Home » Politics

Elgin considers pit bull measures again

1 July 2009 RS 198 Comments

Rocky survived a pit bull attack. Will your dog be as lucky? Rocky survived a pit bull attack. Will your dog be as lucky? (Photo by sirtrentalot).

In Elgin, residents this month asked the City Council for laws banning pit bulls or at least compelling dog owners to be more responsible.

Fighting back tears, Gretchen Ohl told the City Council that her Chihuahua, Rosie, was mauled by two 50-pound pit pulls last month.

“They grabbed her before I had a chance to react,” Ohl said. “It was the most violent thing I have ever witnessed.”

Both of the pit bulls were euthanized, and the owner was fined $50 for unleashed dogs, no vaccination and no fencing around the yard, Ohl said.

“The City of Elgin is reviewing its current animal ordinances to determine if there should be stronger penalties for owners of animals involved in biting incidents or deemed a public danger or nuisance,” said Sue Olafson, city spokeswoman…

The City Council directed staff to review Elgin’s ordinance, which requires that pets be leashed at all times when that pet is not on the owner’s property. If a pet is not leashed, the owner could be fined $50, city officials said. There are provisions in Elgin’s codes that would require an owner to surrender a pet if it is deemed a public danger or is suspected to have been involved in a biting incident.

Longtime Elgin resident Pat DeMoss said she was attacked by a pit bull in 1999 near Gifford Elementary School and nearly lost her leg. She said some Elgin residents use pit bulls as a status symbol, and many gang members are breeding and training them for use in dogfights. (Chicago Tribune)

This issue is going to come up over and over again until something is done about it. Short of an outright ban there are things the council can do that would make Elgin streets safer for both people and their pets. For example, requiring that dangerous breeds be not only leashed but muzzled when they are off their property, requiring that dangerous breeds be registered so they can be monitored for compliance with vaccination regulations, etc. Perhaps even ban the breeding or sale of dangerous breeds and imposing a fee on the adoption of dangerous breeds. They may also consider requiring that dangerous breeds be neutered, which will make the animals more docile.

There’s no need to impose an outright ban. These measures would be far more acceptable to current owners, and will have the intended effect of making our streets safer for people and their pets.

Possibly related posts:

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars
Loading ... Loading ...

198 Responses to “Elgin considers pit bull measures again”

You can subscribe to these comments via RSS.

  1. Mike Robins says:

    Hello everyone, just got off the phone with Mr. Prigge, he is learning fast, picking up on city agendas and learning about the diffrent departments of our city and how they operate. Wish I could join him, maybe in the future, time will tell? I let him know and would like all of you to know I have spoke to many dog owners in parks and non dog owners about a pit bull ban. 97% of people responded positively to a ban on this breed. I was very suprised, I thought most would state its not the dog breed, it’s the owners. Many of you said it’s about time!

    I spoke at the council meeting last week to address an ordinance that would limit how much time a dog could be tethered, chained up, or kept. in a pen. See http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com and mothers against chaining. I explained that dogs are pack animals, with other dogs or us. When kept alone, they become very aggressive if people come close or the dog gets loose! Several cities across the country are now becoming aware of this and changing the laws on how long and with what equipment the dog can be kept. outside. Elgin should have a total package so we don’t need to visit this again, especially with another breed, or the one in focus now. If your thinking, how many people will call on a neighbor or how can we enforce it, I received several calls during the campaign and educated those that called who to call next and gave them some possible outcomes. The past incidents that came up in our city could have and would have been avoided if these dogs were not kept chained all the time or in a pen, or the garage. A ban alone will not solve the problem of aggressive dogs that get loose!

    • Elgin Guy says:

      Mike your logic is flawed. If these dogs were chained up outside they would not have had the opportunity to interact with other dogs.

      If people were responsible for their animals and were held to this responsibility there wouldn’t be a problem.

      You can pass all the laws you want but if you don’t have the staff to enforce these laws it is just lip stick on a pig.

    • RS says:

      Mike, you may be interested in some of the statistics on attacks by chained dogs:


      The council should consider anti-tethering as part of a general dangerous dog ordinance. Even if tethering does not make the dogs more aggressive, the fact that they are tethered rather than fenced in implies that anybody, namely children, can walk up to the dog and be attacked.

      • Anon says:

        Dogsbite.org posits that “pit bull” is an actual breed when in fact the generic term “pit bull” can describe countless breeds of dog. (Which is why the stats you’ve cited above R.S. are easily debunked.) This is evident in the fact that when cities propose breed bans the ordinance usually restricts at least 3 breeds. That alone proves that stats on “pit bulls” are skewed.

        And R.S. why do you advocate a dangerous dog ordinance in your above post but go on to seemingly advocate breed-specific legislation in later posts? You seem to vacillate an awful lot. What gives?

        • DavebinAZ says:

          The certified dog trainer for my pit bull terrier ‘Milo’ says there are three main separate breeds. She also says their temperament is friendlier than 70% of all other breeds. They are loyal and protective, something I want in a dog, and are high energy which makes for a lot of fun when out playing. Their desires are to please their people. They need to be trained as all dogs do, not killed by ignorant dumb-asses or picked-on. Again, all dogs need to be trained right along with their owners and any others in authority over the dog. Terriers are the absolute best dogs you may ever have the privilege of owning. When pits are gone, like they will be in the widdle wussie UK, then it’ll be some other kind of dog they go after to blame and euthanize. Remember, you go after my dog, you’re going after me. There will be consequences all the way around if you mess with my dogz, so best leave my pup alone. As for the anti-pit bull crowd - you’re all a bunch of pussies, sheer wuss-jobs and a waste of American soil. Buck up.

    • Bryan says:


      I’d just like to say that the Owners are the ones that need to be held 100% accountable for the actions of themselves and their dogs. A dog that is caged or chained is not necessarily an agressive dog, the owner that visits him/her once a day while caged or chained is the issue.

      Furthermore, as Anon stated on 7/27, Pit Bull alone is not a breed. I have an American Staffordshire Terrior which the AKC (American Kennel Club) recognizes as it’s own breed however the UKC (United Kennel Club) recognizes the Pit Bull as one breed, regardless of what Terrior mix the dog happens to be.

      My dog was leashed while walking with me in March of this year when she was mauled by a mixed breed dog that had absolutely no pit bull in it. The dog was on a 40 foot chain, and there was no fence for the yard that this dog was in. Fortunately for me and my dog, she was fine.

      I’d like to propose putting a ban on the irresponsible owners of DOGS, not Pit Bulls, Rottweilers or whatever Breed happens to have councilmen nervous at any given time. Maybe, they could also look at the Gang Bangers that use steel chains as leashes for their Pit Bulls among other things and focus on restricting them from our great city.

      In my five years as a dog owner, I have had more issues with Golden Retrievers, Labs and other mixes being overly aggressive than I have with PBT’s. OSL (Owner Specific Legislation) is the answer, not BSL.

      • Common Sense Clarence Hayward says:

        Bryan, I think you make a lot of common sense. I am anxious to see what the new ordinance if there is any new ordinance will say about pit bulls and other breeds.

        I am afraid the city council is going to use this as an issue to make more money off of all dog owners.

        I have a feeling if they try and make any ordinance breed specific they will incur too much costs in litigation.

        I don’t want my toy poodle being a revenue enhancer for the city of Elgin.

        Last time the mayor proposed charging a registration fee for all Elgin dogs I went to the council meeting and sang a line from Beatle George Harrison’s song The Taxman and I added that if George had lived in Elgin at the time he wrote the song he would have added the line “If you own a dog I’ll tax the leash.”

        The council at the time was wise enough to over rule the mayor and they found more money in the police budget for animal control without taxing our beloved pets.

        I am wondering if the current council is just as wise?

        • Boxcar says:

          I wanted to know where this current council sits on this issue, too. Then I remembered when councilman Prigge was campaigning he said he would be the first councilman in Elgin to keep his web site active during his term if he won. So, I checked and guess what? He has. Per a Google search, he IS the only Elgin councilman to have a CURRENT web site. (Mike Warren still has his but it’s all leftovers from the campaign) I cannot believe Prigge is the only one on the council who believes in the Internet.

          If you go to http://www.johnprigge.com and then click on the Current Issues tab you will see he supports a pit bull ban, as I do. I am surprised at his view on the Lords Park Zoo. I thought he would want it closed. Nonetheless, he was a good choice.

          • Bryan says:


            Thanks for the link, it’s good to know that we can actually read up on and get in touch with our councilmen. The following is his position on “Animal Control Measures”.

            “I favor a plan where all owners of animals that attack or bite another pet or human will have their animal confiscated and must pay a substantial graduating fine within one week to get the animal returned. Animals not picked up are destroyed, as biting animals are not adoption-worthy. Unpaid fines are treated like any other unpaid city fee and attached to either the address of the attack or the pet owner individually.”

            He does indicate that Pit Bulls attack differently than most other dogs do however he does not favor a ban on Pit bulls, or at least does not indicate that position on his site.

      • Stop BSL says:


        You are absolutely right. People should be accountable for creating monsters of ANY breed of dog. It is not the breed, it’s the people…

    • Mary says:

      I know for a fact that none of these dogs were born bad. This is due to people that are not educated enough to have a powerful breed and people who overall are not responsable dog owners. It is not the breed it is the people who raise them. I am tired of people blameing this breed when it is the people who are making them like this. It is unfortante what happened to these dogs that were attacked but you have no idea what kind of hard life these dogs have had before the attack. All breeds will attack if trained that way. I am a American Pitbull Terrier owner and my dog is one of the best dogs i have owned around children and dogs all the time. These dogs by the way are not called just pitbulls. the proper name is American Pitbull Terrier. If you think a ban is needed go get educated about the breed before you knock it. Ever watch the Dog Whisper he is beyond educated and has over 40 dogs living together with many pitbulls that were rescued fighters!!!! You should really look up what the number 1 biting dog is and it is not the American Pitbull Terrier. As for the temperment testing for the us the were one of the highest scoreing dogs at 80%. I think all of you people should go see a rescue group and see what awful things are done to this breed. Unless you have experianced owning this breed or know someone that has this breed i don’t think you have any right to put a ban on a breed. People make these dogs this way they are never born mean. I think this is a bunch of bs!!!!!!!!!! Look what happened in Maywood what they did to those dogs that were resuced puppies missing eyes and dogs made to fight aganist there will it is sick you could even think to ban this breed!!!!

      • Boxcar says:

        “All breeds will attack if trained that way.”

        Maybe, but only one breed is attacking and killing and that is the pit bull. There are only a few breeds that can do the damage a pit bull can. But pit bulls are doing a lot more of it.

        “If you think a ban is needed go get educated about the breed before you knock it.”

        I do and I have. It’s a bully breed bred for fighting and not recommended to be with other dogs and small children.

        “You should really look up what the number 1 biting dog is and it is not the American Pitbull Terrier.”

        But the number one dog that kills and mauls IS a pit bull. My children will survive a toy poodle bite but may not survive a pit bull bite because they kill and maul. They do not bite once.

        “As for the temperment testing for the us the were one of the highest scoreing dogs at 80%.”

        Sorry 80% is a “B” and I’m not happy with a B-average for a killing breed of dog.

        “I think all of you people should go see a rescue group and see what awful things are done to this breed.”

        And you need to look at the photo at the top of this page AND then go to Anderson Animal Shelter and see how many of these sweet little dogs are waiting to be adopted. Why is that? Because they kill and maul and no one wants them.

        “Unless you have experianced owning this breed or know someone that has this breed i don’t think you have any right to put a ban on a breed.”

        Oh, yes we do and our city leaders have the right to do so, too. I read newspapers and see what many other cities have done to ban these animals. Why are there so, so many cities and counties that have banned this breed? Because it’s fun? No. Because they kill and maul.

        What people like you want government to do is to ban humans over pets for what they MIGHT have done to their dog to make it kill and maul. When the day comes that people are banned because of what they might have done, Elgin can start with illegal aliens.

        We KNOW they have broken the law.

        • Michelle says:

          Too bad the people who fight dogs don’t have the intelligence you seem to have regarding APBT type dogs. They sure waste a lot of time, energy and money to turn their dogs vicious and dangerous. Here they are- buying steroidal drugs and equipment for strength, and beating the sh-t out of them to make them aggressive — absolutely needlessly, if these dogs are, as you say, born killers and maulers. Silly dog fighters.

          You have no argument comparing a 40lb or larger size dog to poodles and pomeranians. If the city were to ban breed based on your line of reasoning, they will have to ban every medium to large size dog as it could be capable of killing and mauling. Too bad the mayor has a German Shepherd.

          It’s a bully breed bred for fighting and not recommended to be with other dogs and small children.”

          Outright ignorant statement here, completely false.

          (Guess you don’t remember Petey the dog, from the Little Rascals.)

          • Boxcar says:

            “(Guess you don’t remember Petey the dog, from the Little Rascals.)”

            I wonder if Petey was ever left alone with the Little Rascals without adult supervision or if he was ever left alone with other dogs.

            I remember Lassie, too. I KNOW collies do not kill people like pit bulls do nor are they often-trained to kill and maul. If anyone can train ANY dog to kill or maul why aren’t they training the Lassies of this world to do so? Remember the cries of “ANY dog can be trained to kill”.

            But the link below is a better comparison for anyone who believes the nonsense that it’s never the breed and only the owner. Watch this YouTube clip and ask if you would like to have this adorable, yet, highly trained, pet living next to you.

            Remember, it’s not the breed. LOL.


          • Mary says:

            Guess what boxcar my grandma has a collie that is what lassies breed was and she bites!!!!!! YOU NEVER LEAVE CHILDREN UNSUPERVIED AROUND ANY BREED! My dog is a clone of the little rascals dog and by the way these are one of the easiest breeds to train and are very popular family dogs did you know they have a nickname called the nanny cause that is how loyal they are to your family and children. So enough boxcar of your uneduated commments!! You read whatever the media says and you are really closed minded and stupid!!!!! Your link is soooooo dumb!!!!! What exactly are all the bully breeds do you know cause there are multiple breeds and not everyone wants a little cute dog because of people like you this is why these animals don’t have a chance in shelters. Maybe you should move out of your area and stop worrying about a breed that is just going to single you out and get you or maybe do something about all the gang activity in your area i would ban aliens not suppose to be here but the dogs are!!!!!!!!!!!

        • Mary says:

          You are not eduated in anyway about this breed what are you talking about? Don’t try and single this breed out as the only powerful breed that can cause attacks and maulings, ever hear of a cane corso, great dane,massiff,doberman,rottweiler.etc. There are so many breeds of dogs that are more powerful and can cause more damage than a American Pitbull Terrier. You are stupid they scored a 83.5 was rated number 4 for temperment testing and a 80% and higher is a AAAAAAA go look that up!!! No breed in temperment testing scored a 90% or higher dummy!!!! The highest was 85%. The ban happens in alot of gang realated areas did you know that!!!! Don’t even campare your little poddle cause i have a child that has lived with a American Pitbull Terrier for 9 years never had any problem with her ever showing signs to bite and your toy poddle bit your kid should we have your poddle banned?????? All breeds bite so all children should always be supervised around dogs and you put your foot in your mouth by saying your kid got bit by a poddle any dog can bite!!!!!

          • Mary says:

            How are American pitbull terriers used as theropy dogs then. Look what michael vic did shining example of how digusting people are with these breeds. By the way some of his dogs have been certified theropy dogs after living a awful life now are living with children and familys also. They are one of the most misunderstood breeds. unfornately what ever dogs is popular this seems to happen to. in the 80’s was the doberman and the 90’s rottweiler and now 00’s the american pitbull terrier.

          • Boxcar says:

            A pit bull did the damage seen in the photo above. Look at it.

            Your gramma’s Collie didn’t do that. Your gramma’s collie would have bitten this dog and run away. A pit bull bites, rips, shreds and comes back for more.

            No more pit bulls in Elgin.

          • Michelle says:

            No more pit bulls in Elgin.”

            Haha, well the mixed breeds I rescue from the shelters are safe then. lol.

          • Boxcar says:

            Non-mauling and killing mutts will be safe. They have never been the problem. These killing machines known as pit bulls will remember these days as good ones until a ban goes into place.

            I have e-mailed Prigge and his response has me convinced he will drive this ban. He even has support from current pit bull owners.

    • William says:

      Pitbulls are great dogs! it is all how people raise them! Most people that are against them have never been around them long enough to know they are just like all other dogs. Any dog can be mean if the owner wants them that way.

      • Amanda says:

        i just want to say, even though this was posted 2 years ago!! that i LOVE your comment! you are 10000000% correct on this one! has anyone ever seen an attack from a dang little chihuahua?? ever been bitten by any other dog?? of course you have!! its not the dog its the owners. ANY DOG CAN BE RAISED AND TAUGHT TO BE VICIOUS…. AND BY ANY I MEAN ANY!!!! ITS NOT THE DOGS FAULT HE OR SHE WAS RAISED LIKE THAT. AND PITS ARE NOT THE ONLY DOGS WHO HAVE ATTACKED SOMEONE OR SOMETHING. PITBULLS ARE ONE OF THE SAFEST DOGS! YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE AND AND ACTUALLY GET TO KNOW THE BREED BEFORE YOU JUDGE. look at it this way… people murder.. correct?? so lets say a man or woman kills someone.. does that make EVERY man or woman a killer? does that make their entire family killers? Does that mean the entire human race are murderers??? uhh… NO, NO IT DOES NOT!! so why are you all so quick to say just because some pits have attacked that means all will do that???? learn the facts before judging those precious babies!! which if you knew pitbulls you’d know they truely are big ol’ babies who just long for love and comfort of their family. and.. thats all! thanks for reading! ;)and again William: LOVE your comment! ive always felt this way about pits! and really wish others would come realize how wonderful all dogs can be!

        • One Vote says:

          You are SO right. Just the other day I read that gangbangers are buying beagle, labs and collies and training them to fight. It’s not the breed, it’s the owners.

    • andy says:

      You people are ignorant, pitbull attacks are a result from bad breeding and bad ownership, thats it, pitbulls by nature are amazing dogs and want nothing more than to please their owner, they have a bad rap simply because they are powerful enough to inflict alot of damage if they arent raised properly, ive owned pitbulls all my life as well as other breeds and pitbulls are by far the most compasionate loving dogs out there, ignorant people like need to get your facts right before you blame the breed, its the owner

  2. Todd Martin says:

    My family recently became dog owners for the first time (we bought a Whippet from a rescue group). I would be in favor of a Pit Bull ban as well as stepped up enforcement of current laws.

    Keeping a dog isn’t like the 1970’s. The pets are expensive and people’s expectations are that they will be kept safe from loose dogs.

    When I take my dog for a walk, the last thing I want is a loose pit bull threatening my dog and my family!

    For current pit bull owners in the city, I would suggest a grandfather clause which allows them to keep the animal if it is neutered, registered with the city, and a fee imposed to pay for on-site inspections. Otherwise, there must be a system put in place that transitions the current pit bull population out of the city. Just relying on all the Pit Bull owners in town to euthanize or sell their animals is not realistic.

    • Anon says:

      Placing restrictions on owners of specific breeds who owned their dogs before BSL was passed is not “grandfathering” Mr. Martin. And it baffles me as to why owners of dogs would advocate for bans on other breeds. How foolish. Do you know how many times BSL has been passed for a couple of breeds only to be added to later? How do you know your breed isn’t next? Do you think you’re immune because you own a seemingly benign breed of dog? The only thing that almost all attacking dogs have in common is an irresponsible owner. Do you think irresponsible owners are limited to one or even a handful of breeds?

      In the last several weeks alone I’ve returned two of my neighbors dogs to them. They were just out in the neighborhood with their owners not even aware they were gone right here in Elgin. In the same period of time I’ve seen two other of my neighbors with their dogs out on the front lawn, no leash, no tether, no nothin. None of these dogs was a so-called “pit bull.” And in fact, when I have walked my bulldogs (what you would mistakenly call “pit bulls”) in my neighborhood, they have repeatedly been attacked by free-roaming dogs, all of which were owned by my neighbors. My dogs did nothing except walk by while these dogs aggressed on them. None of the attacking dogs were so-called “pit bulls.” The attacking or free-roaming dogs were Scotties, a Shih-Tzu, a Boston Terrier, a Miniature Schnauzer, and a Jack Russell. And once I was growled at and stared down by a free-roaming Labrador. So again, I fail to see how we have a “pit bull” problem here in Elgin. We certainly do have a free-roaming dog problem however, and that is directly resultant of irresponsible owners who own all kinds of breeds.

    • Mary says:

      What are you talking about!!! American Pitbull terriers just don’t wander the streets looking for your dog go get eduated!!!!!!!!!

  3. Michelle says:

    The problem IS the owner, not the breed. BSL is not a solution. Besides being unfair, it is logistically unrealistic. Many dogs are mixed breeds, who determines that a dog is a PIT BULL specifically? Where will the money come from to pay for this kind of legislation? Sure, increase our taxes more, why not.

    Focus needs to shift to regulations on WHO can have ownership of dogs, for starters. Weed out the irresponsible dog-fighters and thugs who don’t have their “pits” for companions but for ulterior motives, then you might start to see things change.

    BSL is the quick-fix idea too many people are jumping on these days, while it serves no purpose with its impracticality. For real solutions, they need to start thinking outside the breed and educating themselves.


    • RS says:

      Michelle, I think your suggestion of regulating who can own pit bulls should also be considered. I don’t know if it is the better solution, but I think it should be considered.

      I do have to say that I am not convinced that dogs owned by “good owners” will never ever bite. Dogs can be unpredictable. There are many dog bites each year, and statistics suggest that most dog bites involve a dog within the victim’s own circle of friends and family.


      Perfectly good owners can have dogs that just one day bite. Whether the dog is a pit bull or a poodle is what makes the difference for whoever the victim is.

      For me, I am more concerned about the safety of other dogs, because I think that the number of pit bull attacks on humans is far less than the number of pit bull attacks on other dogs. I don’t think it is fair to other dog owners who have to walk around with bats just to protect their dogs from pit bulls.

      • Julia says:

        Dogsbite.org is not a reliable source. The website author, Colleen Lynn, a website designer, was allegedly bitten by a pit bull-type dog; consequently, her site’s goal is to spread as much misinformation as possible about pit bulls and dog attacks, primarily by twisting statistics to suit her ends and invoking damaging and hateful stereotypes. She is also known to viciously disparage and ridicule anyone who disagrees with her.

  4. Mike Robins says:

    Michelle, very good web site, I found the data accurate as well. I will see Mr.Prigge and Dunne over the 4th, I will mention this to them and ask them to view it. M.R.

    • Michelle says:

      Thanks Mr. Robins

      I have had contact with many of these dogs in the shelters here in Elgin and in Huntley. I have two rescued mixes of my own. Having seen first-hand their true, loving nature, this is an issue I care about a great deal. Both the dogs AND the people here deserve to be safe.

      Here is a link to the fiscal projection data tables

      I also think your ideas on a dog-tethering ordinance are very sound, and am fully supportive of that.

  5. RS says:

    For those who are interested in reading more about Pit Bulls as well as Breed Specific Legislation (BSL), the Wikipedia page covers it all:


    Pit bulls were bred as fighting dogs, which gives them a certain disposition towards other dogs. While statistics are collected for dog attacks on humans, I don’t think statistics are collected for dog attacks on other dogs. And my guess is that these are far more common.

    I’m with Todd on my concern for the safety of other dogs. It’s important that people feel safe on the streets, that they don’t have to worry about their own safety or the safety of their pets.

    Are owners the problem? You can say that, but there’s no doubt that the pit bull was bred for fighting purposes, and a bad owner with a golden retriever poses no threat. Furthermore, we have no practical way to determine who is a good or a bad owner, and to determine what kind of dog they should have.

    As for your concern, Michelle, that the breeds can be hard to identify, if other cities can manage it, I’m sure we can as well.

    Many places in the world and in the United States have taken measures to protect the safety of the public. These measures variously include outright bans on the possession of the animals, requiring that they be muzzled in public, requiring that they be microchipped, requiring that they be neutered, etc.

    There are many options that the city can choose from. With input from current owners, I’m sure some accommodation can be reached.

    • Michelle says:

      Some interesting information there, and which essentially sums up my point:

      “the CDC supports the position that irresponsible owners, not breed, are the chief cause of dog bites. They have done studies that indicate that the most “dangerous breed” of dog changes with popularity and reputation. Furthermore, “pit bull-type” dogs encompasses several registered breeds and crossbreeds. Therefore, statistics that claim “Pit bulls” are responsible for some percentage of attacks are lumping many separate breeds together, rather than comparing that to other dogs that are counted as individual breeds.

      A followup to the study published in 2000 by Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association suggested that “generic non–breed-specific, dangerous dog laws can be enacted that place primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on the owner, regardless of the dog’s breed. In particular, targeting chronically irresponsible dog owners may be effective.”

      And a bad owner with a Golden, or any other breed, can absolutely pose a threat. Children, especially, can be inclined to rush up to a friendly-looking dog- assuming it’s friendly- startle it, and get bitten. They should always be taught not to rush up to any dog or animal, and responsible dog owners should not allow that, for everyone’s safety.

      • RS says:

        I think some dogs are more dangerous than others:


        • mel says:

          The dogs that are more dangerous than others are the ones that have owners who do not take the responsibility to train, care, exercise, or socialize their pets. To say that a certain breed of dog is more dangerous because of its physical capabilities and not considering its temperament, training, and socialization is similar to saying that men over the height of 6 feet, more than 190 lbs, with good muscle tone are dangerous people. Clearly there are other elements that come into play. The site does not definitively show that the dogs involved are pit bulls. If they are, I would really like to see the DNA testing on those animals to prove as much. Then, I would like to see the training, care and socialization history of each animal involved to see if it is indeed the breed that is dangerous or an animal who has been mismanaged by an irresponsible owner. If its the latter, then I would say its the owner who is the dangerous one.

          • Paul says:

            “similar to saying that men over the height of 6 feet, more than 190 lbs, with good muscle tone are dangerous people. ”

            No, it isn’t similar at all! Comparing dogs to humans is absurd.

            ” DNA testing on those animals to prove as much. ”

            So until DNA testing is done you won’t believe any media reports concerning pitbulls!

            “its the owner who is the dangerous one.”
            Maybe so but the issue here is really quite simple, even for you - society can ban the dog; society cannot ban the owner.

          • Boxcar says:

            “I would really like to see the DNA testing on those animals to prove as much.”

            That’s funny, at last night’s city council meeting one killer dog lunatic said DNA testing is not accurate. Talk about a sad case of mental denial.

          • Des says:

            It is hard to put into words how much love I have for pitbulls. I have been a owner of the breed for 11 years. I am raising a family of four children with my husband in a small town in TN. We wake up everyday and look forward to not only the love and smiles of our children but of our pets. Over the years I have saw admiration, loyalty, and love and nothing more from our pets. We walk, play ball, swim, run, hang out and travel with our animals. Not one time have I feared for the safety of my children or the people around me from my pets. They are a part of our souls and structured life. Their beautiful eyes and big kisses and playfulness are like no other. They have been easy to leash train, house break, and socialize. We have had them since they were 8 weeks old. We also have a Great Dan and 9 cats and a bird. Not one time has there been a physical confrontation or acts of aggression. They have acted no different than any other breed which I have rescued and found good homes for. It is a breed we created. It is our responsibility to harnise the goodness and produce successful lives for all our pets, pitt or not. As a child I was attacked by a chow and by a chuwawae.(Spell check) haha! My parents have boxers, and gator mouth pitts. My uncle had a pitt until she died, her name was Sammy and she was the perfect dog to have. She is my reason for my love for pitts. I never feared her and her neighbors never feared her. She died happily of old age. All pitts( all animals) deserve the same life begining to end. The owner of pitts needs to realize that you have to be one step ahead always in that walk of life. Because youu now are not the neighbor with a lab, you are the neighbor with the pitt. Many owners have breed away from the previous aggresion- the same with doby’s and german shepards. There will always be a dog every year that is pinpointed out- one day it just might be your dog. They are loving, caring and eager to please and want to be with you. Bad people with bad intentsions are everywhere- its not the dog its the owner. Any breed to reach its ultimate success needs personal love and training. They are companions and protectors. Any other breed plays the same role. For the large breeds in a family environment. Please take another look at all the breeds and then compare our pitts to them. The members of our families who’s lifes are valued and loved because of what they give to us. It may not be valued on the dollar and it may take true dedication and love but in my household you will not find another opinion. I know the pain that can come out of this. It can turn ugly and quickly disrubt lives. Our first home pet that grew up with our two children(the oldest)got shot in a fenced in yard by police officers because our ADT alarm was going off and Rowdy wouldn’t let them in the back door of the house that was open. Rowdy bleed to death in my side yard. We had blood trails threw the yard up the porchsteps and on the sidewalk. There is a chip on the concrete where the bullit went threw his chest cavity. My children had to come home to blood soaked porch and steps becuae the police shot him. They told us he was shot dead on the spot… The neighbors saw them all around more than 8 ft away from Rowdy. He was NOT attacking, he was barking. Think about it if he had not been a pitt would Rowdy had lived another day? My other dog who is a lab mix lived that day… The pitt breed suffers from uneducated people. It isn’t the breeds fault, its the opinions and wrongfulness of others that makes them feared. We will never get Rowdy back and it hurt us more than anything. We got no apoligy and we have always got critised for having the pitts we have now. Now we have kennels and I stay at home. If I have to leave we don’t use ADT because our pitts are safe in out double bolt locked and latched vack door, in our kitchen. A lose is a horrible thing to suffer, explaining it to your children is a nightmare.

  6. Boxcar says:

    I voted for John Prigge based on his courage and commitment to dealing with illegal aliens and Elgin’s reputation. I expect him to be a leader on these and other topics. I heard thru my neighbor (an AFLA member) he has already done a years worth of work in just two months for Elgin people. Correction-Elgin citizens. So when it comes to these pit bulls, I expect he will be a leader there, too.

    • Clarence Hayward says:

      I don’t want the city requiring me to register my little toy poodle as a revenue generator. So whatever the solution is going to be it should not single out dog owners to pay for it.

      There was a Viet Nam military group referred to as Boxcar. Are you part of that group Boxcar?

      Common Sense Clarence Hayward
      The Taxpayer’s Watchdog

  7. Mike Robins says:

    Boxcar, Mr. Prigge has indeed researched much data on this issue in recent months. He has asked Bill Cogley, who has great research ability as proven by our noise ordinances, to check others city and state regulations on this matter as well as court decisions. BTW, thanks again for your insight and data during the campaign. Most I spoke with learned from your posts and related websites.

  8. dayna says:

    I can’t believe so many people are still so for BSL. Any terrier dog is considered “scrappy” and will fight another dog- American Pit Bull Terrier, etc. included. In the 80s it was dobermans, then rotts. Guess what, breed bans didn’t solve the problem. I own a pit- she’s the best dog I’ve ever owned, including labs and collies. Human aggression is not natural in a dog- any dog species- and it is an awful reason to ban a whole breed. The list of societies that DO NOT support breed bans is long and compelling- humane society, ASPCA, American Veterinary Medical Association, and others.

    An excellent source- please educate yourselves before speaking out about subjects that would impact so many people so negatively:

  9. Boxcar says:

    I took this from Councilman John Prigge’s Web site tonight on the “Current Issues” page.

    “I am working with my fellow council members and staff on exploring a ban on pit bulls along with tougher ordinances that will accompany it which will include all animal attacks. Be assured, any proposal we make will be well-thought and planned. Corporation Counsel Bill Cogley and his staff have put in many hours on this. I am in favor of a proactive plan before an attack. AFTER an attack, aka punishing the owners, is too late.”

    NO question where HE stands on this, is there? He is showing me a lot of guts for a new councilman. The defeated councilmen never, ever would have stepped up on anything like this. He said he would be very direct and so far he is.

    Pit bulls have the capability to kill humans. Poodles don’t. Ban ‘em.

    • mel says:

      Actually, Boxcar, Poodles do have the capability to kill humans. Because they are small and cute, any aggression is usually overlooked. When they do bite, which they do, there have been instances where teeth have lodged into bone causing infection which is fatal. I have known it to happen. So don’t tell me poodles don’t have the capability, because they do.

      • Boxcar says:

        And there are also recorded instances where pieces of hay have pierced a barn door during a tornado, too.

        I like my chances against a poodle. I don’t like them against one of these killers.

    • Des says:

      In response to the comment about pitts having the ability to kill humans and poodles don’t. First and far most smaller dogs are more pron to bit than pitts. You are pinpointing one breed and it is irrastional thinking to say that a poodle can’t kill. Look up attacks on the internet. I have and infact a poodle did kill a infant. Did the poodle intentionally do it? No- the owners were not responsible and left their baby unattended. It is a shame to think that as the responsible party in creating all these breeds that a group of people out of fear go against everything that is reponsible and rightouse and want to weed out one breed. Making one breed extinct will not solve the problem. It is us coming together as a responsible society and stopping the bad people who fight and breed to fight, who chain and leave them to the elements, who neglect and abuse because they donot desire them anymore- it is these people who donot need this breed or any breed. Size and looks isn’t always the issue.

  10. Michelle says:

    Well, as they say, actions speak louder than words. Mr. Prigge may say a proposed ban will be “well-thought”, but clearly there is still much short-sightedness on his part at this point.

    His response to an e-mail from a member of the Best Friend’s network imploring the consideration of BSL alternatives:

    Thanks for your e-mail on this quality of life and safety issue Elgin citizens are struggling with.

    We are working hard to do what is right for the citizens of Elgin. I have personally promised our citizens that I will not be swayed by anyone who does not live or work in Elgin on this topic. It’s too important of an issue.

    Councilman John Prigge

    This issue is not strictly an Elgin issue. Indeed, it is an international one that is nearing crisis. The “just ban ‘em” solution is a NON-solution. Or is the council considering a ban on ALL dogs bigger than a Chihuahua, regardless of breed, since they all have the capability to injure or kill?

    Apparently the council has not yet thought out this facet. A breed specific ban on dogs will have a permanent effect with regard to people considering relocating to the fine town of Elgin, as well as potential visitors. Failing to realize that this is an issue to people throughout the country for a multitude of reasons demonstrates to me that the council is NOT looking at the big picture here.

  11. Boxcar says:

    If OUR councilmen are working on an issue it BETTER ONLY affect Elgin citizens. My taxes aren’t paying for him to work for anyone elses concerns or agendas. I do not want any of my paid representatives in Elgin making decisions based on what may be right for the “International” community. The International community doesn’t care about Elgin and I don’t care about them, especially on an issue involving Elgin people’s pets that kill and maul Elgin people and their pets!

    I do not find anything wrong with Prigge’s e-mail. As a matter of fact, I’m even more proud that I voted for him than ever before because of that e-mail. His response sounds like the Best Friends person doesn’t live in Elgin. If that is true, I wouldn’t have been so nice.

    I do not want anyone outside of Elgin telling my elected personnel what to do or how to do it.

  12. Jessica says:

    How do you determine if it is a “pit bull” or not? There is an American Pit Bull Terrier, but “pit bull” itself isn’t a breed, and the term usually refers to any of several different breeds, including mixes and mutts.

    Also I’m guessing most Elginites with these so-called “pit bulls” do not have papers for them stating their breed. Who is the expert that will look at them and decide whether or not they are “pit bulls?” I’d be pretty angry if some city employee decided my Labrador/Boxer mix looked like a pit bull and tried to take it away.

    And what about other breeds that have a reputation for aggression such as Rottweilers and Dobermans? Why are “pit bulls” being picked on exclusively?

    I hope it doesn’t pass.

    • Anonymous says:

      Jessica brings up a very valid point. What will determine if a dog is a pit bull?

      If there is no truly definitive way to determine if a dog is a pit bull then I think Mr. Cogley is wasting tax payer time and tax payer money researching for an ordinance specific to pit bulls.

      Common Sense Clarence Hayward
      The Taxpayer’s Non Pit Bull Watchdog

      • RS says:

        Clarence, Jessica, you can view the Wikipedia page to see how this issue has been addressed in other areas:


        Some examples:

        “non-pure-breed animals resembling pit-bulls are to be surgically neutered”

        “any non-pure-bred dog where either of the races are among the parent or grandparent animals.”

        1) Substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club for American Staffordshire Terriers or Staffordshire Bull Terriers or
        2) Substantially conform to the standards established by the United Kennel Club for American Pit Bull Terriers
        3) Technical deficiencies in the dogs conformance to the standards described in subsection one and two shall not be construed to indicate that the subject dog is not a Pit Bull Dog under this ordinance

        a. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier breed of dogs;
        b. The American Staffordshire Terrier breed of dogs;
        c. The American Pit Bull Terrier breed of dogs;
        d. Dogs which have the appearance and characteristics of being predominately of the breeds of dogs known as Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, or American Staffordshire Terrier.

        A “pit bull” is defined as any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds (more so than any other breed), or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds.

        Pit Bulls include any and all of the following breed of dogs: Staffordshire Bull Terrier; American Staffordshire Terrier; American Pit Bull Terrier; or dogs that exhibit the characteristics of a Pit Bull more than any other breed of dog.


        In other words, this issue has been addressed in all breed specific legislation. The city council will not have to come up with their own system or rely on DNA testing.

        I really don’t think anybody is planning on taking away anybody’s dog unless it has been implicated in an attack. Current owners will presumably be grandfathered in, and at worst, they will need to neuter their dog.

        They may also be required to muzzle them in public and so on, but these are hardly drastic measures. Some cities actually do round up all the pit bulls and destroy them. I don’t support that, but I think appropriate measures will improve the quality of life for all residents, enhance the city’s public image and improve security for people and their pets.

        • Jessica says:

          “…or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds (more so than any other breed), or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics…”

          That is the section I have an issue with–it is not cut and dry at all. Look at a Boxer. It’s larger than the Staffordshire, but mix it with a smaller dog and now you have one the same size, having many of the same characteristics as a “pit bull,” without a drop of “pit bull” blood in it.

          Who is the expert that is going to come in and make the judgment call? The city is going to hire one? Having a City staff person compare two description sheets from the AKC really won’t cut it.

          • RS says:

            You’re right, Jessica. There is going to be some disagreement over whether something is a pit bull or not. If somebody thinks they’re dog is inaccurately labeled a pit bull, they should be able to appeal that, and the burden will be on them to show that their dog is actually a boxer lab mix or whatever. Other cities have handled the issue just fine, and I think we will be able to manage as well.

          • Anon says:

            Other cities have not handled it just fine. Denver ACOs were proven to be unable to pick a “pit bull” as defined by their own ordinance out of a line-up. (See Denver v. Margolius). And using AKC or any breed club’s breed standards in an attempt to enforce a breed ban or breed-specific restrictions is a copyright violation which will get the city sued by breed clubs. Not a good idea.

  13. Michelle says:

    Breed determination is just one part of the exorbitant expense involved in BDL/BSL.

    I will tell you without a doubt, if a breed discriminatory ordinance is passed and enforced upon my two shelter rescues, the city will be paying the cost of DNA testing to determine their breed.

    Laws and ordinances can be instated that are not discriminatory against a specific breed, but are more comprehensively protective.

    While it seems that councilman Prigge and some current residents, perhaps the rest of the council as well, do not care about non-resident views on this issue, they would do well to research and possibly learn from legislation adopted by other locations.

    For example, Portage recently made ordinance changes that do not breed discriminate, and therefore do not stereotype various breeds as “pit bulls” and automatically dangerous when this is not the case. It also allows for any dog to be deemed dangerous if it has attacked, regardless of its breed.


  14. Michelle says:

    If something were to be done about the gang problems and violence here, you would also see a significant and immediate change in pit bull related incidents and attacks.

    Aside from the Chihuahuas two houses down always running loose and charging at my fence looking for a fight, I haven’t had any problems with any dogs around here.

    What I have had constant problems with are the gangs and delinquents turning my neighborhood into a slum. It is incessant loitering/creating scenes, fighting, vandalism, and subwoofers thumping bass day and night.

    It would be great if the city put some energy and expense into these real, ongoing issues that are ruining this town.

  15. Boxcar says:

    Look at the picture at the top of this blog and remind yourself a pit bull did this. Not a Spaniel, Dalmation, German Shepherd or Collie.

    • Jessica says:

      German Shepherds and Dalmations both have aggressive tendencies as well. Google either name with “attack” after it and you will find just as bad of photos.

      If we’re banning one aggressive breed, why not all of them? A couple of years ago Dublin did just that. Here’s their banned list, copied & pasted:

      Banned dogs: American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, English Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Mastiff, Doberman Pinscher, German Shepherd, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Rottweiler, Japanese Akita, Japanese Tosa and cross-breeds.

      If Elgin passes such a ban and is actually successful in carrying it out, I’m putting my money on German Shepherds being the popular guard dog/fighting dog around here…

      • RS says:

        Jessica, the vast majority of dogs (99% according to ESPN) used for dog fighting are pit bulls. If people are involved in dog fighting, then they will move elsewhere and take their dogs with them. I don’t think that they will switch to a different dog and put their dog in the ring with a pit bull.

        • Michelle says:

          What will happen is a spike in the number of black market pits the gang bangers will be getting, from illegal breeders. And probably more incidents/attacks occurring before they get caught.

  16. Jules says:

    Elgin City Code already provides for the removal of dogs proven to be dangerous. I think that we ought to help the police department to enforce the current codes rather than passing new ordinances. I noticed that a neighbor walking a chihuahua after Rosie’s attack this spring was carrying a bat. I hope that he was also carrying a phone so that he could contact the police regarding any loose dogs. We have a tiny dog, I’ve been bitten in the face by a 30 lb. “family dog” and I love all dogs, but not all dog owners.

    Elgin City Code: http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.php?book_id=524

    • Jules says:

      If you don’t want to get too involved, you can report violations via the Elgin website too: http://www.cityofelgin.org/Forms.aspx?FID=133

    • RS says:

      ” I noticed that a neighbor walking a chihuahua after Rosie’s attack this spring was carrying a bat.”

      It’s a good argument for concealed carry.

      • Jules says:

        I think that a bat would be more accurate in most people’s hands and would not necessarily accidentally harm people standing nearby or even sitting in their homes nearby. So no, I do not see the argument for concealed carry being supported AT ALL by my observations.

  17. Michelle says:

    Jessica, I completely agree. These are the logistic and fiscal problems OTHER cities have encountered and not been able to handle.

    Jules, excellent point and I have thought this myself many times.

    There is a “witch hunt” on pit bulls and the like trying to get stirred up, because of some errant dogs. Many Elgin residents have adopted mixed breeds from the shelters; if a breed discriminatory ban is instituted there will be many dogs with no hope of finding a responsible, caring home.

  18. Jessica says:

    Fox News & Cato Institute are against pit bull bans, likening them to gun control laws.

    • RS says:

      If they let us carry guns to protect ourselves, then we would not mind pit bulls so much. As it is, we are one of only two states forbidding concealed carry.

      • RM-Slover says:

        Illinois and Wisconsin are the only 2 states. I am a “pit bull” owner, and will always own “pit bulls” they are awesome dogs. I also support conceal and carry.

  19. Michelle says:

    That’s funny, I was just reading his (Balko’s) blog on this story about the Sioux City councilman’s Lab attacking a man walking past the house.


    • Michelle says:

      I forgot to mention, this is a councilman who led efforts to institute a pit bull ban in his city.

      His defense about his dog attacking the man: “He must have been protecting the children.”

      As of yesterday, a ruling of his dog being deemed vicious has been upheld and ordered euthanized.

      He never should have had it loose on the front porch. Totally ignorant. The poor dog was only 3 years old.

      • RS says:

        Of course any dog can bite. But I would not worry so much about being attacked by a lab. It’s not going to cause much damage. A pit bull on the other hand.

        Malcolm Gladwell describes its capacity to inflict serious damage:

        Pit bulls, descendants of the bulldogs used in the nineteenth century for bull baiting and dogfighting, have been bred for “gameness,” and thus a lowered inhibition to aggression. Most dogs fight as a last resort, when staring and growling fail. A pit bull is willing to fight with little or no provocation. Pit bulls seem to have a high tolerance for pain, making it possible for them to fight to the point of exhaustion. Whereas guard dogs like German shepherds usually attempt to restrain those they perceive to be threats by biting and holding, pit bulls try to inflict the maximum amount of damage on an opponent. They bite, hold, shake, and tear. They don’t growl or assume an aggressive facial expression as warning. They just attack. “They are often insensitive to behaviors that usually stop aggression,” one scientific review of the breed states. “For example, dogs not bred for fighting usually display defeat in combat by rolling over and exposing a light underside. On several occasions, pit bulls have been reported to disembowel dogs offering this signal of submission.” In epidemiological studies of dog bites, the pit bull is overrepresented among dogs known to have seriously injured or killed human beings, and, as a result, pit bulls have been banned or restricted in several Western European countries, China, and numerous cities and municipalities across North America. Pit bulls are dangerous.

        Yes, I know what the rest of the article says :)

        • mel says:

          If you are going to use the “pit bulls have been bred for…” argument, then you should complete that thought and show that the breed was meant for animal aggression NOT human aggression. Legitimate breeders would cull the animal who showed human aggression so that the tendency would not continue. This breed was meant to be human companions and family pets. Animal aggression can be minimized with proper training, socialization, exercise and care. Any dog that does not get the proper attention and care for its temperament, and who is tortured, starved, and beaten will be a dangerous creature. That includes chihuahua, poodles, minpins, etc. If anything, a properly bred and trained APBT will be hard pressed to attack a human.

  20. Michelle says:

    AKC statements regarding TX HB 1982:

    “The American Kennel Club supports reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. The AKC also believes that dog owners should be responsible for their dogs.”

    Vague definitions of “vicious dog”, including a dog that “because of the dog’s physical nature and vicious propensity is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury…”:

    “The AKC supports laws that establish a fair process by which specific dogs are identified as “dangerous” based on stated, measurable actions. The language in HB 1982 implies that dogs are by nature vicious and would likely result in unfairly labeling dogs that have not caused harm.”

    “Basic leash, nuisance, and animal control laws should apply to all dogs, regardless of size.”


  21. Boxcar says:

    Add that to a ban on pit bulls and you have a safe city. Without a ban you have mauled humans and pets and great laws.

  22. Anonymous says:

    The first successful face transplant was performed on a woman who was mauled by her own Labrador:


    Check out the pic. It’s worse than the one at the top of this page which illustrates that any breed of dog can bite and do extensive damage in the process. So breed is not the problem, and all the mythology about “pit bulls” is just that: urban legend with no basis in fact.

    Additionally, the widely-held belief that dogs belonging to breeds that were bred for fighting are more likely to bite people and are thus categorically deserving of the vague classification “vicious” is not founded in fact. In fact, difficult as it may be for the average person to understand, the opposite is true. The proper temperament selected for and propagated by 19th century breeders of these dogs included an extreme aversion to aggression towards people. It was imperative that the “game” dog be entirely reliable around people because during the actual dog fight the human handler had to be able to hold and pick up his dog. These handlers would often not be the owner. So how could the blood “sport” of dog fighting have been sustained for so long if the owners and handlers had been repeatedly attacked by theirs or others’ dogs? The vast majority of dogs with fighting dog ancestry are the most reliable around people, which is how these dogs came to be known as “the nanny dog” in the early 20th century (i.e. for their trustworthiness with children.) And as many folks with search and rescue dogs can tell you, bulldogs often make excellent S&R dogs because the same “gameness” that can be applied to illicit purposes like dog fighting, can also be applied to things like search and rescue. So, for instance, if you were buried in the rubble of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 which dog would you want looking for you? The one that quit when its feet were burned and lacerated, or the one that kept going even after its trainer called it off? (Or click the following link to read about ‘Dakota’ an S&R dog and a bulldog breed used to find the remains of the crew of the 2003 Shuttle Columbia disaster: http://www.forpitssake.org/columbia.html) Dogs of any breed can be trained for illicit purposes or positive purposes, which points to the dog’s owner, not the dogs or the breeds themselves.

    So, if anything must be made of these breeds’ former fighting heritage, it is that some may not get along with other dogs or other animals. But this is potentially true of any breed of dog. (And I think the above article about the first successful face transplant illustrates that any breed of medium or large size can do severe damage due to the frenzied state of a dog in an attack.) Here let me also add that dog fighting is heinous and that I am absolutely not condoning it; only explaining some of its history. The model dog law I send out states that any person who harms an animal for the purpose of engaging in dog fighting should be charged with a felony. Indeed, I have been lobbying for years in the Chicago area for law enforcement to crack down on dog fighting because when they do they also crack down on the drug running, the gang banging, the prostitution, the illicit gambling, and other crimes that go with it. Dog fighting has nothing to do with the type of dog used. Street dog fighters will fight any breed. However, dog fighting has everything to do with the type of person — usually a recidivist — who engages in it.

    And what is a “pit bull” exactly? The AKC, UKC, and ADBA do not recognize “pit bull” as a breed. Indeed, the slang term “pit bull,” as the media defines it, can be used and has been used to describe any medium- or large-breed dog, which is why stats on “pit-bull type” dogs are skewed and therefore meaningless. Anyone who cites the CDC stats that this non-existent “breed” “pit bull” is responsible for almost 33% of attacks is just showing their ignorance. Even the CDC debunked their own stats saying they were based on media reports which are notoriously inaccurate. And if the “breed” of dog referred to in the attack of Ms. Ohl’s dog is cited as a “pit bull” then it’s automatically wrong. So I’ll ask all of you what I asked Mr. Prigge: How do you know that the breed(s) you will be proposing to ban are even the ones responsible for the attack(s) in question?

    I’m surprised at those who would push for a conceal carry law who would also push for the nanny-state style legislation that BSL is. BSL has been ruled unconstitutional in several courts in the U.S. BSL has been determined to be a violation of property, equal protection, and due process rights precisely because breed identification for so-called “pit bulls” is near impossible even WITH a DNA test. The best way to prove parentage is via kennel club papers, and how many attacking dogs come with papers? And speaking of kennel clubs, it is a copyright violation to use AKC, UKC, etc. breed standards to enforce BSL. Use them and the breed clubs will sue for copyright infringement.

    So some of you on here appear to be Veterans. Do you understand that the constitutional rights you fought for — civil rights like the right to life, liberty, property, due process, and equal protection — are infringed upon or negated entirely by BSL? And what some define as “grandfathering” — i.e. requirements like mandatory microchipping, muzzling, etc. — for current “pit bull” owners so they can keep their dogs and be “grandfathered” in is really an ex post facto violation under the Constitution. You can’t make something illegal that was prior perfectly legal without a rational basis like safety. And while many give their *opinion* that “pit bulls” are dangerous, there is no scientific evidence indicating one breed is more vicious or dangerous than another. So, did you Vets fight wars for freedom only to come home and ask for a negation of the constitutional rights that make us free in your own home town?

    And knowing that BSL has been ruled unconstitutional, it is alarming to see our new councilmen swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, Prigge especially, knowing he/they would go on to propose/consider legislation a mere few months later that has been ruled unconstitutional in several courts around the nation. While Mr. Prigge ran on a platform of Animal Control reform, to my knowledge he did not inform the public he would be pursuing BSL. Had he, he certainly would not have gotten my vote! And should he pursue BSL he loses my vote! (As does any other councilman voting for BSL.) Indeed, I will stump for his rival!

    And for those who claim BSL’s success in other cities, Denver’s breed ban has not withstood legal challenge. See Denver v. Margolius. Mr. Margolius proved that Denver Animal Control could not make breed determinations with accuracy (i.e. they could not pick a “pit bull” out of a line-up) and he won his case. Miami-Dade County has had a breed ban for over 10 years now and there are an estimated 50,000 “pit bulls” in the County. Cincinnati too was/is considering repealing BSL because their own law enforcement officers could not accurately determine what constituted a “pit bull” as defined by their own ordinance. BSL doesn’t work which is why it’s being repealed now in places like the Netherlands and Italy (http://www.examiner.com/x-7742-Charlotte-Dog-Rescue-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Breed-specific-legislation-failing-globally?cid=email-this-article). And that’s what Michelle was referring to by the “international community.” We certainly should be looking at other communities and countries to see how BSL is NOT working. How closed-minded would Elgin be if it didn’t? Italy and the Netherlands had BSL for many years and finally threw up their hands and admitted it wasn’t working, it adversely affected responsible owners, and was prejudicial. And you bet any citizen of the United States has the right to comment on any legislation anywhere that is unconstitutional, because, (and to paraphrase MLK) a threat to the Constitution anywhere is a threat to the Constitution everywhere.

    So here’s the bottom line. Do we really want our tax dollars being wasted on lawsuits to defend legislation that is widely known to be unenforceable, ineffective, and unconstitutional? Check out this BSL calculator that approximates the cost of BSL in the U.S.:


    The cost of enforcing BSL *alone* in Elgin would be approximately $130,000 a year. And if you look at the report, I think the figure for the cost of litigation to defend the BSL is too low. So enforcement costs could potentially go through the roof. So the question is, can Elgin really even afford BSL? And how can BSL be enforced here with only *one* Animal Control officer??? Will our already spread thin ACO and law enforcement now be given doggy identification detail? As the Elginite noted, Elgin could not afford a fireworks display this year. How then can BSL even be a consideration given its exorbitant costs? And worst of all, it won’t even keep the people of Elgin safer! Folks in the dog lobby have long known that BSL is lip-service legislation made to make elected officials seem proactive but in reality BSL offers no more than a false sense of security to an ignorant public.

    The solution is no more difficult than enforcement of a leash law, a non-breed-discriminatory dangerous dog law, and harsher penalties for those who violate these laws. These things are proactive and act as a deterrent and therefore prevent dog attacks.

    • RS says:

      The lady with the face transplant was knocked out from a drug overdose (rumored to be a suicide attempt), and it is well known that when people die in their homes and leave their dogs starving, the dogs start by eating their faces–the softest tissue. Other trauma to the bodies of knocked out people have been caused by their dogs trying to lift them up by the neck–what dogs normally do to lift up their pups. Neither of these situations are attacks on their owner.

    • RS says:

      As for the the legal cases, a simple survey of the Wikipedia page shows that the courts have upheld breed specific legislation over and over again in both state and federal courts:


      These are the findings of fact from a federal court case (Vanater v. Village of South Point):

      Pit Bulls … possess the quality of gameness, which is not a totally clear concept, but which can be described as the propensity to catch and maul an attacked victim unrelentingly until death occurs, or as the continuing tenacity and tendency to attack repeatedly for the purpose of killing. It is clear that the unquantifiable, unpredictable aggressiveness and gameness of Pit Bulls make them uniquely dangerous.

      Pit Bulls have the following distinctive behavioral characteristics: a) grasping strength, b) climbing and hanging ability, c) weight pulling ability, d) a history of frenzy, which is the trait of unusual relentless ferocity or the extreme concentration on fighting and attacking, e) a history of catching, fighting, and killing instinct, f) the ability to be extremely destructive and aggressive, g) highly tolerant of pain, h) great biting strength, i) undying tenacity and courage and they are highly unpredictable.

      While these traits, tendencies or abilities are not unique to Pit Bulls exclusively, Pit Bulls will have these instincts and phenotypical characteristics; most significantly, such characteristics can be latent and may appear without warning or provocation.

      The breeding history of Pit Bulls makes it impossible to rule out a violent propensity for any one dog as gameness and aggressiveness can be hidden for years. Given the Pit Bull’s genetical physical strengths and abilities, a Pit Bull always poses the possibility of danger; given the Pit Bull’s breeding history as a fighting dog and the latency of its aggressiveness and gameness, the Pit Bull poses a danger distinct from other breeds of dogs which do not so uniformly share those traits.

      While Pit Bulls are not the only breed of dog which can be dangerous or vicious, it is reasonable to single out the breed to anticipate and avoid the dangerous aggressiveness which may be undetectable in a Pit Bull.

      If the argument is going to be made against BSL, it cannot be on legal grounds.

      • Anonymous says:

        RS, you maintain that a feeding frenzy is less damaging than an attacking frenzy because the dog was simply hungry as opposed to attacking? A woman is still missing her face. I doubt she cares about the reason why, and I think it illustrates what I was saying about any dog of any breed can do that kind of damage. It doesn’t matter if the dog was eating her face or attacking her face, the potentiality was obviously still there regardless of the breed. How about the babies that get killed by Pomeranians and Jack Russells? The lethal combination in all these isn’t the breed, it’s the irresponsible owners. Anyone who has ever seen a person mauled by a dog, no matter what the breed, will tell you the tissue damage can be extensive. Why would you limit remuneration to one or a handful of breeds which is what BSL does??? By default BSL indemnifies against attacks by any other breed simply by stating that the listed breeds are the only ones that are inherently “vicious” or “dangerous.” So what about in Sioux City where the Councilman who argued vehemently for BSL and his Labrador brutally attacked a neighbor? How did BSL help in that situation? No, you know what helped? Their dangerous dog law which DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE BY BREED.

        And if the argument FOR BSL is going to made it also shouldn’t be made on legal grounds. For instance, look at the recent Ohio Supreme Court case (Tellings v. Toledo) deciding if BSL for “pit bulls” was constitutional. A motion to reconsider the decision was filed by Mr. Tellings’ attorney. According to the Toledo Blade,

        “…The motion argues that the court relied on flawed data when it agreed with the city of Toledo and the state that pit bulls cause more damage when they attack, cause more fatalities, and cause city police to discharge weapons more than any other breed./[Tellings' attorney] claimed part of the blame lay with the Lucas County Prosecutor’s Office, which, he said, removed a book containing Ohio dog attack fatality statistics from the court record and never returned it” (http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/NEWS02/708150439&SearchID=73290342716852).

        In other words, there was alleged evidence tampering in the Ohio Supreme Court which resulted in public allegations that the Ohio Supreme Court was a kangaroo court. Vanater is similar. Their decision was made based on faulty “evidence” because of a weakly tried case. I’ll get to that argument shortly. And you did not address Denver v. Margolius. Why not? Didn’t Mr. Margolius prove that the very officials who pass BSL can’t even determine dog breed based on their own ordinance? What’s your response to that??

        You cite gameness via the 1989 Vanater v. Village of South Point court case. If gameness is not a totally clear concept, as this decision alleges, then how can it be said with any authority that “pit bulls” either possess gameness, or that it makes them uniquely dangerous? How absurd! Here is what the Tellings appeals court decision, a more recent case decided on proper merits and totally free of evidence tampering, had to say about “gameness”:

        “Many pit bulls may also exhibit a behavior or trait referred to as “gameness,” which, simply stated, is the ability or willingness to continue doing an action once begun, i.e. “stick-to-it-iveness.” Gameness, in itself, is not a negative trait. For example, the ability to carry out duties or trained tasks, despite injury, distraction, or frustration, is desirable in pit bulls which have been trained to be search and rescue dogs, protection dogs in the U.S. military, drug sniffing dogs, and therapy dogs” (http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/6/2006/2006-ohio-975.pdf).

        Gameness, where it is found, can be used for positive or negative purposes, which AGAIN points to the owner, not the dog or breed of dog. Funny how you did not address that argument prior. And bully breeds or bulldog breeds, however you want to characterize them, are not the only breeds with gameness. Would you also then ban other terriers exhibiting this trait like Scotties, Westies, Jack Russells, and Cairns? No, because that would make you look like a fool for arguing for the banning of so-called lap dogs, even though they have been known to kill infants. Many of these smaller terriers exhibit gameness traits too because they were selected for this trait for a purpose. Sometimes it’s rooting out moles or rats etc. Many sporting dogs, including hunting dogs, also exhibit gameness as a trait. Will you also ban them?

        You go on to note “pit bulls’” supposed behavior traits again from Vanater:

        “Pit Bulls have the following distinctive behavioral characteristics: a) grasping strength, b) climbing and hanging ability, c) weight pulling ability, d) a history of frenzy, which is the trait of unusual relentless ferocity or the extreme concentration on fighting and attacking, e) a history of catching, fighting, and killing instinct, f) the ability to be extremely destructive and aggressive, g) highly tolerant of pain, h) great biting strength, I) undying tenacity and courage and they are highly unpredictable.”

        Grasping strength, biting strength, and hanging ability are insinuations of stronger or locking jaws, a claim which Dr. I. Lehr Brisbin, Ph.D. — Senior Research Scientist with the Savanna River Ecology Laboratory, professor, and expert in behavior, training, and handling of American Pit Bull Terriers and their anatomy — debunked in the Tellings appeal. Following is an excerpt from that decision:

        “…pit bulls do not have locking jaws. Based on actual dog dissections and measurement of their skulls, the evidence demonstrated that pit bull jaw muscles and bone structure are the same as other similarly sized dogs. No evidence was presented to demonstrate that a pit bull’s bite is any stronger than other dogs of its size and build…[C]ontrary to information relied upon and perpetuated by earlier case law…and law review articles…assertions that a pit bull can bite with a “force of 2,000 pounds per square inch” have absolutely no basis in fact or scientific proof.”

        TWENTY years on since the Vanater decision and many would be laughing at it had it and its like not been responsible for the deaths of so many innocent dogs.

        Weight pulling ability has nothing to do with aggression. St. Bernards are strong too. So what? These traits are used for specific tasks. For St. Bernards it is to rescue people from avalanches. For the dogs they call “pit bulls,” strength can be misused for dog fighting or, as already stated ad nauseam, it can be used for search and rescue etc. Additionally, plenty of medium- and large-breed dogs are strong and imposing. It does not mean they are inherently aggressive or that their strength/size can or will be used for illicit purposes or to hurt people. Indeed, if this is the thinking of the court — thinking which is wholly unreasonable and hysterical — then what medium- or large-sized breed would not be considered a threat? (including your dogs if you have any.)

        Likewise, an alleged history of frenzy, a high tolerance for pain, and tenacity are broad generalizations which sound like allusions to gameness, which I have already addressed above. As for “a history of catching, fighting, and killing instinct,” one must differentiate between aggression dogs might show other dogs, and aggression dogs might, but rarely do, show humans. This is true for ANY breed. Clearly, the court in Vanater was not told or did not understand that dog-on-dog aggression is not the same as dog-on-human aggression. Perhaps had this distinction been made clear to them, they would have ruled differently.

        I should hope that the Elgin City Council is wiser than to pass BSL based on a 20-year old court case cut and pasted from Wikipedia.

      • Michelle says:

        Actually, legal grounds is exactly where the argument against BSL is strongest.

        Last I heard, being a home rule unit does not give the elected officals carte blanche to violate anyone’s Constitutional rights to due process.

        (Not sure if that’s on wikipedia, but probably someone in the world somewhere has written something on the subject.)

  23. Boxcar says:

    “As the Elginite noted, Elgin could not afford a fireworks display this year.”

    They could have but chose not to. Big difference. $130,000K per year to enforce? Is that all? That’s cheap to rid this city of a breed of dog that has killed and mauled human beings. That is a point that cannot be debated. Put me in for that plan!

    Prigge did take an oath with all of the councilmen to uphold the Constitution and THAT is what a city lawyer is for - to make sure no laws are enacted that violate the Constitution.

    Nothing gets done without at least four councilmen voting for it and if I were a betting person I would bet there will be a ban and a damn good one.

    From a political viewpoint, I bet there are more votes for it than against it and, therefore, less for ANY councilman to worry about come election time.

    • Anonymous says:

      So Boxcar, you don’t refute that BSL is unconstitutional, you just do what Prigge did and pass it off as someone else’s responsibility (i.e. the city attorney) even though Prigge took an oath to uphold the Constitution? I hope that same argument doesn’t come back to haunt you when someone wants to take away constitutional rights that you care about. Also, you don’t refute people on the merits of their argument, you just respond with the same hysteria and opinion not even based on fact or science. I can’t give your argument credence, because you have yet to make one.

    • Michelle says:

      Could have but chose not to?? Well kudos to the city for making such a responsible choice, considering the fact that they are facing a potential $4 million deficit this year. It’s good to know that they had the option, and chose so appropriately.

      $130,000.00 annual cost is a minimal, extremely conservative estimation, by the way. And I do believe that does not take into account legal fees and court costs they (the city) would potentially be facing if they attempt to pass a discriminatory ban.

      You’re so willing to throw money away like that, when our social services are in danger and there are countless other areas that need funds, like emergency personnel. I’m really glad you are not on the council… or, are you??

      Breed specific bans are unconstitutional in violating the rights to procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Elgin council goes down that road, I bet there will be PLENTY for councilpersons to worry about at election time.

      • Paul says:

        Utterly hilarious. Though you don’t have a constitutional right to marry the person of your choice, you have a constitutional right to own the dog of your choice. LMAO.
        “you don’t refute that BSL is unconstitutional”
        You did that for us in calling the Ohio Supreme Court a “kangaroo court”. D’oh!
        “come back to haunt you when someone wants to take away constitutional rights ”
        The hilarity there is I wouldn’t need a ban on your pit bulls (I don’t need one for your poodle) if I had a right to bare arms - ever hear of the U.S. Constitution?
        “respond with the same hysteria ”
        I do find it hysterically funny that you think your dog has equal protection and due process rights. What about my banned pet chicken?
        “$130,000.00 annual cost is a minimal”
        I have to pay the city $50 if I don’t mow my yard. What is the city’s annual NET cost for that ordinance? Figures lie and liars figure.

        • Anon says:

          No dear, my dog doesn’t have due process and equal protection rights. *I* have due process and equal protection rights to all my property including my dog. Could you not even follow that most simple of premises? See, you set a precedent for the government on any level to just come and take your stuff and guess what? They will. So you are arguing for the negation of your own constitutional rights.

          I support the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Why would you imply that I don’t?

          Don’t know what you mean by your reference to the Ohio Supreme Court. Don’t know what you mean by most of your post. ???

  24. Boxcar says:

    All I can say is that not every councilman knows everything about laws, legal requirements on water purity, or even how many lbs. of pressure should be in the tires of city trucks. There are employees within the city who DO know those things and that is who they defer to - experts.

    The city lawyer position is considered one of expertise in the law. I doubt HE would put a city at risk with something un-constitutional for fear of losing his job, ruining his career, etc.

    Ask the parent of a child who has been mauled or killed by a pit bull if they think a city of Elgin’s size should spend $130K to enforce a ban on these dangerous animals or $40K for fireworks.
    Better yet, ask Gretchen Ohl.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hopefully Ms. Ohl and the Council will have seen via all the excellent evidence folks have provided here that BSL does not work, is a waste of good people’s tax dollars, and that it is a hysterical knee-jerk instead of a well-reasoned, effective approach. I think Councilman Rochester and his Labrador in Sioux City, Iowa are also perfect examples of why a dangerous dog law that puts the onus on the irresponsible owner — instead of on a dog or a breed of dog — is paramount.

      And if you’re still in doubt, ask the father of Ryan Armstrong who was mauled by a Rottweiler several years ago in the Chicago area. Instead of knee-jerking, he did research, realized that dog attacks are an irresponsible owner problem, not a breed problem, and got the Ryan Armstrong law passed. Mr. Armstrong now lobbies *against* BSL. In fact, the last time Elgin proposed BSL, Mr. Armstrong sent a letter advocating against it.

  25. Michelle says:

    There are a few things I would really like to ask Gretchen Ohl. Did she really choose not to pursue charges against the owner of the dogs that attacked hers, and if so why not. If the incident did not occur on that owner’s property she would have had the option.

    Also- if many residents in the neighborhood did in fact see the two dogs frequently running around loose, why was it never reported? Dogs are not permitted to be roaming at large in this town. If they had been reported, and the current ordinances already in place were enforced, the attack could have been avoided entirely and poor Rosie could be alive today.

    I wonder, if it was a German Shepherd, Rottweiler, or other breed that was loose and attacked her dog, would she be calling for a ban on them right now??

  26. RS says:

    Here’s an interesting site:


    With interesting statistics:


    Do we really want a city where you have to walk around with a baseball bat in order to feel safe?

    Is it such a big deal to require that pit bull owners neuter their dogs?

    • Michelle says:

      Rick, what is the issue here? I thought we were talking about a ban on a breed (which would not in fact be based on actual breed but what a dog looks like). I don’t have an issue with spaying or neutering — I don’t breed dogs, and I rescue from shelters, which automatically do that anyway.

      “Do we really want a city where you have to walk around with a baseball bat in order to feel safe?”

      I live in Elgin… I already feel that way, in my own back yard. Because of the people, not the dogs.

  27. Boxcar says:

    “Do we really want a city where you have to walk around with a baseball bat in order to feel safe?”

    Think a baseball bat will help you against a pit bull? You better have a good, accurate swing to put down a pit bull. An Aurora cop a few weeks ago needed SIX bullets from his service revolver to put one down.

    I know…I know… if it hadn’t been for the irresponsible pet owner it would only have taken ONE bullet, right? Or, better yet, a responsible pet owner would have never let that killing and mauling machine out of the house, right? LOL.

    When dogs chain HUMANS up to a post in THEIR backyards THEN I’ll let dogs run the planet.

    • Jules says:

      When you’re battling pit bulls in close quarters, do you prefer ANYTHING more than a handgun? If you accidentally kill a dog which is getting attacked or kids who run up to see what’s going on, is that a problem? Are they collateral damage in the pit bull wars?
      How about tasers? Don’t Aurora and Elgin police carry them?

      • Tom says:

        From the sound of it, you probably are not experienced at handling a gun, so you shouldn’t. Leave it to those who know what they’re doing.

  28. Boxcar says:

    Here is the problem with tasering a dog:


    You can see what happens after a tasering-the dog runs away! Ready to do more attacking! It’s got to go down. If it deserves to get shot, it deserves to get shot ’til it’s down.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Oh my gosh, are you kidding me with dogsbite.org? That is the most widely debunked website out there! Once again, and I guess I have to say this over and over til you get it, “pit bull” is NOT a breed! It is a slang term that can describe any medium- or large-sized breed. Dogsbite.org does not understand this simplest of distinctions and so their entire premise is faulty.

    Again, R.S. the data you offer is so easily debunked, and yet it must be debunked because we sure don’t want anyone thinking it has any merit. What’s wrong with a non-breed-specific dog law that encompasses ALL dogs? For the THIRD time, did Sioux City Councilman Rochester’s Labrador Retriever not prove why dangerous dog laws are effective where BSL is not??? You all keep skipping over that because it flies in the face of the hysteria you want to promote (and yep, BSL is a hysterical response to a hyped problem).

    I’ve offered evidence showing that no breed of dog is any more vicious or dangerous than another and yet you ignore it. Are you just not reading it or are you so arrogant as to refuse to concede the point? I thought this was about making Elgin safer, but now this discussion seems to have devolved into pettiness over who needs to win the argument. A law that punishes owners when their dogs of ANY breed hurt another person is a proven winner. It’s a win-win. So why do some of you continue to push legislation that folks here have demonstrated over and over again DOES NOT WORK and that worse, punishes responsible dog owners and their innocent dogs?

    • RS says:

      Unfortunately I can’t always respond to every point that is made. There are a lot of comments and a lot of points being made, and I just can’t keep up with it all. My intention is not to win an argument or debate, but to provide a forum for the discussion of issues like this. I think that even without my responses, the points you make serve a useful purpose for people who are looking for information on the issue and trying to understand both sides of the issue. And I thank you for the time you’ve taken to inform us of your side of the issue.

      I have to say that I remain unconvinced, however, by your arguments. Since you wanted me to respond to the Sioux City incident. My response is no different than anything I said before. All dogs can bite. But when it’s a pit bull that bites you, the damage is far more severe. The victim of the Sioux City labrador attack required only five stitches. I wonder what it would have been if it was a pit bull.


      As the statistics at the above link show hundreds of thousands of people are treated each year for dog bites. And I don’t think pit bulls could possibly be responsible for all of them.

      • Anon says:

        “As the statistics at the above link show hundreds of thousands of people are treated each year for dog bites. And I don’t think pit bulls could possibly be responsible for all of them.”

        Right. So again, why would you limit remuneration to one or a handful of breeds? And if you’re looking at the amount of tissue damage one breed supposedly causes over another as a reason to pass BSL then you’d have to ban every large and possibly several breeds of medium sized dogs. Where does it end? And as I noted, even small breeds like Jack Russells and Pomeranians have killed infants. But you know what all those attacks and dog-bite related fatalities have to do with each other? Somewhere behind each of them was an irresponsible owner. That’s why a dog law that punishes all irresponsible owners is a win-win. And you add enough of a severe punishment and it acts as a deterrent. That’s what Councilman Prigge liked about BSL. He thinks it will be pre-emptive, but it’s not. BSL never stopped the wrong kinds of people (i.e. irresponsible dog owners) from owning certain breeds of dog. However, make the punishment steep enough for being an irresponsible owner and that is deterrent enough. BSL on the other hand punishes all owners of specific breeds on the off-chance that they might be irresponsible with their dogs.

        And you keep citing dogsbite.org over and over. Again, they consider “pit bull” as if it were an actual breed, so automatically their statistics are wrong (which you kind of noted in your last post there). The CDC itself has said of stats just like those that they’re based on media reports, which are 1) notoriously inaccurate, and 2) BIASED. And again, when the media reports on so-called “pit bulls” that could be any number of actual breeds. So again, those stats prove NOTHING unless you’re uneducated or unwilling to listen to reason. We know that “pit bull” can encompass any number of breeds because when cities go to ban so-called “pit bulls” they don’t just ban one breed, they ban at least 3 (and lately, even more than that). Does that not indicate that stats on so-called “pit bulls” are skewed?

        As for you not being convinced, well, some people just won’t listen to reason. Let’s hope none of those unreasonable people are on the council.

  30. Anonymous says:

    And yes, it’s a big deal to require owners of specific breeds to alter their dogs. Like BSL, mandatory spay/neuter is failed legislation:


    And also like BSL, mandatory spay/neuter, microchipping, registration, etc. is unconstitutional because again, there is no scientific proof that any one dog breed is inherently dangerous or vicious and so it violates equal protection rights etc.

    Spaying/neutering in particular is a medical decision that should be between the dog owner and his/her vet because it does come with risks. So when a city council requires spaying/neutering it is dispensing what amounts to veterinarian medical advice without a license. Mandatory microchipping is the same deal. Malignancies are associated with microchipping and so the decision to microchip or not is a medical decision that should be between a dog owner and their vet.

  31. Boxcar says:

    “Malignancies are associated with microchipping”

    LOL. And if it was mandated that pitbulls had to wear a rubber band around their right back leg someone would scream about a latex allergy. LOL. Or, a restriction of blood that could lead to a stroke!

    ONCE again, WE run this planet, NOT pets.

  32. Boxcar says:

    My prediction: There WILL be a pit bull ban in Elgin.

    • Anon says:

      BSL is folly subscribed to only by fools. My prediction is that no one on the Elgin City Council will want to look like a fool.

  33. Boxcar says:

    The silliness of trying to ban/prevent owners from owning a dangerous, mauling dog, aka pit bull:

    Who do you ban? The head of the household? Spouse? Roommate(s)? Adult son/daughter(s)? A “friend” who at ONE time used to live at the home but now is out of town a lot? Just who is the owner of a dangerous dog? Noone steps forward AFTER an attack-that’s too much responsibility to take.

    Can’t cite a human who does not step forward to claim ownership when they know they are going to get a lousy ticket. How convenient. A horrible crime with a victim but no TWO-LEGGED perpetrator to arrest.

    Wake up Elgin citizens! Contact your councilmen and Mayor and let them know you expect to be protected from vicious animals and when simple data is available to prove it you simply ban the animal.

    • Anon says:

      You know you could have the last word you’re so desperately seeking Boxcar if it didn’t involve taking good people’s dogs away! Have you even been reading all this excellent evidence proving that BSL doesn’t work, is cost prohibitive, and unconstitutional, or are you just too stubborn and set in your ways to concede these excellent and compelling points? You have offered nothing (including any sort of a coherent refutation to all the evidence against BSL here) but your ignorant OPINION. Should our councilmen make such a serious decision based on your mere opinion? I should hope they’re more wise and rational than that!

      Data on “pit bulls” IS simple. It’s simply wrong, and we’ve shown that over and over by simply saying that there is no breed “pit bull”. Do you not understand this? I can explain it again. “Pit bull” is a generic term that can describe any medium or large breed dog. Do you propose to ban all medium and large breed dogs?

      As others and myself have shown, Elgin has a free-roaming dog problem, not a breed problem. With more than one animal control officer, the free-roaming dog problem could be addressed, and the threat that free-roaming dogs pose could be greatly lessened. Why is this not an acceptable option? We have *one* ACO for a town with 100,000 residents. Does this sound reasonable?

      So, Boxcar, is it your pride that leads you to put your opinion before the safety of Elgin residents in importance? If so, I will be here to respond to every one of your OPINIONS with clear and convincing evidence and sound, rational arguments. That way, whatever policy comes out of this discussion will hopefully actually keep Elgin residents safe, not just under the delusion that they’re safe. (And yes, BSL offers no more than a delusion of safety.)

      • Boxcar says:

        Here is an idea that will scare the daylights out of pit bull fanatics and will lead them to wailing at their dog house walls:

        Put a proposed ban question on an advisory ballot Then say good night, Elgin pit bulls.

        I am all for another ACO ONLY after a pit bull ban is enacted. But wait…we won’t NEED another ACO if there is a pit bull ban!

        Hide behind the claim there is no such breed as a pit bull all you want but proponents of these maulers and killers have Web sites dedicated to their cause using the word “pit bull” in their name! So much for credibility…

        So just what IS a pit bull breed? Well, very soon in Elgin, I am betting it will be referred to as “BANNED”.

        • Anon says:

          Again, where’s your proof that “pit bulls” are a breed or that they’re vicious? What do you have but your OPINION? Your inflammatory diatribe has no basis in fact, and is illogical. Why should anyone listen to you?

          Legislation based on hysterical knee-jerks never makes for good policy.

          • Boxcar says:

            I guess I will have to let the city councilmen and city attorneys decide what is a breed and if these mauling and killing dogs are vicious. THEN, I will see if there is any “inflammatory diatribe” with “no basis in fact” and if it’s also “illogical”, from our elected officials.

            Frankly speaking, I don’t like your chances.

  34. elgindude says:

    I read this blog regularly and was remembering some of your comments
    from around the time of the last election Boxcar. From past comments it
    is obvious that you oppose illegal immigration. You refer to “anchor
    babies” “illegal alien enablers” the “boatload of illegals and their
    anchor babies” the “swarm of illegals in Elgin” and you refer to Emi
    Morales as a “soldier of the illegal alien army”. You also said “a vote
    for [Figueroa] means more illegals coming to Elgin”. Then you said

    “Figueroa is one dangerous man to the well-being of Elgin citizens who
    are victims of illegal anything. Aliens, drugs, burglars, etc. If you
    are for ANYTHING illegal, you should NOT be on a city council. PERIOD!”

    Breed bans and breed-discriminatory restrictions are illegal under state
    law. Oops. Looks like you contradicted yourself. It also looks like
    from your comments that Prigge and Gilliam shouldn’t be on the council
    since they are for an illegal ‘pit bull’ ban.

    Maybe you believe that by getting rid of the ‘pit bulls’ in Elgin -
    which a ‘pit bull’ ban will not do - that Elgin would be cracking down
    on illegal immigration ? Some citizens believe the propaganda that only
    drug dealers and gang members own ‘pit bulls’. They think if you can
    ban ‘pit bulls’ then when you see someone with one you could bust them
    for other violations of the law like illegal immigration.

    Chicago Alderman Ed Burke said something similar when he proposed a
    mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in Chicago. He said

    “When you drive down the street and see a gang banger with all kinds of
    gang regalia walking along with two or three pit bulls, it’s pretty
    simple for the policeman to raise the dog’s tail and see whether or not
    it’s spayed or neutered. If it’s not, the gang member is in
    violation.” (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/949173,neuter051408.article)

    With that “violation” comes a background check on the dog’s owner where
    the Chicago Police could conveniently bust him/her for any other
    violations of the law. Since the news regularly reports on Latino gangs
    it’s no mystery which ethnic group would have been profiled.

    Your “ban”-wagoning wouldn’t be the first time people saw an ordinance
    that is intended to racially profile owners of ‘pit bulls’ and with your
    comments about Morales and Figueroa well people can do the math. No
    matter how many times we see it though it’s still pretty racist.
    (”Gee-n-Jay” certainly thought you were racist. In his April 7 comment
    to this blog he referred to you as a “racist bigot” and “un-american.”
    http://elginite.org/blog/2009/04/07/election-day-open-thread-2/) It’s
    one thing to be against illegal immigration but what does that have to
    do with any one ethnic group? What does owning a ‘pit bull’ have to do
    with any one ethnic group?

  35. Boxcar says:

    “Breed bans and breed-discriminatory restrictions are illegal under state law.”

    Ahhh, yes, isn’t it just WONDERFUL that the state law does NOT apply to a Home Rule community as Elgin is on this topic? I think so. Oops, yourself.

    I did not see a pit bull/Morales/Figueroa connection before but it looks good reading it because, hopefully before too long, they will all have something in common: They will ALL have been banned in Elgin - two of them via voters and one of them via an ordinance!

    “What does owning a ‘pit bull’ have to do with any one ethnic group?”

    I don’t know, I never drew the co-relation, but I am starting to like your insinuation! It might be a valuable tool to use in order to panic citizens into supporting some kind of ban. Just like citizens were panicked into voting against Morales and Figueroa and the few others who feel it’s ok to enable illegal aliens to drain our city.

    Now…if we could just FIND Emi Morales and Juan Figueroa first of all and THEN get them to publicly come out against a pit bull ordinance, the citizens would, ONCE AGAIN, come out ahead - just like they did on Tuesday, April 7th.

    Anyone seen these two anti-American candidates, lately? Figueroa was so ashamed and embarrassed by his overwhelming defeat that he couldn’t even show up at his last meeting! (Low class) And Emi, who knows? Maybe Uncle Gil and his clan are still taking her to the woodshed for DARING to say she would accept an AFLA endorsement then say it’s ok to overcrowd a home in Elgin.

    Imagine that, an attorney who is supoposed to support the laws of the land advocating her anti-American LULAC platform AND then saying it’s ok to break the overcrowding laws of Elgin while campaigning for a UNITED STATES public office! LOL.

    How did that work for you, Emi?

    Anyone who sees these two former “candidates” please ask them to come out against a pit bull ban.


    • Jessica says:

      I know those candidates lost the election, but it doesn’t make any sense to say they were “banned” from Elgin.

      Also I don’t see why you would put “candidates” in quotes. They were candidates. Their names were on the ballot. No quotes about it “Boxcar.”

      • Boxcar says:

        I did error on the quotes. I was going to use another word that called for quotes and did not delete them. My apologies.

        Reminder-These candidates WERE banned from public office via voters. They were told via the ballot box they are not allowed to serve in the office of the city council and are banned from conducting themselves and city business as such. They may re-apply to have that ban lifted in two years at the next election, however.

        They can because, despite their anti-American platforms, this is America.

        Aren’t they lucky? Our American system allows them to re-apply for a government position serving citizens despite proclaiming they would NOT support some of the laws of the land they live on.

  36. elgindude says:

    “Ahhh, yes, isn’t it just WONDERFUL that the state law does NOT apply to
    a Home Rule community as Elgin is on this topic? ”

    Michelle’s quote addresses this nicely.

    “Last I heard, being a home rule unit does not give the elected officals
    carte blanche to violate anyone’s Constitutional rights to due process.”

    Your hypocrisy was just exposed and I called you on it. Just admit it.

    Speaking of admitting it it’s good to see that you’re admitting to being
    a racist. That should about do it for this discussion. You lose.

  37. Boxcar says:

    “Last I heard, being a home rule unit does not give the elected officals carte blanche to violate anyone’s Constitutional rights to due process.”

    I agree completely! Let those who feel a ban of mauling and killing animals is a violation of their rights go through the “due process”, become plaintiffs with a huge burden of proof task and sue the city. Best of luck. LOL.

    “Speaking of admitting it it’s good to see that you’re admitting to being a racist.”

    Which race? Is pit bull a race now? Is being an anti-American, humiliated and defeated local political candidate a race now?

    I must not have gotten that memo.

  38. Michelle says:

    Hopefully the Council members have enough sense to know that there is not any one dog breed that is an innate “killer and mauler”.

    That is why APBT’s, or dogs perceived to look like one, cannot be banned across the board as being vicious or dangerous; they have not provided tangible proof (due process) of every single dog having committed a dangerous act.

    We currently have leash laws. This is where most risk comes from, dogs not contained or at large. Such as the incident with Gretchen’s dog. The dogs that attacked should not have been loose in the first place.

    Again, I ask, why didn’t anyone ever report that these dogs were frequently loose?? And why didn’t she pursue charges– unless this occurred on the other owner’s property?

    “Ban-wagoning” is so apt here, too. When I hear or read stories about German Shepherds, Huskies, or other breeds attacking someone I certainly don’t then completely overreact, looking at that breed as “those maulers and killers” forevermore. Every incident like that has its unique set of circumstances leading up to the attack, and that is not a breed thing.

    I happened across a previous blog by Rick, actually exactly one year ago. He expressed his thoughts on the Council’s endorsement of a new law in their attempt to crack down on drug dealing, gangs and hookers, through which the names and photos of prostitute’s “johns” would be published. His statements very eloquently reflect my position on the breed-ban issue:

    Is Elgin doing too much?

    “So please instead of these knee-jerk reactions to the latest complaints, let’s see the application of some wisdom. There is no reason we cannot have legislation that is both just and moderate. City policies should promote growth and commerce, not the shuttering of storefronts.

    Our city should welcome different ideas rather than imposing the personal tastes of a few people on all.”

    He also refers to the “scarlet letter” as being extreme and serving no purpose, which applies here as well.

    Responsible owners of dogs who have done no harm, and their dogs, do not deserve a scarlet letter either.

    • Anon says:

      Michelle, I applaud your efforts to educate Boxcar, but at this point they’re unnecessary. It appears as if his hypocrisy has been exposed and what looks like a bit of racism is showing as well. Anything else he would have to say on this subject is just more of the same prejudice. It’s no surprise that racist people are prejudiced against other things like breeds of dog as well.

      I think elgindude was right. Looks like this discussion is about done, and Boxcar has lost the debate.

      • Michelle says:

        AGREED. (Actually, I’ve been thinking that for a while now.)

        BSL is basically the equivalent of racial profiling.

        • Boxcar says:

          It sure is the equivalent!

          And if dogs ran this planet instead of humans, humans would be victims of BSL’s.

          Don’t see a point but it sure has the making of a fun party game.

          I guess…

  39. Boxcar says:

    “We currently have leash laws. This is where most risk comes from, dogs not contained or at large.”

    Crafty attempt, yet, transparent in logic.

    So a pit bull gets loose and attacks or kills another dog or human and either runs back home or is dragged back by the owner. The police are called but because the policeman doesn’t see the pit bull off of a leash when he gets there suddenly there is noone to give a ticket to. Witnesses can ID the dog but when the police knock on the door, noone answers. Even if the owner DOES answer it’s a case of “My dog didn’t do it!”. Even if the owner admits it, how does that change the loss of life or blood caused by the pit bull? It doesn’t and, once again, it’s after blood has been spilled that advocates want tougher laws. They have no interest in PREVENTING an attack.

    Just how tough can a leash law get, anyway? How many years without parole do you give an owner after their pit bull mauls or kills someone or some animal? One year? Five? 15? Now, how realistic would that be to get into law? You see, pit bull advocates know this yet they hide behind it and try to make citizens feel bad about dogs instead of bad about their fellow humans - most who are innocent victims.

    If there is a pit bull ban all of the pit bull supporters can chip in and find a law firm (yes, a law FIRM. One lawyer isn’t enough against a city of 100K) to sue the city of Elgin and let the chips fall where they may.

    Again, I don’t like the pit bull’s chances.

  40. Boxcar says:

    Age-old bailout: When you need to try and even the score against strong opposing logic, call someone a racist. Perfected by civil rights leaders it is the shock value akin to pulling a fire alarm and it is designed to stun people into accepting the accuser’s point, even for a second. It’s cheap but comical.

    Even though you cannot cite which race it is, just call someone a racist.

    Even when someone asks specifically, “Which race?” don’t answer, just call someone a racist.

    I know! Maybe you mean I am a sort of “breedist” - prejudice against a breed of animal, not a race. Maybe that is where the problem exists…you think a breed of dog IS a race! That flaw in you I can understand. Well, I AM a “breedist”. I AM prejudice against a breed of dog that mauls and kills my fellow humans and their dogs and until this country is turned over to animals to run, I will continue to be.

    My advice is to round up all of the fellow mauling and killing advocates you can find, get some tin cans with slots cut into the tops and start shaking your cans in front of the Jewel stores looking for donations. You will need to scrape up all the money you can to hire a law firm to sue the city IF there is a pit bull ban. Think you will find a law firm to represent your cause for free? In THIS economy? LOL. Your case will not be THAT strong.

    Nope. After 2-3 days of no money and dirty looks from shoppers, you’ll go away. More likely, Jewel officials will ask you to leave the front of their stores at the request of their customers and not come back. Then you can join Juan Figueroa, Emi Morales and your pit bulls in commonality - you will have experienced being BANNED.

  41. Anon says:

    So you’re going to pick on civil rights leaders now? But no, you’re not racist! I’ll keep giving you this rope if you promise to continue hanging yourself with it. And did you forget that in response to this “What does owning a ‘pit bull’ have to do with any one ethnic group?” you said this:

    “I don’t know, I never drew the co-relation, but I am starting to like your insinuation! It might be a valuable tool to use in order to panic citizens into supporting some kind of ban. Just like citizens were panicked into voting against Morales and Figueroa and the few others who feel it’s ok to enable illegal aliens to drain our city.”

    You think it’s a good idea to draw a parallel between “pit bulls” and Latinos to use it as a scare tactic to get people to get on board with a breed ban, and you think that’s not racist?? These comments ARE racist against Latinos, but you would know that having said them. Keep twisting it around Boxcar, but elgindude NAILED you! You’re just mad because he not only exposed your hypocritical comments, he got you mad enough to expose what looks like some pretty big prejudices. He did a great job of it too! LOL!

    Likewise, all of us here have done an excellent job refuting you because unlike us, you give only opinion, have nothing to back it up with, and try to pass off irrational ramblings as substantive. You will inevitably get the last word you so desperately seek, but I think elgindude has effectively exposed you. Go on, backpedal some more though. It’s entertaining.

  42. Boxcar says:

    You misread my sarcastic retort to that claim. But that’s ok with me.
    It’s worth the laugh.


    Morales and Figueroa were crystal clear on the issue of letting illegal aliens of all races drain this city even at the expense of breaking laws to do it.

    Morales said as much at the AFLA forum. Remember that forum? That’s the one where she said she would gladly accept an endorsement from AFLA only to later get spanked from all her “cousins” afterward. THAT sinked her into oblivion so badly that she finished worse in the general election than she did in the primary! THAT’S unheard of in politics! She also said we all needed to be more sensitive to families living in over-crowded homes. Right.

    Figueroa said he felt it was just ducky to be on the city council while advocating breaking the law. I am prejudice against people like that be they Oriental, Hispanic, White, etc. Most Americans are in favor of laws or they change them. Neither of these banned candidates ever spoke about changing the laws they didn’t like. They just felt it was cool to break them.

    Thank God, CITIZENS saw through that and sent Figueroa and his nine years worth of pro-Hispanic baggage home and told attorney Morales to sit down and learn the Constitution (if she ever did) and other laws before she steps into an arena reserved for CITIZENS ONLY.

    But you’re wasting time here. All of you should be making up your donation cans for the Jewel stores to get ready for your lawsuit against the city about the pit bull ban.

    Maybe Morales and Figueroa will help your cause and volunteer to ask for money! I know they are both available every other Wednesday night.

    • Michelle says:

      FYI: “Oriental” refers to things, like rugs. “Asian” refers to people.

      That is, if you differentiate between the two.

      • Paul says:

        “FYI: “Oriental” refers to things, like rugs. “Asian” refers to people.”

        Really! Who made that rule? So rugs from the Orient are Oriental but people from the Orient are not Oriental? Did you poll Orientals for their preference or did you just make that up?

        I will give you credit for one statement: “There is no “strong opposing logic” here, at any rate. ”

        When your response to a debate about a pit bull ban is reduced to you arguing about what people from the Orient are called there is no “opposing logic”!


        • Michelle says:

          Whatever, man.

          As I said, FYI, and a direct response to the rude and racist remarks made by boxcar, not a comment to the ban debate (hence the indentation below his post, where my response to his or her specific statement begins).

          I guess you’re an exception, but this is a common etiquette taught, like, in grade school.

          No I didn’t poll people or make it up. See I don’t have to do either because I’m Asian.


          • Paul says:

            “No I didn’t poll people or make it up. See I don’t have to do either because I’m Asian.”

            Congratulations, I’m human. From a humanist perspective I find your statement racist, offensive and rude.
            Nevertheless, are you from Saudi Arabia or the Orient? D’oh!
            Consider the arrogance you must be full of to think you speak for all for the people from Saudi Arabia to Japan and in between! Wow.
            And speaking of grade school, shouldn’t there be a comma after your “No” and “See”!

            “Whatever, man.”

            Are you sexist, too? That is actually your opening argument in response???? Wow.

            “rude and racist remarks made by boxcar, ”

            Those are your opinions. For opinions to have any degree of validity they must be supported with basis, which you utterly fail/refuse to provide. He didn’t make derogatory comments about you. You made derogatory comments about him. Incredibly, in your bizarro world, he is the rude one? You need to go back to YOUR grade school days to relearn basic lessons on behavior and logic.

  43. Boxcar says:

    It wasn’t taught in MY grade school. And I had Oriental teachers, too.

    • RS says:

      The term has dropped out of use in the past two or three decades. Perhaps Edward Said had something to do with it–I don’t know, but language changes and we might as well go with the flow.

      • Paul says:

        “language changes and we might as well go with the flow”

        Evidently, you misunderstand the point of language. Language is the conveyance of information.
        The orient is a geographical area within Asia. Someone claiming they are Asian is about equivalent of a new neighbor telling you they are from N. America. It tells you virtually nothing.
        Given that Asia extends from Saudi Arabia to Japan, being Asian tells you what? Virtually nothing. Someone from the orient is from eastern Asia. Given that Saudis, Persians, Pakis and Indians are probably not offended by the term oriental, we thus have an excellent indication as to where Michelle is from.
        This has the makings of a great comedy routine. Things from there are called that, yes. But not people! That offends those people from there. Even the people from there calls thing from there that, but they themselves are not that. What do call you people from there? Well, we usually just say “hey you, no not you, the other you. Yeah, you with the eyes.”
        What do you call people from the country of Niger?
        Not nigers!

        • RS says:

          The term ‘orient’ itself has changed meanings in time. It used to mean the Middle East. I think that’s why the only term where ‘oriental’ remains in use is in the term ‘oriental rug’ which actually refers to rugs made in the Middle East/South Asia.

          You’re right that Asian itself is not very descriptive, but neither is ‘oriental.’ Today you see the terms East Asian, South Asian, Southeast Asian, Middle Eastern, etc.

          • Michelle says:

            Right. Also, any job application has Asian listed in the ethnic disclosure section, never “Oriental”. Like I said initially, and as you have tried to explain, it’s just because that term has come to be used as a noun or adjective for things, not people. Obviously, there are always going to be people who don’t care about proper semantics or differentiating between people and objects.

            Just to clarify, being Asian doesn’t give an idea where I’m from (which is IL), but a general idea of my heritage, which is the whole point of that term.

          • Paul says:

            “Just to clarify, being Asian doesn’t give an idea where I’m from (which is IL), but a general idea of my heritage, which is the whole point of that term.”

            Just to clarify, yet again, NO, IT DOESN’T. You’re calling yourself “asian” is so vague as to be non-descriptive. Is your heritage persian, or chinese? Or neither? No one has any “general idea”.
            And just to clarify, yet again, you are not the arbitor of proper semantics. Incredible, eh! What is incredible is your arrogance in assuming you are the authority.

  44. Julia says:

    It concerns me that Council Member Prigge used a newspaper article from Texas to illustrate the need for a breed ban in Elgin, because he has pledged that “any correspondence from anyone not living or working in Elgin to me on this issue is being completely disregarded - on both sides of the issue.” If he is disregarding correspondence, he should not be relying on newspaper articles from other cities or states. The one thing that I will give Council Member Prigge credit for, is that he is the only City Council Member, including the mayor, who has given me the courtesy of a response to my correspondence. He advises that the plan he is supporting is one where all responsible pit bull owners will support because it initially addresses irresponsible pit bull owners. I would prefer that he support a plan that all DOG owners will support because it holds irresponsible DOG owners responsible for their pets. He also lamented that “it seems we never hear from responsible pit bull owners trying to address animals and owners that give their dogs a bad name…”. In my opinion, responsible owners are hesitant to speak up because they often feel that they are not listened to with a critical ear, and instead are summarily dismissed as those people who own those dogs. They may also be concerned with placing a target on themselves and their dogs, ensuring that their doors will be some of the first knocked upon by animal control if BSL prevails.

    I am also concerned that Mayor Schock has expressed support for breed bans in the past for dogs other than German Shepard Dogs, as he owns one.

    As informed by Elgin Animal Control Officer James Rog, there were 369 reports involving animal bites in the city from 2006 through Aug. 31 of this year. 90 percent of those bites are attributed to dogs, with 71 of those involving dogs identified as pit bulls. How many of those 71 dogs were misidentified as pit bulls? http://www.pitbullsontheweb.com/petbull/findpit.html. What about the other 298 reported bites? How will restrictions on a specific type of dog protect the majority of bite victims? Why isn’t anyone concerned that 80% of reported dog bites in Elgin are caused by dogs other than pit bulls?

    It is well documented that BSL has failed to decrease dog bites and improve public safety. It is also expensive to enforce. The city of Highland Park, Illinois considered BSL this summer, and opted for a non- breed specific solution. I am urging Elgin’s City Council to pay attention to the Highland Park ordinance, which place the responsibility where it belong - with irresponsible dog owners.

    Reading between the lines, some Elgin residents are concerned with changes in demographics that are attributed to increases in crime. If crime, gang and drug activity are the problem, than address those problems. Banning a specific dog is not the solution as criminals will simply replace pit bulls type dogs with another non banned breed.

    To those of you who support BSL due to misinformation, stereotypes, ignorance and fear, you are treading on a slippery slope. It may be someone else’s dog at risk now, but your dog could be next.

    • Common Sense Clarence Hayward says:

      I am afraid the pit bull issue is going to be the opening the Mayor needs to tax all dog owners in Elgin. He wanted to do it earlier but the past city council wisely turned him down.

      I don’t want my toy poodle Marcy becoming an Elgin revenue producer.

      Common Sense Clarence Hayward

      • Julia says:

        Common Sense Clarence-

        Elgin eliminated dog registration because the program cost more to administer than it was producing in revenue, so I find it unlikely such a program would be resurrected across the board. What I fear that Elgin will do is single out certain dogs for registration, beginning with “pit bull type” dogs. Responsible, law abiding owners will register their dogs and the irresponsible owners who are fueling residents’ concerns in the first place will not. This will not solve the problem.

        I think that Elgin’s current animal ordinance has all the teeth (no pun intended) it needs to deal with the problem of irresponsible dog owners. It just needs to be enforced. Unfortunately, Elgin has ONE animal control officer who is spread thin. If the Mayor and City Council feel the need to ramp up the ordinance, I strongly encourage them to look at non-breed specific solutions, such as the one implemented by Highland Park, IL this summer. Ultimately, enforcement will remain an issue.

        • Common Sense Clarence Hayward says:

          Thanks Julia,

          I would almost bet money that all dog owners are going to get charged for their pets in response to the pit bull issue. I hope I am wrong.

          Elgin has a history of taxing it’s citizens by raising their yard waste costs, phone taxes, extra garbage taxes, etc. so it would fit right in if they decide to tax my beloved poodle named Marcy.

          I will be barking mad if I have to pay anymore money for Marcy. The vet bill every year is high enough.

          I don’t think they are going to have a breed specific ordinance because that would probably cost too much in litigation costs. Again I could be wrong.

          I hope they learned their lesson in avoiding litigation issues with the high cost to the taxpayers with the Futterman class action lawsuit currently at 8.5 million dollars and counting with no end in sight.

          I told the mayor in a letter to the paper way back in 2004 the new boundary plan made common sense that U46 wanted to initiate. Kids should be able to go to their neighborhood school with their friends and be close to home for after school activities. Plus we don’t need to burn more carbon spewing gas to pollute the environment with more costly school busing. It just makes common sense.

          Why the mayor and the informal majority of the city council ever sparked talk of litigation and hiring Futterman law firm is beyond me. They could have researched how much Futterman cost taxpayers in a similiar lawsuit in Rockford in the past and learned from that that millions and millions of dollars were paid to the lawyers by the taxpayers. They tabled their formal vote to consider hiring Futterman but the parents group went on to hire Futterman and the U46 taxpayers have been paying for it ever since to the tune of 8.5 million dollars and growing every week.

          U46 has had to lay off teachers, support staff, and programs. Three of the four of the informal majority to hire Futterman lost their reelection. Nobody won anything except the blasted lawyers won 8.5 million dollars from the taxpayers.

          The moral from this is a spark of litigation talk can quickly flash into a raging, out of control, California forest fire of litigation costing the taxpayers dearly as well as the people who lost their jobs due to needed budget cuts to help pay the lawyers.

          It is too bad the mayor and his cronies were not firefighters in their previous profession. Maybe if they had been firefighters they would have had better life experience and common sense.

  45. Julia says:

    Common Sense Clarence,

    Elgin is the first city where I have lived that does not require dog registration and provides “free” basic garbage service to its citizens. I say “free” because we obviously pay for the service through our taxes. Dog registration has already proven ineffective, so let’s leave that off the table. I don’t know the history on the garbage issue, but I would prefer to pay for my own garbage service, either directly or under a municipal contract than to receive it for “free” from the city. Perhaps they tried this in the past and had too many problems with lapses in garbage service due to non payment? It sounds like you have lived in Elgin for a long time. Maybe you can educate me.


    • Common Sense Clarence Hayward says:


      I have lived in Elgin since 1971 when I moved here with my family as a 17 year old. Ever since we got the nice garbage cans if you have more than fits in the can you need a sticker for the extra bag or two or whatever.

      If you have a big item you need a sticker for that as well unless it is the one week a year when almost any amount or size will be picked up for free.

      One common sense suggestion I got from my number one critic Herguth is that if you have an extra bag of garbage instead of buying a sticker just put it in a neighbor’s can of garbage that isn’t quite full that week. That is a good idea.

      I am thankful for the scavenger recyclers who come around in their trucks looking for something they can sell or recycle. Before I try a sticker for big stuff I will see if the scavenger trucker is interested in it.

  46. WaWaWaWaitaMinute says:

    Yesterday I visited Mr. Prigge’s Internet site and saw he is going to have a spaghetti dinner fundraiser on Oct. 27th at the Elgin Legion. Then I called him and had a wonderful 20 minute conversation about the audit the city did looking for illegal workers, budget cuts, Lords Park Zoo (he’s all for it!), pit bulls. He is a very personable man. He said he will take questions from the audience. I wish I could go but can’t. He did say that he favors a ban on pit bulls (me too!) but only under certain conditions. At the end of my call with him I came away impressed with his passion for Elgin. He also said that 85% of the e-mails he’s received on pit bulls are from out-of-town people against a ban and how he is only interested in listening to Elgin people. That also impressed me because I don’t want any councilman listening to people other than their own citizens. He said they don’t matter to him and I told him he’s right!

    • Out of towner says:

      Mr. Prigge is not right. An address does not give a person a monopoly on the truth. The culture of animal welfare in your city concerns everyone, pets, pet-owners and non-pet owners, and you will only benefit from good information.

      I submit the following for Elgin’s consideration.

      First, there is no scientific evidence, however the citizens of Elgin may conceive of their experience, that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a human being than another kind of dog. None.

      Second, breed regulation has not produced a reduction in dog bites wherever it has been tried, in the U.S. or elsewhere. Large cities in this country, including Chicago, have seen significant reductions in reports of dog bites since the 1970’s without resorting to breed regulation. Two European countries — Holland and Italy — have recently repealed their breed specific regulations because they did not result in a reduction in dog bites. Denver, Colorado, home to the harshest breed ban in the country, continued to suffer a higher rate of incidence of people hospitalized for dog bites than the breed-neutral Colorado counties, for years after they enacted and enforced their ban. That sounds to me as though they put their energies in the wrong direction.

      I believe that Elgin has only one animal control officer. I saw among these comments a link to the Best Friends calculator. Given the dismal history of breed bans in cities like Denver, I think you should take a look at that and think about whether you want to expend precious public resources in attempting to enforce a law that has never produced the desired outcome. I believe you would be well-advised to think about how you can foster a climate of responsible ownership of all dogs. Humane care, custody and control of all dogs is the key to a safer community. This is true, regardless of how close or far away I am from Elgin.

      • Boxcar says:

        Prigge is right. Only Elgin citizens count on Elgin issues. He should consider facts from anywhere but, opinions? No way. If you do not live in Elgin, do not tell Elgin citizens what to do. Share the facts but keep your opinions to yourself or tell them to YOUR OWN elected officials.

      • rm says:

        Jeeeez, is this whole subject tedious. Not that some carpet-bagging “out of towner” should care, but Elgin has major budgetary challenges aggravated by some of the state’s highest unemployment, illegal alien labor, major foreclosure and real estate problems, a shriveling retail base, deteriorating schools, serious gang and narcotics activity, sewage backing up into thousands of homes, and we’re supposed to be occupied with the status of a dog breed? Just flip a coin, decide it, and move on already.

      • Anonymous says:

        “First, there is no scientific evidence, however the citizens of Elgin may conceive of their experience, that one kind of dog is more likely to injure a human being than another kind of dog. None. ”

        Really! So a 5 pound Chihuahua is just as much a danger to me as a 100 pound Pit Bull? I can readily find factual evidence of Pit Bulls attacking and killing adult humans. Yet I can’t find any such evidence of Chihuahuas doing the same.
        One of us is an idiot here, either you or I. Based on how you may conceive of your experience you decide which one of us!

        “Second, breed regulation has not produced a reduction in dog bites wherever it has been tried”

        I’ll bet you have no scientific evidence of that. “None.”
        So banning Pit Bulls (eliminating Pit Bulls) won’t reduce the number of Pit Bulls nor reduce the number of Pit Bulls dog bites??? One of us is an idiot here. It could be me.

        Figures lie and liars figure. The Chihuahua might indeed be more apt to bite me. It isn’t the dog bite per se that so concerns me as it the size of the dog bite and where that dog bite might locate on my person. A Chihuahua attack might render me with red marks on my ankles. A Pit Bull attack might render me dead. Not only do you fail to make such relevant distinctions, your objective is clearly to obscure such distinctions.

        For scientific evidence, refer back to the beginning of this thread. Was it Rosie the Chihuahua running around loose in Elgin that mauled the 2 Pit Bulls being walked on a leash? Or was it the other-way around? Or was it just another made-up media story to discredit Pit Bulls and give us Elginite morons the misperception that Pit Bulls aren’t any more dangerous than Chihuahuas!!!!

        • Boxcar says:

          Look at the photo at the top of this thread, for God’s sake!

          FIFTY Chihuahua’s could not have done that damage to this dog. This dog was attacked in a manner that an animal would kill it’s prey, not like other dogs who bite and try to escape from a dangerous situation. I predict there WILL be a ban in Elgin and it makes perfect sense.

          I strongly urge all citizens to support every councilman who is in favor of a ban. I know councilman Prigge is pushing for this and God Bless him for that.

          If you need a reminder, look at the photo again. Do you think this dog initiated an attack? Do you think this dog ran loose? Do you think this dog had a chance to get away?

          Is a dog that can do this type of shredding of another animal the type of breed we want in Elgin?

          Hell no.

  47. Common Sense Clarence Hayward says:

    Did Councilman Prigge have anything to say about whether dogs are going to have to be registered or whatever in Elgin?

  48. WaWaWaWaitaMinute says:

    No, he didn’t. He did say the fines for dog attacks were going to skyrocket to $1000.00, though.

  49. Karen says:

    fricken disgusting how stupid AND ignorant people are.

    My dog is pit and hates other dogs but loves people, but of course hes on a leash when we go for walks…thats called being a responsible owner. Letting my dog roam the yard free with no fence knowing he hates dogs is a lawsuit waiting to happen don’t be stupid and ban a breed because an owner is an idiot. And these idiots that don’t obey a leash law, do you think their going to obey a new law put into effect?

    I’ve had several times in RLB where dogs on no leashes attacked him and left bite wounds and scratches. I even filed reports with the police. You want to talk about aggressive dogs? They may be small but pomeranians (not sure of spelling)shit-zus and other dogs have done damage to my dog and he didn’t bite a single one. Now if my dog would have bitten back then it would get categorized as “pit bull attacks” Please….stop being ignorant because you hear the name “pit bull”

  50. Boxcar says:

    When a Pomeranian bites me it will run away and I can kick it like a football into the street. Stubbing my toe on a bed corner hurts more.
    When a pitbull attacks it never runs away unless it’s called back by its “bad” owner and earns you a trip to the E.R.

    Just owning a leash does not make you a responsible pet owner. Muzzling a dog that kills human beings DOES.

    • Bryan says:

      Boxcar -

      It’s pretty apparent through all of your posts that you aren’t a dog owner at all. Have you ever been bit by a dog? Not just a pit bull, any dog?

      If you feel the need to post ignorant posts on this site, that is your right and I wouldn’t want that taken away from you. It’s my right to own my pit and frankly if Elgin does decide to ban them, I’ll keep her anyway.

      Thanks for your input dipshit, but if you seriously have no educated knowledge of dogs or dog bites, you shouldn’t have a say in this conversation.

      Maybe you’d benefit from a Pomeranian bite…

      • Boxcar says:

        “It’s pretty apparent through all of your posts that you aren’t a dog owner at all.”

        Not now, but I have been several times.

        “Have you ever been bit by a dog?”


        “It’s my right to own my pit and frankly if Elgin does decide to ban them, I’ll keep her anyway.”

        Owning a dangerous breed of animal is not a right. If it was, many goofs would own lions and tigers. Remember, they can be trained, too. Right? LOL. Many people say the same thing about things that are illegal. They pay the price if caught, however, and I would assume if there is a ban on this killer breed of animal and you are caught you will be arrested and the animal you own confiscated. Sounds simple to me.

        “Thanks for your input dipshit, but if you seriously have no educated knowledge of dogs or dog bites, you shouldn’t have a say in this conversation.”

        Oh, I see. I suppose I have to “understand” a dog that mauls and kills before I can work to ban them. It’s not enough to know these animals can and have taken human life before. I see you obviously went to high school with that range of vocabulary. I’m proud of you.

        I do know this: pit bulls are killers and maulers. Pomeranians aren’t. My children and I will survive a Pomeranian bite or attack. We may not if it’s a pit bull attack.

        If owning a pit bull is related to a short apendage I would suggest watching late night infomercials and ordering a free sample in the mail. Just pay for shipping and handling.

  51. Matt says:

    The issue with muzzling dogs that are considered “dangerous” is two fold. The first issue is that all the friendly dogs that fall into that category will now be muzzled and less likely to be socialized and therefore more likely to become aggressive. The second issue is that most attacks by “pit bulls” occur when the dogs are off leash roaming the streets without the owners knowledge. Do you think they will be muzzled then? There is simply no way to address this issue without money being spent on a city wide intitiave to do temperment tests on every dog regardless of breed with penalties for not complying and training required for aggression issues.

    Matt Covey
    Owner Suburban K-9
    Bark Avenue Daycamp

  52. Paul says:

    “Jeeeez, is this whole subject tedious. ”

    I find it quite fascinating.
    Where else can you learn that the dog breed 99% of us know as Pit Bull isn’t Pit Bull. Now we call it, uh, the breed formerly known as Pit Bull!
    Where else can you learn that, based on some scientific statistical documents, the Chihuahua may be more dangerous than the Pit Bull.
    Where else can you learn that term oriental no longer means what 99% think it means.
    I think it has something to do with evolution of language. 10 years ago language (and the presidency of Clinton) was dependent on whatever the definition of is, was. Now the definition of is is whatever you say it is, not what everyone else thinks it is.
    Kind of like the US Constitution being now defined as a living document, which means that whatever you thought it’s meaning was in the past is irrelevant. It’s meaning now is whatever the powers that be says it means, now. The beauty of getting to re-define the language is that you can never be wrong and always be right. And if anyone disagrees with you it’s because society hasn’t evolved enough to establish re-education camps yet.
    Tedious??? Hardly.

    • rm says:

      Good one, Paul.

      By the way, you might want to visit the “Oriental” Institute at the University of Chicago while you can - even if most of its displays relate to the “Middle East,” a term which our cultural police at The New York Times and NPR haven’t yet cast into PC purgatory.

  53. Mike Robins says:

    Hello all, I have not checked in for a while! lots of interesting data. Well here is some more. Remember Danny DiVito as the newspaper writer in LA Confidential, hush hush, on the QT. Here we go, So far MR. Prigge is for the ban, he does have some very convincing points of view if one agrees or not. Mike Warren has expressed some thoughts that he is not sold on it from my sources. Our Mayor, Mr. Schock is not sold on the ban however is in favor of the hefty 1000.00 fine and getting certain dogs regestered. Dave Kaptain is concerned of a law suit against the city, Bob Gilliam will support Mr. Prigge on the ban. Steffan, unknown. Next week at the meeting of the whole, our city attorney, who I might add is very good at research, will address the council if Elgin can enact a ban on certain dogs and the legalities of the issue. Most or all of the vets contacted stated they would not put the dog down just for cause of the breed. It would have to be more serious circumstances. This issue would have to be resolved before any arrangements would work.
    There is an ex city council candidate who is in training for a city job, so far, not going so well. Word has it, might not be meant to be, ouch, time will tell!
    There is a nursing home in our city that is having some problems with sexual related assualts. They may need to become more responsive as to who can go and come at will. We don’t have enough police to keep one there 24-7. No more news on the larkin situation. Hush Hush on the QT. See you soon, get your flu shot!

    • Julia says:

      The problem with Mr. Prigge is that he appears unwilling to consider any information or opinions that are contrary to his own, and more important, that his perspective of breed-specific legislation just might be wrong.

  54. Michelle says:

    I’d like to share two personal examples of incidents I experienced just this past week.

    Monday Oct. 12, when I went out into my back yard I found a man hiding in my neighbor’s yard behind a bush. He had committed a theft and was hiding from the police. My dogs stood at the (chain-link) fence barking at him– thankfully, as I knew that would probably prevent him from coming into my yard. Even when he came right over to the fence, they only barked at him. They did not jump over and instantly maul and kill him. They didn’t even try to bite at him through the fence or anything like that.

    Saturday Oct. 17, my other neighbor’s Scottish terrier bit my 75lb bulldog mix on the foot. And guess what? He clamped down and would not let go. My dog ended up with the bottom of his foot ripped open. By the way, this was also the 4th time that dog has bitten mine.

    Please don’t buy into all the myths that only certain breeds or types can cause harm, and that “most” dogs except for ‘pit bulls’ will bite quickly and run away immediately. This is a harmful fallacy to believe in, for your safety, your pets’ safety, and most importantly, for children’s safety.

    • Julia says:


      There is a Chihuahua in my neighborhood whose twenty-something female owner does not seem to think that Elgin’s leash law applies to her. Again this week we had another episode where the Chihuahua bolted off its owner’s property, chasing down the sidewalk (public property) after my much larger dog. One of these days, someone’s dog is going to react to this aggressive, yappy dog and the story will not have a happy ending. The at large Chihuahua will become another statistic for Prigge’s mauling list, while the legally leashed dog will be branded the vicious “fill in the blank.”

      • Michelle says:

        Exactly. And I have the same situation here, two houses down the people have their 3 chihuahuas running loose and they often come to my fence barking at my dogs. One day a few weeks ago they chased after a kid walking past their house.

        • Boxcar says:

          Has anyone ever thought about calling the police about this dog? Has anyone ever thought about a soccer-style kick to the curb?

          Or, is it too much fun to talk about it and try to gain sympathy by comparing it to a dog that mauls and kills in an attempt to divert attention from the real issue here?

          I would think 2 squirts of a mace-like chemical would send the little dog back to Taco Bell.

          • Julia says:

            Yes, I am the “bad” neighbor who finally reported the annoying, off leash Chihuahua in my neighborhood. I called the non-emergency number for dispatch, was transferred to the main desk, then of ACO Rog, then back to dispatch where my request was finally acted upon.

            This isn’t an attempt to gain sympathy or divert attention. It is yet another example of the fact that Elgin does not have a dog problem, it has an irresponsible owner problem, which is not going to be solved by BSL against any particular type of dog.

  55. Michelle says:

    Breed specific laws do not protect

    Kumpf said to be considered vicious, a dog must be part of the pit bull breed or have a history. In this case, the mastiff-mix met neither criteria.”


  56. Mike Robins says:

    Julia/Michelle, hello, checking in after a nap on the couch! Next time the dogs are running loose, you can call the police on your cell, without giving your info if you wish, and give the address of the dogs owner. Or you can leave a message with James Rogue, the animal control officer with Elgin. The anti-cruelty society in cgo. sends out an investigator on certain cases. They have night vision lenses and check on food,water,housing, and weather conditions over a 24 hr. period, and then approach the owners with the locals or the county sheriffs. This is for abuse or neglect cases as in a dog out in the freezing cold all night. I received tips during the campaign and would go out at night and bark out the window of my car on certain blocks to locate which address the dog was at. The dogs also need per.state law, certain shots, or fines can be given on the spot!
    This weeks council meeting will address the ban issue at the meeting of the whole as our city attorney is giving research and data to the council members.
    Speaking of the council everyone, what are some of your thoughts after the first 6 months. Who is taking direction good or bad on new agendas mentioned during the campaign.

    • Paul says:

      “I received tips during the campaign and would go out at night and bark out the window of my car”

      Were you campaigning for dog catcher!

    • Julia says:

      Is the city attorney actually presenting at the meeting on 10/28? I just checked the agenda and there was nothing listed.

      I recently mentioned to the City Council that I think there is a lack of transparency. It is also my opinion that a certain member of the council, while he states he is willing to speak with any resident about any issue, is unwilling to consider any information or opinions that are contrary to his own, let alone consider for even a second that his position might be wrong.

  57. Mike Robins says:

    Paul, thats a good one, I had to chuckle, I guess we all have our querks! Julia, yes, that is what I was told, however, call the city clerks office tomorrow, 847-931-6100. The office staff will have the agenda for both meetings for the 28th. You can also sign in at the table in the lobby upstairs if you with to talk, however, we can not talk on something on the agenda that evening. Maybe for the future, keep it in mind. Prigge has a ten dollar dinner and town hall meet tomorrow night at the legion. Go talk to him about your concerns, it’s not his nature to shut people out, unless one does not live in Elgin.
    Unbeleivable, I went to get the H1N1 shot at larkin today. When I got our of the car, I felt this strange erie feeling looking around walking over to the line. I have never seen anything like this in 51 years on this planet, the line was from the front of the building, down the street toward Trefons. Once inside, following some confusion, everyone is walking down the hall in lines like cattle and waiting. After a maze of hallways, we end up in a line with clip boards to fill out answers to questions. Then after this, we go down another hallway to the gym, where they give the shots, after another line! The staff was very friendly during this entire process. After the shot, you have to then go over to a waiting area for 10 minutes to make sure your ok to leave. While I was sitting next to a woman, I mentioned to her I had NEVER seen anything like this, that I felt like I was in the movie, I am Legend with Will Smith. She mentioned the book, The Stand by Steven King. She felt it was scary that in our country, we had to rush citizens to go through this kind of process without any past plan or knowledge this was coming. Also, some in line were starting to panic as a rumor was circulating that you had to live in Kane county to get the shot. I could see the concern in peoples faces during the process, it really was like being in a movie, like something was coming that everyone would be affected by. My wife has felt for many years that the world will end by a virus such as Ebola, not nuclear war or starvation. Today sure felt like a start to a future possibility! Then on the way out, the helicopters were flying over and around us.

    • Boxcar says:

      You can bet your life there were PLENTY of illegal aliens in those lines.

      Just think of the possibility that a REAL citizen, one who deserves and is entitled to get a shot, may not have gotten one if they ran out or saw the line was too long.

      That’s sickening. Worse than the flu if you ask me because the sickness of illegal aliens just doesn’t go away.

      • Julia says:

        Where else in the world are non-citizens entitled to the protections of the host country’s constitution?

    • Julia says:


      If the line was only out in front of Trefons, it was short when you arrived. I arrived with my children at 3:35 p.m., and the line was wrapped around the corner by the Evangelical Church and went way down the block. 3 hours and 15 minutes total. I could not help but notice how inconsiderate people were of the homeowners’ property: trampling their front yards and helping themselves to seats on retaining walls up by their front doors. I was surprised there were relatively few line cutters, and Elgin’s finest dealt with those who did beautifully.

      I was the first time I have ever taken advantage of “free” services from the county. I would have waited until the vaccine was commercially available and paid for it out of my own pocket like I did with the seasonal flu vaccine if I was not concerned about availability.

      Thanks for the advice. I really don’t want to support a politician I don’t agree with by making a donation and attending a dinner, but I might call him on the off chance is is not as arrogant and closed minded as he seems in e-mail.


  58. Mike Robins says:

    Julia, I would have paid 50.00 dollars at my doctors office to skip yesterday. Im glad I was not one of those home owners.
    I thought of something last week and again today with this blog site. We need to have an open post on CITY MATTERS. Or maybe call it OUR COUNCIL AND CITY AGENDAS. We keep using our Pit Bull section to bring in other issues, if we had the above, we could all continue to discuss Elgin issues!
    SPEAKING OF ELGIN ISSUES-What do all of you think of the idea, not mine, of bringing back vehicle stickers to put on our car windows due to the loss of revenue from the boat? BTW, I have told approx. 25 people in the last two weeks of this site, all of them opened their eyes as they liked the idea, however, never heard of this site. Most told me they would check it out without me saying who I am or what I did in the campaign. Get the word out about this site. Ask your friends, family and neighbors to post there thoughts about new vehicle stickers. Will this be a negative or a positive for city revenue. It is said that the vehicle stickers have not been needed in the past due to boat revenue. The center may be closed for one day or two per. week. The I-9 form is used by subcontracters doing work for the city, however, only IDs are used for the I-9 form as state law prohibits the mandatory use of e-verify for this purpose. One of our council members is working on having a temp agency use e-verify on a voluntary basis here in Elgin. Julia, BTW, I told one of our sergeants today that I have always thought our police force is very user friendly with the public and nice to work with. Some suburbs northwest of cgo. I can not say this about. Im tired of the rain! Chow

    • jessica says:

      If you scroll up to the top and click on “forum,” you may sign up and create topics and discussions within that section. Anyone who signs up may reply.

    • RS says:

      Hi Mike,
      That’s a great idea. As Jessica mentioned you can use the forum of course. But I also created a post for you here:


      And from now on there will be a weekend open thread. That should be good enough for now, right? Thanks for the suggestion!

      Also keep in mind that once you’re logged in you can comment on any news item and that will create a thread for posting comments.

    • Paul says:

      “bringing back vehicle stickers to put on our car windows due to the loss of revenue from the boat? ”

      Brilliant! We can call it the vehicle tax to fund wealthy seniors.
      I’m sure in today’s economy everyone has extra money laying around to give to the city so the city can continue to “gift” 3/4 of a million dollars to seniors as bribes for their votes.
      The city doesn’t have a revenue problem. They have a spending problem. Imposing new taxes won’t solve that problem.

      How about a dog tax to fund wealthy seniors?

  59. rm says:

    Geez… given the record number of comments to this particular post I really had thought RS would blog about the pit bull shootout on Liberty.

    Another point, too… The house, 210 South Liberty, has a rich and diverse history. While today serving as a Mexican drug dealer’s residence conveniently located across the street from another under-performing U-46 school, the house previously was home to Mr. Pedro Diaz, the murderer of Hanover Park resident Laura Rose Floden in 1997.

    Surprised no media outlet mentioned this? Guess the media is still trying to maintain the image that the Lords Park zoo houses all the wild animals in Elgin.

  60. Gibster says:

    The City Council will be speaking about thier DANGEROUS BREED band on Wednesday January 24th, 6:00 pm.


    $100 Dangerous Breed license fee, muzzling while walking by adults only plus 6ft yard fencing and dangeours dog signs required.

    TOO much $$$ and hardship for even the modest and employeed/responsible owener. Cook Co. area of Elgin has 3% registered pitbull mixes on the roster… how many will end up at the shelter?

    • sick of gossip says:

      I am no fan of big mean dogs or big mean owners.

      But in the case of the 21 pit bulls, if the city were able to enforce their limit on dogs in a household (isn’t it 3?), this wouldn’t have happened.

  61. Common Sense Clarence Hayward says:

    I am sure glad that the city took my advice and didn’t make my toy poodle Marcy or others with less dangerous dogs a revenue generator for the city.

    • Boxcar says:

      I’m sure it weighed heavily in their decision-making process and was at the forefront of their mind 100% of the time. It wasn’t about safety in the neighborhoods. It was all about a toy poodle and it’s owner’s highly sought-after and insightful advice on an important issue.

  62. Common Sense Clarence Hayward says:

    They probably remembered how badly I sang a couple lines from Beatle George Harrison’s song Taxman at the city council meeting when the mayor a couple of years ago wanted to tax my toy poodle Marcy to fund a full time animal control officer and didn’t want to hear my singing again.

  63. Gibster says:

    Had enough with Elgin City officials and Council not listening to the masses?

    See the latest webisode for “Think Elgin 2030″ coverage. This week focusing on the Council Meeting and new Animal Control Ordinance. http://www.Elgin2030.com

  64. That’s so sad.

    But honestly, does it really need government attention? That is, in comparison with real community issues like education and homelessness?

    Just a thought.

  65. WaWaWaWaitaMinute says:

    My neighbor just told me she heard the police had to shoot 2 pit bulls while they were attacking a little boy at Festival Park yesterday near the water fountain. She said it was very crowded with kids and families who saw the attack and the shootings! I can’t find anything in the Daily Herald or the Courier News online editions. Does anyone know anything about this?

  66. WaWaWaWaitaMinute says:

    The Mayor and his dog encounter two loose pit bulls near his home. He fends them off until the owners pull them back. No leashes, no rabies tags, no collars. 5 tickets are given and a notice to appear in court. The conspiracy theories are being created now.

    Here’s what we will read and, of course, SEE, as I’m sure someone will leap onto a kitchen step stool and make a video:

    1. There is no such breed of dog as “pit bull.”
    2. The Mayor taunted the dogs to come off their porch.
    3. Why is the Mayor out late at night?
    4. The Mayor should not be kicking dogs.
    5. Anybody who does not agree is an a**hole, douchebag or a b**ch.

    The new video will debut by week’s end. The blogs have already started. Letters to the editors are coming along with an election.

  67. Anonymous says:

    In the past few weeks, two Elgin letter carriers have been attacked and bitten by pit bulls, and one has been killed by the police for attempting to attack them bringing it to a total of three shot by the police. None of the dogs killed had their required rabies shots.

    In the past ten days a two year old boy was killed by the family pit bulls in California. A Yorkshire terrier who was being walked by its owner was attacked, carried away and killed by a pit bull in Colorado. A 71 year old man in Tennessee was killed by a pit bull while walking in an open lot to a store. In February, a 38 year old Pennsylvania woman was killed by a pit bull. Last month a nine year old girl was killed by her own pit bull in Indiana.

    Are the pit bulls in these five states any different than the ones in Elgin, Illinois? No, they are not.

    Who IN ELGIN will have to die before someone stands up and tells the city council to re-grow a pair, and tell the inadequate-feeling pit bull owners in this city to sit down, shut-up and ban these dogs? Who will tell the pit bull owners in this town if they do not like the laws in Elgin, they should crate their pit bull and move?

    Or, does a killing have to happen to someone of status in this city before that happens? A local business persons child, a company executive, a local or state politician? Maybe someone beloved in the community?

  68. NoneYa says:

    Oh b/c Rottweilers and Mastiffs are NOT capable of biting and shredding another dog. Get the F*** outta here. Pitbulls arent the only dogs capable of doing what they do. There are bigger stronger breeds that can cause more damage. They only ones getting publicity are the pitbulls. GET EDUCATED BEFORE RUNNING YOUR MOUTH! Dont get a sh** dog if you dont want another one biting it. That’s what dogs do. So we might as well ban all of them then huh? Sound like a good idea. Micheal Vic didnt serve nearly enough time to pay for his crimes. Now hes got tv shows. WAY TO SHOW EM! The people you need to be mad at are the lawmakers and the judges not doing anything to the people who mistreat these dogs and make them into what they are.

  69. Paul says:

    “They only ones getting publicity are the pitbulls. ”

    Yes, we’ve heard it all before - there is a grand conspiracy amongst all the media outlets to only report pitbull attacks but never all those chihuahua attacks.

    “Dont get a sh** dog if you dont want another one biting it. That’s what dogs do. ”

    So your contention is small dogs should be banned and everyone get pitbulls!!!


    Clearly, you ain’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. Your ability to cut butter is in serious doubt.

  70. Julie says:

    hello to everyone with pit bulls it is not the breed it is the owners and i will be damn if i let anyone tell me that they are banning the pit bull breed i own 3 myself and they are the sweetest dogs you can ever meet if you raise the dogs and your not abusive to them then you have nothing to worry about so dont tell me that your trying to ban the pit bull breed because i know several thousand people that will make sure it doesnt go through

    • Common Sense Clarence Hayward says:


      Did you mean to say hello to everyone without pit pulls?

      If you are going to be damned before you let anyone ban pit bulls then I would think your post should have said hello to everyone without pit bulls.

      Why would anyone with pit bulls want to ban them?

      The last post was in July of 2010 that wants to ban pit bulls.

      The last I know no one has banned pit bulls on the city council. That was rejected by them last year.

      What took so long for your opinion?

      • Dave Reinert says:

        CH, She most likely spends a small amount of her time posting. Everyone don’t have the time to blog like you do. Your post was not necessary. She just loves her dogs.

        • Common Sense Clarence Hayward says:


          I realize she loves her dogs.

          If you want to get your opinion across to the people who oppose your opinion you need in Julie’s case to address the opposition.

          Also, it sounds as if she is worried about pit bulls being banned. I wanted to relieve some of Julie’s anxiety because pit bulls were in danger of being banned last year and the council after much discussion backed off on a ban.

          If I was worried that the city was going to ban my toy poodle I would appreciate someone like myself reassuring me that the issue was settled last year so you don’t have to worry for the time being.

          If I did what you said I should do Dave and said nothing Julie might still be worrying for nothing.

          Pets are like a member of the family. I can imagine the anxiety that must have been going through Julie’s mind and I wanted to relieve it.

  71. Anonymous says:

    It is time to face it. We can say it is the owner’s as much as we want however, their dogs aren’t getting attacked by the many pitbulls in Elgin. I have seen pitbull attacks and it isn’t pretty. I think there are more pitbulls in Elgin than people. The owner’s are not going to wake up. I myself have non-attack dogs and yet am afraid to walk them on Elgin streets. Just ban them already!!!!!

  72. Catherine says:

    I understand your anger against a race. I heard beta blockers are good for PTSD and studies have found that when PTSD was impoving, they tendencies to racism seemed to dissapear. I was attacked by a black man, I was lucky to have survived.

  73. Rachel says:

    I`ve experienced accidental dog fights with Pit bull types most where no different then the fights with non pit bull types,even less then some. The one that was serious my Rottie came out victorious,and the pit had the worst injuries. Dogs will fight no matter what breed,and I heard of even a Labrador killing a Cattle dog mix near by. I`ve seen and experienced sever dog and animal aggression in many breeds,its not just Pit bulls. Pit bulls I actually trust more than many other breeds with people,and many are not even animal aggressive. I`ve walked past loose ones with my dog and was ignored even.