9/27/16 Breaking News from Montreal

Montreal has passed a highly controversial Breed Selective Legislation targeting pit bulls and pit mixes. New ownership of these dogs is prohibited. Anyone owning a breed identified as pit bull or pit mix (including, but not limited to, Staffordshire Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Pit Bull Terriers or any breed mixed with these or exhibiting traits of these dogs) must obtain a special license (permit) to keep their dog; regardless of whether or not it has been identified as aggressive.

This means more pits will be euthanized. Pits are already #1 on the euth list in most shelters.

This law was passed after a 55 year old woman was mauled to death by a dog, which was initially identified as a pit bull. However, authorities are waiting for DNA tests to see exactly what kind of dog it was. That’s right. They banned the breed, not even knowing for sure if it was a pit that did the mauling.

A campaign manager for The Humane Society International/Canada stated the new laws “would kill innocent dogs without any improvement in public safety”. Montreal SPCA said it was “disappointed, but not surprised”.

If you think this can’t happen in  your own town, you are wrong.

Ban the deed, not the breed. Make dog owners responsible for their pets.


(crying tears for the dogs and their families in Canada tonight)

Sadly, Maggie



16 thoughts on “9/27/16 Breaking News from Montreal

  1. colinandray

    So I guess that, as the individuals in Montreal who had Pit Bull/mixes, can no longer have this breed, they will be looking for other “muscle dogs” to prop up their egos and/or get another breed which they can be totally irresponsible with therefore causing it to become aggressive. Watch out Rottweilers and Dobermans! Leave Montreal while you can because you may well be next! Human stupidity knows no limits according to Albert Einstein. I think that he was right!

  2. loisajay

    How can anyone agree to pass this when they do not have evidence that it was, in fact, a pit that did the mauling. And why not task the dog owner instead of all the dogs? This makes no sense at all. I will be curios to hear how it pans out.

    1. maggie0019 Post author

      One of my Canadian readers on FB commented that current owners can keep their dogs if they can get the permit (if they can afford it) and until said papers come in, dogs must be muzzled 24/7, no exceptions. I can’t verify this but she was from Canada. Disgraceful and shocking, very, very sad and Quebec is looking to follow suit.

      1. maggie0019 Post author

        I cannot confirm that, but there is a time and a place for muzzling. I do know Maggie wouldn’t like it. Ray’s human, Colin, had a different experience though and I’m glad it was a positive one. However, 24/7 is a bit much and I don’t know how they’d police that.

      2. colinandray

        Maggie “wouldn’t like it” or “didn’t like it”? A huge difference. Given a good fitting open muzzle (we use Baskerville), the dog can do everything it wants to except bite somebody. We asked the Toronto dog behaviorist how difficult would it be to get Ray to wear a muzzle. His response was “I’ve never had a dog here yet that has expressed any objections as long as it is introduced to the muzzle intelligently. In contrast, I have continual problems with the dog owners!”
        The bottom line is the question “Is there any chance that your dog would bite somebody?” If the answer is a decisive “No!”, then no problem. If however, there is a slight possibility, then the next question is “Do I have the right to jeopardize an innocent person’s health, because I don’t want my dog to wear a muzzle?

      3. maggie0019 Post author

        We, too, have a proper muzzle for Maggie. However, no matter how gently we have introduced it, she doesn’t like it. The muzzle increases her anxiety on walks and makes her behavior hard to interpret. Conversely, she will wear it at the Vet’s office to have her nails clipped. It’s almost like she knows when it’s going to be on a long time vs. a short one. Maggie was abused in her prior life, and although she has never, ever, shown any aggressive tendencies towards humans, a bite is a risk I’m not willing to take, because I believe any animal can do something unexpected. So, I use an obedience collar with her to make sure that on walks I am in control of my strong dog. Maggie doesn’t like other animals, and that (a dogfight) is a risk I also don’t want to take, which is why I get peeved when people have their dogs off leash. I wish I could sneak a peek into her past and see what she went through. She is definitely an interesting character! Thanks for your insightful comments.

      4. colinandray

        Interesting comment about the vet’s office. Vets here will not consider anything other than a fabric wrap kind of muzzle, which are 100% safe and great for short term control, but should never be used as a regular muzzle.
        Regarding your obedience collar? Research would suggest that because a dog’s reaction time is so much faster than ours, if Maggie wanted to bite, she would have made contact before you could react. Food for thought perhaps.

      5. colinandray

        Muzzling 24/7 is just more stupidity and cannot possibly be enforced, unless the dog is outside and has access to the public 24/7… in which case the owners should be heavily penalized and the dog removed from their premises. When the dog is inside their home, the owners can do whatever they wish but, of course, will take full responsibility in the event of an attack.

        Sadly there seems to be a number of people making decisions about dogs, who know nothing about them and, what is worse, appear to have no interest in learning about them.

      6. maggie0019 Post author

        I agree. Dogs of any breed should never be left “tied up” outdoors. They should not be unsupervised. They should not be allowed to walk off-leash. Muzzling, while there is a time and place for it, yet 24/7 is an over reaction and I cannot see how it would be enforced. Like I told Lois, I cannot confirm that was part of the bill. I did research it before posting. This was told to me by a resident of Canada so I just wanted to caution that the muzzling thing might be rumor. Thanks.

      7. colinandray

        While I cannot comment specifically about Montreal and/or Quebec (I live in Ontario), and while I think that this whole affair is blatant stupidity (see my earlier comment), A couple of points should be mentioned:
        “owners can keep their dogs if they can get the permit (if they can afford it)” – If a dog owner cannot afford the cost of a permit, then I have to question whether they can afford to properly take care of a dog.
        “dogs must be muzzled” – Our Ray was muzzled for quite some time and he loved it! Not only did he get treats for wearing it, he really appreciated the extra space that people gave him. As a Toronto dog behaviorist poignantly asked us “When was the last time that you went up to a muzzled dog and petted it?” Ray was afraid of everything and anything that moved. His muzzle allowed him time to adjust to a world which was much friendlier than he believed.
        While I believe that most dogs are not naturally aggressive, but rather it is a result of an incompetent owner, if the end result is that the dog bites, then it should be muzzled. That is simply protecting innocent people.

    2. maggie0019 Post author

      I read yesterday that the Canadian SPCA is suing the govt. for passing this law, saying it is not legal or something. I wish I’d saved the article. Have to research that online. So the fight is not over. Poor doggies. 😦


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s