DWCT QUESTIONS DOCUMENT

These questions and answers in black were provided by the Dog Walkers Coalition of Toronto. The text in red is the PDWAI's response from both the president and vice president of the association.

1. Why is this type of forum being used for a public consultation?
This forum is not necessarily a replacement for a public consultation in this matter. As a first step, the Sub Committee thought it would be in our best interest to gather input directly from each individual dog walker before going public with a proposed plan.
I think we should come together and have another meeting like we did in June and discuss this in person with other dog walkers.

2. Is the proposed registration fee applicable to each company or each individual dog walker?
The proposed annual registration fee applies to each individual dog walker.

3. What is the difference between a registration fee and a permit?
On the surface there doesn't appear to be much difference since both require fees to participate. However, there are a few key criteria that separate the two in terms of the proposed DIPS program:

A permit essentially consists of an application on a case-by-case basis for permission to use the parks facilities for commercial or special purposes that otherwise would not be applicable for park use. There are several restrictions for permit eligibility which include, a limited number of permits issued, limited eligible spaces for use, limited eligible times for use, and limited eligible activities. A permit system is one with restrictions and regulations for the general public and that is already in place.

The proposed DIPS program is one that is specifically designed for dog walkers, and to be determined by a cooperative effort between the Parks department and dog walkers in the form of an ongoing committee. A registration fee provides for participation and maintenance that is specific to this program, such that standard permit fees and restrictions would not apply. But fees and restrictions do apply, especially since we can be restricted to walking less dogs and therefore limiting our income which I thought is what we did not want in the first place with a three dog by law. The proposed DIPS program would be monitored and maintained by the committee on an ongoing basis, with representatives of the dog walking community and parks department on board.

4. Why is the proposed registration fee $100?
As per my understanding, during recent DIPS/City discussions, fees for dog walkers were deliberated among parks and city staff, with a wide array of proposed fee suggestions. Resultant from those preliminary discussions, a $100 fee represents a balance that may be an expeditious way to proceed with the DIPS plan without contention, in that it would be high enough to satisfy city staff on political level, and low enough to keep it out of the Municipal Licensing and Permit side of the Parks Department. It is my understanding that this amount is a result of Sandy's misunderstanding about how much we make an hour. Remember when she multiplied $15 X 6 to get $90. When you factor in the expenses that it takes and the time that it takes to gather a group of 6 dogs, walk them for an hour and put them back. It takes up to about 2 1/2 hours. So we don't make $90 an hour. According to that time frame (if you are walking the dogs for an hour), it would only be possible to do 2 maybe 3 groups like that in a day. What other reason is there for the cost being determined at $100?

5. I thought the DWCT collectively decided that fees for park use should not be required for dog walkers. Why should we now consider a registration fee?
The DWCT as an entity is not endorsing a registration fee for park use. The registration fee has been proposed based on certain criteria that may enable a smoother transition into a workable DIPS plan. Some may be of the opinion that the fee is unreasonable, while others may be of the opinion that the fee would be a small price to pay in the big picture. Your viewpoints would be highly valued in this matter.
I don't think this is a small price to pay. If we get locked into paying the city, then I feel we could be just that - locked in and further fees or restrictions could apply. There is another way. I explain further down.

6. What is the proposed $100 registration fee for - where does it go?
All registration funds will be allocated to the facilitation of the DIPS program, which includes, off leash park upgrading, preparation and maintenance of registration procedure and identification process, etc.

7. Instead of a registration fee, couldn't the city make more money by registering unlicensed dogs?
The Parks Department and Animal Services operate on two separate budgets. The proposed DIPS program is a Parks program, and dog registration funds go to Animal Services. Therefore monies raised by dog registration could not be allocated to the Parks Department to offset DIPS program costs.
So is this about the city parks dept. making money???
Remember at the meeting when it was asked, "How will this registration system make us more professional?" A member of the east end dog walkers group answered, "We'll be paying $100." Does anyone else think that sounds a bit ridiculous? I'm saying the idea of it is ridiculous, not the person who answered.

8. If the Parks department was already working on a Dogs in Parks Strategy before we were consulted in the first place, then isn't it safe to assume that there is a budget in place for these efforts already?
The DIPS plan may have been in the works before dog walkers came to the table on this issue, but a financial plan has yet to be determined - ultimately by city council. Even though funds raised by dog walker registration fees would be relatively insignificant compared to the amount of funds required to facilitate the entire DIPS plan, registration fees are proposed to essentially send the message to city council that dog walkers are willing to participate in the program by at least assisting with facilitating the registration process costs.

We were warned by Sandy Straw that if we don't settle on $100 it will go back to the licensing dept. or the fee could become $1000. From my observation, council sent us a message after we discovered that the 3 dog limit by law was passed illegally; then they raised it to 5 dogs, to appease us. What's the real message here? City council screwed up? If so, why are we being made to pay for it?

9. Is there any other way of raising funds for the proposed program without having to pay a registration fee?
There has yet to be an acceptable proposal that would satisfy all parties involved. However, establishing a suitable plan is a process and you are a part of that process - so creative ideas are welcome at this point. Please provide your comments and suggestions.

Yes there is another way.
The Leash Free Mississauga committees work exceptionally well. By building memberships for those that use the leash free parks with the help of the dog owners, parks stand to make a lot more money. What one of our members did was, leave an application for each of her clients to become members of the parks that she uses for their dog. So instead of just her paying a 15.00 membership a year, the parks get three hundred dollars a year from her clients alone. There are over 300 members for some of these parks and all the monies gathered not only through membership but donations from the public, businesses and planned fund raising events, these parks do very well. So the parks could raise funds if all the dog walkers in Toronto asked their clients to have their dog become a member of the park they take that particular dog to.
But if this sort of thing is to be a success then ALL dog walkers need to band together and WORK TOGETHER!

10. Why is the proposed proof of insurance required?
Insurance for dog walkers provides coverage for third-party dogs (not owned by the walker), and alleviates potential city liability costs that may be passed on to the dog walker registration fee. Additionally, proof of insurance is one of the more practical ways that the dog walker can demonstrate that he/she is a professional offering a legitimate service (especially considering that most professional dog walkers already have insurance), and not some fly-by-night operation walking dogs just for the cash with no regard for park property.
Why does a dog walker walking 6 dogs need insurance but one that is walking 3 not need insurance or pay a registration fee? One nasty dog can be more deadly then six friendly dogs with a dog walker.
You did not mention how the dog walker walking 3 dogs does not need to pay a registration fee. It almost seems to me to be somewhat of a discrimination or possible extortion - I know those are strong words but look at it this way - it does not clean up any problems with dog walkers. Others will still be able to walk 3 dogs in the parks and not be insured or walk more than 6 dogs in an area which is not a park. This system targets the already converted dog walker and when complaints do not cease about dog walkers in general, the city will have no choice but to take the dog walkers they have access to and be more stringent with them.

11. What constitutes a violation?
A violation is anything that breaks the rules of the proposed plan. For example, walking more than 6 dogs in the parks, allowing dogs off leash in an on-leash area, not providing proof of registration (ID tag) upon request, etc.
Who is requesting ID? Are the cops going to be patrolling the parks? As I understand it, only a police officer can ask a person for ID. I'm sure there will be more rules added if or when a complaint is made about a registered dog walker. By the way, if it is not a law that one has to have liability insurance that would not be a violation, right?

12. What happens if I am convicted of 2 offences?
Your dog walker registration would be revoked, and you would only be allowed to walk up to 3 dogs in the park.
So to be clear, with this system I don't need registration or insurance if I only walk three dogs per person in a park.

13. If I am convicted of an offence or have my registration revoked, is there an appeal process?
This is part of our ongoing discussions. Please provide your comments.
What recourse will the dog walker have if the complaint cannot be proven to be true? Some people make stuff up.

14. Am I going to get a ticket for walking a dog that is not registered/licensed with the city?
Dog registration/licensing has always been mandatory in Toronto. Since the current system only facilitates registration by the dog owner and not a third party, it was suggested that the onus be on the dog owner and not the dog walker. However, if a dog walker has an unregistered dog in their care, the dog walker may be required to provide the dog owner's information to the by-law officer. I don't think you have to provide private information to anyone other than a police officer. Just because some guy in a white truck wearing a city uniform asks me for my client's information, like address, name and phone number, I'm expected to give it to this complete stranger? For all I know he/she a criminal or ex-con!! This is a big matter of trust, our customers trust us, which is why we get hired! These are our customers, our loyalties are with them. We can only hope that they would license their dog if we had to request that they do so or else we have to decide if we want to keep them as a client.

15. Is there going to be a limit to the number of dog walkers who can register with the parks department?
This issue was raised and is part of our ongoing discussions. For the most part, Sub Committee members were adamant that there should not be a limit to the number of 'registrants' in the City. Of course not, the city wants as many registrants and as many $100 bills as possible. Especially since their job to enforce will only be complaint driven.

16. What are the chances that the proposed registration fee will be raised in the future?
This issue was also raised and is part of our ongoing discussions. For the most part, Sub Committee members were adamant that there should not be a mechanism by which the fees can be increased without consultation.

17. What if we pay the registration fee, and then decide later that we don't like the program?
As mentioned, a committee with both parks and dog walker representation on board will maintain the DIPS program. Part of the proposal is that the program be tested for a certain period of time and then reviewed thereafter. For example, after a trail period there may be an opportunity to lower the fee with good reason, or there may be cause to raise it if dog walkers have interest in expanding the program beyond the scope of the plan.
I don't see anything being lowered Andrew since we were told that it could go up from $100 to $1000. Be careful what you tell people. It isn't fair to make them think that once it is in place we can get it lowered or change it if we don't like it. Now is the time to make sure that what goes through is something that we like.

18. What will the registration procedure entail?
This issue is part of our ongoing discussions. The parks department is currently looking into online registration and/or establishing registration facilities at each of the five Animal Services locations. So A.S. will do the work of registering us but the money will go to the Parks??

19. What if I register halfway through the year?
Your registration fee would be pro-rated, determined by the number of months active during the fiscal year.

20. If the DIPS program is a Parks program, and I choose not to participate, will I be able to walk as many dogs as I want if I'm not in the park?
This is one of the items being discussed as part of the by-law harmonization effort between Animal Services and the Parks department. We will provide an update on this issue soon.
The answer as it stands right now is, only in parks are you limited to a certain number of dogs. That number is currently 5.

21. Why can't the by-law just be changed to allow 6 dogs per person right across the board - wouldn't that be easier?
It may seem easier, but many items of contention among various city departments as well as dog walkers would not be addressed. For example:
1) Harmonization between health code (3 dog limit per household) and parks by-laws not addressed;
Can you explain this to me further?
2) No means by which the public and/or the media will perceive the difference between the professional dog walker and the general public; the media or general public do not need to perceive a difference. Why do they need to perceive a difference?
3) No sense of the city achieving 'control' over the dogs in parks situation in Toronto; The issue of control needs to be addressed in the places where dog walkers have more than 6 dogs, which is not occurring in city parks; and if it is, keep the by law at 5 dogs in city parks which it currently is. I keep saying, the parks should create fines for violations of parks codes of conduct.
4) Increased potential of city liability for third-party dog related issues; and there are others.
The liability does not disappear when someone, is walking 3 dogs.
The liability does not disappear when someone is walking 2 dogs.
The liability does not disappear when someone is walking 1 dog. Why is the city liable for a dog causing a problem, but everyone else who uses a park uses it at their own risk and cannot sue the city? For example; if someone is mugged in a park, beaten up, raped, falls and hurts themselves, a kid breaks an arm while on the slide. Dog owners are 100% responsible for their dogs under the Dog Owners Liability Act and that has never changed.

Dianne Eibner, Founder and President.
Diana Bolen, Vice President.