A new Kirkland bylaw aims to bite the hand that feeds wild animals like pigeons, gulls, squirrels, stray cats and ducks.
Council unanimously amended its nuisance bylaw last week to include the feeding of wild animals.
People breaking the new rule can face fines ranging from $100 to $1,000
for a first infraction or $200 up to $2,000 for any repeat infractions.
Resident Marino Discepola, a former councillor candidate and the
brother of a former mayor, is delighted to hear about the feeding ban.
“My grapes are almost ready and I’m not looking forward to unwanted
visitors,” he stated during question period. “It’s great you passed a
bylaw to not feed the wild animals but how do you plan to enforce it?”
Mayor John Meaney said the city will investigate any complaints of someone breaking the wild animal feeding ban.
Kirkland’s feeding ban of wild animals is not without precedent in the West Island.
Dollard des Ormeaux, for instance, amended its animal control bylaw
last fall to decree that feeding or allowing food to be offered to
pigeons, gulls, squirrels, stray cats, ducks or any wild animal
constitutes a nuisance and is prohibited.
Dorval has a nuisance bylaw that prohibits the raising of poultry,
rabbits and bees as well as the feeding or attracting of pigeons,
seagulls, stray cats, even on one’s own property. The same goes for
animals that are part of the urban landscape, like squirrels, raccoons
and skunks. The same bylaw also stipulates that you can’t have more
than two cats in your home and it prohibits the use of leghold traps to
capture an animal, unless authorized to do so by the city.
The Pierrefonds-Roxboro borough has a detailed animal control bylaw.
It has a varied list of animals that residents are prohibited to keep;
kangaroos, non-human primates, mongoose, weasels, bears, camels,
rhinoceros, elephants, seals, python and boa snakes, raptors and
armadillos, to name a few. Exceptions are made for zoos, veterinarian
hospitals, regional parks, or for educational or research purposes, and
for TV or movie productions.
As part of its nuisance section, the Pierrefonds-Roxboro bylaw also
prohibits the feeding of pigeons, seagulls as well as small wild
animals like squirrels, skunks, raccoons and rabbits in a manner that
might encourage them to gather in sufficient numbers and cause
inconveniences for neighbours or cause damage to nearby buildings.
People caught feeding small wild animals in the borough can face fines
ranging from $100 for a first offence up to $2,000 for repeat
infractions.
Pointe Claire has had a wild animal feeding nuisance rule on the
books since 1996. The bylaw prohibits people from keeping, feeding or
attracting pigeons, seagulls, squirrels, raccoons or any other wild
animals to their own property or onto anyone’s property whenever this
activity is a cause of inconvenience to the neighbours. This nuisance
bylaw also prohibits Pointe Claire residents from keeping more than
three cats per dwelling, unless the cat gives birth to a litter. In
that case, you can keep the kittens for up to three months.
Stray cats aren’t “wild animals.” They’re domesticated and abandoned. How utterly stupid of some people to lump cats into that category. Would you do the same with stray dogs? There is a double standard here.
This article is very misleading. My family enjoys visiting ducks in their native habitat such as a lake or wetlands. For some reason (perhaps because of their own land being developed to make room for houses), the ducks are returning to our property and to surrounding property and have stayed in the area for 2-3 months. It’s important to not feed these animals so that they can learn to find food on their own and not become domesticated. Instead, the ducks are enjoying the land and aren’t leaving because of the endless supply of free food that is given to them by my neighbor. Some people might read this article and view the ducks as a welcome addition to the neighbourhood. The ducks are fun to see until they nest on your roof or take a poop in your swimming pool which contains bacteria and can make you very sick if ingested and is no longer a laughing matter. I can certainly sympathize with people who grow fruits and vegetables as I’ve had to keep a cage and netting around my vegetable garden all summer long in order to keep the squirrels away from my tomatoes.
I have dealt with the city of Dollard-Des-Ormeaux’s municipal patrol captain this Spring and showed my neighbour dumping seeds on their walkway in order to attract squirrels and ducks. The captain saw the ducks in the front yard and when I showed him the seeds that were being scattered on the ground – he thought that the issue wasn’t an important matter or an issue where a fine or penalty would be placed to my neighbour since it wasn’t a bucket sized amount of seeds being scattered.
So, does the city pick and choose what they view as an acceptable amount of seeds or do they enforce their by-law as it’s supposed to be enforced and how it’s written in this article? In his opinion, the neighbour would need to be caught in the act in order for the city to do anything about it. Therefore, do not group the city of DDO in with this article and give them any credit for trying to clean up this mess even when this article clearly states that there’s a by-law since the city of DDO refuses to even enforce it. No patrol office is going to set up surveillance to catch anybody from trying to feed the animals. This is purely an example of a city making it seem like they’re doing something about the issue until you actually ask them to enforce the by-law and then suddenly they change their opinion when you ask them to obey their by-laws.
On a side note, I was walking down Anselmne-Lavigne street when I saw the largest skunk you would ever see trying to rip open a kitchen garbage bag that wasn’t enclosed in a lid or in a garbage container. This is one example why you don’t leave food out in the open for wild animals.
Bottom Line: Let the animals find food on their own and enforce your by-laws. If it’s in the books, then do your job and stop looking for brownie points to showcase how you’re trying to do the same thing as another municipality when in fact you do the complete opposite. It starts with leadership and if the captain of the town’s municipal patrol refuses to enforce the by-law then be honest and abolish the by-law. I’d like to see someone from the city of Kirkland write and comment on this article and discuss if this by-law was actually enforced anywhere or if it’s having any effect on stopping the feeding of wild animals.
Mankind has always encroached on, and destroyed, nature. Our inhumane treatment of animals is just another step. When will city councillors realize that the vermin of this planet are not the wild animals, but the humans that inhabit it. We seem to be the only species that can put nature out of balance—wild flora and fauna keep things in balance. And we are also the only creature stupid enough to destroy its own habitat, and eliminate all its sources of food, water, and oxygen. Now, let’s, according to your logic, starve everything else….as we were stupid enough to kill bees that we thought were a “nuisance”. Fortunately, the bee destruction might be our own undoing…and nature is also FINALLY fighting back. With a few more floods, landslides, earthquakes, etc., nature might finally get rid of us and then stand a chance of recovering. And, as for the poor citizen that might lose his grapes…and thus, his precious supply of alcohol….ever heard of screens? We have an endless supply of tools to keep unwanted animals away from our gardens….unfortunately, they have no tools to keep us away from their food sources. Wake up, people!
I don’t follow your logic when it comes to starving animals or insects. If you let a bee do what is natural to it..it will go in search of pollen and help to pollinate flowers. Squirrels will go in search of nuts, acorns and other normal things in the area. Are grapes part of a squirrel’s natural diet? We should concentrate on allowing wild animals to eat food from natural sources and not interfere in their feeding habits. Some animals such as raccoons have learnt over generations to adapt to a new type of existence as scavengers. Other species are not so lucky. You are right about the destruction of the planet though. But, in my opinion, when land is developed and houses built on land, the battle is already lost. It’s hard to preach about the feeding of animals when their natural habitat is alrady taken away from them. The more important battle should be to preserve their natural territory by purchasing and conserving land to avoid it from being developed. In this scenario, wild animals can flourish in their own environment with minimal human involvement. Otherwise, let wild animals do what they do best and they’ll find food fine on their own without our help in feeding them. There’s plenty of wild trees and other natural plants that are essential food sources for these animals.
As for cats, we can have a debate about cats and the role of domesticated animals vs. wild animals but this discussion would be more about trying to stop owners from abandoning pets so that we can avoid needing to feed these animals. Domesticated animals aren’t wild animals and haven’t been taught how to search for food on their own by their own kind but to group these animals with squirrels, pigeon, seagulls, raccons,and seagulls is not appropriate.
Make no mistake, stray cats are this abundant because humans put them in the streets. So, they became community cats and must be considered the responsibility of all the community.
Stray cats are part of an urban fauna that we must learn to live with. They are part of our life and as such must be protected. The first move is to assure that they are fed properly.
No, cats cannot survive in the wild, no cats cannot survive by themselves in a city if nobody feeds them. Even if you stop feeding them, cats will not go away, they will still reproduce but in very bad environment, huge suffering and die wondering what they did for humans to be so cruel.
Certain humans and elected officials never understood the situation and are very quick at passing by-laws forbidding the feeding or owning of cats. Such by-laws go directly against the Canadian Criminal Code which forbid to make an animal suffer. Make sure your elected official know he can be charged for letting animals suffer by his own choosing.
TNR (trap-neuter-release) is the only humane solution for community cats and please inform your elected officials on a regular basis so they do not forget. Otherwise they are quick to do what the busybodies are asking which is to make animals suffer.
Pointe-Claire does not enforce their by-law as to how many animals you can keep in your home.
One can have as many cats as they wish to keep. It is not against the law to run an animal shelter in a residence.
Someone has to take care of the increasing number of abandoned cats.
Does any city on the West-Island have a trap-neuter-release program for cats?
If not, they should.
People should ask their city reps to set up such a program.
Wow, now who is going to feed the mayor and the city councillors,I guress they will have start buying their own peanuts
I completely agree with you. Cats cannot live without human intervention. They need food, shelter and water. Those who deny these helpless animals their basic needs may perhaps one day find themselves in the same position.
Oh, dear… according to the bylaw I can’t feed in my birdhouses my favorite birds, tits, blackbirds on my own property.They can’t find food under the snow. They rely on humans every winter.When spring is back they show their gratitude.I have not to spray my fruit trees, because they eat all insects and worms.We learned in kindergarten first how to make bird feeder from a milk or juice box.I remember the first hungry bird started to eat those sunflower seeds, looking around after each and every tiny seed. I think we should revise those bylaws and make a better decision.