COLD LAKE - Tempers flared at Cold Lake City Hall on the morning of April 15 as concerned residents met with Mayor Craig Copeland and city staff to express concerns over the policies and practices of the city's Animal Control Centre (ACC), after allegations surfaced that an animal had been euthanized unnecessarily, despite assurances it would not be.
The meeting was driven by community members demanding more transparency, accountability, and compassion in how the city handles lost and stray animals. Concerned resident Robynne Hansen and Kristy Janzen, one of the women who rescued the dog, were particularly vocal, saying their experience rescuing a dog named Precious exposed serious flaws in the system.
Copeland started the meeting by stating, “Overall, council sets the policy and the budget for the city . . . That's our job... So, there's the budget, and then there's the policies or the service levels.”
Copeland described the ACC as a facility with limited resources and a specific purpose, which is short-term intake of animals.
“We are not set up to be a long-term stay. . . So, the idea is that the animals will stay for 30 days minimum in the shelter . . . and [they] try to get him or her into a facility that is an adoption agency.”
But for residents, the issue was about more than just logistics, it was about the life of a dog many felt could have been saved.
“We have been made aware of the policy stating that no animal without identification has to be posted or promoted and we do find that very difficult to accept Mr. Mayor,” said Janzen. “Because with these dogs who assumptively have no family coming for them, [are] the ones that need us most.”
Hansen criticized the city's efforts to promote adoptable animals, saying, “They do make one post but once the animal is no longer in their care, that post is gone. They've removed it . . . and instead of putting more effort into that, they're resorting to euthanasia.”
A particularly tense moment came when residents learned the public cannot freely access the intake facility. Andrew Jabs, manager of Land Use Planning, Development, and Regulatory Services, clarified, “It's not a publicly accessible facility, you have to schedule some time to go in there."
When asked whether someone was there 24/7, Copeland responded, “We're not a 24-hour service provider . . . The animals are in cages there, and they're periodically checked.”
Copeland defended the City's process, saying, “In the questions of the euthanizing of the animals . . . it's not like we're killing animals right away.” He added, “The staff do not want to do that . . . it becomes their friend. They do not want to kill these animals.”
Residents questioned why animals weren't actively promoted for adoption before euthanasia, with one person asking why there were no public posts seeking help from the community.
Jabs explained that the minimum holding period is governed by provincial regulation, three days for unidentifiable animals and 10 days for those with identification. “That's the government of Alberta. That's the provincial regulations,” he noted.
Copeland acknowledged the City could be doing more, saying, “We can do a better job of posting every day.”
Hansen responded, stating, “I don't necessarily think you have to post every day. What I'm saying is better promotion. Half of the city doesn't even know that that Facebook page exists.”
At the heart of the issue, residents questioned why the city had moved away from working directly with the Lakeland Humane Society. When asked about it, Copeland noted it was to lower the City’s costs.
“We’re already up to $267,355 . . . The number was higher in the other years when it was the Humane Society.”
But he acknowledged that a larger policy shift would require more than just public outcry, it would need council direction and more funding.
“If the public wants us to have that facility change out, to have kennels to have longer-term care for the animal . . . that is a totally different conversation that a council will have to look at,” said Copeland.
Precious
Residents who had cared for and routinely visited Precious after she was found and brought to the city’s facility said they were devastated to learn the dog had been euthanized.
When Jabs asked what residents would have done if Animal Care and Control had informed them that Precious was at risk of being euthanized, Melissa Chipman, who originally found and cared for the dog, said she would have taken her back without hesitation.
Chipman believed she was surrendering Precious to be adopted, not to be put down.
Chipman and Janzen addressed City council directly during the meeting.
“We emailed them, we phoned them for updates. They sent us these photos. We did not take this photo ourselves. That came from your staff. Why weren't we contacted in the end?” Janzen asked.
“I think that better record keeping on the part of Cold Lake Animal Control needs to happen,” Janzen continued. “One of the things that we asked for clarification on when we first brought her multiple times was, ‘Do you euthanize?’ ‘No, we do not.’ ‘Will this dog's future ever be in danger at risk of euthanizing?’ ‘No. No. No she will not'.”
City council and administration acknowledged residents' concerns and committed to improving animal handling and communication. CAO Kevin Nagoya noted difficulties in placing animals, especially with out-of-province agencies that refuse to assist.
Janzen says she knows of two local animal rescues that were never contacted about Precious.
“If you have organizations that you're aware of that might be able to help us with that, we would be very open to taking it,” said Jabs.
Communication and transparency
Several speakers raised concerns about a lack of transparency. Hansen questioned why the City doesn't publicly share efforts to rehome animals, suggesting updates should show which agencies were contacted. She said it feels like animals are "on death row.”
Copeland acknowledged that communication with the public could be improved.
The mayor also reaffirmed the current limitations of the City’s animal services.
“Our intent is not to keep the animal for an extended period of time and get in the business of adoptions and collecting revenue from it,” he said. “The policy that we have in place right now - and it can change, it's the will of council - is we do our best to . . . to get the animal in a safe place.”
Small changes
Janzen believes smaller changes are possible, even without sweeping reforms.
“While grand scale change would be wonderful, what we're looking for in the interim would be smaller scale change, just the way we do business going forward so that what happened to this dog doesn't happen to the next one.”
She emphasized the importance of exhausting all available resources before euthanizing animals.
One resident asked about the costs associated with euthanizing animals.
Jabs responded, saying, “I can get certain numbers for you to be certain. So, we can go for 2023, 2024, and then 2025 year to date.”
Jabs also clarified that currently, “There are a few reasons why an animal would be euthanized . . . illness, aggression, long-term isolation, and sometimes guidance from a vet . . . We do our best to not euthanize any healthy animals, because nobody wants to see that.”
Nagoya also emphasized that euthanizing animals is rare, adding, “Just to be very clear… we're not euthanizing dogs every month.”
One resident asked if the City had ever considered allowing volunteers to walk or socialize with animals to reduce stress and extend their chances of adoption.
“We have not,” Jabs said.
Going forward
During the meeting, Chipman emotionally recalled the young age and friendly nature of a euthanized dog, Precious, expressing sadness over how it was treated.
Copeland said the euthanasia policy could be changed by the council, but that would require repurposing the intake facility and new funding. He suggested improving communication, partnering with more groups, using social media, and involving volunteers before considering long-term stays. He emphasized public involvement in adoptions and licensing, and addressed misinformation, saying staff were hurt by false claims about animal treatment.
Jabs also acknowledged staffing challenges, mentioning high turnover and new staff, but emphasized efforts to improve. He noted that the facility had kept an animal named Precious for months and tried their best to find her a home, despite some behavioral issues.
Chipman expressed surprise at the behavior of the animal, noting, “That's strange because they told us that she loved all the animals.”
Copeland and Jabs wrapped up the meeting by emphasizing the need to improve communication, collaborate with more agencies, and promote adoptions. Copeland noted progress with two new agency contacts and discussed exploring what it would take to prevent euthanasia at the facility.
Jabs outlined immediate actions, including posting a job ad for an animal attendant, organizing facility tours, involving volunteers, and promoting animal licensing.
Additionally, Jabs emphasized the importance of employee education and expressed the value of allowing the public to visit and see the work being done at the facility.
