Frustrations flared frequently among Silver Creek residents gathered to hear from the regional district what is being done about a neighbour's dogs, one of which was allegedly involved in the recent attack of passing cyclist. 

On Thursday, Oct. 3, Salmon Arm RCMP responded to a report of a dog that jumped the fence of a Salmon River Road property and bit a woman who'd been riding by on her bicycle. RCMP spokesperson Const. Andrew Hodges said the matter was being dealt with by the Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD).

Following the incident, the CSRD shared via social media that it was 鈥渟addened and concerned鈥� by the attack, stating an investigation was ongoing and that it it was working closely with police to 鈥渕ake sure all necessary steps are followed to address this incident.鈥�

In response to questions and demands for action, Electoral Area D director Dean Trumbley organized a public town hall meeting, which took place Monday evening, Oct. 7 at Silver Creek Hall. 

Approximately 70 residents showed up for the meeting (the dogs鈥� owners were not present), along with Trumbley, CSRD board chair Kevin Flynn, chief administrative officer John MacLean and senior bylaw enforcement officer Chris Smit.

The meeting began with MacLean providing background on the 鈥渓egalities of the system we have to work with.鈥� He explained the animal control bylaw that came into effect for all of Area D in 2022, includes provisions to address aggressive and dangerous dogs. In the case of the latter, for it to be seized a court order from the province is required.

鈥淭hat is not an easy process, it鈥檚 not an inexpensive process, it鈥檚 not a short process,鈥� said MacLean, who noted the CSRD has never gone through this process, though he has colleagues in other regional districts鈥檚 who have, 鈥渁nd they haven鈥檛 always been successful.鈥� 

鈥淭here have been times when the judge has said you have not provided enough evidence. So one of the challenges we have is getting the evidence.鈥� 

MacLean wasn鈥檛 long into his comments when members of the audience began to speak over him, raising concerns that another person, a child, could be attacked in the meantime. MacLean said he understood the frustration, but stressed there are rules set out the CSRD must follow. 

鈥淎s a representative of your local government, I鈥檓 not going to pick and choose which laws I鈥檓 going to follow,鈥� said MacLean. 鈥淚鈥檓 not going to do that; that sounds like chaos and anarchy to me.鈥� 

MacLean explained there are costs (suggesting $10,000) involved with seizing and impounding a dog and applying for a court order, and said the best solution would be for the owners to surrender the dogs of concern. 

Smit spoke to several incidents involving one or more of the dogs that animal control has followed up on, including incidents of dogs running at large and being aggressive (reported in April and May), and two incidents in June where dogs attacked a person. He said the CSRD took action on those, issuing an aggressive dog designation for one of the dogs along with multiple bylaw offence notices. 

鈥淲e also issued a dangerous dog warning and, getting further to what John explained, that鈥檚 an elevated legal process that is always a consideration when we deal with these, but again we rely on the evidence to lead us to those decisions.鈥�

Regarding the Oct. 3 attack, Smit said he鈥檇 been in contact with the victim, and witnesses, including two couples who stopped to help the victim, reportedly a Blind Bay resident who had been riding through the community with her partner. 

鈥淥ne of the most difficult things about this investigation, or this property in particular, is that there are multiple dogs that reside on this property, two of which are almost 鈥� they look identical, and for us to proceed with any kind of enforcement, we need to know which dog was responsible,鈥� said Smit. 鈥淲e need to be able to positively identify that dog before we take any action, especially when it comes to an elevated court process where we鈥檙e potentially putting somebody鈥檚 dog down.鈥�

Numerous members of the audience, including one of the witnesses, Elaine Bushman, said they could identify the responsible dogs. A number of people knew the dogs by name. 

Smit stressed he has devoted all his time on this case, and he and Trumbley said there may be a resolution by the end of the week.

Several residents in the audience said they鈥檇 either been attacked by one or more of the dogs, or knew of people who had been. There were also comments about how, over the past couple of years, the dogs had killed animals, including cats and sheep. 

Ashleigh Reinelt said in August her 12-year-old son was riding his bike along the fairly new Salmon River Road bike trail. When passing the residence where the dogs reside, she said one of the animals got out of the yard and chased her son. The the boy escaped without injury, but Reinelt said the experience was traumatizing. 

鈥淔or a 12 year old, that鈥檚 super scary,鈥� said Reinelt, who had not reported the matter to the CSRD, but said she would, and would do so by filling out a . Smit and Flynn stressed this is required in order for animal control to investigate.

Complaints made to the RCMP (that are not forwarded to CSRD animal control), and/or by telephone to the CSRD office, cannot be acted upon by animal control. Smit explained the written public reports serve as evidence, and that reports must be made within six months of an incident. 

This news did not sit well with audience members, many of whom were unaware of this requirement. 

鈥淧lease help us with these dogs,鈥� pleaded Danielle Morrison. 鈥淵ou have the power to do it, we do not. We can take measures to dispose of those dogs, but it鈥檚 not going to be legal, and it鈥檚 not going to be right. You can. Please help us.鈥�

Following another heated point in the meeting, Flynn held up a printout of a formal complaint shared in 2022, explaining the short document is very clear and simple to fill out. 

鈥淲e鈥檙e here to hear your concerns, we鈥檙e here to try to make the system better,鈥� said Flynn. 鈥淲hat I want to make really clear though is that we can't be judge, jury and executioner, even with all the stuff that you鈥檝e told us. We have to follow the process鈥�

鈥淲e鈥檝e got a gentleman here who really cares, is trying to do his job, and he鈥檚 already said that he鈥檚 close to being able to do something. What we need, if there鈥檚 people that have something in the last six months, go online and put it in writing.鈥� 

Following the meeting, resident Mike Sarrazin said he held the CSRD somewhat responsible for things getting to where they have with the dogs, due to a lack of clarity on the procedure for filing complaints. Regarding the potential cost of dealing with the dogs, Sarrazin suggested residents would be OK with picking it up. 

鈥淚鈥檓 sure they don鈥檛 care if they have to spend another $10,000 to get those dogs removed so they can use the path they all just paid a million dollars for,鈥� said Sarrazin. 

Another resident, Rhiannon Best, estimated there have been four attacks involving a person and a dog, or dogs, from the particular property. She suggested 鈥渢his has been happening in this community for so long, this behaviour with these dogs has been normalized.

鈥淔or every incident that is reported, there鈥檚 15-20 that weren鈥檛,鈥� said Best. 

MacLean said specific dogs were identified from a June incident, and that if the same animals were involved in the most recent attack, 鈥渨e're going to be able to stand in front of a judge and say this is what we鈥檝e got. We鈥檝e got this pattern.鈥�

鈥淲e鈥檝e given the people the opportunity to do the right thing, chain them up, put a muzzle on them, whatever, and they haven鈥檛 done it,鈥� said MacLean. 鈥淚t鈥檚 always our default position, try to find a solution that doesn鈥檛 involve going to a court and asking a judge for an order to either impound them or put them down. So if the owners were willing to take those reasonable and effective steps to control their dogs, this situation wouldn鈥檛 be here.鈥�