Montreal pitbull ban comes into effect amid controversy
Source: BBC
Montreal's pitbull ban, passed by the city council last week, comes into effect on Monday amid an outcry by animal welfare groups and threats to boycott the city over the law.
The Canadian city will also be in court to fight a bid by the Montreal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to suspend the ban.
Alanna Devine, director of animal advocacy at the organisation, called the rules "draconian".
'We're simply not going to participate in a by-law we feel is not legal in terms of violating people's fundamental rights and basic principles of administrative law," she said.
She argued that among its issues, the ban defines pitbull breeds too broadly and will be too expensive for some dog owners who want to comply with the new rules.
The Quebec Order of Veterinarians and other animal welfare groups are supporting the SPCA's opposition. Opponents of the ban have also received support from US-based pitbull advocates and celebrities like actress and animal rights activist Pamela Anderson and singer Cyndi Lauper.
Pitbull ban supporters say the breed is uniquely dangerous and point to studies suggesting attacks by pitbulls and their closest relatives outnumber those of other breeds, as well as more likely to severely injure or kill the victim.
Montreal's push for a city-wide ban came in the wake of a fatal dog mauling last June in Pointe-aux-Trembles, a suburban community in Montreal's east-end, and the subsequent pressure from the victim's family to crackdown on aggressive dogs. Quebec is also considering a province-wide ban.
In the attack, 55-year-old Christiane Vadnais was mauled to death in her backyard by a neighbour's dog.
Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37526015
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
flvegan
(64,408 posts)Law passed by idiots isn't really controversial, just proves they're kinda stupid.
I'd like to see "the studies" that support the danger. Merritt Clifton's bullshit lives on, I bet. Or the ambulance chasing dog-bite lawyers.
Idiots.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)could support this.
Put them to sleep, instead.
T
Marengo
(3,477 posts)The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)Someone who would advocate killing a dog merely because of the shape of its head and body is a piece of shit as a living being.
I can see dealing with proven dangerous dogs, with holding owners responsible, with mandatory spay and neuter laws... but requiring 'pit bull type' dogs to be euthanized instead of being adopted to responsible people after proper vetting? Anybody who is OK with that is someone I think the world would be better off without.
Abouttime
(675 posts)Pitbulls were bred for no other reason than to kill other dogs, in other words tools for gambling, really no different from game cocks.
While some are charming dogs and good pets if kept confined a large percentage are human aggressive.
If someone wants a pet dog there are literally millions upon millions of other breeds out there awaiting homes.
The only humane thing to do, for us humans and ALL the other non pitbull dogs and animals, is to eradicate the breed as quickly and humanely as possible.
The very first step, one which we could all agree, would to immediately ban and criminalize the breeding of these dogs.
We could start with the "purebred" or gamebred as the dogfighters call them. There are several so called "registries" that promote these dogs. One of the largest and oldest is in Utah and is run by fundamentalist Mormons. These people are getting rich literally by promoting dogfighting and the breeding and selling of these dogs worldwide.
By hitting these criminals with the RICO act we could put a huge dent in the breeding and distributing of fighting dogs worldwide. This would send a signal, much like the HSUS has done after the Vick episode that we are in a new century, a new era and what was tolerated in the past will have zero tolerance in this day and age.
While I have high respect for flvegan and other men and women who not only talk the talk about animal rights, they put their hearts and souls into helping animals every day. There is a certain naïveté regarding these dogs from their camp.
In some cases it's ignorance, in others it's willful disregard about the history of the breed but the time for breed apologists is over, the time for the breed is over.
So yeah, I support the ban.
And by the way, have any of you seen that police dashcam video of the 2 girls being attacked?
Watch that then argue against the ban, that could have been my daughter, anyone's daughter.
flvegan
(64,408 posts)You have no idea what you're talking about. With your post, I spit on your alleged "respect" for me. Go fuck yourself, breedban apologist.
Come get some...
Abouttime
(675 posts)I feel sorry for you, I see people like you everyday seething with rage as they go about their lives.
Abouttime
(675 posts)You just play the expert on the Internet.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)
Abouttime
(675 posts)I just hope none are adopted out as pets and put into society.
Abouttime
(675 posts)There are homeless men and women everywhere living a third world life on the streets while the majority of people ignore the fact they are there and we have people that care more about the pitbulls in the shelter than the humans on the street!
WTF is wrong with you people?!!!
flvegan
(64,408 posts)Fuckbucket confirmed.
I might know a thing or two about them. Ask me and I'll tell you about them in real life. Real life...you should try it.
Urchin
(248 posts)I don't see anything controversial about this. Those killer dogs should be banned.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)20-70 lbs? Why?
Who needs them in a city?
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Now ya see them lots especially people that shouldnt have them.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)And there is the problem.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)vile excuses for humans that they are.
Lancero
(3,003 posts)
Doreen
(11,686 posts)It is not the breed that is the problem it is the people who have the dog. People practice poor breeding and assume these breeds are mean and train them to be such. Most of the time people do not know if they are seeing a Pit Bull or some other breed that looks like a Pit Bull. The blame is the peoples not the dogs so the better thing to do would to ban particular people from owning dogs.
It's a people problem (as usual) NOT a dog problem.
Look how many of Michael Vick's victims were successfully rehabilitated even after all they'd endured.
Always look to the humans who own the dog before passing judgment on the dog.
Blandocyte
(1,231 posts)Who needs a pitbull? If it saves one child from being mauled it's worth it.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)http://www.ourpack.org/rightforme.html
You want a dog that lives to please you. Pit bulls are expected to be biddable dogs. They're happy when you're happy with them. This eager-to-please attitude can be especially useful during training.
(Clip)
You want a dog that can do it all. Many pit bulls excel at therapy work, obedience, agility, dock jumping, hiking, search & rescue, and just about any other dog activity you can imagine!
A pit bull may NOT be right for you if:
You want a dog to guard your home and property. Pit bulls are not expected to be guard dogs, and should not be forced to guard. A well-socialized pit bull tends to be friendly and welcoming toward everyone.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Then friends found a stray pit puppy. That dog is one big sweetie. The biggest danger with him is licking you to death.
They are very sweet dogs. My friends dad had four and when you drove up to the house they would surround the car drop to their backs and you could not get out without lots of vicious tummy rubs.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Part of the current personal arms race we have in America with a high public collateral.
Blandocyte
(1,231 posts)It's surprising how the arguments for pits and assault rifles often take the same form. Just insert either "pit bull" or "assault rifle." Then, "It's about training." Or "being a responsible owner." Or "actually, more injuries come from..."
It's America. We can have rifles and killer dogs because we want to have them. No one needs either. Now, go enjoy your freedom responsibly, ya filthy animals. 
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)
Blandocyte
(1,231 posts)Sorta an abstract level.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Likening the destruction of inanimate objects to the killing of sentient beings is not an abstraction it is simply a woefully ignorant statement.
Blandocyte
(1,231 posts)That is in my post. The statement you are apparently seeing is not. It might be woeful ignorance to read into the post anything about destruction.
Coventina
(27,120 posts)Punishing dogs for the misbehavior of humans.
Stupid.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)(Clip)
Justice Gouin said it's the vague definition of pit bulls and pit bull-type dogs in the bylaw which he finds most problematic.
"This is an invitation to rethink the terminology," the judge told Cadieux.
When it comes to identifying a pit bull, "it's like pornography," Cadieux told the court. "You know it when you see it."
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)That might contain the problem.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)"We don't have a pet problem. We have a people problem." Bill Bruce, the Director of Animal Services & Bylaws in Calgary. "We don't punish breeds, we punish behavior. The bottom line is, we believe all dogs are capable of biting." "It's not controlling pets, it's about holding people responsible for their pets."
http://www.stopcanineprofiling.com/calgary.php
Bruce thinks it's a failure for dogs to be brought into the shelter and has a number of programs. Made a public statement about shelter workers that "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys".
Theirs is the example of a truly humane society.
I can remember the director of a municipal dog pound (more than one with a similar philosophy), whose income and prestige increased as she increased the number of employees and animals killed, families disrupted, and the millions of tax dollars shoveled down their black hole of death euphemistically called a shelter, saying that the reason that such programs can't work here is because the people in Calgary are different.
Smarter, apparently,
CRF450
(2,244 posts)I'm so torn on this issue because I love dogs, but that love only goes far with certain aggressive prone breeds. The one that attacked me was the pet of some paranoid old man who was just an absolute a-hole to anybody, lived 2 houses away in a rural neighborhood. The dog would bark and snarl viciously at anyone walking, jogging, and riding a bike by the house. He had a chain linked fence alll around his yard that was 4 feet tall. Then one day when a friend and me were chasing each other around my yard (14 at the time), it got riled up enough to jump right over the fence and takes me down at full speed. My friends' dad beat and kicked it as hard he could, nothing was keeping this dog from tearing my arm and wrist up!
30 seconds after the attack started, dad comes running outside and unloads 8 9mm rounds into the dog killing it. To say the least I had several several surgeries done, and the situation turned into a court battle with the dogs' owner due to medical costs, and he was fighting us with a claim that we were taunting his dog. Really? From 300 feet away?? My arm and wrist may be fine now, but the experience has traumatized me for life when it comes to pits. Even around the nicest pit bulls I come across, I don't want to be alone in the same space with one. I'm sorry pit bull fans, because of my experience, what I've seen recorded on countless videos, and the high human death statistics with them, I can't trust these dogs as safe pets.
Two things that makes these dogs so dangerous IMHO is the people who have no business having one, or in some cases I've seen, a pack of them, and the fact that when one goes on a rampage, it won't stop for anything except bullets. Plus these dogs are like a dime a dozen, easily attainable for anyone to possess.
Doreen
(11,686 posts)I was attacked when I was a little girl by an Australian Shepherd ( took me down by the back of my neck ). I will however say that from the sound of the man it is was his fault and if he was mean to people he was probably mean to that dog. ALL breeds large and small will go into a pack frenzy as easily as any other breed. Working with dogs all of my life I have seen the pack mentality in poodles and other small breeds as with large dogs. It is always the people and not the breed. I have been bitten for no reason more by small dogs than big dogs. I was a groomer and worked in animal shelters for many years. It is not recorded as it is supposed to be but small dogs have a much higher tendency to bite than large dogs but society has this stupid belief that if a small dog bites the the person who got bit must have done something to deserve it. The dime a dozen thing is one of the problems because what that means is the people are at fault again for not maintaining high quality breeding which results in dogs of any breed to have mental issues. It is the people who need to be banned not the breeds.
CRF450
(2,244 posts)Statistics speak pretty loud and clear, they can't inflict the damage that a PB, Rottweiler, German Shepherds etc etc can do when in attack mode. That's the difference maker.
TBH, I don't know how to curb the human attack/deaths by this particular breed other than an outright ban, but that's not going to happen other than in certain neighborhood complexes and HOA's that many of them already do have a ban. My observation (with respect to the decent people who has a pitbull) is that there's so many trashy people, that tend to gravitate to the PB breed, and would never bother with something more tame, like a lab. A lot of times it's an image thing.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Thus the name Pitbull. I've had lots of bad experiences with pits myself. My dogs have been attacked 3 times by pits.
You can google Pitbull attack News and get the latest news of attacks by them. Most often other smaller dogs being killed. Then children mauled. Even horses being attacked and killed by them! ANd very often the owners themselves are mauled and killed.
There's a reason why almost all rentals wont accept pitbulls, forcing people to give them to kill shelters in great numbers. And some insurance companies wont insure a home if you have one of the top 10 dangerous breeds which the pitbull is # 1. Why anybody would risk being sued for a $million if their dog mauled someone is beyond me. WHen I'm walking my dog on the sidewalk I'll always give wide berth to passing pits. Or cross the street.
Pit Bulls were used to protect men from Bulls in the pits while they either put nose rings on them or castrated them. That is where the true term Pit Bull comes from. As I have said it is the "type" of people that tend to make these dogs dangerous. When looking at the ones who attack the owners are usually not good ones. Having worked with just about every breed of dog I find the "true" nature of Pit Bulls to be gentle but we have people who promote bad breeding and violence with them.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Not gonna happen. The only way is to ban the breeding and/or owning of them entirely.
A Pitbull thread!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)...
On Wednesday, Judge Louis Gouin of the Quebec Superior Court ordered a stay of the by-law provisions that would prohibit people from adopting “pit bull type dogs,” according to a press release from the Montreal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The order was an extension of a temporary suspension that Gouin ordered on Monday.
...
The Montreal SPCA has strongly advocated against the ban, which would mean that all pit bulls in Montreal shelters would have to be killed. Additionally, they argued the ownership restrictions put an undue burden on low-income or homeless people with dogs classed as pit bulls.
...
Judge Gouin took a couple of issues with the legislation, which passed in late September. For one, he noted that the by-law’s definition of what constitutes a “pit bull” was vague and overly broad. It had defined a “pit bull” as an American pit bull terrier, a bull terrier, an American Staffordshire, a Staffordshire bull terrier, a cross involving one of those breeds, or even dogs that share physical characteristics with those breeds and crosses.
“I won’t hide from you that in my reading of the bylaw … I had several questions,” Gouin said in at a hearing, according to the CBC. “Are we talking about first-generation crosses? Do we go back to the grandparents?”
Cadieux, the city’s legal representative, argued that identifying a pit bull was “like pornography. You know it when you see it.”
But that has often proved to not be the case in reality, as visual identification of dog breeds is notoriously difficult, even for people experienced with dogs. In fact, the very dog that played a major role in sparking the ban may have actually been misidentified. Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre championed the ban in the wake of a fatal attack by a dog that police identified as a pit bull. But it turned out the dog was registered with the city as a boxer, and a police spokesperson admitted that officers have “no expertise” in identifying dog breeds.
Of course, even if visual breed identification worked, that would still leave the other major problem with the ban — a death sentence for numerous dogs who haven’t attacked anyone, and aren’t dangerous in the least. Judge Gouin acknowledged this issue, questioning whether the city was within its rights to seize dogs that hadn’t proved themselves dangerous, the CBC reports.
The suspension will last until a hearing can be held on the merits of the by-law, which will take place at an undetermined date. The hearing could be several months from now, according to the Montreal SPCA.
