Montreal Passes Worst Anti-Dog Law Ever; Judge Temporarily Suspends IT

If the guy in this picture lived in Montreal, chances
are he's have to get rid of his dog, under
a bizarre and mean new city ordinance.  

UPDATE: 

A judge on Monday temporarily suspended the loathsome Montreal pit bull band, pending an appeal by the SPCA.

It's unclear whether the law would be overturned. But the ordinance, which was to have begun Monday, is now not quite on yet.

The judge will decide Wednesday if the law's suspension should go on for the entire appeal.

We'll see.

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION

Back in June, a pit bull, or a dog that looked like a pit bull, mauled and killed a 55-year old Montreal woman.

This was obviously an enormous tragedy, and the owner of the dog that killed that woman must be held culpable for allowing a dangerous dog to do such a thing.

In response to this tragedy, the City Council and Mayor of Montreal have just done something that will create a tragedy of a different sort.

The new law could force the euthansia of thousands of perfectly safe, well behaved and loved dogs just because they are pit bulls or sort of, kinda look like pit bulls.

Owners of these dogs in Montreal must pass a criminal background check, pay hundreds of dollars in fees, muzzle the dogs and keep them on less than a four-foot leash anytime they are outdoors.

As the Montreal Gazette reports, the city of Montreal is yet to explain how it will determine what is a "pit bull type dog," how a person deemed to have this type of dog would appeal if the city rules against them, how it will enforce this ordinance, how residents with these dogs will prove they have no criminal record, what actually constitutes a criminal record.

Oh, and you have to take time off during a three hour window during the work week when thousands of other dog owners are trying to register their dogs. And if you don't register in a timely manner, you lose your dogs.

Sounds fair to me! Ugh.

Politicians always react to tragedy by "doing something, The horrified family of the woman called for all pit bulls to be banned, so the city acted. Of course, the City of Montreal is just making things much, much worse.

Most pit bulls, and dogs that look like that breed, are perfectly fine and safe. A few bad people train or neglect these dogs so that they can become dangerous and vicious. Shouldn't you go after these idiots instead of all dogs? o be i

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals does not euthanize animals, but it doesn't know what it's going to do with an influx of animals the city wants killed. The SPCA also said it would cancel its contract with the City of Montreal over the ban.

There are rescue organizations trying to ship some of these dogs to other parts of Canada, but still, its a huge task beyond the capabilities of existing animal rescue organization.

Veterinarians are fighting back, too. The CBC reports that Quebec's Order of Veterinarians has told members that they have the right to refuse to euthanize healthy dogs, even if the owners violated Montreal's stupid law.

The Order of Veterinarians says "no municipal regulation or provincial legislation can obligate a veterinarian to carry out any veterinary act,"

Veterinarians interviewed by the CBC say they have no qualms about euthanizing obviously dangerous dogs, but not wipe out several breeds of them because of municipal rules.

To me, this is like an instance where a white guy kills a woman, so you're going to register and possibly jail all white guys as a result, whether or not these white guys have violent tendencies or not.

Montreal is being stupid. I thought it was such a civilized city in my frequent visits up there. In this case, it's not.

Shame on Montreal.

Governments Continue War On Greenery

You might have seen or heard me complain before about governments or homeowners associations forcing homeowners to tear out vegetable or flower gardens because, apparently, pavement or sterile, overfertilized lawns are SO much better than a fresh tomato or some brightly colored zinnias.

The "unsightly garden" that was "bringing down
property values" in Miami Shores, Fla.  

Well, the trend seems to be continuing. The people responsible for forcing gardeners to rip out their vegetable plants or flowers always give "maintaining property values" or "safety" as the reason, but they never explain how doing this saves property values and safety.

This is all a mystery to me. 

Hermine Ricketts and Tom Carroll are now suing the city of Miami Shores, Florida, because zoning officials made them rip out the vegetable garden they had in their front yard for the past 17 years.

The couple said they didn't grow vegetables in the back yard because that area of their property doesn't get enough sun.

A new Miami Shores ordinance prohibits front yard gardens to "protect the distinctive character of the Miami Shore Village" whatever that means.

Although vegetable gardens are banned from front yards, cheap, plastic pink flamingos are just dandy, according to the Miami Shore Village ordinance.

I wonder if bathtub Virgin Marys and those weird crystal balls are OK too? I guess as long as there aren't any rogue radishes or kale growing nearby, I suppose. 

Meanwhile, in Britain, a couple have been told to get rid of the flower garden in the narrow space between their cottage and a road because it supposedly blocks views.

According to a local government in Britain
the few flowers between this road and
cottage are making it impossible for
motorists to see where they're going.  

Judging from the pictures, it does no such thing. And the couple said they were told a decade ago to plant the garden to minimize flooding that occasionally occurs along the lane.

Also, according to the homeowners, the garden helps motorists figure out where the edge of the road is when it's snowing, so they're less likely to slide off the pavement and less likely to smash into their cottage. 

Next, the local government said they had to remove the flowers because it prevented pedestrians from moving out of the way of oncoming cars. But there's a well-maintained sidewalk across the street and there's plenty of room to jump into the narrow flower garden if someone had to in an emergency.

I'm sure the couple wouldn't mind one broken rose branch in the unlikely event someone had to get out of the way of a car.

As I said, the hostility some governments show toward gardens is baffling. I guess some people prefer their surroundings boring, useless, and unproductive.

Kind of like some government officials.