Hi Dianne,

Thanks for contacting us. We've been super-busy, dealing with this issue for the past year, but especially over the last few months. Final decisions will most probably be made in our next Council meeting on April 24th. It's been a very frustrating process, and the proposals made up by people who know nothing about our vocation. There's been no public input session as such, only some meetings with us (and then only at the Council's request, after Staff initially tried to push this through at the first Council meeting of April 2005, without consulting with us), and separate meetings (closed to us) with apparently other "stakeholders" and trainers, environmentalists, etc. We have a different situation that you even here, as we have endless mountain trails on the North Shore, that we don't even meet people on, making their proposed restrictions even more ridiculous. Below I will list how you can view the main information, including the latest proposal by Staff (which is worse than their original proposal from a year ago), and amendments that a sympathetic Councillor is trying to have made. Sharing information may help all of us. Over the past year, we have done a lot of our own research, and have put together an extensive booklet for the Council. I have a lot of documentation on this, if you want me to forward anything, as I'm sure some things will be pertinent for you, too.

North Vancouver website: www.district.north-van.bc.ca , click to the left on "government", then on "Council", then on "agenda/minutes". Then click on the minutes for April 3/06 (which was our last Council meeting on this issue). Follow these leads:

1. First, under "General Matters, Public Input" (right at the beginning), you have the first part of this issue being tackled by public input. If you click on the blue symbol beside "Public Input", you can view that part of the taped session.
2. Then, scroll down and go under "Council Matters" (again, if you click on the blue symbol beside that section, you can view the video-taped part of this section). This is (Bylaw 7534, Dog Tax and Regulation Bylaw 1988, Amending Bylaw 20, File 09.4320.40/001.000, Tracking Number 2005-00335, (To introduce a bylaw to regulate commercial dog walking within a permitting system). Here you will should click on:

1. Joint report (the updated Staff proposal), titled: "Joint Report: Animal Shelter Administrator and Manager of Parks & Environment Services, March 24, 2006"
2. Councillor Mike Little's proposed amendments (which we worked on with him), titled: "Proposed Amendments: Councillor Little, April 3, 2006"
3. Meeting minutes (under all the other headings)
4. And a link to the meeting minutes of April 2004, under which you will find the original proposal, titled: "(Returned from April 4, 2005 Regular Council Meeting)"

Are you guys facing the same list of unproven allegations as we are? You will see by some of the ridiculous speeches...There are some crazy people in the public, under whose unproven testimonies we are mercy to.

Micki

Honourable Mayor and Council,

We recognize that you must get a multitude of e-mails every day, not least of all the volumes you have received regarding this issue. We ask that you bear with us with some more, as this is a very important process.

As we did not get a chance to answer the concerns that was voiced by Council members at the meeting on April 3, 2006, we would like to do so now. We think that it is very important that all your questions and concerns are fully answered, so please do not hesitate to ask us anything, at any time.

The purpose of regulations
We think that Councillor Muri summed up the purpose of any regulations perfectly: "To use against repeat offenders." This is what we want, a system of accountability, where the responsible professionals are rewarded by being allowed to continue their chosen vocation with passion and success; and where offenders are weeded out of the system. A system where not an entire industry is punished for the offenses of a few.

Control of dogs
Several Councillors, as well as the Mayor, have voiced their concern about the issue of the control of a number of dogs. This is a very important, valid concern, to which our collegue, Laurie Lerner of Pet Pals, has written a detailed response. I will attach that for your review. A one-on-one discussion would be much more desirable for all parties, and I know she is trying to achieve that as well through telephone conversations. We really hope that one or more of you will accept the offer to join a dog walk, so you can really see how it works. This is the best and most effective way to answer your questions about control!

We also encourage you to contact Andy Robinson, Senior Park Ranger of the District of North Vancouver. Over the course of several years, Andy has joined at least 2 dogwalking companies on several hikes. He could give you a first-hand report on his experience and perception of our control over the dogs.

Holly, Gus, Reilly, Abby, and Bailey, all sitting perfectly off leash, under their handler's control.

Furthermore, you will receive some e-mails from various people who have come along on dog walks with us over the years. We feel that it's important that you read these e-mails, as they will give you further valuable insight into how the general public perceive our level of control over the dogs.

Increase of rates
It was suggested by Councillor Nixon, that if our rates are not profitable as they are now, we will need to raise them. This will already happen for many of us if we are to walk anything less than 8 dogs. The real issue is, how much we will have to raise our rates by. The less dogs we are allowed to walk, and the less walks we are allowed to do, the more we have to charge. With the present proposal as is, our services will become truly unaffordable. It is important to note that there needs to be consideration of not only the livelihoods of Professional Dog Walkers, but the affordability and accessability of a very essential service, to a very large part of the North Shore population.

Furthermore, the people that are responsible enough to hire a dog walker in order to give their animals what they need, should be commended, not hindered or punished. I know that the animal shelter absorbs a considerable amount of funds; the public helps to reduce this burden with adoptions, but will do so only if they can afford to keep a dog. This will not be the case, should rates rise unreasonably.

To add to this further, with less dogs and/or walks allowed, we won't be able to continue our volunteer community service, which includes free walks for the dogs of sick, poor, and handicapped people. We will no longer have space or time to accommodate this sector.

The experience for the dogs
Councillor Harris mentioned that some dog experts have indicated that bulk walks are not always a good experience for some dogs. This is true, which is why those types of dogs are not taken in a group; this is where those companies that offer individual walks come into the picture. This is part of our screening process, as described in the attached document by Laurie Lerner. The same goes for any dogs that do not enjoy the ride in a vehicle, in close proximity to several dogs. In such cases, the dogs in questions are separated in the vehicle, to their comfort level. The dogs that do participate in the group walks, and have been approved by us to be appropriate for such, thoroughly enjoy their experience with a bunch of their buddies, in and out of the vehicle. The play often starts as soon as they get into the vehicle, and often stops only when they are dropped off at home again; others they simply fall asleep, happy after a great outing. This process also provides them with very important social interaction, and teaches them proper dog behaviour. Very often our professional guidance, behavioural experience, and leadership helps the dogs feel secure and confident, preventing occurances similar to the one that Councillor Muri experienced. This can even be compared to playschool, where children learn interaction skills, and how to behave properly.

In association with that, please note that these outings not only provide the dogs with exercise, but with necessary mental stimulation. It is not acceptable for a dog to sit at home for countless hours during the day, staring at the walls in boredom, or worse, destroy the house or yard, bark up a storm, or even escape to roam the neighbourhood.

The dogs love to snuggle on the back couch of the van. A safety barrier separates them from the front, which can also safely accommodate another dog in the passenger area, with a doggie seat belt. Notice Koby sitting in the back area, who is placed separately for his own comfort.

However, we do agree that dog handlers should have some level of experience, training, and pertinent background. You will find that most of us do. If there are offenders to guidelines and bylaws that act unprofessionally perhaps as a result of the lack of such a background, will be punished under a new ID system. Many of us not only have a background in animal care (dog training, veterinary offices, volunteer with shelters and rescue groups, etc.), but take on-going courses, seminars, and read books and updated publications. In addition, many of us have been Professional Dog Walkers for anywhere between 7-12 years, and have thousands of hours of group walks experience in the North Shore forests. Those people I'm talking about are truly professionals, whose background and experience makes them much more qualified than any one specific training course ever could.

We have also addressed the issue of gaining necessary dogwalking experience with Staff in the past. We proposed a "Graduated Licensing System" (GLS), whose purpose was to address this issue specifically. This system would allow new walkers to take a certain number of dogs only during the first 6 months (4), and then 6 dogs for the next 6 months, to be increased up to 8 after that. This was to be accompanied by a testing system. The number of dogs and time frame can be adjusted, but we really felt that this was a very viable option. The GLS is the only solution so far that would actually address every concern each Councillor has voiced. It would address the issues of control, experience, safety, and would help to prevent incidents from actually occurring, since mistakes are usually made by newer walkers with less experience.

Furthermore, we were told that one District Staff member has contacted Dr. Stanley Coren, Dog Behaviourist and Dog Obedience Trainer, who suggested to him that size and weight of the dog, as well as the handler could be part of the process. Though we do not believe that you can involve the handler's weight, we'd like to point out that in a past proposal to the Staff, we suggested that in order to allow us a larger number of dogs, we could have a designated number of dogs in the group to be small dogs. This would also address the public perception of what may be considered a less intimidating group. Both the GLS and the big dog/little dog idea were turned down by Staff.

Commercial Dog Walking bylaws in other cities
It has been brought to our attention that Toronto has a bylaw in effect that allows 3 dogs maximum on leash to be walked. We have researched this, and also talked to about several dogwalkers from Toronto to confirm our research. The fact is that when this bylaw was passed in 2004, it not only affected the general public, but also commercial dogwalkers; this caused negotiations to start, just like here. Last year the municipality decided to let the professional dogwalkers take 5 dogs (off leash in designated areas), until they had come to an agreement, and a new bylaw is passed. So this is what they're allowed at present, and the dogwalkers are hoping to achieve a maximum of 6.

Thank you again for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Micki and Adam Ashurst
The Black Dog Cookie House
(604) 990-9062
(604) 839-9062

2052 Larson Rd.
North Vancouver, B.C.
V7M 2Z9

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

We have received and carefully analyzed the new draft report to Council and proposed new bylaws, regarding commercial dogwalking. While we find the report to be full of holes and would like to see many more changes made, as a group of businesses, we have noted our major objections below, for you to consider before the Council meeting on April 3, 2006.

1. Page 1 of the report: We object to a one - year trial period. A set of bylaws ought to be put in place on a permanent basis, and reviewed as necessary.

2. Page 2 of the report: We object to the ongoing references to public safety, in relation to alleged incidents. We have made repeated requests for details of these alleged incidents, but documentation has never been produced regarding serious incidents involving Professional Dog Handlers. Furthermore, on page 5 of the report, it is stated that there have been no public meetings, to obtain the opinions of the general public on commercial dog walking.

3. Page 3 of the report: We object to the day and time limits. These do not allow for clients who use our services in the evenings and weekends, and there is no real basis for this recommendation. The concern for school children is in parks, not the trails.

4. Page 4 of the report: We object to the disproportionately high fees for Park Use permits. These are excessive and do not reflect the income of this industry, and will cause further hardship for our businesses and clients.

5. Page 4 of the report: We object to the difference in fees, according to the location of the dog walking business. This is discriminatory, and we ask that the legality of this item is first questioned.

6. Page 4 of the report: We object to the maximum number of Commercial Dog Walkers per business to be 4. This does not allow for business growth or employment opportunities. Furthermore, it would mean that some present staff would have to be dismissed.

7. Page 4 of the report: We object to the maximum visits to the District being twice per day. This does not allow us to make up for the revenue losses we'll incur as a result of having to take out smaller groups, nor does it allow us to continue our service to all our clients. Furthermore, this will put out of business those companies that specialize in individual walks or small group walks, because they currently have to do several walks per day.

8. Page 4 of the report: We object to a capping of the number of dog walking businesses. This does not allow for competitiveness within our industry, cuts jobs, and puts in question how to fairly proceed with such an idea.

9. Page 10 on the bylaw document, section 8.2: We object to the limit of 5 dogs at one time, of which only 2 may be off leash. We propose that this be changed to 6 dogs at a time, all off leash.

10. Page 10 on the bylaw document, section 8.2: We object to any dog 6 months or younger being kept on leash. Again, this ought to be up to the professional handler. Many young dogs prove themselves to be reliable and well-behaved off leash.

11. Page 10 on the bylaw document, section 8.2: We object to keeping any dog with a history of aggressive behaviour on leash. This should not include dogs that have been rehabilitated, and have proven themselves for a certain period of time, to be safe around the public.

12. Page 12 on the bylaw document, section 8.8 (e): We object to some of the amounts of the fines for infractions, which are disproportionate to the offence.

Public safety and perception

• Create a better complaint system, documentation, and follow-up, and a fair system of arbitration for complaints and/or fines.
• Educate the public about dog behaviour and Professional Dog Handlers (PDH). The NSDHA has offered to distribute literature to this effect at its own cost. The NSDHA has also set up a web site with a planned section of these subjects.
• Create a Professional Dog Handler identification system, such as visible colour coding, combined with a number, etc. This would aid the District in following up on complaints, as well as protect dog walkers from being held accountable as a group for the poor behaviour of individuals.
• Post signs at the trailheads most often used by PDH's, advising simply: "Professional dog walkers use these trails". This gives an option to the public that does not want to potentially encounter a PDH, to use a different trail, without creating a liability issue.

• In order to reduce foot traffic in the forest, allow more dogs per group, thereby reducing the number of humans needed to accompany each dog, and the number of staff that PDH's would have to hire in order to accommodate their clients.
• Inform us of the existence of environmentally sensitive areas, so that we may avoid them.
• Section off sensitive areas in question.
• NSDHA has planned regular trail clean-up days.
• Many PDH's at the present time regularly remove other people's dog waste from the trails, and pick up garbage, broken glass, and other hazardous substances and objects. We propose to continue this and encourage each of our members to do so.

• 8 off leash
• Graduated Licensing system (GLS) - see "Proposed Amendments to the Dog Tax and Regulation Bylaw"
• 8 dogs with a 6 big dogs/2 little dogs ratio

• Increase fines for any infractions.
• Create and impose the Graduated Licensing System (GLS).
• Encourage active bylaw enforcement.

Dear Mayor and Councilors,

On April 4, 2005, the District of North Vancouver's Council meeting included an issue regarding Commercial Dogwalking. At the time, the issue was sent back to Staff, to have discussions with the commercial dogwalkers. Since then, we have formed the North Shore Dog Handlers Alliance, with the goal in mind to uphold the highest standards in our business. This Alliance also allowed us to work more effectively with District Staff. Our commitment was to find solutions to the concerns raised, while allowing this important industry to continue to service thousands of residents on the North Shore in an affordable manner.

We have put a considerable amount of time and effort into this commitment. We have come up with what we consider some very workable solutions for everybody, but did not have the opportunity to discuss all of them with the Districts. We were told that the Districts of North and West Vancouver wanted to implement the same bylaws across the North Shore. With that in mind, we had three meetings with North Vancouver alone (April 19th, May 31st, and July 6th), and one meeting on with both Districts. This latter meeting on July 13th was the last one that took place. After this last meeting, we continuously tried to set up another one, to discuss further ideas we came up with. Despite several phone calls and e-mails to bylaw staff in West Vancouver, we never even received a reply. Dennis Back of North Vancouver told us that he did not want to meet without West Vancouver, but couldn't get them to commit to a meeting, either. Finally in October, he told us that we should postpone further meetings until January, when elections were over, and the new Council had settled in.

Furthermore, as we were sensitive to the apparent complaints that the Districts had received about commercial dogwalkers, we have repeatedly asked for documentation of such complaints. Neither District has ever been able to provide us with such documentation. It seems that whenever a complaint comes in, it is taken at face value, without any follow-up or verification of its authenticity. How can we address the concerns about public safety, if there is no apparent proof of such a great threat? Nevertheless, in the proposals we put forward to the Districts, we addressed these concerns. All of our ideas and proposals have been rejected or ignored, sometimes with the reason that it would be "too complicated" or involved "too much red tape".

On February 10th, we received notification of a meeting between dogwalkers and both Districts, as apparently they had been having meetings without the dogwalkers, and had come to some conclusions. We requested a later date, as many of the business owners were either out of town, or had prior commitments. This request was rejected.

This is a timeline, of the Districts' proposals given thus far:

March 14, 2005 - Original proposal to Council regarding bylaw 7534 - a maximum of 4 dogs, with 2 on leash at all times (District of North Vancouver).

June 30, 2005 - Report to Council by District of North Vancouver, Tracking number RCA - 2005-00335; File number 09.4020.30/008.000 - a maximum of 5 dogs, with no off-leash restrictions other than those pertaining to underage dogs and aggressive dogs.

February 16, 2006 - meeting with Commercial Dog Walkers, and the Districts of North and West Vancouver - maximum of 5 dogs, with 3 on leash at all times. This proposal is apparently non-negotiable, and is to go before Council as is, without further discussions.

As you can see, the Districts seem to have digressed in their proposals. The only difference between the proposals of March 14/05 and Feb. 16/06 is that commercial dogwalkers would be allowed one extra dog on leash.

The original concern with the numbers was, as it still is now, that this would put most dogwalking companies out of business, and would rob thousands of North Shore residents of a valuable service. Many dogwalkers simply cannot do a whole walk with that many dogs on leash, without great risk of injury. After having talked to fellow dogwalking companies in Vancouver, they made it clear that after their new regulations came into effect in Pacific Spirit Park (8 dogs maximum, with 5 on leash at all times), the number of injuries to dogwalkers went up considerably. Furthermore, the only people that would be able to afford a revised, much more expensive service, would be the elite of the North Shore. The majority of residents, and our clients, would be left to fend on their own with bored, under-exercised, under-stimulated, under-socialized, and aggressive dogs.

All that we have always asked, and are still asking, is that the Districts work together with us to find viable solutions for everybody. We were hopeful and optimistic before this latest meeting, that we were heading in that direction (as you can see from the proposal of June 30^th). Please help us in convincing your Staff, that this matter needs more discussions. If this means that it takes more time, it would be time and energy well spent, to save many small businesses, and provide an affordable service to all income groups. We do not feel that the utmost effort has been put forward by the Districts, to take all parties' concerns into account. The North Shore Dog Handlers Alliance has put together a book with documentation and proposals. Many of you may already have this; if you don't, please ask us for a copy, as it is instrumental in helping you understand this issue.

Sincerely,

Micki and Adam Ashurst
The Black Dog Cookie House

We are concerned with those clients that cannot afford a price increase, including families, the handicapped, and the ill. We are community-oriented. These are hundreds of taxpayers that we provide an essential service for.

If we do stay at the same prices, here is the impact:

1. If the maximum number of dogs is cut from 8 to even 5, this represents a 32- 35% increase in rates for our clients.
2. The inevitable loss of clients, would invite new unskilled dogwalkers to pick up the slack. New walkers are more likely to be unlicensed, unaware of etiquette, and unheeding of regulations.
3. Those clients that could not afford the higher prices, would be forced to leave their dogs at home for longer hours (and more people are working as many as 12 hours per day or longer, just to make ends meet), hence increasing cases of behaviour problems in dogs (burden on the Shelters, more aggression between canines in local parks, a greater likelihood of injury to both citizens and their dogs, as frustrated dogs encounter the public). Also, dog owners would be forced to increase their walks not only in the forests, but also in community parks, city streets and lanes, so the environmental impact would not be decreased; it would in fact be shifted into school playgrounds, small local parks, etc. All of these locales would certainly then need more turf remediation - which would be an added cost to the city, and an increased use of fertilizers, etc., actually causing a greater environmental problem. Not to mention that dog owners are not always as fastidious about waste removal, as the reputation of their business is not affected by it.

1. Increased traffic on the road means more fuel emissions - not very environmentally friendly, and a statistical increase in traffic accidents, road congestion, etc.!
2. Increased foot traffic in the trails - also affecting the environment.
3. It would be difficult for many of us to do an extra walk, as time-wise this would mean that many dogs would get walked as early as 8:00 a.m. (when their owners are still home or have barely left), while many would have to wait until late afternoon to get walked (impractical, as many can't hold it that long, and many owners would be home shortly after). In the winter, there are not enough daylight hours to do a third walk.

Environmental concerns

1. Destruction of paths/fauna: When meeting with specialists, PDW using PSP in Vancouver were told that trail erosion from bikes was a much larger concern. Dogs weigh anywhere from 1/50 to 1/1 with their human companion; but their body weight is distributed over 4 legs, not 2, doing at most, 1/100 to 1/2 the damage of a hiker. Most other trail users have no restrictions. Furthermore, in the focus group of Oct. 19/04 (Question 2 - affiliations) of the Alpine Recreational Strategic Project, there were 35 groups mentioned as trail users. If we are to be held accountable for environmental damage, it ought to be noted that although we may contribute, so do the other 34 groups, and we are one of the few offering to do our share in reparation of such.
2. Environmentally sensitive areas: Tell us where not to go, and we'll gladly stay away. Furthermore, we will volunteer our own time to help rebuild these areas.
3. Bear and other wildlife displacement: Direct quote from the North Shore News from Friday, July 8/05: "(conservation officer Mike) Peters said that changes in weather, biological conditions and berry availability can all contribute to increased bear activity in populated areas, but he said, "We don't know what exactly is triggering it."

   On the AM radio station News 1130 on Monday, July 11, 2005, conservation officer Mike Peters was reported as saying that they suspect the main causes of the drastically increased bear population is believed to be twofold: garbage left out readily, and the fact that we had a warm winter; this means that the bears did not hibernate as usual, and so are more hungry than usual, prompting them to search for food in all places.

   It's easy and convenient to point to PDW's as a large contributing factor to the overflowing bear population, but there is no proof, and we are only a part of trail users. Surely housing development and the above mentioned factors are much more likely causes of this increase in the bear population. In no reports or newscasts has there been mention of higher foot traffic in the forest trail as a possible cause. It is just as easy of a guess that our presence in the lower alpine may even keep more bears from entering residential areas as bears are not fond of dogs. Furthermore, dogs still have to be walked by someone, so the traffic in the trails will essentially be the same or greater, and spread over more hours of the day.

4. We want to give back to the environment by such programs as trail clean-up days, poop clean-up days and replanting. Very few other trail users offer this.

1. Funding: We will come up with the funds
2. Administration and paperwork - too much work: We will do it! Alternately, once it's set up, it's as easy as handing out a piece of paper.
3. "No institution currently offering such a certification system": Gary Gibson of Custom Canine has offered to develop and run such a program.
4. "We would have to offer such a certification program to all other trainers / behaviourists, as well": No, you don't. You can chose who you give a contract to. Is Gary Gibson not the chosen behaviourist on the Animal Welfare Board - chosen by Staff? You can work with him to develop a system to your liking. As an alternative, Gary Gibson could design the curriculum and test. Then, a panel of trainers and behaviourists approve it, and other training organizations can purchase the curriculum from Gary, and administer it themselves for a fee.
5. "We don't like that the grandfathered dogwalking companies would be exempt.": They wouldn't be; we just didn't make that clear in our written proposal. They would still have to write a competency test. They would merely be "grandfathered" from the "graduated" licensing by dint of already having much more than one year of experience (in most cases).

1. "As much as I like you, I don't want to have to meet with you guys every six months" (what Dennis Back said!): We feel that saving dozens of businesses, that affect hundreds of taxpayers, warrants making the time twice a year for a meeting to assess a system.
2. West Vancouver has already tried 8 dogs, and it has failed. Really? How hard did you enforce the bylaws? From the PSP Dog Management Program report, we quote: "When uniformed Park Officers patrolled…there was an increase in compliance with handlers leashing their dogs. The rate of compliance prior to enforcement was 28% in March 2003 but rose to 93% in July 2003 after several bylaw tickets were issued. "Furthermore, as a result of signage, public education, and enforcement of bylaws, and again we quote: "The number of reported complaints about dogs causing incidents in the park continues to decline from 83 in 1999, to 32 in 2003."

   Furthermore, we would like to see documentation / proof of complaints, and how they were dealt with / followed up on. This is not because we do not believe the complaints are coming in but because it is very difficult to know how to react to these allegations when we know so very little about them. We have been informed by a Park's Board Staff member that complaints are put under the title of "Dogwalkers". This includes anyone who walks a dog, professional or private. Also many of the complaints are after-hours and weekends when PDWs do not work.

   This research clearly demonstrates that with enforcement of bylaws, proper signage, and public education, this could work.

3. "Every time I've come across a group with a large number of dogs (such as 8), they have been out of control. I've never seen a handler being able to handle 8 dogs" (as Bill McCuaig has stated). "We don't think that any handler can have 8 dogs under control."
   This is a matter of handler competence, not a question of the number of dogs. An incompetent handler may not be able to have 2 dogs under control, or even one. Permit and licenses do not guarantee a competent handler. You have not offered a solution to the actual problem, but we have. If you oppose the graduated licensing program, then let's come up with something together that would work at the core problem, which is bad handlers. One solution to this problem again is very simple: enforcement of having 8 dogs under control.

4. We don't have the manpower for enforcement.
   Every law requires enforcement; otherwise, why bother passing a law? This business involves enough people that it warrants finding a way to enforce it, in order to make it work. Furthermore, if you don't have the manpower now, how is it going to be different with any changes you make to the bylaws?

District Staff don't like the idea of a graduated licensing system, yet they state public safety is of utmost importance to them. The graduated licensing system is designed to address public safety, otherwise any inexperienced handler can pay their money, get a business license / permit, and start walking x number of dogs. This would be much more unsafe for the public, than if an inexperienced handler were to start of slowly and with a small number of dogs, only to increase this as their experience increases, and they become more competent.

"We have been getting complaints from the public for years, concerning negative encounters with PDW's."

Please show us the documentation. This is not because we do not believe the complaints are coming in but because it is very difficult to know how to react to these allegations when we know so very little about them.

We are curious as to the number of complaints there are claims too. The majority of PDW's encounter very few people, especially since our group walks are mostly during the day Monday to Friday when most people are at work. According to our own research, here are some statistics:

* Most companies walk twice a day, 5 days a week, with an average of 6 dogs. That translates to 12 dogs per day, 240 dogs per month, and 3120 dogs per year.

• Most PDW's encounter on average of 2-3 hikers on a sunny day, and 0-1 hikers on a rainy day.
• With the above numbers, we have a very low amount of contact at all with other trail users, especially in light of the amount of time we spend in the trails, and the number of dogs we walk per year. The public survey we conducted in May 2005 (see our presentation booklet), we found that 50% of weekday public trail users rarely encounter PDW's. The majority (70%) of experiences with dog walking groups were positive. There was minimal negative feedback, mostly involving walkers who had 12+ dogs in their group.

"How did you arrive at the number 8?"

Many of us have experimented in taking more dogs than 8. All of us have agreed that 8 is the limit that we're comfortable with. That is the result of dozens of dogwalkers, having walked and trying out different group sizes for years. It is significant that this number 8 we have agreed on is based on years of experience by many dogwalkers; thus it is a conclusion that was truly reached by experience and professional opinion. This is why we didn't arrive at the meetings, asking for 10 dogs or higher; we truly believe that this is an acceptable number by everybody. This is a number that works in our Professional Opinion.

:: E-Mail to Dianne Eibner :: | :: Council Concerns :: | :: Report Objections :: | ::
Summary of NSDHA Proposed Ideas :: | :: Letter to Councils :: | :: Concerns & Responses ::