So all kinds of stuff has recently hit the fan in response to a horrendous attack on a Westwego woman that was sharing a tiny home with a “Pit Bull” breeding operation, live litter and all. Since this horrible incident, the Westwego City Council have moved to amend their city ordinance in an effort to make it far tougher on Pit Bull owners as a whole…

Under the proposed changes Pit Bull owners must be at least 21 years of age and carry $100,000 in liability insurance, follow specific confinement regulations (both in and out of the home), keep the dogs muzzled when leaving the home (perpetuating stereotypes), display warning signs on the premises (perpetuating stereotypes), mandatorily spay and/or neuter their dog as well as implant a mandatory microchip. Going further, this will also require that unlicensed Pit Bulls be killed, that the city’s code inspectors be able to visit people’s private homes to “determine compliance,” and that DNA-testing be done at the expense of the pet owner. Back quickly to the dogs being killed if they are “unlicensed”–what then happens to the strays that are impounded at the shelter? I’m assuming they’d all be unethically killed.

“Those responsible Pit Bull owners will not have a problem with this, I’m sure, recognizing we do not want to take their dog away,” Mayor Johnny Shaddinger said Wednesday, a day after City Attorney Joel Levy submitted a first draft of the proposed ordinance.

Ugh, actually we do. I’m responsible, and I have a big problem with it. Why? Because requiring that all “Pit Bull” owners get liability insurance in order to have or keep their family dog is BSL through and through. Folks, please remember that breed-specific legislation is not just simply a “ban” of a certain type of dog. It’s any legislation crafted that targets “specific” types of dogs. I put specific in quotations because there’s nothing ever specific about these policies, nor is there anything specific about how they are going to go about identifying whether your dog is or is not a Pit Bull. And notice how the Mayor says that “we do not want to take your dog away.” Um, okay. But you do want to create such a negative stigma around the dogs, as well as put hurdle after hurdle up in front of those already having the dogs, that they might voluntarily give their dogs up or be in violation of some law, thus being forced to give their dogs up. Not to mention the blowback that always follows a law that mandates liability insurance, allowing more landlords and insurance companies to move to over-protect themselves and avoid the dogs altogether. This is definitely an excuse for those folks to be more discriminatory in that regard. So no, all of this may not amount to Mr. Shaddinger actually coming to your home to personally “take your dog,” but it absolutely will amount to dogs being taken, given up, situational upheaval and the continuation of broad and sweepingly vile discrimination.

Green said the city needs the harsher guidelines because of Henry’s ordeal, and because he hears too many troubling stories about Pit Bull attacks. He doesn’t blame the animals, but he does blame pet owners who don’t properly care for them.

Ahem… Doublespeak alert!! Councilman Glenn Green “doesn’t blame the animals,” but yet what he’s doing is fundamentally making all of the animals guilty until proven innocent. He’s also admitting that “too many troubling stories” played a role, and goes on to admit that Mrs. Henry’s boyfriend didn’t “properly care for” his dogs. WOW. What a quote. So if he actually believes ^his last sentence then why aren’t his efforts based around responsible dog ownership and not the blatant targeting of an entire type of dog? Also, they already have a Pit Bull ordinance that went unenforced, and now they are “strengthening it,” even though the original ordinance did nothing to stop the attack that is prompting the doubling down on a new law. Again, how about targeting responsible pet ownership instead?

Now, onto Villalobos Rescue Center and Tia Torres, who I genuinely respect and think that they do great work with bringing public awareness to the true and very positive nature of these dogs. Up and to this point my only concern with them, in any area, has been that some of their merchandise is so abrasively Pit Bull-exclusive that it puts all other dogs down in the process (i.e. “If it ain’t pit, it ain’t shit”). Minor. Just me being observational and having an opinion. And I doubt they care. But anyways, to my surprise they are actually SUPPORTING this legislation! What the hell? See for yourself.

In this photo they then relay people to Einhorn Insurance, implying that they will be fine once they call them. I guess so, if local carriers are still available. I’m told that there are currently options, and Einhorn can assist in detailing those for folks when and if this becomes necessary. Most Louisiana homeowner’s insurance companies continue to flat out exclude Pit Bulls. That’s just another challenge that remains, and one that is not going to be getting any better in light of what has happened in Westwego. All of this is kind of besides the point though, as not everyone can afford liability insurance for their dog. Far more important than that, it’s wrong to have to be forced to get it when no one else does. That’s exclusionary. That’s punishing responsible people for committing no crime. That’s punishing the dogs.

Villalobos responds to the few critics of their position by implying that, hey, it was either this or “AN ALL OUT BAN.” Uh, not really. But way to fearmonger people into believing that there is only 2 options. Whatever happened to standing on your principles? I guess that somehow doesn’t apply with this, even though it does, and they are just choosing not to. They then tell people to “pick and choose your battles.” Alrighty.

Well, I’m here to say that what has been described here and elsewhere is pretty much an unofficial ban. Semantical games can be played but this is an egregious squeeze on law-abiding and responsible people, as well as an endless amount of good dogs. Requiring liability insurance in an area where almost all of the insurance companies choose to exclude that “type” of dog is essentially a ban on any dog that looks like that “type” of dog, whatever that means. And you won’t be able to decide, Glenn Green and his people will. Also, requiring that all dogs of a specific breed or type be forever spayed and neutered is an eventual ban, in theory, to boot.

Quite frankly I’m not only stunned by the stand that Villalobos has taken, but I’m also stunned by the amount of praise that they are receiving (and the amount of criticism that they are not receiving) in regards to the position that they’ve taken. My 2 cents is clear. You should be standing on the principle that this is totally wrong. That’s what everything boils down to. We are these dogs’ voice, and that’s a very important role to have and position to be in. And the platform that you have to be those things, I mean, my goodness gracious… Please, Villalobos: Reconsider your position. You don’t hedge on injustice, ever. You are either anti-BSL or you are not. That should be the end of it. Giving an inch to a politician hellbent on discriminating means that he is likely to take multiple miles. And what you’ve “given” here is far more than an inch. Is it worth discarding the soul of the argument, your principles and the truth, in order to appease a grandstanding Councilman who has it backwards? C’mon.