*
Poor Fido. In response to a pit bull attack suffered by a young boy, the Village of Peoria Heights has started imposing a fine for dogs found without a leash. $200 for the first offense and $500 for every offense thereafter.
The intent is good but the implementation is idiotic. Most people who let their dogs run wild won't pay $500 to get Fido back. There are some people, especially in the Heights, who may love their dog dearly but could never raise that kind of cash.
I seriously doubt that this policy will prevent any more attacks. More likely, there will be an increase of dogs picked up without tags. Most likely, Peoria Heights will be responsible for putting down a lot more dogs.
If your mind is too open, your brain will fall out. Warning: Names, identities, descriptions, and pictures have been changed and/or used to protect the innocent as well as the guilty. PollyPeoria should not be used or quoted as a source for your senior college thesis.
Wednesday, July 6
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
Links
- Batten Disease Home Page
- Peoria Pundits
- Peoria Chronicle
- Peoria Story
- Peoria Illinoisan
- Merle Widmer's Peoria Watch
- Ahl Things Considered
- Eyebrows McGee Plays in Peoria
- Lollygaggin
- Scott's Blog Experience
- Chef Kevin's Culinary Rant & Raves
- Obrien's Briar Patch
- Market 117
- Vonster
- Pasghetti Place
- Dying In Haiti
- A Bird In The Hand
12 comments:
Maybe the $200 to $500 fine might make some folks think twice before they let Pounder the Pit Bull out to take a leak. Besides, get your facts straight. It is still a fine up to the DISCRETION of the attending police officer. It's not meant to be a fine for ANY animal farting around the Village. Or, you can just sit back and keep watching vicious animals run loose. Which way do you want it?
"Especially in the Heights"? Am I missing something here? Other spots in Central Illinois don't have their shares of lower-income people? Huh? On top of that, you might not be able to gauge what effect this law has, but if it keeps just one person from letting their dog loose, that might bite a person, then it's a success. My guess is that Polly doesn't live in an area where vicious dogs run loose, so it's pretty easy to call a law "idiotic" from your end of town, isn't it?
people who love their dogs dearly do not let them run loose. dogs running loose can get hit by cars, can get terrorized by kids, can have all kinds of harm done to them long before their owners can possibly get a big fine. people who let their dogs run loose should not have a dog. you sound like you're valuing dumb people who own dogs over kids riding their bikes, and who want to be able to ride them without fear of dogs attacking. i don't think you had your fish the night you wrote this one, polly peoria.
Just my take: you might want to talk to the mayor, police chief, or any trustee about a new ordinance before you start jumping to conclusions on what its meant to do. Thats what good reporters are supposed to do aren't they??
I have to agree with the others. I don't understand how you can give hell to a law that tries to make it harder on those that let their dogs run loose. Aren't there already leash laws in existence? So what if more dogs without tags get picked up? Isn't that for the best? Shouldn't that be done anyhow? All anyone has to do is not let their dog run loose. Period. End of discussion. What's so hard to fathom about that, Polly?
Yeah, I have a lot of faith in the "descretionary" use of fines. Not. Fines are revenue, the more collected the better.
Jackasses who let 'Pounder the Pit Bull' loose will continue to be jackasses. Now they simply won't come to pick up Pounder at the pound when he fails to show up for dinner or his nightly beating.
My concern is for Fluffy and Fido, whose concerned and loving owners find that they have escaped for the purpose of a little loving. My own dog never has the desire to bolt until Shellie the lab two doors down goes into heat and then a lightening bolt won't heed his need to escape. Mr. and Mrs. Senior Citizen on Social Security may not have the kind of cash necessary to get their best friend back and I don't trust government to use "discretion" like, ever.
As far as 'especially in the Heights,' yes, of course there as poor or poorer areas in town and in Central Illinois. The point is that implementing such a high fine is not likely to work in lower economic areas. Good dog owner or bad, few in the Heights can pay $500.
I have talked to Mark Allen about the fines. The objective is clear. I get it. They think high fines will prevent dog bites. (Although I never called myself a reporter. *pukes*) I just think it won't work and it isn't well thought out. Time will tell.
Oh, and I hate fish. Too much mercury.
I think their saying that higher dog fines might keep some folks from letting their dogs out especially if they get hit with big fines. I'm not sure how much well thought out it has to be. You have any other suggestions? Or should we just let the dogs run the show??
How about, say... PROSECUTING to the fullest extent of the law the owner of any dog that escapes, attacts/mauls/bites? A little publicized prison time would be more effective.
Scum buckets raising vicious pit bulls will skirt the fine by not tagging their dogs.
It will be decent owners with dogs that inadvertently escape during a thunderstorm or fireworks who are most likely to be penalized.
Good luck getting any judge to give prison time to the owner of the mauling dog. When that happens, I'll send Santa Claus over to shine your shoes. You've got to get over this "government is out to fine us to death" mentality. "Discretionary" means "discretionary." From what I've read, 95% of the cases will still be handled by PAWS, which will NOT be giving out the increased fines. But, those basket cases where a dangerous dog is involved will be open to such a fine. What's so wrong with that? If it stops one lunkhead from sending the neighborhood mauler out, ain't that better?
now i know why you go by "PollyPeoria" cos your answers are so "Pollyannish"!
"How about prosecuting them to the fullest extent of the law"?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Yeah while prostitutes and johns don't get cases filed against them!
Call Kevin Lyons on this one, Pollyanna! Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!
Have a nice day in Oz!
In other communities in this country -granted, not in those where the State's Attorney is a wuss- they not only prosecute owners of dogs that maul but people who don't pick up their dog's crap. San Francisco in particular has become very agressive in this area after the mauling death of Diane Whipple. Your dog doesn't have to kill someone to serve time. Consider the following:
Benjamin Curtis Duke, 29, of Faulkner County, Arkansas, on April 25 drew three years in state prison and a fine of $10,000 for allowing four pit bulls to run at large, three of whom seriously injured Matt Schneider, 10, in June 2000. The charge was second-degree battery.
* Jared Pollock, 22, of Frankford, Pennsylvania, on April 9 drew 30 days under house arrest and two years on probation for allowing two pit bulls to maul Greg Fox, 12, in July 2000. Both dogs were shot by police. The charge was reckless endangerment, reduced from aggravated assault.
* Jerry "Buster" Allen McTaggert, 48, of Tunnel Hills, Georgia, on April 2 drew seven years on probation for reckless endangerment in allowing Dakota "Cody" Randolph, age 3, to wander into proximity to two Rottweilers who killed the boy while McTaggert was in bed with his mother, Serena McConley Randolph, the day after Christmas 1997. Ms. Randolph drew a probationary sentence earlier, but broke the probation and served the final two months in jail. An autopsy showed that her son, partially disemboweled, was still alive for two hours after the attack, but his cries were not heard. Sentencing on misdemeanor charges linked to dog attacks is also getting tougher:
* Rogelio Velasquez, of Wasco, California, was sentenced on July 25 to serve a year in the Kern County jail for owning dogs trained to attack and cause injury. Velasquez is also to make restitution to Garrett Mozingo, 9, and Cody Roberts, 11, who suffered disabling injuries when Velasquez' two pit bulls stormed into an elementary school playground.
* Heredia Lomas, 36, of San Dimas, California, on April 9 drew a month in jail and his wife Susan, 31, got three years on probation, for harboring a pit bull mix who attacked three people in a year. Heredia Lomas was also convicted of illegally removing the dog prematurely from quarantine at the Inland Valley Humane Society. In felony cases still pending:
* Judith Galland, of Rochester, New York, was on March 7 hit with two counts of third-degree assault and one count of reckless endangerment for allowing her two pit bulls to bite a utility worker.
I could go on and on and on... or you guys could just learn to use Google.
Don't bother Santa during his well deserved summer break. My middle name is Ann, but I'm no Pollyanna. I do, however, own property in OZ.
Bring them folks in, Polly, and yep, jail time would work better than a $500 fine... but, in the meantime, isn't a $500 fine better than nothin'?
Post a Comment