The owners, not the dogs, are to blame

The controversy over ownership of dogs such as pit bulls and Rottweilers has been ongoing for some time in Elgin and has ranged from free ownership without any strings attached to the outright "banning" of the dogs.

A recent news article points out the high costs of any type of ban, not to mention the curtailment of just one more freedom on the part of the citizenry. Banning any type of dog from Elgin is about as idiotic as banning firearms. It isn't the dog that's the problem; it's the attitude of the owner. It's the human who is to blame and not the tool.

Any dog normally only wishes to please its owner in an animal-human bond that has existed for eons. If a dog is dangerous to other dogs or to humans, it is the human owner who is to blame. Young punks proudly parade their alter egos vying to see who has the biggest, meanest dog in a "mine is bigger than yours" attitude.

Why not make any infraction on the part of the dog be subject to a draconian fine, say, something like a $2,000 first time one and a $5,000 fine for a second infraction? That would certainly put teeth in any ordinance concerning dogs and would tend to discourage the training of dogs to be hostile and aggressive. It would cut down on the number of dogs that have to be destroyed through no real fault of their own, would do away with just one more tool of the punk gangs in Elgin and would put to ease the fears of people who own good dogs who fear the loss of their beloved pets. It might also help the economy of the city due to the revenue gendered.

Edward Landers

Elgin