Harsh law to govern dog bites
The city’s bringing in some harsh new guidelines according to which a dog will be put down if it bites a person or even another dog, unless the owner can find a credible character witness within 24 hours. I find this a bit extreme, even though I’ve never had a dog and find large, poorly controlled dogs kind of scary.
There’s also talk in that item about pitbulls and a more detailed discussion as well, mentioning that plenty of other breeds are known to get just as bitey. It also doesn’t help that the category of pitbull isn’t well defined – it’s not a specific dog breed.
steven bailey 12:27 on 2012/08/07 Permalink
good policy! bravo.
Ian 12:32 on 2012/08/07 Permalink
About time. I’m sick of people thinking their pets have the same rights as people.
Bill Binns 14:17 on 2012/08/07 Permalink
This is a little worrying. I spend a lot of time at the dog park with my dog and have seen a number of dog fights, a number of people get bit and I have been bit myself. It is very hard to determine how these things start even if you see it happen right in front of you. The dog that got bitten may very well have been the agressive one. This is especially true with small dogs that will attack bigger dogs that they feel threatened by.
People show up with dogs that have hardly ever laid eyes on another dog, may never have been off leash in their life, are often not fixed and dump them into an environment with 50-60 off leash dogs. These people tend to be the ones who are quick to call the police when another dog looks at their widdle snookums the wrong way.
jeather 14:37 on 2012/08/07 Permalink
This doesn’t make much sense. I like dogs, more or less, and don’t want them to be killed for no reason. If a dog bit me without provocation, I’d want it to be recorded that the dog bit me so we know if it has happened before or if it happens again, but I don’t think a one-strike-and-you’re-dead rule is fair to the dog (or, indeed, to the owners). So what do I do? Do I call the police, knowing this might well doom the dog, or do I ignore it and hope this really was a one-off?
There is no way this law can work well.
walkerp 15:26 on 2012/08/07 Permalink
Where is the basic common sense at city hall? How does the process work? Is there a committee that sits around and argues and comes up with a decision and then presents it to an executive branch who makes a final decision? Or is there just one idiot who has no idea about how dogs, dog-owning or people living in the city really who makes the decision? It really seems like the latter. I mean, I appreciate that these kinds of issues are not simple at all and require a lot of compromise and analysis but the way the city handles these things just makes it seem like they are complete idiots and utterly out of touch with the reality around them.
Wouldn’t there be a single person at City Hall when these plans are being made who would make the very reasonable point that jeather makes above?
walkerp 15:32 on 2012/08/07 Permalink
Oh I get it. This is just the municipal equivalent of terrorism. It’s a fear issue that the administration wants to be seen as being tough on instead of actually doing anything to deal with the animal population problem here in Montreal. I love how they claim they did a study to see what other cities did. I guess they then decided to continue to keep Montreal in the bottom position of North American cities when it comes to animal welfare. For shame.
walkerp 15:44 on 2012/08/07 Permalink
Here is some awesome horseshit: “On a travaillé avec des experts et les arrondissements pour proposer une juridiction basée sur les meilleures pratiques partout en Amérique du Nord.”
Then later in the article:
“À Calgary, Ottawa, Vancouver ou Toronto, les cas de chiens ayant mordu sont systématiquement portés devant un juge.”
So I wonder which cities they went to to find out the best practices? Perhaps inner city Baltimore? The Louisiana Bayou? No, wait, Iqaluit.
I wonder how much Berger-Blanc charges the city for each euthanasia?
qatzelok 18:13 on 2012/08/07 Permalink
Inbred, modified wolves, dogs are the original GMOs. You may love your own, but then again, a lot of people love their firearms or their SUVs.
Kate 05:27 on 2012/08/08 Permalink
No dogs or anglos, hey qatzelok?
I’m just curious if there’s anything you actually like.
exolstice 05:56 on 2012/08/08 Permalink
Typical reactionary vote-bait policy meant to treat the symptoms rather than the cause and quell the ignorant masses. Bravo! Children bite more often than dogs do, let’s implement the same strategy to solve that “problem” as well!
Kate 06:43 on 2012/08/08 Permalink
exolstice, your IP number comes from a similar source as qatzelok’s. If you’re really qatzi, please don’t mess with me in this way.
qatzelok 08:23 on 2012/08/08 Permalink
@ Kate: I share my connection with 2 other people, but they don’t speak English well enough to write that comment by exolstice. And I don’t do “puppet accounts” so it’s not me.
As for “No dogs or Anglos,” let’s not insult dogs by putting them in the same kennel. Anglos have a level of agency that the poor, tyrannized wolf community doesn’t. If wolves could defend themselves against human tyrants, there wouldn’t be any dogs. Just natural wolves.
Kate 08:29 on 2012/08/08 Permalink
You’re wrong. I’ve written here before about dogs and people, and you’re wrong if you think people tyrannized wolves. The domestication of the dog went both ways. Dogs chose to associate with people because it benefited them too. It’s well established.
qatzelok 08:32 on 2012/08/08 Permalink
What’s established is that wolves started visiting human communities after fire was discovered. Some humans (the tyrant control-freak types) kept the meekest wolves as “pets,” and this turned into the genetic modification industry that gave us the current inbred and meek dog that has unlearned its survival instincts, and lives from treat to treat by doing tricks and being a kiss-ass. It’s a nice metaphor for civilization.
Bianca 13:42 on 2012/08/18 Permalink
Now, as for my opinion…many people have been bitten by dogs! I do believe if dog bites anyone should be quarantined!!! You know, owner say : my dog has never done this before!!!! but the person /child is severly hurt or disfigured !!!
I think, if any owner that want to keep their dog, then whether its a small dog or big dog …outside their home dogs should wear muzzle or pay fine. It should be obliatory for all dogs. That way, no more accidents and owners get to keep their animal. If anyone agrees with this then post it and maybe the city hall might take this in consideration!