July 21st, 2010 by admin

If you’ve been following the spate of Elgin, Illinois “pit bull” “attacks” for the last year or so, you may have found the sheer number of these incidents unbelievable.  You know, unbelievable, as in “too dubious or improbable to be believed.”  If you’ve been following our posts for the last 6 months, you know we have strong suspicions, as do others, that these “pit bull” “attacks” have been set-ups.  After all, it’s more plausible at this point that these “attacks” have been set up rather than that all of a sudden there have been more “pit bull” “attacks” in a little over a year in Elgin than there have been in the last 10.  I’m not a statistician, but based on the low number of dog bites/attacks  in the previous seven or eight years in Elgin, the probability of there being this many “pit bull” “attacks” in the last year as a matter of mere happenstance is bound to be quite low.

The latest “pit bull” incident, which occurred on the evening of July 17, involved Elgin resident Faustino Gonzalez whose “pit bull” purportedly jumped at police officers dispatched to investigate a report of a loose “pit bull.” (Not a loose dog, a loose “pit bull.” I guess bystanders are now breed experts as well, except that “pit bull” is not a breed.)  Both the Daily Herald and the Courier News were quick to point out that the dog was a “pit bull” (though it is unknown what breed the dog actually was), that Gonzalez had been drinking, that the dog “jumped” or “leapt” at officers, and that Gonzalez was an illegal immigrant who had already been deported as a felon.  Read the rest of this entry »

June 26th, 2010 by admin

Councilman Prigge (and perhaps others on the Elgin, Illinois City Council) must be thinking “Third time’s a charm” after the Daily Herald reported in an article yesterday that Elgin Mayor Ed Schock fought off a “pit bull” “attack” Thursday evening.  I won’t include excerpts from the article, because really, I think Elgin residents have learned by now that some in the media, at least as far as “pit bull” “attacks” go, can’t be trusted.

Indeed, does anybody else find this latest “pit bull” “attack” suspicious?  Here again we have another “pit bull” incident within weeks and even months of prior incidents in Elgin.  And again, the media is reporting it as an “attack” when the dogs in question did not bite, just like the May 28 Festival Park incident wherein the victim was reported as having been bitten, when he was merely scratched.  That alone shows that the media is blowing these incidents out of proportion. (And no, that does not excuse owner irresponsibility should it be determined that the owner was irresponsible.)  Are some in the media that much in the lap of the Elgin City Council?  Are they that much a part of Prigge’s banwaggoning?  Or has the agenda changed now?  Yes, what is the Elgin City Council after now we wonder? Read the rest of this entry »

June 5th, 2010 by admin

The latest from Elgin2030.

Tony is so right that the media writes what it’s told to write.  Some of the articles coming out about the Festival Park incident sound like press releases instead of investigative reporting.  Still, it is a positive that the council refused to pursue BSL. 

I’m sorry to say, however, that we cannot agree with the push for dog licensure in the city of Elgin, especially after what Councilman Prigge has tried to pull.  To understand why we oppose licensure for dogs, please read a position statement on dog licensure.  

June 4th, 2010 by admin

Elgin, Illinois, City Council members this week discussed what to do after an incident in which a 9-year-old boy was apparently pinched by one of two “pit bulls” a week ago today in Elgin’s Festival Park.  I say “pinched” because that’s what the Chicago Tribune called it.  Interesting that this incident went from an “attack,” to a “bite,” to a “pinching,” as if the media is now back-pedaling.  Will we soon find out that the dogs, barely out of their puppy phase, were just trying to play with the boy?  It’s also interesting too that while the owner of the dogs, Ms. Sonia Torres, is asking how the dogs got out of their cages while on her property, which sounds like she too thinks they were stolen, the Tribune is reporting today that the dogs “escaped from their cages.”  Yet, this is how the scene was described by the Courier News on June 1:

Torres had left her house to pick up her kids and upon her return found the gates to the dog’s cages open and a hole in her fence. 

Sounds like they were stolen, and yet Ms. Torres was charged with having two dogs at large?  Why?  Read the rest of this entry »

June 1st, 2010 by admin

Why do I love the smell of a set-up in the morning?  Because it makes it easier to expose shady wrongdoings which stink to high heaven.  Anyone else getting the feeling that there’s something really rotten in Elgin, Illinois, based on Elgin’s most recent “pit bull” incident?  The Courier News made sure to include a photo in their report today about the two dogs involved in an incident in Festival Park on Friday just so we’d know they were “pit bulls,” though we still don’t definitively know what breed the dogs actually were.  The two dogs were free-roaming on Friday, when they were found a mile from their home.

Read the rest of this entry »

May 31st, 2010 by admin

Update, June 1, 2010: According to a media report, it appears that the dogs in question were free-roaming through no fault of the owner.  The dogs were discovered missing from their cages upon the owner’s return home and there was an apparent hole in the fence.  As the owner herself has said, there should be a full investigation into this incident, including finger-printing of the empty cages and the hole in the fence, to determine the culprits of this crime and just who it was who put that 9-year-old boy’s life in jeopardy. 

The people in Elgin, Illinois, must be thinking, “Here we go again!” after the Daily Herald reported yesterday on another supposed “pit bull” incident in which a boy, 9, in Elgin’s Festival Park was bitten by one of two free-roaming supposed “pit bulls.”  Naturally, Councilman John Prigge is chomping at the bit and will almost certainly try to get something breed-specific passed, moving against the will of the majority of Elgin’s citizens again.  Prigge is like the Terminator; he won’t stop until, I guess, he sees a lot of dead dogs. (And isn’t that what breed-specific laws always amount to: a lot of dead dogs?)  Read the rest of this entry »

April 16th, 2010 by admin

April 14th, 2010 by admin

The Chicago Tribune seems to have waited until today, which also happens to be the day the Elgin City Council convenes, to publish the article, Elgin’s new animal law won’t cover 2 recent dog bites.  The article is about just that: two recent incidents involving dogs in Elgin.  Funny, because the Courier News reported on these incidents almost 10 days ago in their Police Blotter.  So why now Tribune?

Also of note is that while the Courier News reported that one of the dogs in question in one of the attacks was a “loose dog of unknown breed,” the Tribune reported that the dog was a “pit bull mix.” Even more curious is that Kristie Hilton, who identified herself as an employee of the Elgin Police Department, posted on Facebook saying the dog in question was a Rhodesian Ridgeback/Boxer mix (two breeds commonly and erroneously called “pit bulls”).

But the final cherry on this lying, smearing crap of a sundae is that Councilman John Prigge will almost certainly use this fabrication to start pounding the “pit bull” ban drum yet again.  He promised as much after expressing hope that there would be another incident:

We need to have another occurrence to happen…and then there’s no turning back.

We predicted there would be some fabricated “pit bull” attack, the pretense of which would be used to push a breed-specific amendment to Elgin’s existing animal control ordinance. (And the other incident supposedly involved a Rottweiler, so will Prigge add even more breeds to his breed-specific hit list?)  The Lord knows how much we wanted to be wrong, but since we’ve seen this modus operandi time and time again, we knew it would happen just this way. 

There is no doubt now that Elgin is a target city for breed-specific legislation (BSL).  So, does that mean Prigge has been promised something (like say a generous campaign contribution for the next political office for which he intends to campaign) by the cockroach powers that be if he can get BSL passed?  This is, after all, Illinois, home of Al Capone, pay-to-play politics, and corrupt government.  Would any of us be surprised?   It also wouldn’t be the first time the Tribune has engaged in a smear campaign against “pit bulls” to aid in the passage of some onerous legislation like a breed ban.    

March 17th, 2010 by admin

In the March 16, 2010, Daily Herald article Elgin councilman says pit bull laws inevitable, Elgin City Councilman John Prigge once again puffs himself out like a blowfish and gives full rein to his bravado.  He says:

I do believe something’s going to happen…I think it’s inevitable. I just pray to God it’s not a tragedy…We need to have another occurrence to happen – hopefully it’s not a tragedy – and then there’s no turning back.

“We need to have another occurrence to happen”???  Did he just promise another “pit bull” attack, or is he just hoping for one???  What, is he going to stage one to get his way???  Read the rest of this entry »

March 11th, 2010 by admin

I’ve had hours now to sit and read various blogs and news articles about how so-and-so or this or that organization defeated the Elgin “pit bull” proposal.  Councilman Prigge — blustery and self-entitled as ever — was the first to say it was he who was removing his own breed-specific proposal from consideration.  Prigge claims he had the votes, but of course, silly rabbit, we know had he had the votes, and had some on the council not had serious misgivings, he would have been there full-throttle pushing his poorly-written, vague and ridiculous breed-specific ordinance to its end.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 10th, 2010 by admin

I will give You thanks in the great congregation;
I will praise You among a mighty throng.
And my tongue shall declare Your righteousness
and Your praise all day long.

- Psalm 35:18, 28

March 10th, 2010 by admin

Editor’s note: If you glean nothing more from Steve’s post, take note of this.  Steve writes: “local experts [meaning experts in Elgin] – veterinarians and dog trainers tell me…their calls aren’t returned either, and their voices aren’t being heard.”  So again I ask you.  Who’s not telling the truth?

My Last Plea for Elgin Officials

…I’ve expressed my views on the air, and offered to have Mayor Schock join me or the prime ring leader of this ordinance, Councilman John Prigge. No calls have been returned. What’s more, the City’s public information officer will longer even return my call (or others from at least some people I know, even from Elgin residents). Elgin maintains that while I may be an expert, I’m an outsider (I suppose Chicago is outside Elgin). Ed Fritz of Best Friends Animal Society flew in from Utah to testify and was not given the opportunity. Still, local experts – veterinarians and dog trainers tell me they have the same problem, their calls aren’t returned either, and their voices aren’t being heard…  Read the rest of this entry »

March 10th, 2010 by admin

According to the Daily Herald, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, a suburb not too far from Elgin, Illinois, passed a recall ordinance on Monday in an effort to recall a Buffalo Grove trustee.  According to the Herald,

The recall ordinance was first considered last fall, but was tabled for further work. As approved, it is a 200-day process, with residents required first to give notice, then to file petitions, which then lead to the village board adopting an ordinance putting the question on the ballot.

The petitions must be signed by not less than 33 percent of the average of the ballots cast in the last two preceding municipal elections, and not fewer than 1,000 people.

Does anyone see why something similar cannot be undertaken in Elgin?

March 9th, 2010 by admin

Try to have a good night all.  God bless, and let our prayer for safety go out to all patriots.  Let the angels of God encamp around us all.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. -Ephesians 6:12

The angel  of the LORD encamps around those who fear Him, And rescues them. -Psalm 34:7

March 9th, 2010 by admin

The latest from Elgin2030.

March 9th, 2010 by admin

That’s right folks.  You heard right.  Seems someone does not want Tony or his site to say the things he’s been saying.  Does this not lend credence to our theory that there are big, shady cockroaches behind the Elgin Animal Control ordinance, and that there is more at work here than just animal control?  We reiterate, it’s time for there to be a sweeping investigation of the actions of some on the Elgin City Council.  Their potential misdeeds may now be criminal as well as a violation of public trust!

March 9th, 2010 by admin

I love that the Illinois Attorney General’s Open Meetings Act website is down:

http://www.ag.state.il.us/government/open_meetings.html

For some reason, I find that very fitting.  When we need transparency in government now more than ever, our government is broken.  Well, never mind that.  Let’s deal with the matter at hand.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 9th, 2010 by admin

One of our favorite blogs, Caveat, acquired a copy of a letter that Denver Assistant City Attorney Kory Nelson has been or had been sending out to cities considering breed-specific legislation (BSL).  The letter says that threats of lawsuits against BSL are overblown and/or that should there be lawsuits they’re funded by dog fighters to defend their “sport.”  It’s the same insinuation over and over from BSL proponents right?  All “pit bull” owners are thugs, drug dealers, dog fighters, and gang bangers.  Meanwhile, the hundreds of thousands of responsible “pit bull” owners you never hear about because they’re owning their dogs responsibly are adversely affected by BSL; BSL that doesn’t stop the minority of bad “pit bull” owners who weren’t abiding by the law before BSL was passed.  

But perhaps most icky about this letter is that it offers tips on how to spy on the “anti-BSL” movement.  Nice.  Gosh, I never thought to spy on my adversary.  It’s fighting dirty and I prefer to keep it clean.  Makes you wonder how moral BSL proponents are when they can only pass BSL by misrepresentations, flawed data, junk science, and lies.  Although Mr. Nelson is right about one thing.  There is no reliable statistical data on “pit bulls” because as a “breed” they don’t exist. Still, this letter is on Denver City letterhead!  If you were a resident of Denver, would you want your tax dollars being spent on a letter like this???  Kind of makes you wonder if Mr. Nelson has been talking to folks in the Elgin City Council though doesn’t it?  The letter does seem to share a lot of the same modus operandi that the Elgin City Council has adopted and employed….Hmmm…..

March 8th, 2010 by admin

The following block quotes come directly from Councilman Prigge’s own website.  We will debunk each one of his lies and/or misrepresentations one by one:

 Citizens have brought the following to my attention recently:

“Citizens,” or the special envoys to the Elgin City Council sent to spy on those opposing breed-specific legislation (BSL)?

There are many inaccuracies, mistruths and outright lies circulating about this proposal in the form of Web sites, radio talk shows, meetings, etc…

Really?  Others have been inaccurate or outright lied, but you haven’t Mr. Prigge?  So, you haven’t misrepresented your statement about how you only want to hear from Elgin residents in favor of BSL when you, Mr. Prigge, entertain suggestions from the likes of PETA, dogsbite.org and other outside “sources” you ought to be altogether ashamed to cite?   You haven’t declined to speak to Steve Dale on his talk show Mr. Prigge?  You haven’t cited a radical animal rights group with domestic terrorism ties as reason to pass BSL Mr. Prigge?  These are all documented either by published reports or from several first-hand accounts.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 7th, 2010 by admin

 It appears as if some on the city council have sent what I can only describe as “disinformers” to make comments on the Daily Herald.  These disinformers have, like city councilmen themselves, cited poor evidence in favor of BSL, and have spread animosity and made personal attacks on those opposed to Elgin’s breed-specific legislation (BSL). Councilman Prigge so proudly lies through his teeth when he says he’s entertaining information only from Elgin citizens and yet he freely cites PETA, Kory Nelson’s Denver “pit bull” ban “data” (and Corporate Counsel Cogley and/or Prigge can keep saying Denver’s ban has withstood legal challenges, but they forget the ban was passed before Colorado’s prohibition of BSL and they conveniently ignore Margolius v. Denver in which ALL of Denver’s Animal Control officers could not pick an American Pit Bull Terrier out of a line-up)  and hacks like Alan Beck and dogsbite.org (which have both been widely discredited as unscientific witch hunters)!  We might be embarrassed for Councilmen Prigge, Gilliam, and Warren and Mayor Schock if they weren’t working so tirelessly to kill good people’s dogs.  We may not be able to dethrone these kings of the “unwashed masses” (and yes, that’s just how they see you Elgin!), yet, but we certainly can expose their malfeasance and violation of the public trust.  What all Elgin and Illinois citizens can do now is boycott Elgin businesses (including the casino!) until the city council does the will of the people; the people who elected them their representatives! Notice that word representatives.  Not dictators.  Not authoritarians.  Not absolutists.  Not autocrats.  Not oligarchs.  But representatives who stand or act for another or others; those who do the will of the people! 

And don’t you wonder why Councilman Prigge is so sure of himself any time anyone brings up the idea of Elgin being sued?  (Elgin citizens should be aware that there may be as many as 3-4 lawsuits against the city should BSL be passed in Elgin.  And yes, the proposed ordinance is just that poorly-written and vague!)  Will Prigge be as strident and smug when he has to use $1 million of Elgin’s taxpayer dollars to defend Elgin’s indefensible BSL??  Or will the special interest lobby that we suspect has been coaching him behind the scenes foot the bill?  And if it’s true that Prigge has been entertaining radical special interests (radical special interests that by the way are affiliated with domestic terrorists the Animal Liberation Front), and we strongly suspect that he has been, then perhaps he should be investigated.

March 6th, 2010 by admin

March 6th, 2010 by admin

Are you listening Elgin City Council?  Are you listening Mr. Prigge, Mr. Gilliam, Mr. Schock, and Mr. Warren???  Read the rest of this entry »

March 6th, 2010 by admin

Another great post from WLS ‘Pet World’ host Steve Dale:

Are They Joking? Elgin Says They Will Compromise on Their Pit Bull Restrictions

When the wording of the “compromise” began all Pit Bulls will continue to be deemed dangerous, I knew this wasn’t a compromise at all. Read the rest of this entry »

March 6th, 2010 by admin

While we can’t agree with the “special consideration” part — any singling out of breeds is still an equal protection violation — Tony is right. This council works for the citizens of Elgin. And while Mayor Schock was displeased with Tony’s and others’ “outburst” last week, Tony is right. Britain’s parliament is much more raucous than city council has ever been. So, bang on Tony!

March 5th, 2010 by admin

The Courier-News today has an interesting piece.  Wag the dog indeed!:

Bow, wow, wow – wag the dog

Elgin Mayor Ed Schock owns a German shepherd, while Councilman Robert Gilliam once owned a Doberman pinscher. Why this might make some folks go bow-wow-wow is that Schock and Gilliam are proponents of amending Elgin’s animal control ordinance to include strict breed-specific restrictions on pit bulls.

Thing is, through the decades, shepherds and pinschers have had image problems of their own. According to Karen Delise, author of “The Pit Bull Placebo,” in 1928, the Australian government imposed one of the first official breed bans on German shepherds — a ban that stayed in effect until 1974.

Delise writes that Dobermans, which were used by the Nazis as well as U.S. Marines during World War II, reached the height of their fame/infamy in the 1970s with popular culture portraying them as the archetypical vicious dogs.

For a hilarious caricature of Mayor Ed Schock, click through to the Courier-News here.

For more about the Elgin City Council’s astounding hypocrisy, click here.

March 5th, 2010 by admin

Editor’s note: Councilman Prigge saying “we’re not against sound input by the people who are going to be affected most by this legislation, which is Elgin citizens” is an outright LIE considering the consistent belligerent tone he has taken with Elgin citizens.  And while Councilman Gilliam waxes slippery about compromise, a true compromise would be giving a majority of Elgin residents what they want which is leaving the dangerous dog ordinance as is and striking the breed-specific portion of it.  The truth is, Councilman Prigge and his partners in crime aren’t truly entertaining input from anyone but proponents of BSL and radical animal rights groups apparently.  And the only “compromise” here I’m guessing is done for the benefit of other reticent councilmen to pressure them into passing the BSL that Elgin voters have consistently said they don’t want.

The latest from the Daily Herald:

Calling it a compromise, Elgin leaders have toned down a new batch of laws aimed at controlling pit bulls.

“It’s an attempt to try and compromise with concerns people have,” said Councilman Robert Gilliam. “We’re not set in stone. We’re not trying to ram it down people’s throats.”

Under the proposed changes, pit bulls will still be declared “dangerous dogs” and violators of the lengthy ordinance still face fines of $1,000.

But city leaders have proposed:
• reducing the cost of a three-year license from $100 to $50;
• lowering the amount of liability insurance for homeowners or renters with pit bulls from $500,000 to $100,000;
• eliminating a requirement for pit bull owners to obtain a special permit from police when driving through town, visiting or taking their dog to an Elgin veterinarian;
• axing a requirement that pit bull owners post a 2-foot by 2-foot sign outside their homes warning of a “dangerous dog”;
• and allowing pit bulls to run free in a backyard – as long as they are muzzled and there is at least a 3-foot-tall fence. Before, a 6-foot fence was required if an unmuzzled pit bull was to run in a yard untethered.

…Councilman John Prigge, who along with Councilman Mike Warren formed a four-vote majority to advance the measure last month, also said he is OK with the proposed changes.

“We’re committed, but we’re not against sound input by the people who are going to be affected most by this legislation, which is Elgin citizens,” Prigge said. “This is the right thing to do.”

The council meeting is at 7 p.m. Wednesday, March 10, in the Heritage Ballroom at The Centre, 100 Symphony Way, Elgin.

March 4th, 2010 by admin

Once again, Steve Dale, host of the WLS show “Pet World,” addresses Elgin, Illinois’ proposed “pit bull” restrictions.  This is from the Anchorage Daily News:

Q: I know you’re aware that Elgin, Ill., a community just outside Chicago, wants to ban pit bulls. I live here, and while I don’t have a pit bull, I’m concerned that my breed might be next, or my dog might be mistaken for a pit bull. Any thoughts? — C.S., Elgin, IL

A: The City of Elgin is not planning to ban pit bulls, or at least that’s what local officials are saying. Instead, if a proposed city ordinance is passed, all pit bulls (or dogs the city calls pit bulls) will automatically be deemed “dangerous” dogs. All owners will be required to carry $500,000 of insurance, and each owner’s yard would have to have a 6-foot-high fence with locks. Their dogs would have to be spayed/neutered and micrcochipped, and wear muzzles in public. Read the rest of this entry »

March 4th, 2010 by admin

The prophet Isaiah offers a warning to corrupt government and the evil-doer:

So the common man will be humbled and the man of importance abased,
The eyes of the proud also will be abased.
But the Lord of hosts will be exalted in judgment,
And the holy God will show Himself holy in righteousness…

Woe to those who drag iniquity with the cords of falsehood, and sin as if with cart ropes…
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
…Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!
Woe to those who…justify the wicked for a bribe, and take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!
Therefore, as a tongue of fire consumes stubble and dry grass collapses into the flame,
So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away as dust;
For they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts…

Isaiah 5:15-16, 18, 20-24

March 3rd, 2010 by admin

I came across a proverb the other day, certainly not by accident, written by Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived.  He wrote it so that “A wise man will hear, and will increase learning.”  He had the following to say about those who turn away from knowledge and insist instead on remaining ignorant:

How long, O naive ones, will you love being  simple-minded?And scoffers  delight themselves in scoffing, and fools hate  knowledge? Read the rest of this entry »

March 2nd, 2010 by admin

From CBS 2 Chicago:

Dog Lovers Upset By Elgin’s Proposed Pit Bull Laws
Reporting Mike Puccinelli

…a Chicago suburb is thinking about labeling all pit bulls as dangerous animals. That’s breeding bitter resentment from dog owners who say their breed is being unfairly singled out.

…Charlotte Prusa, 84, doesn’t own Taysia. But she’s come to view the therapy dog as if she is her own.

Prusa, a double amputee, has been looking forward to visits from Taysia for more than four years. The dog’s pictures adorn her walls at Rosewood Care Center in Elgin.

“It’s a connection. But at my age and in my situation, it’s even better because I don’t feel so isolated. I feel like I still have life,” Prusa said.

And Prusa isn’t alone. Dozens of elderly residents in this nursing home have to come to love Taysia, who visits the center once a week.

But Taysia is a pit bull. And a proposed ordinance in Elgin would deem Taysia and all other pit bulls as dangerous dogs. That could put a stop to the visits from the certified therapy dog.

“I think it’s very hateful,” said resident and ordinance opponent Tom Sterling.

Taysia’s owner calls the ordinance unfair, unjust and discriminatory.

Continue reading this article here.

March 2nd, 2010 by admin

From Pet World host Steve Dale’s blog ChicagoNow:

Elgin Bans Pit Bulls (or any dog they call a Pit Bull)

Officials in Elgin say they’re not planning to ban Pit Bulls. I beg to differ, as does the dude hosting videos at Elgin2030.com.  Read the rest of this entry »

March 2nd, 2010 by admin

The Daily Herald ran a short but sweet letter from an Elgin, Illinois, resident opposed to the Elgin City Council’s breed-specific ordinance defining “pit bulls” as dangerous.  Right on Sue!:

Elgin city council: Pit bull dogs don’t make themselves bad; people make them bad.

Your actions, in an attempt to make it look like you are doing something, has only punished the responsible owners of pit bull dogs. All you have to do is have the courage to enforce the current laws already on the books including zoning laws, pet laws, homeowner laws and landlord laws. The owner of 21 pit bulls, recently arrested on a felony charge, is just one example of someone who will not obey these new laws and if arrested again, will more than likely stir up the Elgin council to write more laws that won’t be followed.

Sue Tiedeman

Elgin

March 1st, 2010 by admin

http://www.petitiononline.com/noban63/petition.html

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/5/stop-unfair-dog-law-in-Elgin

It would be lovely if someone from Elgin started a petition to recall Councilman John Prigge and possibly even Councilman Robert Gilliam and Mayor Ed Schock who we’re told own, or have owned, Dobermans and German Shepherds respectively.  Talk about hypocrisy!

March 1st, 2010 by admin

The following is an excerpt from Steve Dale, host of the WLS show Pet World, and his blog ChicagoNow:

Under a new ordinance in Elgin, all Pit Bulls are presumed to be dangerous dogs. That’s outrageous! Shame on Elgin, Illinois.

Apparently, if a Pit Bull named Lassie rescues a little boy or Pit Bull works at a nursing home as an animal assisted therapy dog, the Pit Bull is still dangerous.

Of course, all Pit Bulls are not inherently dangerous.

There is NO scientific documentation to confirm that Pit Bulls are predisposed to be dangerous.
When I asked a village representative about the science to back up this decision, she conceded

“I don’t know of any.”

I asked supporters of the breed restrictions, Mayor Edward Schock and Councilman John Prigge to  appear at either 6 a.m. or 2 p.m. on my WLS Radio show Saturday, February 27 (www.wlsam.com). And wouldn’t you know it, they were both “unavailable.”

Read the rest of Dale’s blog entry here.

February 28th, 2010 by admin

http://elgin2030.com/WP/

February 28th, 2010 by admin

February 26th, 2010 by admin

Like residents of Elgin, Illinois you may be wondering with whom Councilman John Prigge (and perhaps Mayor Ed Schock, Councilman Robert Gilliam, et al) has been associating after Wednesday’s Meeting of the Whole Committee meeting during which Mr. Prigge directly cited the radical animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) as reason to pass breed-specific legislation (BSL).  What he didn’t tell Elgin citizens is that PETA also advocates the end of domestic pet ownership altogether and BSL is just one of the ways they go about doing that:

“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Newsday, Feb. 21, 1988.

“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles–from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.” John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic, Washington People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PETA), 1982, p. 15.

Read the rest of this entry »

February 25th, 2010 by admin

Editor’s update: I failed to mention, and so did council members apparently, that part of the registration requirement for so-called “vicious” and “dangerous” dogs (including “pit bulls”) is that there must be

“completion of an inspection by the city of the property where the Dangerous Dog or Vicious Dog is to be kept which confirms that the Dangerous Dog or Vicious Dog is or will be confined  in compliance with [the ordinance]…and which identifies the number and locations of the signs for a Dangerous Dog or a Vicious Dog required to be posted by the Owner as set forth in [the ordinance]…as applicable.”

How else can you describe such a requirement but as duress?  You either move, get rid of your dogs, or submit to an inspection of your home and property.  The 4th amendment guarantees,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

While technically Elgin “pit bull” owners would be submitting to this inspection, they may have no other choice, which is why such a requirement constitutes duress and should be deemed unconstitutional.  Plus, the wording is so vague it’s hard to determine if the inspection would also include the inside of the home wherein an inspector could nail you for any other violation of the law s/he sees.

****

It’s taken several days to be able to get through Elgin, Illinois’ breed-specific legislation (BSL) proposal because it’s just that muddled, vague, and confusing.  But after having gone through its pages several times, what I can conclude is that it is one of the most unreasonable, unconstitutional, and egregious pieces of legislation I have ever read.  Worse, those so forcefully pushing the ordinance don’t seem to even know what the ordinance contains.

Read the rest of this entry »

February 24th, 2010 by admin

Editor’s note: The following letter comes to us from an Elgin, Illinois man who is frustrated that the information he presented to the Elgin, Illinois City Council about the ineffectiveness of breed-specific legislation (BSL) has gone ignored.  The only response he received from his so-called representatives was from Councilman Prigge who ignored completely the man’s citation of  relevant and recent court cases in which breed-specific legislation had been ruled unconstitutional, or, as it was in a case in Denver in which it was demonstrated that not one of Denver’s Animal Control officers could identify an American Pit Bull Terrier as per their own ordinance.  Also ignored was a recent ruling in a Toledo, Ohio Municipal Court wherein it was determined that parts of Toledo’s breed-specific ordinance could not be enforced under the semblance of home rule doctrine because those parts of the ordinance were unconstitutional, going above and beyond state law.  Now, this Toledo ruling should be very telling for other states that think they can pass breed-specific legislation with impunity using home rule as an excuse.  Not so surprisingly, Mr. Prigge completely ignored any legal precedent that showed that the breed-specific section of the proposed Elgin ordinance might be unconstitutional or above and beyond the purview of the feigned iron-cladness of home rule.  Moreover, we’re told Mr. Prigge adopted a bring-it-on attitude, claiming the City was prepared for any legal challenges to the breed-specific portion of the ordinance, which lends credence to the theory that perhaps Elgin is asking to be sued in order to set a precedent in Illinois for BSL under the guise of home rule:

Mayor Edward Schock
Councilman Richard Dunne
Councilman Robert Gilliam
Councilman David Kaptain
Councilman John Prigge
Councilman F. John Steffen
Councilman Mike Warren

Gentlemen:

As an Elgin resident, I am greatly disappointed that all mine and other people’s evidence about the ineffectiveness of breed-specific legislation (BSL) has seemingly fallen on deaf ears.  Meanwhile, your citizens came out in large numbers and many more opposed BSL than wanted it, to tell you they did not want BSL, and yet still a breed-specific provision was added to the proposed Animal Ordinance proposal?  Read the rest of this entry »

February 23rd, 2010 by admin

The following comes to us from our eyes and ears on the ground in Elgin, Illinois concerning yesterday’s Animal Control ordinance proposal:

It’s a little bit peculiar that not even a month after Elgin, Illinois Councilman John Prigge took his councilman spot in April 2009 that he was pushing breed-specific legislation (BSL) in an attempt to ban “pit bulls.”  Yesterday, Prigge’s push came to fruition when the city of Elgin announced their new Animal Control ordinance [Clicking the preceding link will lead to the PDF file of the Meeting of the Whole Agenda which contains the ordinance proposal in its entirety beginning on page 64.] which labels “pit bulls” as “per se dangerous.”  Dangerous per se means that “pit bulls” (which can refer to many different breeds) are supposedly intrinsically or inherently dangerous, yet where is the evidence?  I’ll give you a hint.  It doesn’t exist!  Bite statistics which supposedly show “pit bulls” as responsible for almost a third of dog bites nationwide are intrinsically flawed because they do not parse out actual breeds from the slang term “pit bull,” which can describe any medium- or even large-breed dog!  Still, as you’ll see from the ordinance, this very flawed bite data as well as a 20-year-old court case, a widely debunked “study” from Merritt Clifton, and other things like AKC and UKC breed standards to supposedly determine breed (which is a copyright infringement by the way), have been cited in the explanation preceding the ordinance proposal.  It’s as if Elgin is begging to be sued! (I’ll get to that in a minute.)

What good fortune that Councilman Prigge was afforded an opportunity to beat his BSL drum so soon after his election thanks to a supposed attack in Elgin by two dogs that escaped their restraints. Notice I didn’t call the dogs “pit bulls” because again this term is slang and can refer to many different breeds of dog.  What breed the dogs actually were varies depending on the account.  Still, how lucky for Prigge who, while campaigning on a platform of Animal Control ordinance changes, did not see fit to tell those voting for him that he would crusade for a “pit bull” ban in Elgin, despite there being more opposition to a ban rather than support for it. Read the rest of this entry »