept.2009 Top Up Fee Sept. 2010

Average Top Up Fee - $ Per Child Per Day

Average Top Up Fee

Estimated “Top-Up” Gap 2006 – 2010

The impact of the Top-Up Fee on these families, many of whom are exiting Ontario Works

and entering into employment through part time or entry level positions earning minimum

wage, is that in addition to the amount that the Fee Subsidy eligibility formula prescribes as

the parent’s contribution, the parent is also responsible to pay the child care provider the

Top-Up between the 2004 rate and the current market rate. Currently, this is close to $8 per

day per child, which translates into approximately $2,000 per child per year in full time care.

Many low income families cannot afford this Top-Up Fee, and are being forced out of the

licensed child care system as a result.


Page 327 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ A Shift in the Demographic Profile of Families Receiving Fee Subsidy and Related Financial Issues

Fee Subsidy clients (other than Emergency Placements), fall into one of three categories:

Eligible Ontario Works families;

Eligible families with adjusted annual income of less than $20,000; and

Eligible families with adjusted annual income of between $20,000 and $40,000.

In anticipation of increased demand for Fee Subsidy as a result of the 2007 changes to the

Provincial Fee Subsidy Guidelines, the City modified its Child Care Wait List Policy in July

2007 after consultation with the community. Under this policy, Emergency (i.e. children at

risk) and Ontario Works clients receive immediate child care placements – they are not put

on a waiting list for Fee Subsidy. Families in the other categories are assigned a Priority

Level, are placed on a Wait List, and receive a Fee Subsidy if and when funding allows. As

per the Wait List Policy, families with annual income of less than $20,000 are assigned a

higher priority than families with income of between $20,000 and $40,000.

Because Emergency placements, Ontario Works clients and families with income under

$20,000 have the highest priority for placement, their relative share of the overall child care

client base is increasing. Since the total budget for child care is fixed, the growth in these

groups is resulting in a decreasing number of families with income between $20,000 and

$40,000 being able to access Fee Subsidy.

The impact of the changing distribution of low income clients is compounded by the fact that

there are two basic levels of Fee Subsidy available to parents:

Ontario Works families and eligible families with adjusted annual income below

$20,000 automatically receive a full Fee Subsidy equal to 100% of the child care

provider’s current market rate; and

Eligible families with income above $20,000 receive a partial Fee Subsidy that is

calculated based on the family’s income and the child care provider’s 2004 market

rate.

Because an increasing proportion of clients are receiving a Full Fee Subsidy, these clients

are utilizing an increasing proportion of the total child care budget. As denoted in the

following charts, the proportion of Fee Subsidy expenditures for Ontario Works families and

families with income below $20,000 has grown dramatically since 2007 when the current

City’s waiting list policy came into effect. As a result, the proportion of working families with

incomes above $20,000 is decreasing. It is expected that if this trend continues, within 3

years 100% of Fee Subsidy will go to Ontario Works and families with income below

$20,000, and that working families with income even slightly above $20,000 will be unable to

access any Fee Subsidy.


Page 328 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ What is the City doing to address these barriers and challenges? System Level Maintaining communication with the School Boards and the Child Care community to monitor and

assess impact of Full Day Kindergarten on the viability and sustainability of the child care sector.

Developing and implementing strategies to mitigate the impact, if any.

Maintaining communication with the Ministry of Education to influence future funding and

operating policies.

Working with community partners (i.e. Fanshawe College and the child care community) to

address the impending shortage of Early Childhood Educators.

Collaborating with other Consolidated Municipal Service Managers in South Western Ontario to

identify best practices.

Mandated Programs (Fee Subsidy) Level

Advocating to the Province for increased funding to address the increased demand for Fee

Subsidy.

Advocating to the Province for changes to Ontario Works that would properly fund the Ontario

Works Child Care Fee Subsidy program, which in turn would allow the City to support more

working Low Income families.

Undertaking a complete review of City of London Child Care Policy, including the Wait List Policy,

the Priority of Placement Policy, the Per Diem Policy and the interface with Ontario Works. This

review is expected by the end of 2011.

Initiating a review of Purchase of Service Agreements with Service Providers to update the

existing agreements so they align with the City’s Child Care Policy and the City’s Strategic

Initiatives.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

In order to maintain Fee Subsidy expenditures in line with approved budgets, the City of London has funded the shortfall in Ontario Works Child Care by a transfer of funds from the Provincial Fee Subsidy funding allocation, has maintained per diem rates at 2004 rates, and has introduced a Fee Subsidy wait list. The Fee Subsidy Program is experiencing significant financial pressures on several fronts:

Increased Ontario Works Child Care funding of approximately $1.6 million is required to properly

fund the current demand for Fee Subsidy from Ontario Works clients.

Increased Provincial funding of approximately $4 million is required to address the barriers and

challenges in the existing Fee Subsidy program as identified in this report.

Increased Provincial funding of approximately $2 million is required to address the growing

demand for child care and to eliminate the current waiting list of 375 children who have been

deemed eligible for Fee Subsidy.

Any changes made to address the above noted financial pressures may have an impact on the Children’s Services approved budget.

SUBMITTED BY:

Ian Gibb Program Manager Children’s Services

RECOMMENDED BY:

CONCURRED BY:

Lynne Livingstone Director Neighourhood and Children’s Services

Ross L Fair Executive Director Department of Community Services


Page 329 of 345

lkucera

Text Box

Hi: I'd like to submit my comments on the subject of elminating plastic bags as a recycling container. For the last few years, my wife and I have been using plastic recycling bags (blue and clear) to recycle our plastics and paper products. We have been satisfied with this method and wish to note our opposition to eliminating this recycling method. I agree the grocery bag as an approved recycling container should be banned, but not recycling bags that are sold under the "Glad" or other brands. The benefits of using recycling bags (as opposed to grocery bags) includes: -the ability to segregate types of recycling between paper and plastics -the recycling crew can see what is in the bag for quick sorting -the ability to include more quantity of items in each bag and to have multiple bags -paper products can be kept dry in wet weather (no added weight from soggy cardboard and paper) -there is no blue box to be blown around the street once its empty -there is no need to periodically replace blue boxes that have been destroyed by being tossed back on the ground after being dumped in the recycling truck -with the possibility of more items being recycled, there is a greater need for larger or more blue boxes Our previous experience with blue boxes has not been a pleasant one. We purchased a box and within one year it was cracked at both the top and bottom from being tossed by the truck recycling crews. Thank you for allowing us to make a submission on this subject. Philip & Lorraine Templeton 57 Trillium Cres London ON N5Y 4T3 (519) 451-9578


Page 330 of 345


□ □ TO:

CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBOURHOODS COMMITTEE


FROM:

CINDY HOWARD DIRECTOR, SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT SERVICES

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT

SUBJECT

OVERVIEW OF 2010 HOMELESSNESS AND LONDON COMMUNITY ADDICTION RESPONSE STRATEGY (CAReS) PROGRAMS, SERVICES,

AND FUNDING

RECOMMENDATION

That, on the recommendation of the Director of Social and Community Support Services, with the concurrence of the Executive Director of Community Services, the following report BE RECEIVED for information purposes.


On May 17, 2011, Community and Neighbourhoods Committee received a report and verbal presentation from the Executive Director of Community Services regarding a revised reporting mechanism related to the London Community Housing Strategy (LCHS). Prior to this, reports regarding homelessness funding and services have included: Mayor’s Anti-Poverty Action Group Funding (1997 and annual Municipal Budget reports); Provincial Rent Bank Program Grant Agreement (Annual update reports and contract

approvals since 2005); Provincial Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Programs (CHPP) (Annual updates

and reports since 2005); Housing Support Services (2005 and annual reports since 2007 on contracts and

services of Rent Bank, THAW, and related funding); London CAReS (Report of 2006 to CPS, final report of 2007, and annual CPS and Board

of Control reports of activity, funding allocations, and service contracts); Homelessness Partnering Strategy (Reports on community plans on homelessness,

community entity models, funding allocations, and services annually since the prior federal Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative – SCPI began in 2000);

Social Policy Framework (2006, with regular follow-up reporting on resulting initiatives); Reports on separate local and city led initiatives such as Hostels to Homes (H2H),

intensive case management, and other programs and strategies aimed at addressing the needs of vulnerable Londoners experiencing homelessness or housing crisis; and,

Reports on Municipal and community based strategy and policy positioning in response to work by other orders of government. These include municipal responses to Ontario’s Every Door is the Right Door (mental health and addictions) discussion paper, Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy discussion paper, and other provincial and federal initiatives related to social policy reforms and local mental health services changes.

BACKGROUND

Purpose of this Report: This report provides Community and Neighbourhoods Committee an update on the programs, services, and funding related to our municipal role in homelessness and delivery of London CAReS services for the calendar year of 2010, with the exception of the federal Homelessness Partnering Strategy which is reported on a fiscal year. Future reporting will be provided through London Community Housing Strategy (LCHS) Community Update Reports.


Page 331 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ Overview of this Report: This report addresses homelessness prevention and intervention initiatives including assistance to individuals facing utility or rent related emergencies, and programs to improve access and retain housing. The homelessness portfolio assists people experiencing homelessness and households at high risk of becoming homeless. The report is structured to provide program details, allocations, and an overview of services and activities as follows:

Section 1. Summary of Homelessness Funding; Section 2. The Federal Homelessness Partnering Strategy; Section 3. The Provincial Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program; Section 4. Housing Support Services (Rent Bank, THAW, and Energy Emergency

Fund); Section 5. The Mayor’s Anti-Poverty Action Group; and Section 6. London Community Addiction Response Strategy (CAReS). SECTION 1: SUMMARY OF HOMELESSNESS FUNDING Each of the following sections of this report will provide a brief overview of the services, funded agencies, and various sources of funding administered by Community Services related to homelessness programs and London CAReS activities in 2010. Funding for these programs comes from all orders of government, however, specific local initiatives may receive funding from more than one source. These funds enhance other direct services such as those through Ontario Works programs including the Provincial Addiction Services Initiative. The following chart reflects a summary of specific homelessness funding allocations and sources and London’s position as a primary funder: Overview of 2010 Funding by Program and Source:

Program Funding Source 2010 Allocation ($)

Energy Emergency Fund (EEF) for CMSM 100% Provincial 69,150

Rent Bank for CMSM 100% Provincial 188,200

The Heat and Warmth Program (THAW) (MAPAG) 100% Municipal * 200,000*

Mayor’s Anti-Poverty Action Group (MAPAG) 100% Municipal 85,000

Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) for CMSM

100% Provincial 544,213

Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) Based on Fiscal Allocation (2009/10)

100% Federal 513,214

London Community Addiction Response Strategy (London CAReS)

100% Municipal 1,244,351

*In 2010 the Province of Ontario agreed to provide one time 100% Provincial funding to support the Heat and Warmth program.

The homelessness portfolio also includes service agreements with emergency shelter and domiciliary hostels. Although these services are included in the overall homeless program, they are reported separately within our Consolidated Municipal Service Manager (CMSM) regulated Ontario Works programs. SECTION 2: THE FEDERAL HOMELESSNESS PARTNERING STRATEGY (HPS) 2.1 Program Details: Under the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, Service Canada provides fiscal funding to the City of London for programs and initiatives that support the reduction of homelessness in London and support the administration of the program. These 100% federal funds are allocated by the City. The Homelessness Partnering Secretariat has renewed its existing strategy for a three year period concluding March 31, 2014. A contract has been entered into between


Page 332 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ HRDSC and the City of London for the period April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2014 at the current level of $513,214 per fiscal year. The City of London serves as the Community Entity for the federal Homelessness Partnering Strategy at the invitation of the London Homeless Coalition which acts as the required Community Advisory Board. The federal funds are allocated by the City under contract with the federal government and in accordance with local priorities established through a community plan on homelessness and approved by the London Homeless Coalition. The federal Homelessness Partnering Strategy supports strategic partnerships and structures including housing solutions and stable supports to assist individuals experiencing homelessness to move toward autonomy and self-sufficiency. The strategy recognizes that housing stability is key and essential to enabling other social determinants such as improved health, education and employment. The local use of Homelessness Partnering Strategy funds will continue to support initiatives to aid those experiencing homelessness. Currently, Service Canada has extended the fiscal funding of $513,214 until 2014. 2.2 2010/2011 HPS Fiscal Allocation:

Agency Description of Services Funding Allocation April 21, 2010 to March 31, 2011

($) Western Ontario Therapeutic Community Hostel

London CAReS Safe Haven 140,625

Mission Services of London London CAReS Safe Haven 140,625

At Lohsa Native Family Healing Services Inc.

London CAReS Safe Haven 140,625

London Housing Registry Homeless Housing Liaison 40,018

City of London Program Administration and Audit 51,321

TOTAL 513,214

2.3 2010/2011 HPS Funded Agencies and Activities: London CAReS/Safe Haven: The services and activities related to London CAReS safe havens are reported with London CAReS. London Housing Registry: The London Housing Registry services introduced a Housing Liaison to assist individuals experiencing homelessness in London by supporting households in London CAReS Safe Havens/shelter/temporary accommodation to obtain permanent housing in the private sector and providing advocacy and intervention/mediation between tenants and landlords. Throughout the fiscal year 2010/2011 a total of 74 individuals were supported in moving to greater housing stability.

SECTION 3: THE CONSOLIDATED HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM (CHPP) 3.1 Program Details: The Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) allocates funding province-wide on an annual basis through the Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program. The City of London, as the Consolidated Municipal Service Manager (CMSM) for London and Middlesex County, received $544,213 in 2010 to support innovative approaches to address homelessness. All 2010 funds have been allocated.

The goals of the Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program are:

Provide programs and activities to support individuals/families residing in temporary accommodation or emergency shelter to obtain longer term housing;

Improved access to and connect individuals/families who are homeless with the system of community services; and/or,

Assist individuals/families at risk of homelessness to retain housing.


Page 333 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ 3.2 2010 CHPP Allocation:

Agency Description of Services Funding Allocation 2010 ($)

Youth Action Centre Outreach Services 77,737

Mission Services Crash Beds 112,300

John Howard Society Youth Leaving Shelter 58,500

Street Connection Youth Drop in Program 20,000

Salvation Army Housing Support Services 115,063

London Housing Registry Private Market Housing Registry 80,580

Canadian Mental Health Association

No Fixed Address Program 18,500

City of London Program Administration 54,421

Homelessness Implementation Plan

7,072

Middlesex County 40

TOTAL 544,213

In 2010 the Province released its Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy, Building Foundations: Building Futures. The report identifies that the first phase of consolidation will include five homelessness-related programs, which would give Service Managers the flexibility to use funding to better meet the needs of those who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. The Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program (CHPP) is included in this phase. The 2011 funding from the province is currently at the same rate as 2010. Our plan is to link the CHPP funding to the directions outlined in the London Community Plan on Homelessness. All funded agencies have been notified that the annual funding will be subject to review in 2011 and may result in funding changes up to and including the termination of CHPP funding. 3.3 2010 CHPP Funded Agencies and Activities:

Crash Beds: Mission Services provides crash beds and services to men and women aged 16 years and over who are homeless, living with mental illness, and who, for various reasons, cannot access the regular emergency shelter system.

The Province supports crash beds through health funding and only addresses services in traditionally colder months. In order to meet local year-round demands, CHPP funds crash beds service from April through October each year. In 2010, for the months funded through CHPP, an average of 78 men and 43 women stayed in a crash bed each month. The average monthly occupancy rate for men was 146% and 88% for women. There are 11 crash beds for men and 10 crash beds for women.

Street Outreach: Youth Opportunities Unlimited (YOU) provides outreach services to encourage youth experiencing homelessness to make more use of places which are safer, including housing, emergency shelters, and drop-in centres. The focus of the CHPP outreach worker is to get to know the individuals living on the street well enough to explore solutions and overcome barriers to securing appropriate housing. This initiative is part of the overall efforts of The Youth Action Centre's (YAC’s) work with homeless youth in London.

In 2010, approximately 631 contacts were made with street involved and homeless youth in London and 262 households were supported in moving to permanent housing. Of these contacts, the immediate needs were housing/shelter, food, clothing, and counselling and withdrawal management.

Youth Leaving Shelter: The John Howard Society provides a case management service and housing support service to youth leaving shelters. The project’s staff maintains regular hours at the Men’s Mission, Rotholme, and the Centre of Hope.

In 2010, approximately 156 youth accessed services from this initiative of which 98 youth living in temporary accommodations were moved to permanent housing. Access to affordable and appropriate safe housing continues to be a problem faced by youth, especially for youth under the age of eighteen.


Page 334 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ Street Connection:

Street Connection provides a drop in centre and referrals directed to street youth with

addictions. In 2010, Street Connection supported 283 youth of which 14 transitioned from living

on the streets into emergency shelter and 10 homeless youth in their move to housing.

London Housing Registry: The London Housing Registry (LHR) provides a drop-in housing service to individuals and families who are homeless and/or at risk of homelessness. Services are provided to those seeking affordable private sector housing through a rental listing data base. In addition, the London Housing Registry offers a housing needs assessment, education, tenant matching, intervention and mediation for those who are seeking and/or trying to maintain their current housing. Through this program 323 households at risk of homelessness were served and 294 were supported in their move to housing.

Canadian Mental Health Association:

The No Fixed Address Program provides intensive and immediate housing support to

individuals, prior to discharge from psychiatric hospital care. The objective is to assist

individuals in securing or maintaining suitable housing and diverting use of the shelter system,

thereby reducing the number of individuals discharged from hospital to shelter. A total of 38

unique individuals were served, of which 12 moved to permanent housing. This initiative is a

partnership between CMHA and Ontario Works.

The research portion of this initiative has concluded and CMHA has a long term funding strategy

for the continuation of this position.

Housing Support Services:

The Salvation Army, Centre of Hope received funding to support the administration

requirements of our local Housing Support Services program. The team works cooperatively

with a number of partners and the satellite offices to ensure Londoners in need have the right

contact when it is needed most. This program is the integrated delivery of our local Rent Bank

and THAW program (The Heat and Warmth program). In 2010, 1,108 low-income households

received $582,449 in financial assistance to assist with utility and/or rental arrears. SECTION 4: HOUSING SUPPORT SERVICES (HSS): RENT BANK, THAW, AND EMERGENCY ENERGY FUND 4.1 Program Details: The Rent Bank, The Heat and Warmth Program (THAW) and Energy Emergency Fund are administered under a single agreement with the Salvation Army Housing Support Services. In addition, the Housing Outreach for Maintenance, Education, and Stability (H.O.M.E.S.) program is supported under Housing Support Services. HSS works with the private sector services and funders, including London Hydro and Union Gas, in delivering a continuum of supports from homelessness prevention to home security. Housing Support Services was established in 2006 through a Municipal Council by-law and service arrangement to identify a single service partner to consolidate The Heat and Warmth (THAW) and Rent Bank programs. Since that time, the City has maintained a successful service agreement with The Salvation Army of Canada to provide these Housing Support Services through the Centre of Hope and satellite locations throughout London. 4.2 2010 Allocations to Housing Support Services:

Program Source of Funding Funding Allocation 2010 ($)

THAW Municipal (MAPAG) * 100,000

THAW Municipal * 100,000

EEF Province 57,740

Rent Bank Province 178,200

H.O.M.E.S. Municipal (MAPAG) 4,070

Program Administration Provincial (CHPP) 115,363

*In 2010 the Province of Ontario agreed to provide one time 100% Provincial funding to support the Heat and Warmth program.


Page 335 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ 4.3 2010 Housing Support Services Programs: Rent Bank: Rent Bank provides interest-free loans to assist low-income Londoners to avoid housing crisis and eviction. In 2003, the Rent Bank Program was initiated in London, and since 2004 the City of London has administered the provincial Rent Bank Program funded through a one time renewable grant program. In 2009 the provincial Rent Bank Program became a 100% provincially funded annualized initiative increasing the annual allocation to London to $188,200. Housing Support Services received $178,200 and $10,000 was allocated to Middlesex County. In 2010 Middlesex County did not spend their full allocation, so an additional allocation was provided to Housing Support Services. In 2010, 143 households were assisted in receiving an interest free loan to continue to pay their rent and avert eviction or stabilize their housing crisis. The average loan paid per household was $1,187. In total, $57,233 was paid back to the Rent Bank from the adults assisted through the program. The Heat and Warmth Program and the Energy Emergency Fund: THAW assists low income Londoners who are experiencing a utility crisis with financial assistance by paying their unpaid bills directly to the utility company. The program also works with individuals to identify energy efficient alternatives to help reduce the cost of utility bills and avoid future problems. Housing Support Services works with satellites throughout London. THAW is an emergency program supported 100% by the City of London that concludes each year when the funds are exhausted. In addition to this the Energy Emergency Fund, a 100% provincial fund, augments the THAW program. During the 10 months that THAW ran in 2010, the program assisted 965 households with their utility accounts. The average utility payment during the year was $431. Housing Outreach for Maintenance, Education, and Stability (H.O.M.E.S): The H.O.M.E.S. Program provides families and individuals with the information and skills to help them maintain their housing. This 8 to10 session life-skills program provides information through interactive presentations and workshops from partner agencies and companies regarding financial stability, tenant rights, home maintenance, and a number of other topics chosen to assist participants to live successfully in our community. SECTION 5: THE MAYOR’S ANTI-POVERTY ACTION GROUP (MAPAG) 5.1 Program Details: In 1997 Municipal Council established the Mayor’s Anti-Poverty Action Group (MAPAG) with approval of an annual budget allocation of $185,000 to the MAPAG Fund. Since then, a number of strategies and targeted initiatives have evolved to assist individuals and families living in poverty to be supported by community agencies in providing programs, services, and events. The 2010 MAPAG fund was fully allocated. 5.2 2010 MAPAG Allocations:

Agency/Service Description of Services Funding Allocation 2010 ($)

London InterCommunity Health Centre

Health Access Voucher Program 40,000

Western Ontario Therapeutic Community Hostel (WOTCH)

National Conference on Women and Homelessness

15,000

Emergency Services Extreme Weather Alert 14,000

Housing Support Services HOMES Program 4,070

Housing Support Services THAW 100,000

Canadian Mental Health Association

Thriving in 2010 and Beyond National Conference

11,930

TOTAL 185,000


Page 336 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ 5.3 2010 MAPAG Funded Activities: The Heat and Warmth Program (THAW): See Housing Support Services for details. Health Access Vouchers: London InterCommunity Health Centre is the sponsoring agency managing the Health Access Voucher Program. The Health Access Voucher program provides low-income families or individuals access to urgent over–the-counter pharmaceutical products through a one-time voucher redeemable at a neighbourhood pharmacy. The program is delivered by twelve neighbourhood based agencies and is monitored through the Health Access Group.

Approximately 685 households are supported in this program. Households include single parent families, couples, and individuals. Items purchased are products that individuals and families cannot afford to buy after their basic needs are met. Typical products include cough, cold, and fever medication.

Extreme Weather Alert: The Middlesex London Health Unit maintains the Extreme Temperature Protocol. The protocol identifies measures to be taken to reduce the health risks associated with extreme hot or cold weather. Participating agencies are expected to implement the protocol when directed to do so by the Medical Officer of Health. The centres provide a place for people to rest and remain warm or to cool down. Costs for this program help assist with expenses such as water, nutrition, cots, and bedding. All Our Sisters National Conference: This conference was held on May 9, 10, and 11, 2011, in London. This national conference focused on women experiencing poverty and homelessness and is believed to be the first of its kind in Canada. The City’s contribution supported 110 women with lived experience to attend the conference and in the promotional bags provided to delegates. Thriving in 2010 and Beyond National Conference: The conference was held at the London Convention Centre October 22 – 24, 2010. The City of London’s contribution supported 87 individuals living with mental illness to attend the conference and in providing the promotional bags to delegates. SECTION 6: LONDON COMMUNITY ADDICTION RESPONSE STRATEGY (London CAReS) 6.1 Program Details: London CAReS is an innovative Council approved strategy aimed at improving the health outcomes of street involved and homeless individuals who live with the challenges of poverty, addiction, and mental illness. The five year integrated strategy commenced in mid 2008 and focuses on individuals with these complex and often co-occurring challenges residing in, or relying on, our downtown and priority neighbourhoods. London CAReS is funded $1.25 million per year for five years. This stable funding source allows for the programs and services to continue to adapt to respond to the needs of our community. Funds allocated from these sources are determined on an annual basis, and projects or services may be required to go through a competitive request for proposal. We continue to seek new and stable funding from the provincial and federal governments to ensure the full outcomes of London CAReS will be achieved. London CAReS builds a continuum of care aimed at:

Improving health outcomes for those living with addiction and homelessness;

Reducing the incidence of homelessness in London; and

Enhancing the quality of life in the downtown core areas. London CAReS was designed and implemented through a highly collaborative community based approach which recognizes the complex and rapidly evolving issues associated with homelessness. This requires a commitment to solutions and resources that can be rapidly adopted to respond to changing patterns.


Page 337 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ Support for the strategy is strengthened through the cooperation and interest from the business community and neighbourhood associations. The social and public service sectors are working in strong partnerships. This unique approach applies the internationally accepted four pillar approach to respond to addictions and incorporates treatment, prevention, enforcement, and harm reduction. London CAReS created a fifth pillar of collaboration and integration. This unifying pillar engages individuals with lived experience, businesses and residents in the design and delivery of CAReS and incorporates standards of service to all funded agencies. The first stage of London CAReS was moving from strategy to full implementation through the design and delivery of a range of street level services aimed at engaging with individuals experiencing homelessness, and working with neighbourhoods, businesses and community services. Funded agencies, community partners and the City continue to work together to develop a robust framework that creates lasting solutions. The following components of London CAReS have been in place since mid 2008:

Safe haven community centres

Feet on the street and mobile outreach

Van outreach

24 hour telephone service

Syringe recovery A safe haven is a community centre that offers a temporary alternative to being on the street. Safe havens provide a place to rest, programs and access to support workers, snacks and clothing. In 2010 the safe havens were operated by Mission Services of London, WOTCH Community Mental Health Services – My Sisters’ Place and At Lohsa Native Family Healing Services and the Salvation Army Centre of Hope. CAReS outreach workers and mobile outreach reach out to the street involved and homeless. Outreach workers will:

Provide “as-needed” services, including referrals to support services

Contact and develop relationships with the homeless and local community members

Provide non-emergency response to facilitate alternatives to services such as police, ambulance, and hospital.

Used needles have been found in parks, discarded on streets, and on private property. The CAReS action plan to safely dispose of needles and syringes includes collecting needles and installing needle bins in selected locations. This is in addition to local Ministry of Health approved programs to encourage needle exchange. Providing clean needles has been proven to support the health of the user and the community by reducing transmittable diseases and other related health impacts and costs. 2010 Numbers with a comparison to 2009:

2010 2009

Total annual safe haven visits 113,700 82,050

Total annual street and mobile outreach 28,300 13,873

Safe needle disposal 163,186 100,000

Total annual telephone calls 2,315 763

Going Forward 2011 - 2013: Based on the experience and evaluation of the first two years, and the approval of the London Community Housing Strategy, London CAReS is re-focusing its objectives to build on community integration and housing outcomes for the targeted populations. These recommendations were further supported through the development of the Community Plan on Homelessness which focused attention on prioritized action plans associated with homelessness services, including London CAReS.


Page 338 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ The London Community Plan on Homelessness establishes the policy and program directions until December 31, 2015 for homeless programs and services in London. The Community Plan on Homelessness is aimed at engaging in integrated solutions across service sectors to create strategic and lasting interventions for those in our community that are experiencing homelessness or a housing crisis and who are most often living with the effects of other complex social and health challenges. The London Community Plan on Homelessness identifies themes and directions focused on permanent solutions to homelessness. Theme three identifies specific directions related to the alignment of services and interventions to focus on housing and solutions to homelessness. Specifically, Direction 3.5 states “To enhance London CAReS services and align with housing outcomes.” The City convened externally facilitated discussions with the London CAReS Steering Committee to chart a course for the next elements of the program. This focus includes intensive housing and case management components that are based on the evidence and experiences of the past several years. The current London CAReS funded agencies and broader community service partners have been actively engaged in discussions that are helping to re-focus London CAReS to better support priority populations of individuals with lived experience in securing and sustaining housing. Enhancements to the continuum of services are being introduced including changes to the safe havens, introducing case management, and service coordination. The readiness of the agencies funded to provide a component of the programs and their leadership to learn, cooperate together and adapt is a demonstration of the success of an integrated model. London CAReS works with a range of community members and services in identifying gaps and barriers in the system and then works within existing community structures and systems to develop solutions to their barriers that result in better system coordination, collaboration, and outcomes for individuals experiencing homelessness and living with addictions, mental illness, and other health and housing issues. The London CAReS model of service is based on the cooperation of community services, business and neighbourhood associations, the London Police Service, individuals, and all orders of government with specific leadership by the City of London. Extensive knowledge on the behaviors and characteristics of street involved individuals and people experiencing homelessness and the best solutions has been gained through the Hostels to Homes program and London CAReS. The efforts to assist individuals served through London CAReS exists within a context of considerable systemic barriers. The services provided through London CAReS apply different lenses of analysis related to the needs of different populations and specific unique interests. The needs of Aboriginal People are considered, as are the needs of youth, women, seniors, newcomers, and persons with disabilities. A collaborative approach to case planning and record keeping will be applied by London CAReS staff and peers to better coordinate client services. Five components will form the comprehensive model of service:

Outreach/Safe Haven

Housing Selection

Housing Stability

Peer Engagement

System Governance, Accountability and Leadership The London CAReS change focus will move to individuals with the highest need including youth, women and seniors who are newly introduced to engaging in street culture and at high risk of homelessness, and individuals experiencing chronic or persistent homelessness and will focus on achieving housing. London CAReS adopts a shared leadership and stewardship model based on strong practices of collaboration and integration. This model of shared responsibility reflects an outcome based approach that builds and adapts based on research, best practices, and innovation including London CAReS focused business tools. Primary governance and accountability will be achieved through a combination of an oversight body including London CAReS Steering Committee, CAReS Coordinator, and the City of London.


Page 339 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □ Several changes have been or will be taking place to support the change plan. On March 28, 2011, The Salvation Army Centre of Hope closed its Safe Haven. The Salvation Army Safe Haven is one of the funded agencies of London’s Community Addiction Response Strategy (CAReS). Since 2008, this evening drop-in service has opened its doors to individuals experiencing homelessness offering snacks, a place to rest, and leisure activities. The contracts with all current funded agencies will conclude on September 30, 2011. New agreements will be entered into based on the revised model of service and as a result of the outcome of the Request for Proposal for Consolidated Outreach Services. London has a growing network of support services available to individuals and families experiencing homelessness and living in poverty. We are extending our reach to provide more than one place to support individuals in meeting their needs. 6.2 2010 London CAReS Funding: In 2010, efforts were made to better align London CAReS with our homelessness programs and services to build a more integrated approach to street level prevention and intervention activities. This resulted in an unallocated balance of our 2010 municipal funding of $5,904 which remains within our Consolidated Verification Reserve Fund to support the ongoing development and delivery of London CAReS services. This will also assist in further aligning London CAReS with the London Community Housing Strategy. The 2011 financial commitments under London CAReS will expense the full budget allocation including enhanced funding for outreach, case management support and supervision, as was identified and approved within the 2011 Municipal Budget. FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no financial impacts related to this report and presentation. CONCLUSION The funding, programs, and services included within this 2010 update report reflect the numerous efforts that have been made in London to address the growing number and increasing complexity of those experiencing homelessness and/or living in housing crisis. These activities, in concert with other services and funding provided by other orders of government, and by other municipal departments, have been developed within our social policy framework and guidance of our community and in the absence of the broader integrated homelessness and housing strategy. The City of London is recognized as a regional centre for social assistance, health, mental health and addiction services, and court services and detention. We understand the important linkage between homelessness prevention and intervention strategies and the work of other sectors including housing, addictions and mental health. The Social and Community Services Division has started to develop and implement a number of strategic initiatives in partnership with the Housing Division and other service providers to respond to homelessness. Future service enhancements, strategies, and outcome reporting on homelessness initiatives will be subject to the strategic, service, or funding amendments that will emerge through the London Community Plan on Homelessness as well as those being developed by other orders of government. Administration continues to work with local service providers, the federal and provincial governments, service users, and other community stakeholders on London’s Homelessness Portfolio and will ensure the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee remains informed.


Page 340 of 345

lkucera

Text Box


□ □

SUBMITTED BY:

Jan Richardson Manager, Homelessness, Hostels & Special Populations Social & Community Support Services

RECOMMENDED BY:

CONCURRED BY:

Cindy Howard Director, Social & Community Support Services Community Services Department

Ross L. Fair Executive Director Community Services Department

C. Anna Lisa Barbon, Manager, Financial and Business Services Louise Stevens, Director, Housing Division

Steve Giustizia, Manager, Ontario Works and Homelessness


Page 341 of 345

lkucera

Text Box

Mr. Stephen Orser;

This letter is bei"g-$tten in regards to the excessive noise and air pollution caused bythe trucks and the 24how SuperStore loading dock, focat"¿ atgl|oxford St E.

Problem/Concern;

I ú" past 5 years there has been a surge of residential development just south of theSuperstore mentioned above- The trucks in question *. *trtinro"rri;fè.ti"g us and theother resident's quaiity of life. Trucks are;

- coming at ail hours of the night. (record.ed times & video proof)

- Emitting the back-up warning beeper.

- In some cases taking 20 minutes to back into the namow loading dock area.

- Continually ieft running

- Leeching diesel exhaust into surrounding houses

- Producing enough noise/air pollution that residents have to keep their windows closed

- utilizing their engine breaks when approaching the loading docks too quickly.

- Honking their horns when approaching, to let receivers know of their arrival

- Producing noise when unloading freight. (stacking of skids, hydrauiic skid cart)

- Shining headiights into resident's windows as the barrier fence is not tali enough.

- Releasing their air breaks when stopped, generating a loud ear piercing noise.

- Suggestions that are noted below have been ignored or declined after contacting boththe store manager and district manager.

In addition:

- The inadequate fence separating our property (497 McMahen St.) from the SuperStoreis frequently jumped and used as a shortcut.

- The people jumping the fence are utilizing the green power box on the South-Eastcorner of the SuperStore property. The jumping of the fence and related trespassing haslead to personal properfy damage/theft and the potential for a law-suit.ausrã bV iqiu.y.

Recommended Solutions¡

We've contacted the SuperStore on numerous occasions with suggestions on how to limitthe noise and air pollution. 'We have listed these suggestions below;

- Build a higher more effective barrier wall, as the wood fence that is currently in place isnot effective in the blocking noise, headlights or air pollution from the trucks.

- Establish a'1'{o ldling" and "No Honking" area by hanging signs. (Sometimes there areup to 6 trucks idling at a time, while waiting for their turn to unload freight)

- Modify delivery schedule to eliminate the trucks arriving between 1lpm and 7am.

*'When investigating other supermarket loading docks and high traffïc areas thatare utilized by various businesses, rve noticed that they all have barrier walls. Thesewalls are filically made of either brick or cement to reduce noise and air pollutionaffecting adjacent residents.

.dgonda ¡t€m # paOe #¡-|Í.-r

L,'_J @iSigned Copies are available in the City Clerk's Office

Page 342 of 345

lkucera

Text Box

Councillor Orser,

I have some concerns regarding the traffic on my street and surrounding streets and I was hoping you could help.

I live on Elizabeth Street at Picadilly and the traffic never stops anymore. People speed and don't obey the stop sign on picadilly, it's very stressful. My husbands truck was parked on the road and was hit as two drivers didn't have the patience to let the other go first, there have been some fender benders from traffic on picadilly not obeying the stop sign and colliding with traffic on Elizabeth street.

Last June our cat scooted out and was hit by a car and killed.

Traffic within the city of London is very very bad but residential streets filled with parks and children.... This is a huge problem.

I think it would be beneficial to the area if there were an All way stop on Elizabeth and picadilly streets. If this could be looked into, that would be great.

Sincerely,

Shirley Hunniford


Page 343 of 345

ry agÊfrd8ltemE

the proven c-ura fqne Jã,õe-pi¿ärc

Moy30,20l I

City of London300 Dufferin StreeiTONDON. ON.NóB IZ2

Aflenlion. Moyor Joe Fontono

Deor Joe,

Re. LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION FoR T*EN CHAI.LENGE .ONDONS \Thonk you for meeting.with me fodoy to !þct1s¡ Jhe cíty of London,s fufure ossocíotionwith Teen choilenge. your presentottn ot rost Fàdd¿'ilmt", oi comÃercu ,.,'.,!"r,nJwos os usuol encouroging. I truly believe thot yo, or. Lonåãn'r mqn for lhe hour we,retn.

At our lost meeting we ogreed thot'London con hove onother ,,rsi,,. Together we conwork of our city becoming number one in the fight to overcàrne fhe drug pondemic inou|country' Becquse we ore involved with the fivet "t

r^n"n ånd women tropped in fhequogmire of drug ond olcohof oddîclion lwould *rp".tt llv osk thot you persuode ollthe members of council fo moke o concerted efforf io uiriiärr compus. pleose occepÌthis os on invitotion; you nome the dofe ond lwillooongè f;on infcrmative meeting fotoke ploce here of our cenfre.

Teen Choltenge lnc.Lqmbeth, Box777,London. ON.NóP IRóTel:. 519-652-077tIoll Free: 1.888.417.7777

. Todoy my oppeor io you is; wirl you preose ret us hove your refter ofrecornmendotion/endorsement [pleose do nof'fofd it] for fhe service we provide ondwifh'your opproyol to disploy it in'our reception oreo of our London compus? our goolos you know is to refurn totolly recovered oddicts to our society no longãiä ouroen toour economy but'rother on osiet. Our success rofe speoks for ifself; some of our sfudenfshove chonged course ond ore rodoy quotified ín dentistry; ãm;'ñ*;Jä"à." inmedicine; some become Postors whíle ofhers return to tnà¡r lrodes.' ln oooiriån theyreturn fo their fomilies qnd become good husbonds ond outstonding fothers.sir' becquse I know

YqY os o moñ ol integrity I leove lhe choice of words for your letfer ioyou' Your leiter must bè oddressed to our Notionql Director Mr. George Glóver. pleosemoil your leiter to the'obove oddress morked tor my ãilentíon. wei¡¿íll be ãbsolutelydelighted ond gr.otefurto hove your posirive response io iÁi, åqrurtvours vfry sincerely

/\

lwDr. Pieter C. Herbst. ph.D.


Page 344 of 345

lkucera

Text Box

sgends ttôm # paoe #Etr]

Mercier

From:Sent:lo:Cc:Subject:

From: WendiRedmanSenh Thursda¡ May 05, 2011 7:56 pMTo: Fontana, JosephSubjecfi Clothing Donation Bins

Mayor f,"ontana,

I am witå a local charity thaþrovides free {o-qrrrg to-those in need in the community. I recently attended 2 events invrhich you were a guest speaker. The Pillar AGM

T_ta tne e.ge community Árã.¡"uã" AGr*,t. iil;i"e yo.r, passioofor charities and your commiünentto working coilaborau"ãrv*itn.n;;t;;;;;lp create a healthier community.

The community clothing centre has provided free clothing to 564low income and homeless people in our great citysince the beginning of the year. we have 2 donated sites iñ London. we are not funded, we "oorrt

o' the generosity ofthe residents in our city to donate clothing. we collect clothing through our clothi¡g donation bins locatedthroughout the city and through our homõ pick up service. we always ask permission to place a bin at a location andwe have a very devoted team of drivers who make it their personal mission to maintain these bins.

There are several other charities that too have clothing donation bins however are z in particular that are not localand do not collect for any charÍty but rather line tleirãwi pockets. one has been a thom in our sides for a year now,they are from windsgr and the other iust popped up this wóek and they are f,rom ottawa. These organizations'dump' a bin in a parkíng lot hoping that no one will noþ'ce. These organizations should not uL aúiËiã ào tnis.

I would like to see in London; as in other cities pass a by-Iaw that protects legal registered charities from tlese other"for-profit" organizations. These other organizãtiotts are particularly bad in-the Tironto area. Toronto councillorHoward Moscoe had been fighting to get a by'law passed fõr some time stating that these organizations "should beashamed of themselúes masquerading as a charity" and also stated in a Toronto sun articlei"rh" maiority of usedclothing boxes are scams," said Councillor Howard Moscoe. 'They pretend to support charÍtabl" po"ior"r. The fact ofthe matter is the vast maioríty dont or they do so marginalt¡' hã iaid. the artictå went on to say A number of firmsoperate bins for profit only.

I am not sure how to go about stopping these other organizations or if I can, Nor do t know who to talk to. I wouldvalue your input and I would like to be pointed in the right direction to go forward on this. I look forward to hearingfrom you or one ofyour team members.

Regards,

WmdiRedmanCommunity Clothing Centre

ferguson, Dana on O9n9[ of Fontana, JosephMonday, May 16, 2011 4:34 pM'WendiRedman'Mercier, BettyRE: Clothing Donation Bins


Page 345 of 345

lkucera

Text Box

TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND ... - London, Ontariocouncil.london.ca/meetings/CNC...

Documents

Transcript of TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS COMMUNITY AND ... - London, Ontariocouncil.london.ca/meetings/CNC...