"We made a decision at this point that the bylaw does not call out any specific breed," Mayor Anthony Housefather said, after the legislation was tabled on March 16 at Côte St. Luc city hall.
"We're defining a dangerous dog as being a dog which has a tendency or disposition to attack, bite, threaten or injure with or without provocation any persons, property or other animals, or with or without provocation or physical injury attacks, bites or threatens any person, property or domestic animal or has been trained for dog fighting or to attack …
"So we are not calling out pitbulls or any other breed of dog, and saying that everyone from certain species needs to be muzzled," he added. "That is currently the council's intention. So for those owners of certain breeds that lobbied us, your views were listened to and we decided not to go down that path for the moment."
"I'm very proud to move this resolution," said Councillor Mike Cohen, who sponsored the bylaw. "I've had people come to me actually the last couple of years about dangerous dogs, and I think forcing them to have a muzzle on their dog will give the opportunity for the authorities, the police, to do something when someone complains."
According to Councillor Glenn Nashen, Côte St. Luc had a dog muzzle bylaw dating back to the 1950s, although "the application became difficult if not impossible because several of the people that were named to enforce it didn't exist anymore, such as the chief of police of Côte St. Luc and dog catchers that maybe existed in the '50s and '60s."
Last summer, a group of dog owners who are regular users of the City of Côte St. Luc's dog run asked city council to take measures that would ban Pit Bulls from the run. In January, when council first served notice it would be updating its dog control bylaw, Housefather had said:
"We will be targeting breeds, because we believe that there have been sufficient incidents in communities surrounding us that we've read about to warrant a concern. There are municipalities across North America that have pro-actively adopted this bylaw and we feel that there are certain breeds that really need to be regulated."
'Breed specific' dropped from proposed CSL 'dangerous' dog bylaw
'Breed specific' dropped from proposed CSL 'dangerous' dog bylaw
Côte St. Luc city council has given second reading to a proposed new bylaw that will compel the owners or custodians of "dangerous" dogs to muzzle them — although it will not specify any particular breed of dog.
- Nombre de fois lu : 1290
- Coter
- Haut de page
Commentaires
-
- Frank Desoronto
- - February 17th, 2010 at 14:18:13
[quote]"We're defining a dangerous dog as being a dog which has a tendency or disposition to attack, bite, threaten or injure with or without provocation any persons, property or other animals,....[/quote] I`m with the other Poster. Tendency or disposition???? What does this mean? Looks like Breed Specific Legislation in disguise to me!
-
- Jake Bates
- - February 17th, 2010 at 14:18:11
What exactly are you saying????? Who is deciding whether a dog is "dangerous' and on what grounds? Your definition is bizarre to say the least. [quote]"We're defining a dangerous dog as being a dog which has a tendency or disposition to attack, bite, threaten or injure with or without provocation any persons, property or other animals, or with or without provocation or physical injury attacks, bites or threatens any person, property or domestic animal or has been trained for dog fighting or to attack … [/quote]
-
- Fran Coughlin
- - February 17th, 2010 at 14:18:11
I KNEW the French were to smart to fall for the "banned" and "muzzled" crap. They KNOW it is about self accountabilty and would hold "the" person responsible and NOT every dog owner. Man, I wish I spoke the language, I would move there now in a heartbeat.
-
- Frank Desoronto
- - February 10th, 2010 at 12:55:40
[quote]"We're defining a dangerous dog as being a dog which has a tendency or disposition to attack, bite, threaten or injure with or without provocation any persons, property or other animals,....[/quote] I`m with the other Poster. Tendency or disposition???? What does this mean? Looks like Breed Specific Legislation in disguise to me!
-
- Jake Bates
- - February 10th, 2010 at 12:55:39
What exactly are you saying????? Who is deciding whether a dog is "dangerous' and on what grounds? Your definition is bizarre to say the least. [quote]"We're defining a dangerous dog as being a dog which has a tendency or disposition to attack, bite, threaten or injure with or without provocation any persons, property or other animals, or with or without provocation or physical injury attacks, bites or threatens any person, property or domestic animal or has been trained for dog fighting or to attack … [/quote]
-
- Fran Coughlin
- - February 10th, 2010 at 12:55:39
I KNEW the French were to smart to fall for the "banned" and "muzzled" crap. They KNOW it is about self accountabilty and would hold "the" person responsible and NOT every dog owner. Man, I wish I spoke the language, I would move there now in a heartbeat.
