Montreal passes controversial pit bull ban

[D'z Nutz]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...ylaw-1.3780335

Montreal passes controversial pit bull ban
'This is going to create a bigger problem than a solution,' says Opposition Projet Montréal

CBC News Posted: Sep 27, 2016 2:00 PM ET Last Updated: Sep 27, 2016 11:49 PM ET


Nearly three months after a brutal dog attack that claimed the life of a Montreal woman, the city has passed its contentious pit bull ban.

City council voted Tuesday in favour of changes to its animal control bylaw that include a ban on new ownership of pit bull and pit bull-type dogs. The final vote was 37-23 in favour of the ban.

"My duty as mayor of Montreal is making sure I am working for all Montrealers," said Denis Coderre. "And I am there to make sure they feel safe and that they are safe."

The bylaw vote was supposed to take place Monday, but was pushed to Tuesday due to a busy agenda.

The city announced that the new rules, including the ban on new ownership of pit bull or pit bull-type dogs, will go into effect across all 19 Montreal boroughs starting Oct. 3.

Members of Opposition Projet Montréal questioned whether the Coderre administration would be able to enforce the new rules.

"This is going to create a bigger problem than a solution," said Coun. Sterling Downey.

Attack leads to action

Supporters argue the new regulations give priority to human safety over dog safety and that pit bull bans in other jurisdictions decreased the number of severe dog bites.

"A Montreal woman died because someone didn't have control of their dog," said Anie Samson, the city executive committee member in charge of the animal file.

The city had originally intended to update its legislation concerning dangerous dogs by 2018, but plans were accelerated following the mauling death of 55-year-old Christiane Vadnais.

​The dog that attacked her was initially identified as a pit bull, but police now say they are still waiting for DNA test results.

Court challenge planned

The announcement has led a Montreal-based coalition, composed of lawyers and experts in animal behaviour opposed to the ban, to say it will move forward with its plan to launch a court challenge.

"I think it would be a shame if people allowed Montreal to get away with this," lawyer Julius Grey told CBC Montreal's Homerun.

"This is very serious. It's not an object, it's not the right to seize a car — it's a right to take a member of your family and that should not permitted."

Animal rights advocates were also quick to pan the bylaw, pointing out that many cities that have implemented similar legislation have since repealed it.

"We are extremely disappointed with the council's decision to adopt archaic bylaws that are proven to be ineffective," Ewa Demianowicz, campaign manager for Humane Society International/Canada, said in a statement.

Demianowicz said the new law would kill "innocent dogs without any improvement in public safety."

The Montreal SPCA said in a statement it was "disappointed, but not surprised."

"If the city of Montreal truly wanted to ensure public safety, it would not have forced a rushed adoption of controversial legislation which is unfair, unenforceable, and, most importantly, ineffective," the animal protection agency said.
Montreal SPCA threatens to end dog-control services over pit bull ban

The bylaw comes as the Quebec government prepares to introduce legislation of its own. Public Safety Minister Martin Coiteux said the province wouldn't interfere with municipalities that choose to impose stricter rules.

"What's important is that we come up with common standards for the area that make sense, that will actually ensure safety for all. If some towns want to go farther, then I don't see why the Quebec government should stop them," Coiteux said.

What's a pit bull?

The new bylaw will apply to all 19 boroughs and will define pit bulls as:

Staffordshire bull terriers.
American pit bull terriers.
American Staffordshire terriers.
Any mix with these breeds.
Any dog that presents characteristics of one of those breeds.

Those who now own a dog of those breeds and already live in Montreal will have to acquire a special permit in order to keep their pet by Dec. 31, 2016.

The bylaw also creates two categories of dogs of all breeds: at-risk and dangerous. At-risk dogs are those that exhibit aggressive behaviour, such as biting someone. Dangerous dogs are those that have killed someone or are deemed dangerous by an expert.

"No matter what, if your dog is dangerous, we will be able to act accordingly," Coderre said.

An amendment to the bylaw made Tuesday morning aimed to address concerns that a pit bull would be automatically euthanized when its owner dies. The changes allow the pit bull's licence to be transferred to another person who was living at the same address, a direct family member or a spouse.

[speedog]

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

It is truly astonishing that people are still so ignorant and then get together as a group and draft up something like this. Man, I'd vote to keep our blue ring over this Montreal bull shit.

[RealJimmyJames]

I support a ban on all dog breeds. Pets are bad for the environment.

[Tarrantula]

Yeah, fuck dogs.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by RealJimmyJames
I support a ban on all dog breeds. Pets are bad for the environment.

Humans are bad for the environment.

The economic activity needed to put 2 kids thru college is equivalent of 8+ dogs for the same period.

[Buster]

Originally posted by RealJimmyJames
I support a ban on all dog breeds. Pets are bad for the environment.

That would be amazing.

Dogs are a nuisance.

[MalibuStacy]

I'm not even remotely surprised by this vote...Quebec is the radical part of Canada

What's next... ah I know, bad children are inherently bad, their behavior has nothing to do with their upbringing...

BAN ALL CHILDREN

[C_Dave45]

Toasters kill 23 times more people than Pit Bulls annually .

WHATS HAPPENING WITH THE TOASTERS?!!!!!!!

[RealJimmyJames]

Is there a big list of annual deaths due to various causes?
We ban a wide selection of firearms in this country, and make it very difficult to get a bunch of others.

It's not hard to argue that Hospitals kill people, since that's where a massive percentage of deaths occur.

[ZenOps]

Harambe!

[Kloubek]

I hate to get into the debate once again, but I just have to voice my thoughts.

First, I'm going to tell you all what you may not know. When this was first proposed, it was an ALL-OUT ban. It dictated that if you owned a Pitbull-type dog, you had to get rid of it. End of story. I signed petitions, and wrote the mayor directly voicing my anger over such a suggestion.

This is still ignorant, but it doesn't amount to what will make children and adults cry alike.

Let's face it though. A lot of people who acquire these kinds of dogs are what I would call "unsavoury" individuals. They do so to "look cool", "tough", and perhaps they do so for protection because they have gotten themselves into a risky lifestyle. Now, if I was such an individual, it is super easy for me to simply get a Rottweiler, or another dog that doesn't have the restriction. So what Montreal is effectively doing (besides killing a bunch of dogs in shelters) is replacing the Pitbull with another breed.

This might make a difference short term, but in the end will solve little. What Montreal and every municipality needs to do is adopt stiffer fines and forced responsibility of your pet's actions. Don't want to take the time to properly train and love your dog? Then don't get ANYTHING that has a strong bite or a poor temperament, or you risk enormous fines and possibly a ban on ever owning another animal. Simple. Bypass the debate as to whether Bully dogs are dangerous and you bypass the advocates, debate, and ill feelings. At the same time, you effectively protect people from ALL dogs who might be potentially dangerous.

BSL has proven not to work in the past. All it does is put unfair restrictions on people who have an animal who may very well be far more peaceful than others. Yes, the bite from a Pitbull is likely to be more devastating than most any other breed, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there is a huge variety of animals that could cause serious damage. This is very tunnel-vision of Montreal, but regrettably, is the tact that many municipalities are taking. Only after it is proven time and time again over the years will cities realize this is NOT the way to handle the issue.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Kloubek
I hate to get into the debate once again, but I just have to voice my thoughts.

First, I'm going to tell you all what you may not know. When this was first proposed, it was an ALL-OUT ban. It dictated that if you owned a Pitbull-type dog, you had to get rid of it. End of story. I signed petitions, and wrote the mayor directly voicing my anger over such a suggestion.

This is still ignorant, but it doesn't amount to what will make children and adults cry alike.

Let's face it though. A lot of people who acquire these kinds of dogs are what I would call "unsavoury" individuals. They do so to "look cool", "tough", and perhaps they do so for protection because they have gotten themselves into a risky lifestyle. Now, if I was such an individual, it is super easy for me to simply get a Rottweiler, or another dog that doesn't have the restriction. So what Montreal is effectively doing (besides killing a bunch of dogs in shelters) is replacing the Pitbull with another breed.

This might make a difference short term, but in the end will solve little. What Montreal and every municipality needs to do is adopt stiffer fines and forced responsibility of your pet's actions. Don't want to take the time to properly train and love your dog? Then don't get ANYTHING that has a strong bite or a poor temperament, or you risk enormous fines and possibly a ban on ever owning another animal. Simple. Bypass the debate as to whether Bully dogs are dangerous and you bypass the advocates, debate, and ill feelings. At the same time, you effectively protect people from ALL dogs who might be potentially dangerous.

BSL has proven not to work in the past. All it does is put unfair restrictions on people who have an animal who may very well be far more peaceful than others. Yes, the bite from a Pitbull is likely to be more devastating than most any other breed, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there is a huge variety of animals that could cause serious damage. This is very tunnel-vision of Montreal, but regrettably, is the tact that many municipalities are taking. Only after it is proven time and time again over the years will cities realize this is NOT the way to handle the issue.

Very logical and very well said.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Yet another case of trying to solve a problem without getting to the root (bad owners). Maybe it would have been better to just make it more difficult to acquire a pit bull, with some sort of screening process rather than punishing the responsible owners as well.

[C_Dave45]

C'mon....who could be afraid of her:



» Click image for larger version


» Click image for larger version


» Click image for larger version

[Buster]

Originally posted by C_Dave45
C'mon....who could be afraid of her:



» Click image for larger version


» Click image for larger version


» Click image for larger version

I'm not a dog person.

But that dog is goddamn awesome.

[Buster]

I propose a solution:

1. All dogs are permanently identified via tattoo. Dog caught without a tattoo is destroyed, no appeal.

2. Dog owner is 100% responsible for any and all outcomes associated with that dog off of their property (or usual on-property exceptions).

3. Punishment for all injuries created by the dog are considered an extension of the owner. Criminal code modified such that a dog assault is considered as a 1:1 assault by the owner of that dog. No exceptions.


If people want to claim that it's not the dog's fault, but the owner's fault, they need to put their money where their mouth is.

[Sentry]

Originally posted by Buster
I propose a solution:

1. All dogs are permanently identified via tattoo.

I got this far and thought you were gonna say anyone with a barbed wire tattoo shouldn't be allowed to own a pitbull.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Buster


I'm not a dog person.

But that dog is goddamn awesome.

Hahaha...yer just biased! "Kora, the Pit Bull Ambassador"

Originally posted by Sentry

I got this far and thought you were gonna say anyone with a barbed wire tattoo shouldn't be allowed to own a pitbull.

I'd be okay with that!

[Rocket1k78]

Originally posted by C_Dave45

Very logical and very well said.

Agreed and i'll admit i used to be very intimidated by these dogs because of how society made them out to be but when my buddy got one it made me look at them completely different. His dog is easily the best behaved out of all our friends.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by Rocket1k78


Agreed and i'll admit i used to be very intimidated by these dogs because of how society made them out to be but when my buddy got one it made me look at them completely different. His dog is easily the best behaved out of all our friends.

This is typical for those who meet well trained and cared for bully breeds. They can be strong willed, but as long as they are controlled and trained, they are generally exceptionally people friendly. Moreso than most other breeds.

As long as you don't hate dogs in general, if you meet such an animal you generally tend to understand they aren't always what the media makes them out to be.

My dog is extremely well natured. While he plays a little rough and is a bit "gamey" sometimes, I trust him with humans as much as I would any animal. He's very much a people dog.

With that said, he does exhibit the common behavior with bully breeds to not be particularly friendly towards other dogs. It is for this reason I don't take him to dog parks, socialize him only in controlled environments, and only allow him off leash once I have assessed the situation to be safe. The last thing I need is for my boy to perpetuate the perception that these dogs are dangerous.

(Nay sayers would say - "Hey, you just admitted your dog is dangerous". Yes, that is true... I did. But not against humans. And as a responsible owner, I make sure his aggression towards other dogs is not an issue. And should he ever damage another dog due to my negligence, I should be held 100% responsible.)