Enforceability is the fatal flaw in hastily-passed pit bull ban
What if the pit bull that mauled a woman to death in her own backyard this summer in Pointeaux-Trembles was not, in fact, a pit bull?
That a pit bull was the culprit was the widely accepted narrative in the immediate aftermath of the death of 55-year-old Christiane Vadnais, whose killing spurred many — including myself, as well as this newspaper’s editorial board — to call for a municipal or provincial ban on pit bulls. Despite noisy rhetoric against the idea (more on that later) it’s a movement that snowballed so mightily that Montreal’s city council on Tuesday actually adopted such a ban.
One problem: despite initial reports that the killer dog was a pit bull, the details have since become murkier. The charmingly named Lucifer, according to documents made public by the Humane Society International,
was actually registered with the city as a boxer. And Montreal police, who were initially cited as the source of the dog’s breed, have in recent weeks walked back that assertion.
This ongoing confusion over Lucifer’s breed has, paradoxically, made one thing clear: the fatal flaw in the city’s pit bull ban is that it will be impossible to enforce. Some, such as the SPCA, which announced Wednesday it will be challenging Montreal’s ban in court, have found other reasons to oppose the bylaw — it’s discriminatory, for example, or unconstitutional — but it’s tough to think of a more pragmatic reason to reconsider it than the fact that it just won’t work (and hasn’t already, in other cities that have taken a similar tack).
In short: If we can’t quickly and accurately determine if a dog is a pit bull, then this whole project falls apart.
To be upfront: I am not a fan of pit bulls, and personally would not shed any tears if a workable ban on them was ever to be devised. And while I don’t have any great beef with the point pit bull activists like to make about bad owners being responsible for raising bad dogs, the fact is that there are bad owners, and the violent attacks their dogs can unleash represent a legitimate menace that needs to be addressed. But while the new bylaw contains stiff fines for those owners who don’t adhere to it, and the city is pledging to step up enforcement, given the scant attention Montrealers have paid to existing animals laws — for example, they already call for hefty penalties for unlicensed dogs, which has inspired the owners of just 20 per cent of Montreal dogs to license them — no one has been able to adequately explain how this new bylaw will be any different.
(An aside here, but one that I think is worth sharing in light of the emotionally charged debate on the topic of banning pit bulls: when I wrote in favour of a ban back in June, the letters I received from some pit bull owners and activists were among the most hateful, threatening and just plain vile that I have ever received in some 18 years in this business. And I’m not alone: at least one prominent city councillor — who didn’t want to be named — who voted in favour of the ban on Tuesday said he plans to transfer some of the hate mail and social media messages he’s received as a result to Montreal police for further investigation. I’ve tried to remain respectful in expressing my opinion on this polarizing matter, as have others who have corresponded with me. But I’m sad to say that sentiment is not as widespread as it should be, and some of these people are doing a great disservice to the credibility of their cause.)
Another worrisome aspect of the current bylaw is the speed with which it raced from troubling incident to the law of the town: Vadnais, whose death, it bears repeating, was the direct impetus for this entire process, was killed on June 8. The bylaw, adopted Tuesday, comes into effect on Monday, Oct. 3 (although some aspects do not take effect until Jan. 1). That is a span of less than four months, an astonishingly fast timeline for any municipal legislation to be implemented, let alone regarding a matter so complex and polarizing.
Consider, for example, that the bylaw introduced by the Coderre administration that will ban most plastic bags in the city was adopted in August — but does not go into effect until January of 2018. Yes, dangerous dogs present a much more imminent and fatal threat to public safety than your Provigo bags, but the zeal with which this bylaw was implemented simply does not inspire confidence in it, even among those who think it has some merit. The Coderre administration would have been wise to heed a motion put forward by Projet Montréal’s interim leader Luc Ferrandez during Tuesday’s council meeting asking that the city withdraw the bylaw for further study.
One of Coderre’s guiding principles in championing this pit bull ban, a mantra he has employed throughout the heated debate over it, is that it will “ensure (Montrealers) feel secure.” But legislation that simply makes Montrealers feel safer when there has been no convincing evidence to suggest that we actually will be is not the kind of progress to which we should aspire.