Posted on 06/06/2018 9:09:42 PM PDT by kanawa
Public Security Minister Martin Coiteux announced Quebec is dropping breed-specific clauses in Bill 128, the province’s framework legislation on dogs.
The move comes just as the bill heads into the clause-by-clause stage of the adoption process at the National Assembly.
“There is no scientific consensus that the idea of going so far as to designate a ban on a specific race (of dogs) is applicable,” Coiteux told reporters.
“This came across very strongly during hearings (into the bill) and I believe when we make laws they need to be based on objective scientific facts.”
The issue of targeting specific breeds of dogs has been one of the main sticking points in the debate over the bill, tabled in the emotionally charge atmosphere that followed various attacks.
Schedule 1 of the bill specifically identifies certain breeds of dogs as “potentially dangerous” and to be covered by a province-wide ban.
The list includes American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, Rottweilers, plus crossbreeds of all of the above.
But Coiteux said the committee examining the bill heard plenty of testimony, especially from municipal levels of government, indicating it would not be applicable.
He said he was surprised to hear even nearby Ottawa does not apply Ontario’s ban on pit bulls because it has deemed it unworkable.
(Excerpt) Read more at montrealgazette.com ...
Responsible Dog Ownership ping.
If you’d like to be added to or removed from the ping list give me a shout.
There will soon be stricter rules for dog breeders to put an end to problems associated with too much cross-breeding or abuse of dogs making them threats when they reach the marketplace.
Asked about how victims of dog attacks will react to his decision, Coiteux said their testimony moved him.
“That is why we are not dropping the project,” he said, noting the bill gives municipalities the power to seize and if necessary euthanize dogs that attack people or order people with dangerous dogs to get rid of them.
It also includes strict rules about keeping dogs on leashes in public places when children are present.
In Montreal, reaction from Mayor Valérie Plante’s administration was positive.
“We are pleased. They did their work, they met the experts and they came to the same conclusions that we did, that there is no scientific basis for legislating against a specific breed,”
said Montreal councillor Craig Sauvé, member of the city’s executive committee responsible for animal services.
“What’s more, even if we did it, it’s very difficult to apply it, as we’ve seen in other cities in Canada. Ottawa was mentioned today.”
Montreal’s short-lived pit-bull ban, instituted under previous mayor Denis Coderre in 2016, was scrapped in December by the new Projet Montréal administration voted in last fall.
Wait, they can’t euthanize dogs which attack people now?
And yet they allow islamists.
“the bill gives municipalities the power to seize and if necessary euthanize dogs that attack people “
And other illegals...
An honest debate would equate the role of one breed vs. the role of one race.
Just sayin.
Frankly, I’m impressed with the Canadians’ position.
Unusuwl logic coming from that quarter indeed.
They should include a clause mandating a long prison term for raising, training or keeping dogs for the purpose of dog fighting.
Do these localities get funding based on the number of animals they shelter? Will they lose funding if people stop breeding pit bulls and the shelters empty out?
Is this a case where we need to follow the government subsidies?
The vicious nature of pit bulls is an inbred trait that was created by years of genetic selection by dog fight participants. These dogs have a trigger in their mind to attack, grip their victim with their bite and shake their jaws until they cause death. That trigger was enhanced by genetic selection.
Don’t miss norskis last stupid screed
I pinged you
Mastiffs are now giant pit bulls per Freeper pit bull hating cadre
Where I live in Williamson county Tennessee if a pet of any kind bites a person and it requires over a 24 hour hospitalization then that pet must by law be put down
I’d guess it’s similar most places
Some parks will allow some apex predators to be excused from killing humans
Interesting juxtaposition
We had a case near here where a belligerent Connemara stud horse....a compact very stout breed often bred to draft horses for bulk....allowed to be mixed with Hanoverians....I own one
Anyhow this stud double back kicked a farrier and killed her
It was by law destroyed same as a dog
boilerplate
Burning self-righteousness and emotion trumps evidence, logic and common sense in the jihad against ‘pit bulls’.
Your region/locale may differ from mine.
My experience with shelters indicates the employees would be overjoyed if they had no dogs at all in their shelters, if all dogs had homes with responsible owners.
I doubt monetary considerations play a major role, if any.
The local shelter which I visit regularly has only one dog I would classify as a bull/terrier type dog.
“pit bull’ is a nebulous functional term for dogs of a terrier, bull or bull/terrier type that are forced to fight in a pit by humans for gambling and amusement.
Now being applied willy-nilly to dogs that were not bred for that purpose and have a pedigree of breeding for stable temperament and conformation
but are being called ‘pit bulls’ by those seeking to destroy whole dog types based on the regrettable and preventable actions of a few owners and/or their dogs.
The AKC, under some pressure, unwisely, in my opinion, retained this functional name when registering the APBT.
Responsible owners of that particular breed do not use their dogs in pits to fight for the amusement or gambling by humans.
They either use them as family dogs or show dogs or in weight-pulling contests.
All dogs are potentially aggressive and dangerous.
Owners can exploit and encourage that built-in behavior for nefarious purposes, or counter it with responsible ownership.
Contain, Control, Maintain, Train and Socialize are the Principles of Responsible Dog Ownership.
Never assume your dog, of whatever breed or type is incapable of aggression.
My Amstaff passed away last June. I’m looking at the bull/terrier fellow in the local shelter.
He is old, his teeth are worn down.
I’m going to investigate why he in the shelter.
If it shows no negative behaviors on his part and if he fits in with my other dog and 2 cats, I’ll consider adopting him and give the old feller a home until he passes.
How many stories do you guys need to hear about people getting torn up and even killed by these dogs? Obviously there is a problem. What is it that makes you turn a blind eye? Not every single one is “bad” but so many are, or can be. Other big potentially dangerous dogs running around off leash scare me as well and I don’t think it’s fair that I can’t take a walk around the neighborhood without getting jumpy when I pass by houses where the dog is just free roaming in the open front yard or a kid walks past with a menacing looking Pit on leash whom you know wouldn’t have control if the dog wanted to get after someone.
I think if this were true the breed in question would look like a wolf.
Why is this the only animal that can be bred to be vicious? Give me an example of another animal bred to be vicious.
Answer me this. Why would dog fighters,who have to stand in the ring and be ready to break up the fight,want a uncontrollable and vicious dog to contend with?
Where did you get your biology degree?
Not wanting to be mean. Just wondering where you got your information.
Yes, obviously there is a problem and we are trying to deal with it in a rational manner,
by advocating for responsible ownership of ALL dogs because we care about ALL victims of ALL dog attacks,
by advocating for effective and rigorously enforced laws against ALL irresponsible dog owners.
What are you doing to prevent ALL dog attacks? Do you care about ALL victims of ALL dog attacks?
No one is turning a blind eye on our side. We see both sides.
We don’t condemn millions of dogs that have never done anything wrong to death
based on the actions of irresponsible owners and the behavior of a minute percentage of dogs.
Your problem perhaps is that you turn a blind eye to all the good stories,
all the millions of dogs that live out their lives without hurting anyone,
and seek to condemn millions of dogs and their owners, based on the actions of relatively very few cases.
I see the same mindset in advocates for other types of bannings.
As C.S.Lewis described it...
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.
It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated;
but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.