Montreal to ban pit bulls and other dangerous breeds

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture
Montreal to ban pit bulls and other dangerous breeds

ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

Unionist

Not just Montréal, and not an immediate ban.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Montreal to ban pit bulls and other dangerous breeds

Quote:
MONTREAL -- Less than two weeks after a woman died following a dog attack in her backyard, Montreal's mayor has announced a plan to ban pit bulls and other breeds that are deemed to be dangerous.

Denis Coderre said the new rules will likely be brought before city council in September.

"We're going to have an applied strategy, not just for one breed, but based on the level of potential danger of several types of dogs," he told a news conference on Saturday.

oldgoat

"Legislation should not be enacted to say what dogs people cannot have, but to say what people cannot have dogs"  (saw that on facebook and gave it a like)

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Thumbs up on that comment oldgoat. I carry scar tissue from several dog attacks (all took place when I was a child) and while I will never count myself as a dog lover, I have come to the conclusion that it is inevitably the "owners" who are the problem, not the breeds (probably the worst attack, although not the one with the most stitches, was from a St. Bernard I didn't even know was lurking behind some bushes when I was walking past a house on the public sidewalk). I would be far happier if someone could up with an enforceable zero tolerance policy regarding ownership.

6079_Smith_W

Though like those arguments about "cosmetic" differences in guns, those things are what often draws those abusive owners.

I think laws should extend beyond that, but I am also happy to see it start with the breed most often associated with attacks.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I think laws should extend beyond that, but I am also happy to see it start with the breed most often associated with attacks.

Yes, me too.

And yes, action also needs to be taken against owners that get away with abuse of both animals and their human victims. Not sure how to do that.

infracaninophile infracaninophile's picture

As a dog lover, I've felt that "breed-specific" bans were not the answer, as the problem is one of owner supervision, training and controlling access to and by the dogs. Also, pit bulls were (in theory) bred for fighting other dogs, not for attacking humans, and are often shown as adoring family pets with small children. So, knowing that Rottweilers, Chow Chows and even Golden Retrievers have been implicated in serious dog/child attacks, I was skeptical of legislation of this kind.

I thought someone on this thread posted a link to this report, but I guess not:

http://dogs.petbreeds.com/stories/4046/dog-breeds-attack#Intro

The reports on this site seem fairly empirical to me, and show an overwhelming majority of serious attacks are in fact attributable to pit bulls and their mixed-breed cousins.  So, I've revised my opinion on this, but feel that broader legislation is necessary, as other breeds are also potentially quite dangerous, and because the number of incidents is low, insufficient attention is paid to them.

Maybe dog ownership needs to be something like gun ownership, so that while in addition to a dog license, you need to demonstrate an understanding of safety issues and produce evidence of safe enclosures and facilities for the dog(s). And like car insurance, perhaps specific insurance should be required of owners who purchase breeds with a recognized attack potential.

PS bagkitty, I'm a cat lover too. Have 4 cats, all of whom seem to think they are dogs. They need therapy for species identification disorder but seem happy and healthy so I'm cool with that. One of my dogs can purr (sortof) which is fun.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

As a gun lover, I've felt that "model-specific" bans were not the answer, as the problem is one of owner supervision, training and controlling access to and by the guns. Also, assault rifles were (in theory) designed for fighting other assult rifles, not for attacking unarmed bystanders, and are often shown as harmless inanimate objects with small children. So, knowing that knives, hammers and even plastic buckets have been implicated in serious child deaths, I was skeptical of legislation of this kind.

I'm not saying I believe all that, nor that I'm going to get all militant about it, but I do find it inexplicable that when it comes to dangerous guns, it's the gun, but when it comes to dangerous dogs, it's the owner.

NRA talking point or not, it's pretty true that a gun really DOES need someone to pull its trigger.  Dogs evidently don't need anyone to say "Sic 'im, boy!!"  Dogs are a gun that can pull its own trigger.  And noting that a dachshund killed someone once, maybe, is like noting that a BB gun killed someone once, maybe.  Any dog can nip you.  It takes certain breeds to be able to nip you to death.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I'm an animal lover so what concerns me is mandatory euthanisation.

There are some breeds that are more aggressive than others. But train and raise any breed with forcefulness and roughhousing and you have a dangerous animal.

Owners do play a role in responsibility.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

BTW. When are we going to ban specific breeds of humans?

http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/dog-injured-after-eating-meatball-stuffed-wit...

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Breed bans don't tend to insist on euthanasia. Existing dogs are grandfathered and no new dogs of the banned breed are allowed. I think certain breeds should have special certification requirements before anyone can own them, demonstrating that they know how to train a dog and that they fully understand what they are getting into.

quizzical

when are they going to get rid of back yard pools which are still killing more children than dogs are hurting them?

Unionist

alan smithee wrote:

I'm an animal lover so what concerns me is mandatory euthanisation.

So you agree with the Montréal plan, which does not include euthanisation?

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Unionist wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I'm an animal lover so what concerns me is mandatory euthanisation.

So you agree with the Montréal plan, which does not include euthanisation?

 

Nope.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

So, logically, you had other concerns that you didn't share.

Can you share those, or no?

Unionist

alan smithee wrote:

Unionist wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I'm an animal lover so what concerns me is mandatory euthanisation.

So you agree with the Montréal plan, which does not include euthanisation?

 

Nope.

Ah, ok, thanks. Personally, I'd prefer to eliminate any possibility that they murder another innocent human being like Mme Vadnais - even if the owner is to blame. Stopping Montrealers from "owning" them, without killing them, seems like an appropriate measure. 

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/christiane-vadnais-pit-bull-funer...' family remembered woman who loved life, was a 'ray of sunshine'[/url]

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture
Unionist

Friday in Surrey:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/surrey-pit-bull-attack-le... pit bull attack leaves woman with serious injuries[/url]

Quote:

A 65-year-old woman was taken to hospital with serious injuries after being attacked by a dog outside a convenience store in the 9100 block of 120 Street in Surrey.

Police say the woman was walking in the area "when she was attacked, unprovoked, by an unleashed grey and white pit bull dog."

How about this:

All unleashed dogs, anywhere, should be confiscated and provided with a decent home/refuge. "Owners" would have the right of appeal, but they'd have the burden of proof to show that the dog had been stolen or released by some third party. 

Thoughts?

[Maybe I'll open a thread to discuss that.]

 

Unionist

And this, Sunday night in NDG (Montréal):

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-pit-bull-attack-1.364694... man ordered pit bull to attack wife, police say[/url]

Quote:

A 54-year-old Montreal man has been charged with assault with a weapon after he allegedly ordered his pit bull to attack his 47-year-old wife.

Mark Léonard appeared in court Tuesday to face the charge. He remains in custody. [...]

The woman was bitten on the arm and treated on the scene by Urgences Santé.

Brabant said she refused to be transported to hospital.

On Tuesday evening, City of Montreal officials went to the home to seize the dog.

Brabant said they found the victim at home with the dog, but that she refused to hand it over.

Brabant said she asked that the charges be dropped, but that prosecutors intend to go ahead with them.

Police will now have to get a warrant to seize the dog, Brabant said.

Very pleased they seized the man and are holding him in custody (bail hearing is today).

But someone please explain to me why they need a warrant to seize the dog?????

Seems clear to me that this is not a safe place for any dog to be living.

 

 

swallow swallow's picture

Why should I care what happens in Montreal? Let the people of Montreal work it out. 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Maybe because the thread has "Montreal" as the first word in its title?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Plus, what if the infection spreads, and badass-wannabes in other provinces soon have to choose between a beagle and a Jack Russell?  No real man wants to be seen walking a dog that's the size of a cat.  A dachshund is to a pit bull as a Prius is to a Hummer.  Not the fake Hummer, the REAL Hummer.

jambo101 jambo101's picture
Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I hope it works out for them. What I'd really like to see, outside of municipal bans, are country-wide restrictions on some breeds of dog. Owners should have to pass a certification on dog care and training for dogs like pit bulls, Rottweilers, cane corals, Akitas, etc. they are powerful dogs with aggressive prey drives and need special handling. I can't blame cities for looking to the bans when people are repeatedly being badly injured. Why can't folks just get a Labrador?

lagatta

A baddass neighbour (fortunately no longer around) unleashed his pitbull on me because I asked him to stop letting the dog destroy a mature tree (on city property). It (the dog, not the human creep) chased me up my outside staircase. I was very firghtened of both human and canine. But of course, that is a big part of the problem.

This guy was a drug dealer and, we suspect, a pimp. And who knows what else.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

That's frightening!

Winnipeg has had a breed ban since 1990. There should be better stats, but severe bites did go down after the ban had been in effect a number of years - however, we still see the occasional pit bull.

I don't see the appeal of the "tough" breeds - I'm a bird-dog lover, myself. Big enough, gentle, even-tempered and sociable. Also damn cute.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think breed-specific bans are a good example of evidence-based policymaking.  You don't ban the ugliest dogs, or the dogs that bark the most -- you ban the dogs that are responsible for most of the serious injuries and deaths.

The only other solution -- and it wouldn't really even be one -- would be to make owners 100% legally responsible for their pet's actions.  Dog lovers love to say that it's not the dogs, it's the owners, right?  So this would nicely filter out the bad owners -- those would be the ones whose pets seriously harm or kill someone -- and leave the good owners to have any breed they wish.  This wouldn't actually *prevent* anything, but at least when some dog bites a child's face off, we'll know who's really to blame and they can be held accountable.

And if dog owners say "that's crazy!  I don't know what my dog will do!  I don't want to face manslaughter charges because of my dog!" then they're pretty much debunking the idea of "bad owners/good owners" and we're right back to where banning the breeds that kill is good public policy.

cco

Yeah, the whole double discourse when it comes to animals reminds me of a conversation I had during the student strikes here a few years back. Someone got angry at a student who injured a police horse, and I said "The horse knew the risks when it joined the force, right? Otherwise we'd be implying that the police took an innocent animal and put it in harm's way, and then the fault wouldn't lie with the student who threw a bottle while being tear-gassed, but with the officers who put the horse into that position to begin with."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Animals can be whatever we need them to be.

When your dog has never harmed anyone:  "he's just a big old poopsie-woopsie cuddlemonster who wouldn't hurt a fly!  The kids love him, and he loves them right back!"

When the same dog eats someone's nose and right eyelid:  "what was I supposed to do?  Chain him up like a slave?  Emasculate him with a muzzle?  When did this become all about ME??"

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

The difficult conversation is with dog owners who do not have a full understanding of how breeding and behaviour are linked. You can train your dog rigorously but in the right circumstances there are instincts that will assert themselves. I didn't teach my setter to point, nor could I likely train it out of her - and if there's a bird or a bunny in the grass, she can't help pointing at it. But she doesn't retrieve, which my old Labrador was utterly compulsive about. We've selectively bred dogs to such a degree that you can't discount how much some level of behaviour is innate.

Unionist

Full disclosure: I retract my stupid posts above. I was wrong. This bylaw is bad on so many levels. More later. Meanwhile, the good news:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/pit-bull-ban-suspension-decision-... extends suspension of Montreal pit bull ban: Mandatory muzzles, ban on new pit bulls will not be enforced until there is final ruling on bylaw challenge[/url]

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture