babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Montreal to ban pit bulls and other dangerous breeds
June 18, 2016 - 7:02pm
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,
Not just Montréal, and not an immediate ban.
Montreal to ban pit bulls and other dangerous breeds
"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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
BTW. When are we going to ban specific breeds of humans?
http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/dog-injured-after-eating-meatball-stuffed-wit...
when are they going to get rid of back yard pools which are still killing more children than dogs are hurting them?
So you agree with the Montréal plan, which does not include euthanisation?
Nope.
So, logically, you had other concerns that you didn't share.
Can you share those, or no?
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.
Vadnais' family remembered woman who loved life, was a 'ray of sunshine'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-bill-calls-animals-sentien...
How can you own a sentient being?
Friday in Surrey:
Surrey pit bull attack leaves woman with serious injuries
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.]
And this, Sunday night in NDG (Montréal):
Montreal man ordered pit bull to attack wife, police say
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.
Why should I care what happens in Montreal? Let the people of Montreal work it out.
Maybe because the thread has "Montreal" as the first word in its title?
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.
Its now official=
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-pit-bull-dangerous-dogs-....
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.
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.
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.
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."
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??"