08/26/2026
🐾❤️🐕 Queens County dog owners, this proposed bylaw could affect you!
The Region of Queens is working on a completely new dog bylaw. I’ve read the full 38-page draft and submitted my professional feedback to Council.
Before anything else: this is still a draft. It has not been adopted and is not currently law. It will be revised before returning to Council for First Reading.
There are some genuinely good things to appreciate in it, and there are things that I believe need a closer look.
What I support
✅ Dogs would be judged by their behaviour, not their breed.
✅ The Municipality would have more options to intervene before a serious incident occurs. That could include better containment, muzzling, training, safety plans and conditions suited to the individual situation.
✅ Enforcement would be graduated. Not every incident would automatically receive the most severe response.
✅ Owners would receive written decisions and have a right to appeal.
✅ A Dangerous or Fierce designation would not automatically mean euthanasia. Humane alternatives must be considered, and euthanasia is described as a last resort.
✅ The draft does not contain a household dog limit. Staff actually recommends against adding one, because four responsibly managed dogs may cause no problem while one neglected or uncontrolled dog may present a serious concern. I agree.
✅ An invisible fence would not count as secure containment by itself when a dog is left unsupervised. I agree with this. It cannot prevent another person, child, dog or wild animal from entering the property, and some dogs will cross it despite the consequence.
✅ The draft targets tethering that allows escape or unsafe contact with people or animals. Safe, temporary tethering should remain available when humane equipment is used and a capable adult is directly supervising.
Those are meaningful improvements.
What I believe needs to change
⚠️ An air snap could legally become a “Bite Incident.”
Under the current wording, an attempted bite counts as a Bite Incident even when no contact or injury occurs. That alone could support a Dangerous Dog designation, and Bite Incidents involving a person must be reported immediately.
An air snap is important and should never be dismissed. But it is not necessarily a failed attempt to injure someone. A frightened, cornered, restrained, startled or painful dog may deliberately snap without making contact as an inhibited warning: “Please stop. I need space.”
The bylaw should distinguish between:
• Growling and warning behaviour
• An inhibited air snap
• Contact without injury
• An unsuccessful attempt to make contact
• A puncture bite
• Multiple bites or a sustained attack
Most importantly, context cannot be optional. The draft currently says the Municipality “may” consider factors such as provocation, injury and previous history. That should say “shall consider all relevant circumstances.”
⚠️ The barking clause is too vague.
Dogs bark, howl and whine. That is normal canine communication. The bylaw prohibits noise that “unreasonably disturbs” others, but it does not clearly require the barking to be substantiated or sustained. The proposed first fine for nuisance barking is $200.
A dog briefly alerting because someone walked past the house is not the same as a dog being left to bark continuously for hours or repeatedly disturbing neighbours overnight.
A complaint should include dates, times, duration and supporting evidence where reasonably available. Enforcement should consider:
• How long and how often the barking occurred
• The time of day
• Rural versus residential surroundings
• Normal farm, hunting or working-dog behaviour
• Whether the complaint is credible
• What the owner has already done to address it
The bylaw should regulate documented, sustained and unreasonable nuisance barking, not ordinary dog behaviour or a neighbour simply disliking dogs.
⚠️ The blanket two-metre leash maximum should be removed.
Leash length does not automatically equal control. Long lines are legitimate tools for recall training, scent work, tracking and search-and-rescue work, decompression walks, safe exercise and behaviour modification.
For fearful or leash-reactive dogs, additional distance and freedom of movement can reduce tension and help them remain neutral. A short, tight leash may actually increase frustration and reactivity in some animals.
The standard should be effective control using equipment appropriate to the dog, handler, activity and environment.
⚠️ Off-leash control needs to be clearly defined.
I support appropriate designated off-leash areas and additional restrictions where a particular setting genuinely requires them.
But “friendly” does not mean a dog has permission to approach everyone. Effective off-leash control should mean that the dog remains reasonably close, responds promptly, does not approach people, dogs, livestock or wildlife without permission, and is leashed or removed when control is lost.
⚠️ Who is qualified to assess or train these dogs?
The Municipality could order an owner to obtain training, a behavioural assessment or a management plan, but the draft does not define the required qualifications.
Dog training is unregulated. Anyone can call themselves a trainer. Someone assessing an aggressive or fearful dog should have recognized education in canine body language, fear, reactivity, aggression, bite inhibition and humane behaviour modification.
⚠️ The Municipality must have the resources to use these powers safely.
The draft creates significant powers to seize, transport, house, assess, transfer and potentially euthanize dogs.
Before it is implemented, the public deserves to know:
• Where will seized dogs be housed?
• Can that facility safely accommodate fearful, reactive, injured or potentially dangerous dogs?
• Who will handle, transport and assess them?
• What veterinary and behavioural support will be available?
• What happens outside regular business hours?
• How will accumulating impoundment costs affect an owner’s ability to recover their dog?
A strong bylaw requires more than good wording. It requires trained people, appropriate facilities and real resources.
My overall position
I support modernizing the Dog Bylaw. I support public safety, responsible ownership, early intervention and meaningful consequences when dogs or owners create genuine risks. But the final bylaw should regulate actual risk and demonstrated owner conduct, not normal canine communication, arbitrary equipment measurements or the number of dogs alone.
The individual dog, handler, environment, circumstances, management, welfare and history should all matter.
You can read the complete draft and staff report here:
🔗 https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19W2LDMiT5/?mibextid=wwXIfr
Please read it, ask questions and offer informed, respectful feedback. This is the time for our community to understand what is being proposed and help shape the final version.
— Sara Barter
BAD Dog Training
KPA-CTP, VSA-CDT, CSAT
