Skip to content

Burnaby took wrong approach with dog bylaw

Dear Editor: After watching with interest the podcast of expert testimony from a behaviourist and dog trainer with 18 years of experience, an animal law lawyer and other well-educated dog advocates, it is surprising that Burnaby council would insist

Dear Editor:

After watching with interest the podcast of expert testimony from a behaviourist and dog trainer with 18 years of experience, an animal law lawyer and other well-educated dog advocates, it is surprising that Burnaby council would insist on passing unanimously the flawed bylaw as originally written. Not one councillor wavered in their support, and there was no acceptance of the generous offer from experts to assist city staff in developing a bylaw that is fair and workable.

They are choosing to muzzle a subgroup of the dog population based simplistically on that breed's appearance and fear. They are doing this despite persuasive evidence challenging council's beliefs and the beliefs of many in the community. While not outright banning the breed, the city will make life for all pit bull owners and their pets, regardless of disposition, more expensive and more unpleasant. Subjecting an animal to regular discomfort will probably lead to more biting - not less.

Continuing these measures will discourage responsible owners from adopting the breed because people concerned with animal welfare will not be comfortable with the idea of regularly muzzling their pet. This may be the intent of the city, but the measures will also continue to encourage irresponsible people who want a "bad-ass" reputation to adopt a dog labelled as "aggressive." Stiffer breed

pecific fees and fines will also lead to lower registration of pit bulls.

Despite how menacing a dog or its owner might appear to some, we cannot base our laws on their appearance or the past acts of their relatives or others that share similar characteristics. We have gone down that road before, and it is simply wrong. Other municipalities are realizing this and repealing their legislation in favour of alternative measures.

There may be persuasive arguments in favour of breed-specific legislation, but no one presented such arguments. Sadly the staff report in this case was shown to be fundamentally flawed statistically, and council was outfinessed by the delegates. Instead of just listening, they chose to debate, and lost.

Certainly, dogs of all breeds exhibiting aggressive behaviours need to be dealt with. It is rare for a pet to suddenly exhibit vicious behaviour without any instances of past aggressive acts. Therefore, it is an owner's responsibility to recognize potential dangers and  to take precautions with their pet when out in public or when children are in their homes. When a dog bites or attacks someone or something, there should be consequences, including possibly muzzling the pet, to ensure that behaviour is not allowed to be repeated.

If the city wants to reduce dog bites, it can do so through consistent ticketing of irresponsible owners, mandatory training for all dogs exhibiting aggressive behaviour in public and better public education  on how people can remain safe around pets.

Decisions need to be based on the best possible information available at the time, not sensationalized media reports and anecdote. Residents need to be reassured that their elected officials will listen to the range of facts and opinions and be capable of acting objectively and independently.

Rick McGowan, Burnaby Municipal Green Party