Quebec City Mayor Backtracks on his Proposed Pit Bull Ban

With Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre’s proposed ban on new pit bulls set for a vote in September, opponents of Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) just caught a glimpse at how it may be defeated: through public outcry and protest. At least that seems to have done the trick in Quebec City for the moment.

Mayor Régis Labeaume had planned to get rid of all pit bulls in Quebec City by 2017, period. This was a much harsher move than Montreal’s plan to bar new pit bulls from the island and license and muzzle those that are already here.

Today, dozens (according to the CBC) of Quebec City dog owners and supporters protested outside of City Hall. Just a few hours later, Labeaume said that he had only been trying to start debate on the issue.

“We won’t eliminate pit bulls,” the mayor told the press, “we wanted to hit hard so things would move.”

Now, he seems content to wait for the results of a provincial workgroup on the idea of a province-wide pit bull ban. So pit bull owners in Quebec City and their beloved companions aren’t out of the proverbial woods yet, but the imminent, harsh law is off the table for now.

So is Montreal’s proposed ban also a fakeout designed to gauge public opinion? If so, then he Global Anti-BSL Peaceful Protest on July 16th is a good thing for opponents of Coderre’s ban to attend. In Montreal, it starts in Parc Pélican and makes its way to Parc Lafontaine.

Seeing as the Quebec City ban and the one in Montreal were both created in response to public fear, vocal public opposition may be the way to eliminate them and influence the Couillard Government not to pass one in the first place.

* You can also still vote in FTB’s poll on the Montreal Pit Bull Ban Poll.

* Featured image: Radio-Canada

2 comments

  • First, second and third we want, need and should demand public safety and personal security.

    Anything that stands in the way of this must be removed, not changed, not modified, not altered but Removed completely.

    To argue in effect for breed neutral legislation that is not preemptive but reactive and dependent on responsible ownership is an oxymoron that has no purpose nor use and will not stand.

    Yes Pit bull ownership going underground due to BSL would be a good thing, through this fact one would rarely encounter the owner or mutant undog and the likelihood of attack from them both would be drastically reduced into obscurity, what can’t access you can’t hurt you.

    Having them hidden in far far smaller numbers in some basement or attic is far preferable to having the current numbers allowed to be owned where the safety of said community would be wholly dependent on the responsibility of pit bull owners when such ownership does not nor has it existed in the last 30+ years.

    To think that if we merely ask and say pretty please and try to inform the pit bull owner of what his responsibilities should be that he will then undertake them is foolish, naive, and dangerous.

    Their numbers will not decline, the pit bull owners will not become responsible and an ever worsening status quo will be the outcome of such viewpoints.

    Most pit bull owners are fully aware of what they own, their history and capability, they just don’t care nor will they.

    This battle is not about semantics, it is about truth, facts and life and death, these are what need to be imparted to the general public so that they understand the reality of what the pit bull type dog is so they can react accordingly, this must be phrased in a stark black and white contrast.

    Playing word games & using PR obfuscation merely distracts the public from the real core safety issue involved, in the immortal words of Joe Friday they need the facts, just the real facts mame.

    The pit nutters minds can’t be changed by facts or anything because they are not rational sentient beings, they are culls and a lost cause.

    But facts will change and direct the silent majority to the reality of the situation and then they will do the rest for us all.

    You can NOT be a responsible Lion owner in a residential suburban context, nor a responsible owner of a tiger, cougar, cobra or wolverine, to try to sell the concept that one can be a responsible pit bull type dog owner is as irrational as any of those options would be in regards to the vast % of pit bull type dogs and there owners.

    Pit bull owners don’t care about your right of freedom to be safe, they don’t care about their obligation to be responsible and don’t recognize the existence of said concept.

    They will never agree to any restriction placed upon them, even a leash law, S/N law or that they undergo a basic training course with their undogs are an anathema to them, how are you going to get them to agree to really serious restrictions like insurance, muzzleing, kenneling, short lease, getting their undogs fixed and chipped, registered with photos, if you believe any of that is possible you are living in a dream world that is a fantasy that will be the death of us all.

    When it comes to pit bull type dog owners you are talking about narcissistic sociopaths who don’t care who don’t feel, to whom you, yours and anyone is expendable whose lives have no purpose nor meaning to pit nutters.

    To think that one can get them to change and accept responsibility and restrictions on their undogs for our betterment is foolish and delusional.

    They don’t even care about their own dogs and consider them disposable, so to think they will agree to these restrictions for their undogs sake is misguided at best.

    Pit bull owners have lost their minds and never had their hearts, the only thing that will work is hard core enforcement of severe BSL unless you want the status quo expounded many times over in blood facts on the pavement.

    BSL is the only solution, any breed neutral abstract application of psychology would be doomed to failure.!!!!

  • An example of the failure that is breed neutral legislation:

    In Calgary, by Bill Bruce’s own admission and documentation, pit bulls lead the serious bite count with 13% of the city’s serious bites attributable to pit bulls, yet pit bulls account for less than 1% of the city’s dogs.

    In fact, pit bulls are responsible for nearly as many serious bites (13%) as the ENTIRE sporting breeding category (15%), which includes all of the most popular breeds (Labs, Goldens, Poodles, Spaniels, etc) and houses 70% of Calgary’s dogs.

    Why aren’t these breeds attacking in the face of irresponsible ownership?
    An example of why leashing and licensing laws don’t work to solve the breed-specific problem of pit bulls:

    Pitbull supporters always point to Calgary Model as the perfect solution when dealing with dangerous dogs. The city introduced its responsible pet ownership bylaw in 2006.
    Calgary’s bylaw department emphasizes responsible pet ownership through intensive licensing, hefty fines and owner education.

    In Calgary, the largest city in Alberta, “confirmed aggressive dog incidents” and related criminal charges tripled in 2013, and in mid-2014 were up 15% more.

    Has their model worked? The statistics from the past four years would indicate a resounding “NO”. For the past four years dog bites have risen steadily every year, and over 350% in the past 4 years, from 58 in 2009 to 203 in 2012.

    And In 2010 Pit bulls led the ‘bite’ count. Meanwhile in Toronto, four years after implementing Breed Bans, dog bites were down 32%, from 486 to 329.

    Bites in Toronto blamed on the four banned breeds fell sharply, from 71 in 2005 to only six in 2010.

    Considering these breeds regularly inflict the most serious damage, this is an undeniable win for the citizens of Toronto.

    There were 400 dog bites in Calgary in 2013 and 500 in 2014.

    A good comparison to show the effectiveness of pit bull bans: pit bull type dogs were banned in Ontario in 2005 but are still legal in Illinois.

    Population:
    Ontario 13.5 million (Toronto: 2.7 million)
    Illinois: 12.8 million (Chicago: 2.7 million)

    Pit bull fatalities since 2005:
    Ontario: 0
    Illinois: 11

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *