Officials in Elgin say they're not planning to ban Pit Bulls. I beg to differ, as does the dude hosting videos at Elgin2030.com.
if the ordinance in Elgin passes, all Pit Bulls (or dogs they call
Pit Bulls) will instantly be deemed dangerous - just because they are called
Pit Bulls - no other reason. Also, all Pit Bull owners must have $500,000 of
insurance, and there must be a six-foot high fence. Those dogs must named as Pits must also be
spay/neutered, also micrcochipped, and wear a muzzle in public.
The
problem is you can no more get $500,000 in insurance for a dog deemed dangerous
(even if he is not really dangerous, except that he is a Pit Bull and therefore being
called dangerous in Elgin) than you can get health insurance if you have a long list of
pre-existing conditions. If by some miracle, you can find an insurance carrier,
the cost would be prohibitive. And many subdivisions in Elgin apparently don't
allow 6-foot fencing, not to mention the expense if it is allowed.
So, even if public officials aren't calling this a breed ban - you tell me what this is. To me, this proposal sounds like a death sentence for any dog they call a Pit Bull.
One word of note, a breed ban is
expensive to enforce. Nowhere has a breed ban been effective at lowering
dog bites or dog attacks, or putting bad guys, like dogfighters, out of
business. I thought Michael Vick demonstrated, in general, dogs are
merely victims also. Most public officials elsewhere now seem to 'get
that.'
The
fervor was first precipitated in Elgin as a result of bad guys with bad
dogs, including
dogfighters. Carlos, an Elgin resident phoned in to my WLS Radio show
in Chicago this past weekend. Carlos explained that his Pit Bull is
especially close to him. Carlos
went on to reveal that he is a U.S veteran with a disability. Carlos
told me he
feels he's being treated like a dogfighter, or at least assumed to be guilty of being an
irresponsible
dog owner, yet his dog is friendly and well behaved.
To be clear, I absolutely
endorse sensible dangerous dog legislation, holding owners accountable for the actions of their dogs
- but it shouldn't matter, from Affenpinscher to Yorkshire Terrier to
Polish Lowland Sheepdog to Pit Bull....a dangerous dog is a dangerous
dog and should be dealt with. I mentioned the Polish Lowland Sheepdog because I just received a reader letter from the owner of this unusual dog, which looks nothing (to me, anyway) like a Pit Bull, yet officials wanted to call this herding breed (decidedly not a Terrier) a Pit Bull where she lives.
It's interesting to me that Elgin Mayor Ed Schock and
Council Member John Prigge, at least so far, have declined to appear on
my radio show. They say they are only interested in Elgin residents.
Those Elgin residents tell me the officials those very public officials
they elected are avoiding
them. I publicly invite them on my show this coming Saturday. What are
these guys afraid of. I'm sure they are actually well-meaning, and
desperate to enhance public safety. But they are also woefully
misinformed.
Steve, thanks for following this story and providing your objective, accurate view.
The insistence of Schock and Prigge refusing to hear "outside" opinions is absurd when one of the requirements included in the new ordinance is that a non-resident with a non-licensed pit (or what they decide is a pit) must get a permit from the chief of police to transport their dog through Elgin. Not to mention anyone who might be considering relocating here, with ANY dogs -- because who knows what breed would be the next target. I expect this would be a HUGE factor in deciding whether to move to Elgin.
Saying this is not an "outright ban" is just playing the semantics game. Also included in the Pit Bull clause (hey how's that for a pun) is the "Failure to Comply" [with the new requirements]:
...the Hearing Officer or court may, in addition to requiring the payment of the penalties, order that the license issued be revoked... and [that the Dangerous Dog] be permanently removed from the corporate limits of the City within 14 days.
Just a few hours drive to the north, Sturgeon Bay WI recently decided to remove any type of BSL from their own animal law revision, and instead to ban "vicious pets." Sturgeon Bay City Attorney Randy Nesbitt spoke at length about this issue, to quote from the article:
<
Nesbitt said removing the specific breed language still allows the city to take action against vicious pets, whether those are pit bulls or any other breed of animal.>>
And Sturgeon Bay Police Chief Dan Trelka perspicaciously observed that any dog bite problem was not a "pit bull" problem:
<>
"New ordinance allows pit bulls, bans 'vicious pets'"
By Ramelle Bintz