That is, until he realized the Council President thought it was discriminatory and another Council Member is all, um yeah, I gots the Pit Bulls, they cool.
Oh yeah, animal control thought it was silly too. Add a dozen "angry dog owners" and, well, Mr. Weill, your proposal fails. No tears of woe from me.
Weill said he does not buy that and maintained the current ordinance is not being enforced. An outright ban on pit bulls would remove any gray area, forcing the city to act, he said.Weill doesn't buy that animal control is doing their job. He believes that the issue of dangerous dogs is black and white. How nice. I wish all issues were so simple! For example, the United Kingdom is doing swimmingly with their 1991 ban on American Pit Bull Terriers what with dog fighting charges on the rise, dog attacks increasing. Either all those devil dogs should be winning prizes for being the oldest group of dogs on earth or, well, maybe the law doesn't work (instead of eliminating it, they're suggesting everyone microchip their dogs and get insurance - PROBLEMS SOLVED, GET BITTEN AND DOG OWNERS WILL PAY FOR IT!). Aggression is complex. Reducing it to breed is not helpful. Breeds do not bite people, individual dogs do.
Weill said the ban is an "effective first step" in dealing with a breed he said is responsible for most of the serious dog attacks in the city. No statistics on dog attacks in the city have been made public, but Jones said there are about 2,000 to 3,000 pit bulls in Jackson, a figure he said was a conservative estimate.I mean, he doesn't have statistics or anything, but hey whatevs. Like is 2 attacks by Pit Bull mixes since December, out of a population of 2,000-3,000 something to be concerned about? I dunno, that doesn't sound like a statistically threatening sort of number.
Anyways, I'll just be happy that it appears BSL is off the menu in Jackson City. For now.