Breed-specific dog ban should be overturned

Though there have been multiple calls for repeal, Winnipeg continues to enforce its controversial 36-year breed-specific dog ban.

The ban prohibits American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and mixed-breed dogs with the physical appearance and traits of these prohibited breeds.

I appreciate that the ban may have been well-intentioned when enacted.

However, research now points to a multifactorial approach to preventing dog bites, including public education, access to veterinary care and strong animal-control laws addressing aggressive behaviour, licensing, irresponsible breeding, leash laws and animal welfare/safety.

When will Winnipeg join the growing number of cities adopting a modern, evidence-based approach?

Recently, River Heights-Fort Garry council candidate Georgina Sabesky told me during a respectful conversation at a community barbecue that she does not think Winnipeg is ready to lift its breed ban.

I have no doubt she cares about public safety. However, she spent years as Coun. John Orlikow’s executive assistant, and Mr. Orlikow has long opposed repealing the ban. It is fair for voters to wonder whether his position has influenced hers.

Regardless, potential council members should be able to clearly explain their own positions.

Over the past few months, I have spoken with councillors, candidates and residents. It is not uncommon for there to be some uncertainty surrounding Winnipeg’s readiness to repeal the ban.

But what does “ready” mean? How will we know when we have reached it? What measurable criteria are we using?

Without answers, is readiness simply a feeling?

Public policy should be based on evidence, research and expert advice, not whether elected officials feel comfortable making a difficult decision. After nearly 40 years, public opinion surrounding the breed ban will inevitably be divided.

Some, including my father, believe the ban exists for a reason and protects the public. That is part of the problem with decades-long bans. People assume they are serving their intended purpose.

It is unrealistic to think that “readiness” coincides with less public discourse.

In 2022, Winnipeg’s public service recommended repealing breed-specific legislation in favour of a breed-neutral, behaviour-based approach after 84 per cent of respondents supported a breed-neutral approach.

Council ultimately kept the ban after a close vote, despite the strengthening of the Responsible Pet Ownership bylaw.

Additionally, “readiness” cannot mean eliminating dog bites. Every city experiences them. Elmwood–East Kildonan Coun. Emma Durand-Wood told me she remains on the fence partly because dog bites can be traumatizing. That is undoubtedly true, but trauma following an attack does not tell us which policies most effectively prevent future incidents.

Many veterinary and animal-welfare organizations oppose breed bans, citing their ineffectiveness, difficulties identifying breeds, animal-welfare concerns and the false sense of community safety they can create.

What more do our elected officials need? Winnipeg is now outnumbered by major Canadian cities using breed-neutral approaches.

Edmonton lifted its 25-year breed restrictions in 2012.

How did Edmonton determine it was “ready”? Perhaps its officials simply decided to follow evidence and target owner actions and individual dog behaviour rather than breed.

That is what effective city leadership looks like.

I recently spoke with St. James council candidate Kelly Ryback, who recognized the importance of responsible ownership and acknowledged incidents involving many breeds.

Yet he highlighted one serious attack involving a reported bully breed and questioned lifting the ban because he felt bully breeds can cause greater damage.

I left wondering whether the vividness of one serious incident was influencing his assessment of the broader risk. Such biases are human, but public policy requires us to look beyond them in order to complete logical analyses.

Recent attacks in Winnipeg and Manitoba have highlighted numerous factors influencing dog attacks, none of which is breed.

I have spoken with animal-services officials in other Canadian cities.

While Montreal and Ottawa do not maintain incident records by breed, Edmonton and Coquitlam have collected breed information. Their data show incidents involving many breeds over time, without one breed consistently leading. Hundreds of investigations also contain no reliable breed identification. More importantly, raw bite counts cannot establish relative breed risk when the underlying breed populations are unknown.

The supervisor of bylaw enforcement and animal services in Coquitlam, B.C., described breed bans as “lazy legislation.” She emphasized progressive legislation that investigates and enforces incidents consistently, fairly and defensibly, alongside proactive measures addressing both public safety and animal welfare.

Winnipeg already has a Responsible Pet Ownership bylaw and dangerous-dog designation allowing strict conditions on dogs that demonstrate dangerous behaviour.

These tools apply regardless of breed. Recent headlines remind us that serious attacks can involve different breeds and mixes. Large dogs can certainly cause significant injury, but public safety is not improved by focusing on appearance. Removing the ban would shift the focus from what a dog looks like to how it behaves.

North Kildonan Coun. Jeff Browaty has said he is open to a dangerous-dog regime allowing pit bull-type dogs “under very strict circumstances.” While he did not elaborate his point further, perhaps Winnipeg’s existing by-law and dangerous-dog provisions could be strengthened further for all breeds.

Past polling would suggest that Winnipeg residents are ready for change. I am hopeful that after the upcoming election, this is an issue that can be tabled again.

Otherwise, our city councillors would be doing the residents of Winnipeg a great disservice.

Elayna Hurtig is an occupational therapist and local animal rights advocate.