BSL defeated in IL, decision made to target all dog owners instead

Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
1,736
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Pidjun Haller, with ma uncle Palmer
#1
http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/ppo-story/localnews/current/cg/12-08-05-767494.html

"After voting unanimously not to implement breed-specific laws last week, the McHenry county task force on dangerous and vicious dogs decided Monday to increase the fine for failing to register a dog from $25 to between $200 and $1,000. Task force members also recommended increasing fines for dogs running at large around schools and parks, requiring owners to pay $100 more to register intact dogs, requiring dangerous and vicious dogs be identified, either by a vest or a sign in a yard, and mandating microchips be installed in every dog in the county for identification purposes."

Does this make any sense? Increasing fines, mandating 'vicious' dogs (and I know exactly how hard it is to get a dog deemed vicious) only be ID'd through signs or vests (do the vests come with anti-aggression electric shocks?) and ALL dogs be microchipped? How does any of this solve the problem of vicious dogs and rotten owners? The problem here isn't all dogs in the community, it's from a certain type of owner and from a range of breeds that are powerful enough to pose a serious risk of harm. Rejecting BSL was one thing; instituting ridiculous measures to constrain every Beagle and Yorkie mix in town while doing no more than slapping the wrist of people who own and create dangerous dogs is just nuts. And while discouraging loose dogs in parks is a great idea, the fact that this group focused on fines so much - fine everyone for everything, and treat all dogs as potential killers -makes me think the members weren't seriously trying to deal with the problem but milking a cash cow under the auspices of solving a vicious dog problem.
 

Amstaffer

Active Member
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
3,276
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Milwaukee WI
#2
Sounds good to me for a couple reasons.

Increase fines and cost to register-- I like this because it will help to weed out bad owners. Dog fighters and people who abuse animals don't want to register their dogs. If you find dogs who aren't register you can start the process of removing the dog and punishing the real bad guys....the owner.

Punish people for loose dogs -- No brainer

Its way better than a BSL because it covers all dogs and doesn't dicriminate against a breed but only focuses on bad owners. I am not sure how it is treating all dogs as killers, it seems like it makes it alittle harder to own a dog and I am all for that because people who don't have a commitment to a dog or the money to take care of a dog, shouldn't have one...IMHO

I just thank God that one group of elected officals didn't give in to the hysteria of BSLs
 
Joined
May 13, 2005
Messages
1,736
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Pidjun Haller, with ma uncle Palmer
#3
Instead of addressing how to go after suspected or proven problem animals and owners, it's avoided the issue altogether by simply making life harder for anyone who owns a dog. It's cheap, fearful politics, masquerading as fair and equitable decision-making. Their proposals may sound great - fining people for loose dogs, unneutered dogs, etc. - but it does nothing to make that community safer from aggressive dogs. The only direct controls on bad apples is to put a vest on the dog or a sign in its front yard - it doesn't increase or clarify what animal control or police can do to regulate or investigate a suspected or established bad dog, it places the burden on everyone else in the community to identify and avoid the animal. Just because it doesn't target pit bulls doesn't mean it's good, or that it's pro-dog.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top