“Was LAPS consulted on this?” That was the question Councillor Kim Richter asked Mayor Eric Woodward during a September 2024 council meeting. The proposed motion directed Township staff to explore cutting Langley City out of the joint animal control partnership and potentially removing the Langley Animal Protection Society (LAPS) from its enforcement role after more than twenty years of service.

Woodward’s answer was: “Can you define consultation for me?”

That reply says more than the motion itself. It confirms the chilling fact that the decision to eradicate LAPS was already made, and transparency was never part of the plan. For over two decades, LAPS has served as the Township’s partner in animal welfare, enforcement, sheltering, and education. The Patti Dale Animal Shelter is a community landmark. LAPS reunites lost dogs under its enforcement contract and goes beyond its mandate to help reunite cats through its First Ride Home program. It runs outreach programs and operates spay and neuter initiatives supported by donors and volunteers. To treat such a vital and beloved organization in this way is both dismissive and unnecessary. There are no indications that the organization was failing to deliver on its mandate, and it was not asking for significant new funding either. If improvements or changes to their services were needed, none were discussed in any meaningful public forum. What is clear is that when the Township introduced its motion to consider bringing enforcement in-house, LAPS was not given its rightful role in shaping that discussion and was left to speculate whether its long-standing services were at risk.

Mayor Woodward stated that some level of discussion with LAPS had occurred. But judging by the organization’s open letter, the public backlash, and the Township’s refusal to delay the motion to allow for fuller consultation, any such engagement appears to have fallen well short of what the public would reasonably expect.

Three days after the motion passed, LAPS released an open letter outlining the stakes. The tone was professional and clearly intended to calm stakeholders. The concerns were serious. The letter made it clear that the Township’s new direction could limit LAPS to serving only Township animals. This would leave Langley City scrambling to find alternate shelter capacity, and it would remove the integrated enforcement model that LAPS has operated for two decades without issue. The letter also supported improvements. It welcomed stronger services for deceased animals, particularly cats, who had not historically been included in reunification contracts. The shelter’s leadership expressed a willingness to work with the Township, but made it clear they had not been substantively engaged in the Township’s process.

These concerns were not limited to LAPS. Township residents wrote in support of the organization and questioned the need for change. Some warned that the proposed shift would increase costs, fragment services, and undermine an effective system. Independent analysis pointed out that the Township had offered no financial case for the transition and no clear explanation for what problem this move was meant to solve. The message was consistent. LAPS worked — and provided services the Township never formally contracted, but that the community urgently needed. There was no reason to dismantle it.

On May 26, 2025, Council introduced a bylaw that repealed and replaced the existing animal control bylaw, clearing the way for the Township to manage enforcement directly. Councillor Barb Martens asked staff whether LAPS had been given a chance to review the bylaw in advance. Staff confirmed that the organization had access to the bylaw draft when it was published on the public agenda, but it was not flagged or shared directly with them. Martens and Richter supported a referral back to staff so that LAPS could be given the opportunity to provide feedback. That motion was voted down.

No public hearing was held. No formal opportunity was given for LAPS to advise on the bylaw and procedures. The result was a comprehensive overhaul of animal control policy passed in one sitting, with the one organization that had been the most important partner in all this, left standing in the parking lot.

LAPS is not the first, and likely not the last, partner to be targeted by Mayor Woodward. His slate has consistently pushed forward major decisions without adequate notice or consultation. It is clear this is how they intend to govern the Township. From the sole-sourced firetruck to the quiet repurposing of school land, the pattern is becoming apparent. Stakeholders are sometimes acknowledged after the fact, and council debate has been a mere formality, not a forum for robust discussion and input. This time though, the consequences will directly affect animals, community volunteers, and Township taxpayers. Under Woodward’s rule, all three may as well not have a voice.

LAPS offered a functioning regional model where enforcement and sheltering are seamlessly connected. The public approved of this model as is evident from their strong engagement with and support for the organization. The Patti Dale Shelter serves residents and animals of both Langley City and Township without drawing jurisdictional lines. Now, Langley City is again being forced by Woodward to separate from the Township and create its own sheltering capacity. LAPS will undoubtedly lose funding and operational stability. Township residents will pay more for a fragmented service delivery that replaces cooperation with duplication. Sadly, the animals will suffer most. LAPS may be forced to turn away injured strays or animals from domestic abuse cases simply because they come from the wrong side of a municipal line.

Throughout the process, Councillors Richter and Martens consistently called for transparency and engagement. They asked for consultation with LAPS. They proposed and supported a referral motion to give LAPS a chance to consult on the bylaw. A motion that should not have been defeated, but was — by Woodward and his slate. This is increasingly how his regime conducts process. A major life-changing bylaw passes in one sitting. The people who built and ran the animal welfare system for over two decades were told after the fact. This is not reasonable, transparent, or democratic. This is Woodward!