Over a thousand people converged in Old Montreal on Sept. 4 to protest the proposed by-law to ban pit bulls from the city. The protest follows another that occurred several months earlier in Quebec City, following the mayor’s proposal to remove all pit bulls from the city by early 2017.
The genesis of the following legislative efforts arose after the fatal mauling of a 55-year-old Montreal woman, Christiane Vadnais, by a dog initially classified as a “pit bull-type.” Further investigation would later identify the dog as a Boxer—a breed excluded from the proposed legislation.
Breed-specific legislation is not a new phenomenon, but rather one that is frequently invoked during trying incidents in an attempt to quell worry and instil a sentiment of public safety. Breed-specific legislation and other canine related legislation should be of importance to Carleton students, faculty, and the general public-at-large, as dog ownership is pedestrian in Canada and is a cornerstone of many family units.
One of the earliest examples of breed-specific legislation occurred in Great Britain with the passage of the Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991. Dogs under this act are often classified as “dangerous” merely for looking a certain way, and are routinely euthanized as they cannot be adopted upon surrender from their owners.
The province of Ontario passed similar but less extreme legislation in 2005 when it amended the Dog Owner’s Liability Act (DOLA). Under the new amendments, pit bull dogs are disallowed into the province while restrictions are imposed on existing dogs.
While the adoption of such legislation might bring comfort, analysis of the data suggests otherwise. Twenty-five years after the passage of the Dangerous Dog Act in England, dog bites have continued to rise steadily. The Ontario government does not keep statistics on dog bites and attacks, thereby making it difficult to assess the efficacy of the amended law.
In addition, defining which dog is classified a pit bull presents a contentious and discriminatory conundrum. What is a pit bull? Will a dog be identified based on physical constitution or genetics? As well, what occurs to mixed-breed dogs with pit bull lineage? What will become of them? If they are permitted, how much “pit bull-ness” will they be allowed to possess before being considered a risk to public safety?
As a result of these disconcerting queries, it comes as little surprise that both the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Humane Society of America—one of the largest animal welfare organizations in the world—oppose breed-specific legislation.
An alternate solution to reducing dog bites and attacks can be seen in the approach used by the City of Calgary. Calgary does not possess breed specific bans and their statistics demonstrate a substantial reduction in dog attacks.
Calgary adopts a “responsible pet owner” model, which includes strict enforcement of dog licensing coupled with public education on dangerous behaviours in dogs. The latter approach allows for potentially dangerous behaviours to be identified swiftly and remedied before they escalate in severity.
Understanding the issues surrounding dogs and dog bites is important, as it allows for efficient ways of dealing with problematic canine issues without resulting in vilification of certain targeted breeds. After all, the ferocious pit bull of today was once lauded as “America’s nanny dog” in the 1950s.
