Heads up! Chicago ban!

[Circecat1]

Alderman Rugai is once again after a breed ban--of Amstaffs, Staffy Bulls, APBTs, and Rottwielers.

The article doesn't mention Rotts, but the bill does include them.

Pit bulls may get walking papers
1. Aldermen to consider outlawing breeds that have been involved in several vicious attacks.

By Gary Washburn and Lisa Fleisher, Tribune staff reporters. Tribune staff reporter Andrew L. Wang contributed to this report
Published December 1, 2005

Pit bulls, a breed involved in highly publicized and particularly vicious attacks on people and other animals, eventually would be outlawed in Chicago under a controversial proposal introduced Wednesday.

Pit bulls owned currently by city residents would be able to stay--if their masters comply with a list of required safeguards--but no additional pit bulls could be purchased legally or owned within the city limits.

The city also would crack down on other "dangerous animals," including individual dogs of any breed that have injured a person or other animal without provocation.

Critics question the effectiveness of breed-specific bans, saying laws should target dangerous behavior instead.

"We see no fact that it works," said John Snyder, director of companion animals at the Humane Society of the United States. Effective legislation, he said, "puts the point of pressure on the deed, not the breed."

The measure was introduced by Ald. Virginia Rugai (19th), who has crusaded against dangerous dogs after a pack of pit bulls attacked and killed one woman and seriously injured another in 2003 in Dan Ryan Woods, which is partly in Rugai's Southwest Side ward.

A pit bull attack on two children recently near northwest suburban Cary provided just one more illustration of the need for the ban, Rugai asserted.

Even pit bulls that are family pets with no history of violence, such as those in the Cary attack, can go berserk in an instant, she said. "Why they snap I don't know. This is a unique breed. There is none like it."

Early support appeared to be shaping up for the tough measure.

"How many people have to be maimed?" asked Ald. Isaac Carothers (29th). "How many people have to be killed by these vicious dogs before we take action?"

Though he stopped short of an endorsement, Mayor Richard Daley sounded a similar note.
He mentioned the Dan Ryan Woods episode.

"Isn't that one too many?" he asked. "I think they have to look at [a ban] very carefully. People have responsibilities for dogs."

And if a pit bull is off leash, "You'd better jump on a car," Daley declared. "You'd better get out of the way."

But one Chicago owner said he thinks the proposed legislation unfairly paints all pit bulls with the same brush.

Paul DiPego, 38, has owned an American pit bull terrier for about four years.

Diesel, a gift from his wife's uncle, a dog breeder in Mississippi, is submissive, friendly to people and has never shown any aggression that he knows of, DiPego said.

Pit bulls are very energetic dogs, stronger than others of similar size and seem to have a high threshold for pain--remnants of their breeding as working dogs, he said.

But that breeding also makes them "just want to please their owners," according to DiPego.

Rugai said she believes legal questions that loomed when she proposed an across-the-board ban on pit bulls last year have been resolved.


A 2003 amendment to the state Animal Control Act banned breed-specific controls, said M. Rose Kelly, senior counsel in the city's Law Department. But under the city's home rule powers, the new proposal would be legal, she said.

"I believe if this was challenged, it would be upheld," Kelly said.

Under the proposal, pit bulls are defined as "any American pit bull terrier or Staffordshire bull terrier or American Staffordshire terrier" or any mixed breed containing the blood of any one of them.

A veterinarian would be the judge of breed if a case went to court, Kelly said.

Some dog experts contend that breed-specific bans are ill conceived, arguing that how a dog is raised is a far more important determinant of behavior than the breed.

"A dog's a dog, whether it's a pit bull, Rotweiller, German shepherd," asserted Yessenia Carreon, 23, whose family always has owned pit bulls. "Any dog can attack. It just depends on how they're raised."

Carreon said she's been bitten by four dogs in her life, two of them Chihuahuas.
But a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Veterinary Medical Association, which tracked 238 fatal dog attacks on humans between 1979 and 1998, raised concerns about pit bull-type dogs. The research found that the breed was involved in about one-third of the attacks.

Many of the pit bulls in his West Side ward are used as muscle by "gangbangers, drug dealers," Carothers said. Others are raised for illegal fighting, he said

Pit bulls have been outlawed in such cities as Denver and Miami, in Prince George's County, Md., and the Province of Ontario in Canada.

Under Rugai's proposal, pit bulls currently in the city would be required to get microchip implants. In addition to providing information that identifies them, the chips would allow authorities to tell them from "illegal" dogs in the city after the ban takes effect.

Pit bulls also would be required to be sterilized and have a "dangerous animal" license that would help the city keep track of where they are. Besides being required to provide pens when their pit bulls are kept outside, owners also would have to erect fences on the perimeters of their property and put up warning signs.

Similar provisions are proposed for individual animals deemed dangerous.

Moreover, no owner would be allowed to have more than two dangerous animals, including pit bulls, in one household.

Violators of the measure would face fines of up to $1,000, up to 6 months in jail and impoundment of their animals.

----------

gwashburn@tribune.com

lfleisher@tribune.com
2.


Bill:

Introduced 12/01/05, by Rep. Shane Cultra - Mark H. Beaubien, Jr.
>
> SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:
> 510 ILCS 5/2 from Ch. 8, par. 352510 ILCS 5/2.20 new510 ILCS 5/24 from
> Ch. 8, par. 374
>
> Amends the Animal Control Act. Authorizes municipalities and other
> political subdivisions to ban specified dog breeds and to regulate dogs by
> breed. Effective immediately.
>
> LRB094 15514 JAM 50713 b
>
>
>
>
> A BILL FOR
>
>
>
> HB4212LRB094 15514 JAM 50713 b
> 1 AN ACT concerning animals.
> 2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, 3represented in
> the General Assembly:
> 4 Section 5. The Animal Control Act is amended by changing 5Sections 2
> and 24 and by adding Section 2.20 as follows:
> 6 (510 ILCS 5/2) (from Ch. 8, par. 352) 7 Sec. 2. Definitions. As
> used in this Act, unless the 8context otherwise requires, the terms
> specified in the 9following Sections 2.01 through 2.19 have the meanings
> ascribed 10to them in those Sections. 11(Source: P.A. 78-795.)
> 12 (510 ILCS 5/2.20 new)13 Sec. 2.20. Scheduled dog breed.
> "Scheduled dog breed" means 14American Pit Bull Terrier, American
> Staffordshire Terrier, pit 15bull, pit bull terrier, rottweiler, and
> Staffordshire Terrier.
> 16 (510 ILCS 5/24) (from Ch. 8, par. 374) 17 Sec. 24. Nothing in
> this Act shall be held to limit in any 18manner the power of any
> municipality or other political 19subdivision to prohibit animals from
> running at large, nor 20shall anything in this Act be construed to, in any
> manner, 21limit the power of any municipality or other political
> 22subdivision to further control and regulate dogs, cats or other
> 23animals in such municipality or other political subdivision. 24With
> respect to dogs, regulations and ordinances (i) may ban 25one or more
> scheduled dog breeds and (ii) may be provided that 26no regulation or
> ordinance is specific to breed. 27(Source: P.A. 93-548, eff. 8-19-03.)
> 28 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon 29becoming
> law.

[derektjeep]

The Pit Bulls involved in the Cary attack belonged to a person who did marijuania and grew marijuania. Family pet? Not!!!