Do the city’s animal-control laws go far enough?
Just as Montreal’s new bylaw comes into effect, an attack exposes some of its flaws
Three dog attacks in 10 days are raising some pointed questions about how far new animalcontrol laws recently adopted in Montreal and across Quebec actually go to protect the public.
A dog was shot by police in the Outaouais region Tuesday evening after turning on its owner, seriously injuring him and another man who tried to intervene. Another dog was killed by police in Laval last week after officers responded to a 911 call from a screaming woman who was repeatedly attacked by her son’s pet.
More alarming, two children were mauled in separate incidents on the same day in the same home in Montreal North just over a week ago. In all, that dog bit six people and was ordered euthanized by the borough.
These cases are the first major tests for two new laws enacted to deal with dangerous pets after Montrealer Christiane Vadnais was fatally mauled by a neighbour’s canine while relaxing by the pool in her own backyard in 2016.
The Quebec government passed Bill 128 before the National Assembly broke in June. And the city recently adopted a new bylaw to replace the controversial pit bull ban that former mayor Denis Coderre swiftly imposed after Vadnais’s horrific death.
Neither of the new laws are “breed-specific,” after an outcry from pit bull owners, dog lovers and animal-rights activists prompted the overturning of Coderre’s prohibition and the neutering of the original text of the provincial law. Since these groups convinced lawmakers that it’s not the breed but the behaviour, treatment and socialization of the animal that determines how dangerous a dog is, we won’t get into the types of canines involved in the latest attacks. (Though needless to say none of them were chihuahuas, whose bites are unlikely to require ambulance rides or surgery to repair wounds).
The measures contained in the new laws focus on identifying potentially aggressive pets ahead of time and making owners take responsibility for these animals in order to protect the public. This has been lauded as a proactive approach that strikes a balance between pet ownership and safety.
But these incidents also suggest it has weaknesses. First, dogs sometimes lash out suddenly without warning. The little we know about the Laval incident indicates the pup had never exhibited such ferocious behaviour before. Also, owners often seem the most shocked when their pooches turn mean. Presumably, the Outaouais man misjudged his canine companion’s character.
In the case of Montreal’s bylaw, it also puts the onus on the owners of aggressive dogs to submit to evaluations, obtain a special licence, pay $150 for it and adhere to strict provisions (like keeping the animal in a fenced yard with a warning sign). The truly responsible citizen may be ready and willing to do this. But will the problem owners, who mistreat their poor animals and contribute to their bad behaviour, step up?
Call 311 and report dangerous dogs, Mayor Valérie Plante urged, in the wake of the Montreal North attack. This might indeed be useful if a person has been nipped or snarled at by a canine whose owner and address they know. But what does someone do if they’ve had a run-in on the street or at a park? Follow the owner and their fierce mutt home? Yeah right.
The mauling of the two children, especially, exposes the ineffectiveness of parts of the city bylaw — even if followed to the letter.
The stipulation that dangerous behaviour be reported to authorities within 72 hours didn’t do much good. The kids were attacked on the same day, a few hours apart.
The provision that a person not have a criminal record to be allowed to possess a potentially dangerous animal didn’t accomplish much either. The grandma, in whose home the attack occurred, was looking after the canine for a friend who no longer wanted it. So she wasn’t even the owner. She is currently awaiting sentencing on charges of selling ecstasy to undercover cops, criteria that would have disqualified her from keeping the creature had she wanted to.
Even if a dog is deemed a possible hazard by Montreal’s up animal control squad and veterinarians, are the requirements to sterilize it and outfit it with a microchip really going to prevent it from biting? Should there even be an allowance for animals deemed potentially dangerous? Owners may be willing to assume the risk, but is it fair to take such chances with children, bystanders or other people’s pets?
The overwhelming majority of dogs are loyal and loving, and pose no threat whatsoever. The vast majority of owners are caring and diligent. That is not in dispute. But when it comes to protecting the public from the tiny fraction that are vicious, the laws seem rather toothless.