Can we learn from Elgin, Chicago?
Detail:
Elgin is one of the fastest growing cities in Illinois, Chicago, with a population of just over 100,000. It is apparently characterized by a large, diverse group of grassroots organizations, and has a strong sense of community pride.
And it’s hit the headlines as Elgin council officials were calling for a breed ban on pit bulls and pit bull types. Why? Well, it appears there is a growing illegal dogfighting scene (using pit bulls), and officials want to curb this before someone gets hurt. And a Chihuahua had been killed by a pit bull last Spring.
The proposed ban was therefore for all pit bull-type dogs to be instantly deemed dangerous. All owners had to have US$100,000 (£66,600) third-party insurance. Owners had to ensure their homes had a four-foot high fence, and dogs had to be spayed/neutered, microchipped, licenced and muzzled in public.
Is it just me or is this a case of parallel universes?
Needless to say, there were strong protests and petitions, with calls to “punish the deed, not the breed”. The upshot was that yesterday, a watered-down version of the original proposals were passed.
Instead, the law now allows an animal control officer to identify a dog – not the breed – as either dangerous or vicious. A dangerous dog is classified as one that attacks and injures; a vicious dog attacks and causes severe injuries or death.
Dogs declared dangerous or vicious must have a three-year US$100 licence; wear registration and rabies vaccination tags; be neutered or spayed; and be microchipped. Residences require a six-foot-high locked fence and owners must have third-party insurance. In public, dangerous dogs need to be muzzled and kept on a short leash, crucially with an adult aged 18 years or older. A vicious dog will not be allowed in public at all.
How dignified. What I like about this is the obvious targeting of dog, not breed, as well as the respective owner of said dangerous or vicious dog. Not every single dog owner. A much fairer system. Will something along similar lines be a solution in this country? Well, let’s see what the consultation process reveals.
And it’s hit the headlines as Elgin council officials were calling for a breed ban on pit bulls and pit bull types. Why? Well, it appears there is a growing illegal dogfighting scene (using pit bulls), and officials want to curb this before someone gets hurt. And a Chihuahua had been killed by a pit bull last Spring.
The proposed ban was therefore for all pit bull-type dogs to be instantly deemed dangerous. All owners had to have US$100,000 (£66,600) third-party insurance. Owners had to ensure their homes had a four-foot high fence, and dogs had to be spayed/neutered, microchipped, licenced and muzzled in public.
Is it just me or is this a case of parallel universes?
Needless to say, there were strong protests and petitions, with calls to “punish the deed, not the breed”. The upshot was that yesterday, a watered-down version of the original proposals were passed.
Instead, the law now allows an animal control officer to identify a dog – not the breed – as either dangerous or vicious. A dangerous dog is classified as one that attacks and injures; a vicious dog attacks and causes severe injuries or death.
Dogs declared dangerous or vicious must have a three-year US$100 licence; wear registration and rabies vaccination tags; be neutered or spayed; and be microchipped. Residences require a six-foot-high locked fence and owners must have third-party insurance. In public, dangerous dogs need to be muzzled and kept on a short leash, crucially with an adult aged 18 years or older. A vicious dog will not be allowed in public at all.
How dignified. What I like about this is the obvious targeting of dog, not breed, as well as the respective owner of said dangerous or vicious dog. Not every single dog owner. A much fairer system. Will something along similar lines be a solution in this country? Well, let’s see what the consultation process reveals.
By:
Sandra
Date/time :
11/03/2010
Replies to this topic...
