Morris, IL has repealed its long-standing law that required all residents who wanted a 'pit bull" to get a license from the city 48 hours before getting the dog and required the city to inspect the area where the dog would be kept before approving the license and for signage of a pit bull being on the premises to be present.
The law is now gone.
The city quite enforcing the law several years ago when an Illinois state law made the city law no longer viable, but has been going through their codes and getting rid of outdated laws and this was one that was marked for repeal.
Meanwhile, in Plymouth, MA, representatives at a town meeting voted to eliminate a permit process that called for "pit bulls' to obtain a "wild animal" permit to keep the dog and to purchase a certain level of insurance. One Precinct rep noted that requiring wild animal permits for pit bulls was unreasonable since there were dangeorus dogs of other breeds and it wasn't a breed-specific issue.
The new law will taret dogs based on behavior, not looks.
Thanks to Jodie at Bless the Bullies for both of these updates.
It's exciting to see the changes in attitudes toward the dogs and a greater focus on rational-based decision-making instead of fear-based decision-making. More very good news.
Although it's not really funny, I still couldn't stop from laughing that there was actually a law in Plymouth, MA, that required a pit bull owner to obtain a "wild animal" permit to have their dog. Talk about proof of the effect of false fear and hype. It's sort of reminiscent of the Salem Witch Trials.
Posted by: Jen Brighton | April 19, 2012 at 09:22 AM
Jen -- I had the same thought and almost mentioned something about it in my post...but yeah, I'm kind of detecting a trend.
Posted by: Brent | April 19, 2012 at 09:25 AM
As much as I disagree with the signage and insurance requirements the part that "required all residents who wanted a 'pit bull" to get a license from the city 48 hours before getting the dog and required the city to inspect the area where the dog would be kept before approving the license" isn't so bad and should be implemented for ALL dog owners
Posted by: Tara | April 19, 2012 at 09:29 PM
This makes me hopeful that Ontario will follow this example. :)
Posted by: Celeste | April 19, 2012 at 09:43 PM
Tara -- there is no city on the planet that has the manpower to visit the homes of every dog owner in the city before they get a dog (with 40% of most city's populations being dog owners) -- especially given that a very small percentage of people will every abuse/neglect their dog (and most of them would not call for the city inspection, or would pass the inspection and neglect the dog later). It is a far wiser use of time to focus all of those resources on the cruelty/neglect cases in their cities and prosecuting them fully.
Posted by: Brent | April 19, 2012 at 09:55 PM
I just happened across your blog and read this article which seems to fit well with my purpose. My boyfriend is trying to move into a townhouse complex where many of our friends live who all have pets. We've met the landlord a few times and while he might be a bit strange, he seems like an alright guys. That is, until he told my boyfriend and his roommates that he would not rent to them because they have a pit bull and that they're a liability issue. I am a huge dog lover, and was disgusted that someone could be so ignorant. The dog is literally the sweetest thing in the world. I'm not looking up legislation and articles that may be able to make the landlord see reason, and if not at least so I can rub it in his face that pit bulls are not vicious creatures. I just wanted to say your blog is awesome and has excellent information for my cause.. keep it up!
Posted by: Chloe | April 21, 2012 at 03:57 PM
now looking up legislation*
Posted by: Chloe | April 21, 2012 at 03:58 PM
Chloe -- thanks for the nice words and good luck to your boyfriend. My guess is that the landlord's issues are insurance issues and not legal ones...where his insurance doesn't allow for there to be pit bulls there, not the law. Best of luck to you both.
Posted by: Brent | April 21, 2012 at 04:18 PM
OH yea, Tara, just what we need - the government approving who can and can't own a dog. Good grief. Smoking police, food police, SUV police, etc. etc., and now the dog police. I remember when people didn't think it was necessary for the government to be involved in every aspect of your lives.
Posted by: kmk | April 24, 2012 at 10:27 PM