Hello PDWAI Members,

You may have already heard the buzz about a City meeting with the Economic Development and Parks Committee coming up on May 4^th. You can check the agenda at this link: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/committees/edp/edp060504/agenda.pdf

The sub committee for the Dogs in Parks Strategy was led to believe that we were discussing a registration system, not a permit system. Now it has been confirmed that the agenda for the E.D. & Parks Committee will be discussing the recommendation of permits. It would seem that the meaning and the use of the word "registration" has been misrepresented to us.

There could be a meeting for all Professional Dog Walkers in the City of Toronto scheduled on a last minute notice. As soon as it is confirmed I will forward you the details.

Please find included in this document:

1. Letter to the members
2. Info from the April 13th City DIPS meeting (Click here)
3. Concerns with the proposal (Click here)
4. How to make a deputation at May 4th meeting (Click here)
5. PDWAI positions on the DIPS proposal (Click here)
6. Letter to clients explaining the situation and need for support (Click here)

I am sending you urgent information regarding the City of Toronto's Dogs In Parks Strategy.

I was not able to make it to the last city meeting held on April 13^th but I have been informed of the details of that meeting.

The Economic Development and Parks Committee will be meeting on May 4^th to discuss the City's proposal for professional dog walkers. You may attend and make a deputation or write a short letter and fax it in beforehand. I urge you to continue reading this entire document and involve your client's as well.

I have asked pertinent questions to the City from day one in order to be better informed of their intentions which included your questions collected since last June, 2005 and I have not received any answers. Sandy Straw claims she has answered me 6 times. On the contrary, I have asked her at least 6 times to address my concerns, and has not answered once.

I was speaking with The Humane Society of Canada's CEO, Michael O'Sullivan, he has experienced the same run around from Sandy Straw that I have. As frustrating as it has been it was oddly comforting to learn I was not alone in these antics. If you would like to see the newsletter from HSC website you can go to http://www.humanesociety.com/newsrel/newsrel.asp?thisrel=28032006&page=1

HERE IS WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE PROPOSAL:

The City told us they wanted us to "register". At the April 13^th meeting, we were told that the City's Legal Dept. recommends "calling it a permit". At the time of the meeting, no one questioned or challenged it. The change was acknowledged but not necessarily agreed to. The meanings of these two words are not synonymous. With a permit, the City has legal justification and more leeway to implement further restrictions on our industry such as they have been talking about doing presently (banning us from parks and telling us where and when we can walk dogs)

A registration system such as we had been discussing, should not at any time, impede or inhibit the rights and abilities of anyone to conduct business. I will not support or agree to any document which does so. I feel I have not been heard and my efforts have been undermined. Therefore I am asking YOU to send YOUR opinions and concerns to this meeting for May 4^th.

The City is also proposing a two-tiered system, whereas dog walkers that agree to be "registered" (now permitted) with the City will be allowed to walk up to six dogs. Unregistered/permitted dog walkers and all other individuals will be limited to walking a maximum of three dogs. I don't find it necessary to have a limit of three dogs. The dog owner has never faced a limit but would now be affected with new this system. I declare that neither I nor the board of directors have made any suggestion that the there be two bylaws, nor does the PDWAI represent the thoughts and needs of the dog owner.

The sub committee members once all agreed on one particular issue; we opposed the City's proposal of revoking our "registration" if we were in violation of any two rules. This would have taken away your privilege of walking 6 dogs and put you back to a limit of 3. With the solid unanimous opposition to revoking the registration, it was wiped off the table instantly. This proved to me that with a unanimous agreement, we do have the power to steer the direction of where our industry should go. Since the City is calling it a permit (even though we have been told that it is a registration) it will only be a matter of time before the revoking comes back. (something the sub committee did not want) A permit is permission to do something and permission can be taken away.

After this issue goes before the Economic Development and Parks Committee, then the next step would be to go to council and then have it passed as law. Due to the ambiguity and vagueness that continues in the sub committee I cannot tell you for sure if there will be another sub committee meeting or if there will be another chance to make a deputation at any other public meeting. This could be it.

Back in 1998, I made many deputations at City Hall when the City tried to pass a 3 dog bylaw. That was a time when dog walkers united. This partly was the reason the Association was formed. Dog walkers across Toronto stood up and said that they abide by a code of conduct and ethics and limited themselves to 6 dogs maximum thus establishing the industry standard. Dog walkers wrote to their City councillors opposing the regulations with the support of their clients. The proposed bylaw was squashed. Too many people opposed it and for good reasons. It was an infringement on our rights.

I am simply thinking ahead of the game and I foresee the revoking coming back. Furthermore with a start up fee at $100, we should be aware that it will only increase. To my knowledge, this fee was not unanimously agreed upon either within the sub committee. I questioned it, I did not accept it, yet it seems to have gone to pass. The power to change the system lies in unity and there also needs to be enough opposition from outside of the sub committee too and this means you and your clients - basically, the public. The City could get away with the "public consultation" being this handful of people in the sub committee which are supposedly speaking for you. But are we all being heard? This is why it is important for you to speak up and ask your client's to support you as well.

It has been extremely time consuming and exhausting going to these meetings and as you can relate, also finding time to run a business.

I urge you to think through what is being proposed and write to your councillors and ask them to clarify any questions you have. Here is the person you need to contact to make a deputation at the May 4^th meeting.

Merle MacDonald mmacdona@toronto.ca 416-392-7340

Or Fax a letter addressed to
Economic Development &
Parks Committee at:
Fax# 416-392-1879

Ask if there will be another public meeting for this issue. If you can't be there in person, get you and your client's letters in beforehand. Your client's should be concerned since this will affect how you walk their dog.

The Professional Dog Walkers Association International was never meant to fight political battles, although I have done my best. The Association is meant to be an establishment whereby dog walkers declare that they have certain educational qualifications, professional credentials and are proud to testify that they abide by a Code of Conduct and a Code of Ethics for their business, and limit themselves to a maximum of 6 dogs, all for the sake of being deemed professional. Let them know that you are a member and are a responsible dog walker and ask your client's to vouch for you.

Document # 6 (Attached) is a letter which you can use as an example letter to give to your clients explaining the situation along with the need for their support. I encourage you and your client's to get involved.

Below are the notes sent to me about the City meeting. I have added some concerns underneath it which I see arising from the registration/permit system that the City plans to implement.

Good luck to you all!

Dianne Eibner
Founder/President
www.pdwai.com

The proposed DIPS policy is in the hands of the Sandy's Manager being read. It is scheduled to go before Economic Development on May 4^th and the agenda will be posted on the Toronto.ca site sometime between April 20-24^th. www.toronto.ca http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/committees/edp/edp060504/agenda.pdf

The insurance issue is off the table. After consulting with their Legal Dept it was decided that if an individual wished to operate without insurance, so be it.

Legal recommends calling it a Permit so that is what they are doing. It would be renewed annually starting in January 2007. Cost $100/yr. She repeated that registration fees will stay in Parks budget. The sub-c members accepted that. Part of the registration process will require provision of home address, phone numbers, business name, and a list of off-leash parks most frequented. There will be an expectation that walkers will become involved on the Committees of the parks that they utilize. This will ensure that the committees have a range of community representation. It is no longer required to have 15 members on each park committee. DIPS committee is recommending to Council that the interim number of dogs be amended from five to six until all the by-law procedures have been completed, which could take some time. So we may get the 6 dog limit after this has gone to Council (whenever that is).

Blue Flag - Sandy is now part of the Toronto Beach Management Plan committee. That committee is amenable to Beach off-leash area across the City (Scarb - Etob) but NOBODY is to take dogs onto Blue Flag areas, even in Winter.

Sandy stated that Wildwood off-leash will be closed to PDWs with 6 dogs at some time in the near future. She maintained that it was never intended for that type of heavy use and it has been "destroyed" in the past two years because of it. She did indicate that walkers could still bring 3 dogs at a time like anyone else. She claimed that the neighbouring opposition, which Bonnie set at 2 people, was more like 8, they had received calls from many more people than that, and had surveillance and photos to back up their position. She also stated that Norwood could be targeted next, and have the fences removed or be shut down entirely. Both Bonnie and Ed were present, as well as Kelly and Laurie. Sandy reiterated her belief that walkers must be able to demonstrate control over their charges at all times, and that fences were not to be expected at all off-leash areas. If we could not control our charges without the use of fences then she said we should not be taking them on as clients, and owners had to consider control issues when deciding what breeds to get (she was responding to Bonnie's remark about walking a Beagle). However, they are looking at some corporate sponsorship programs to fund design and fencing at some of the new locations.

I asked and Sandy acknowledged that part of the proposed policy involved identifying vacant City-owned land that could be utilized as off-leash, as well as Hydro corridors. Patrick suggested that Sandy compile a list/map of City-owned properties that could be discussed for this purpose.

Doug presented his list of questions at the end. Sandy stated that she would review them, but that if they were questions that she had "already answered Dianne six times" she would not answer them again. I asked Sandy to set aside her frustration and respond to the questions "one more time" if necessary. She said that if they truly were questions from PDWAI members, why had they not been presented before this? She took the document from Doug at the end of the meeting.

Sandy stressed that until the proposed policy was cleared by her boss and posted on the website details of it were not to be circulated, beyond the fact that it was proposed to be an annual permit, $100/yr, no insurance required, to walk 6 dogs.

PDWs will be expected to participate on the park user committees and maintenance of the off-leash areas that they frequent.

Andrew was not present as it was Passover. Sandy mentioned that he was working on a project with Toronto Animal Services and that we should appreciate the amount of time he was putting into this and how much we stood to benefit from his work. It did not appear that anyone on the sub-c knew anything about what Andrew was doing, and Sandy did not elaborate.

If you have any other questions or inquiries, please direct them to Sandy Straw, Parks Manager, South Region, at 416 392-1909 or sstraw@toronto.ca.

• Those dog walkers who walk a maximum of 3 dogs would not be required to pay the $100 fee, yet would still be using the parks.

• We have still not been given a legitimate answer as to why we need to pay a fee. The city could not support the claim that it is due to running a business in the park. When faced with the fact that other business continuously use the parks for the business, the City then said it was a matter of liability.

• The City has taken the liability concern away and dog walking companies are no longer required to obtain insurance. This liability was something they were adamant about at first.

• Since the City is calling it a permit, it gives them more leeway to implement further restrictions when they realize the actual problems are not being resolved. We have been told we are registering, not purchasing a permit. The City needs to clarify this as the sub committee did not agree to it.

• Since it is a permit, it will only be a matter of time before the rules expand and the revoking process is implemented (something the sub committee unanimously opposed at one time) Further to that it was never discussed the criteria for the revoking or for how long it would be - if and when the "permit" gets reinstated.

• If we were to blindly accept this proposal of a permit without knowing what is in store for the future, the rules will be made up along the way. The justification for new rules could be due to complaints coming in about dog walkers. Any complaints should be investigated - not just taken at face value. All parties should be heard.

• We have not seen any statistics of complaints that prove dog walkers are truly causing all the problems in parks.
  (This vs. the dog owner causing a problem. i.e: dog barking early in morning, poop left on ground (outside of designated fenced area) aggressive dog attacking other dogs)

Here is some correspondence from Sandy Straw at the Parks dept. for the city of Toronto as well as my request for clarification on the proposed registration for dog walkers, from the city. The sub committee meeting scheduled for January 12th has now been re-scheduled for the 18th. So if anyone has any more comments or questions there is still time to get them in.

Below you will find the questions and comments I gathered on the subject of the registration proposal from the city.

Again, if you have anything to add let me know. Thank you.

Dianne Eibner
Founder/President
www.pdwai.com
1-866-39-PDWAI

This is to inform you that the next Dog Walkers meeting, originally scheduled for this Thursday, January 12th is now rescheduled for:

Wednesday, January 18, 2006, 7:00 p.m.
50 Booth Avenue

Please RSVP by Friday, January 13th.

Also, a reminder that today is the deadline for your feedback pieces.

Thank you.

---- Original Message -----

From: Dianne Eibner
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2006 5:19 PM

Sandy,

The feedback is in the form of some questions and have also gathered some comments that need clarification. Sorry for the delay, I am at the mercy of other people's schedules too. I have not received anyone else's feedback from the sub committee and am wondering if I should be sending this to you only? Aren't we sharing each other's feedback? Will it all be brought up at the next meeting?

Please respond to the comments and answer the questions below, thank you. I'll see you at the meeting on the 18th. With your input I can have more discussions and resolutions for you.

1. Is the city willing to allow certain dog walking companies to not register and not have insurance while making other dog walking companies register and have insurance to continue business as they have been doing?

2. The city's registration is one where if found guilty of two violations the dog walker will have their registration taken away. Correct?
   (This could drastically reduce their income by up to 50%.)

3. Does the dog walker walking 3 dogs have any possible violations to be guilty of?

4. Dog walkers with 3 dogs could cause a problem in the parks and be liable just like anyone else, dog walker or dog owner and there would be no threat of losing their business.
   Furthermore, the reg. money is supposed to go into the maintenance of the parks.
   Dog walkers with 3 dogs are contributing to the deterioration of the parks, so why shouldn't they contribute to the upkeep and register too?

5. Why suggest that dog walkers with 3 dogs not need to be registered or have insurance when it was said that there is a need for a distinction between the professional dog walker and the dog owner?

6. If the city wants dog walkers to register then everyone should register.
   If the city wants dog walkers to have insurance then everyone should have insurance.

7. Any restrictive document that can be taken away from you and cause you further restrictions is a permit. This registration is more than just setting out some rules.

8. A registration is a right, it does not imply permission. If you are taking away the right to register due to violations then this would in fact be a permit.
   The word registration is in no way synonymous with the word permit. What has been proposed is in fact a permit not a registration. The meaning of the term has been misrepresented to you.

9. The focus should not just be on a registration fee in order for dog walkers to conduct their business, rather the focus needs to be on other issues such as parks codes of conduct and fines for violations of those codes.

10. If a dog walker walks some place other than a park, can they walk more than 6 dogs and not register or have insurance?

11. What about the Mississauga park project? Can we raise money for parks in Toronto like they do in Mississauga to lower the registration fee?

12. Dog walkers should not be made to feel that if they have a bad day with a dog or someone doesn't like them, there is the possibility that next week they may be put out of business.

Sandy, the above comments are the result of conversations with dog walker members and non members, dog owners and other professionals on this subject.
This seems to be a permit/license in disguise and as such would inhibit the rights of individuals to make a living. The threat of having one's registration revoked is not part of a registration process. Dog walkers are planning to step up and register themselves as a show of good faith. But to do so with the notion that they could lose their right to walk 6 dogs, is wrong. Furthermore to pay $100 for the permission to conduct a business of walking 6 dogs and still have it hanging over their head that someday they could be out of business due to a complaint or having a bad day, is also wrong. I can't agree with this registration system especially the violations and the revoking. I feel we need to have a public meeting with city council on the subject so it is clear as to what we are agreeing to.

I look forward to clarification on these questions and comments.

Dianne Eibner.

---- Original Message -----

From: Sandy Straw

thank you for the feedback and the questions. At this point the task was simply to send out the agreed upon request for input that everyone had throught he minutes and submit back to me the information received. As in your case this included comments questions etc. Which is perfectly fine.

the next step is to review all of the input comments questions from all the groups at our next meeting and come up with position and determine next steps

thanks for your input to date and see you at the next meeting

Sandy