Nothing But Pure Ignorance

[Brad Hutchison]

Shawn, thank you for clarifying your point: you equate lack of insurance with being an irresponsible dog owner. I understand, but I disagree. The law is what it is (one battle at a time, I guess), but I think: 1) a lot of pit owners are simply unfamiliar with the current laws; and, 2) not having the extra insurance does not make one's dog more dangerous, so I still don't see why this should be used in support of a ban.

As far as my own dog is concerned, he is a mix that may contain some of a breed that might be considered pit bull, but I don't know that for sure. He was born in a foster home from a stray mother that is also a mix, and he has a deadbeat dad. I've never found any cause, morally or legally, to have extra insurance, get a muzzle, wear a padded suit when I pet him, or anything else an owner of any other breed wouldn't be expected to do. I can't help it if that offends you.

Still, the argument over the ban still boils down to just two questions. First, are individual pit bulls inherently more dangerous solely based on their membership in the breed? Mr. Dickson says no. My father, Dr. Hutchison, says no. The AKC says no.

Second, will banning an entire breed solve anything? All evidence suggests that communities than ban pit bulls just see an influx of other large breeds and the abandonment or cruel destruction of pit bulls. Why? Because the people that seek out and create dangerous dogs just move on to breeds that aren't banned.

That's why, for example, The Netherlands just repealed it's 15-year-old ban on pits, and it has been recommended to Prince George's County, MD, to do the same. Look, I don't want dangerous dogs in Lakewood any more than you do, but any legislation MUST target owners and individual dangerous dogs, not whole breeds.

[Ed Dickson]

I have been thinking a lot about how to respond to this without letting the emotion take over. Quite honestly, the lack of vision that a ban like this takes infuriates me. Brad just summed up the things that really matter so I will leave it at that.
Two additional points.
1) I agree with Brad that the letter that Councilman Powers placed in the Observer did nothing to endear me to his cause. He is the one council member that has been appointed and based on a few comments he made to me in my phone conversation with him and his actions, which completely contradict what he said on the phone to me, he will not be receiving my vote for any re-election should he decide to run. The comments he made to me on the phone seemed to indicate he could take or leave his job as a councilmen. His letter proved to me that he doesn't really care to hear my opinion or thoughts. I am a Certified Profesional Dog Trainer by the way.
2) I commonly hear the argument that these dogs are bred and trained to be aggressive. If any of the people supporting this would do some research, you would find that dog to dog aggression and dog to human aggression don't go together. One does not automatically equate to the other. This is science. I'm not just making it up.

A final point-I hear all the time that people outside of Lakewood should just mind their own business. Reality is, this is everyone's business. The councilmen pushing this has used other local municipalities as a guide for why it should be done. (The Garfield Hts ban has been in place for a very short time. Hardly a usable example as to whether it's working.) Why wouldn't others do the same? I have friends and colleagues that have dogs that could have Pit in them. They come to my house for play dates occasionally. Will they be allowed if this ban is put in place? I could easily get testimonials from other trainers around the country that have a lot more experience than me as to why this is a bad idea. Shouldn't that matter?

This just enetered my mind as well so this is the final point I have been hearing about negotiations over grandfathering dogs that already reside in Lakewood. Doesn't this defea the purpose? One of the main points made to me was with a ban, it makes it automatic that if you are seen with a "Pit" type dog, it will be taken from you. If we are talking grandfathering, can't we just enforce the current laws? just a thought.

FWIW,
Ed Dickson, CPDT

[Brad Hutchison]

Perhaps we should start a thread on the pros and cons of having appointed councilpersons, and on their ability to introduce legislation...

I think it's also important to note that Pit Bull Rescue Central, the organization Mr. Powers keeps quoting (and which, by his own admission, claims he took that information out of context), opposes breed-specific legislation.

Their website has pages on the positive characteristics of these dogs, including what Mr. Dickson just said about dog aggression vs. human aggression. While some lines of these dogs used for fighting naturally had dog aggression bred into them, human aggression was purposely bred out of them. According to PBRC, and one of things Mr. Powers doesn't tell you, is that Pit breeds nationwide pass at about 83% with the American Temperament Test Society... the same passing rate as Golden Retrievers.

[Shawn Juris]

Brad,
You make two points which are both poor arguments. They are in my opinion so bad that I question if it is worthwhile discussing it further. 1) Ignorance is not an excuse- if someone buys something they should understand what the requirements are to owning the item. If they do not then they are irresponsible. 2) The purpose of insurance is not to reduce the risk or as you say make the pet less dangerous- buying an auto policy does not have any impact on your ability to drive. If you chose to ride a crotch rocket though, your premium will be far greater than a normal car. Unlike so many policies though, insurance for a dog is a benefit to the victim. While it is written to limit your liability exposure should your pet injure someone, the intion of the law, in my opinion has public safety in mind in much the same way that there are requirements for state minimum liability insurance for all drivers. In the auto example if a driver is found to not have a policy in force they are required to file a SR-22 which is evidence of financial responsibility.
I would ask that rather than making excuses for the violators we focus on good policy which in my mind should put people ahead of pets.

[Brad Hutchison]

Shawn, I don't completely disagree with you on these points, although I do partially on your first one. There are national ads on TV all the time about car insurance; everyone knows they have to have it. But I don't think it would ever occur to most people to even check into whether or not there are extra restrictions on the breed of dog they are considering... because it's ridiculous. How would they know? Who would tell them? Why would anyone ever think that might be the case?

Naturally, I don't believe having insurance makes a dog, motorcycle, or anything else less dangerous. I am just trying to establish why, other than your obvious irrational prejudice toward people who choose to own pit bulls, your points are relevant to this discussion.

Why does the fact that, in your opinion, many pit bull owners don't have insurance support a total ban on the breed? It still boils down to the misconception that pit bulls are inherently a more dangerous breed. Your only arguments for the ban that I can find in this thread are: there is HUD subsidized housing on your street; you doubt that the current laws are followed/enforced; your neighbor, who belongs to a stereotype you don't like, had a pit bull puppy in her yard; and all pit bull owners are stupid - none of these are especially compelling arguments.

I encourage everyone to talk to veterinarians, breeders, trainers, and other experts about pit bulls. Read about the success/failure of BSL in other communities. Stop listening to the hysteria on the evening news and do your own research - but focus on sources that interact with dogs every day!

[Shawn Juris]

My point Brad is not that there is a stereotype and the anecdote of a Hud subsidized renter having one in her front yard unleashed was not support for a ban but evidence to me that there is reason for the stereotype. Which wasn't that it was a race issue but a financial responsibility issue. I am not suggesting that the correlation between the two should lead anyone to believe that one produces the other. Great distraction though but let's get back to the point.
My point is that pit bulls are excluded on most homeowners and renters policies. This is the law as it stands today and presumable if it is not being followed is part of the justification for introducing a stricter law. I consider your point that the public may be undereducated about the fact that they are required to have liability insurance on their dog, but for the segment of the population that choses to purchase property that is excluded the responsibility lies with them. At the time of loss what should occur for those uninsured or underinsured is that they should be held accountable for the full cost of the injury, yet if someone can not afford it who pays the victim's medical bills? This is not the point to realize that they didn't do what they should have done. Some suggestions to assist them in their education of the existing laws would be to have those selling the dog to inform the buyer that Ohio Law stipulates that a $100,000 liability policy must be in force and that many carriers will not write a policy to include a pit bull (or even a mix along with many of the other large breeds that you mention as support for not moving ahead with this ban) and that they may need to buy it from a niche carrier that will charge $700+ each year just for the liability protection on the dog alone. From a regulation standpoint it would make sense to me that the county would make this part of the registration process. I admit that I am not familiar with how this process works but it would make sense to have someone who can identify breeds be part of the process and require the actual policy to determine if their dog has been specifically excluded by the carrier or if they have in fact met the requirements. The owner of pit bulls would also be required to prove that they have the proper containment equipment as set out by the state of Ohio. Again, in the end I do not agree with passing the buck to some other entity. If a dog owner wants to be considered responsible it takes more than just doing what they are told out of fear of penalty. A responsible individual does what they should because that is what should be done. Law abiding would seem to me to be one step below responsible. In terms of neighbors, I for one would prefer to have responsible neighbors over just simply law abiding (which would seem to be those that cut it as close as they can to the law so long as they do not get charged with anything).
My argument for the ban is that if owners of this breed have not followed the laws as they are established then further measures are required. The reason for pit bulls and not all large dogs or dogs often excluded are that pit bulls already have heightened regulations and therefore have been singled out. Fair, unfair, statistical analysis accurate or inaccurate, I can not say. The fact is that those that have made the laws and many of those that charge the premium and accept the risk do not want this exposure. I can not say with certainity how many owners do not follow the existing laws or why they don't. I merely speculate based on past experience as supported by some of your argument that the belief of many is that while the breed of their dog has been singled out they do not feel that it pertains to their pet. In essence they withhold information and sign a contract under false pretenses. How is this not their responsibility?
If I could encourage pit bull owners and other owners of large dogs it would be to review your policy and ask your agent if you are covered in order to protect yourself from a liability claim should your dog injure someone. In terms of disclosure, some may cover it but there are not many that I've reviewed that do. The language is on the carrier's side on this one. In practice it may be something different in the courtroom but why leave yourself and the public exposed? For the public, assume that the owner of a large dog (pit bull, rottweiler, doberman, german shepard, akita, chow, boxer, etc) does not have a policy that will pay for your injuries if something happens. And to all again, why the need to have a large dog that proper treatment requires exercise in a city as confined as Lakewood? Or are we to believe that a pit bull should be considered a lap dog?

[Jim O'Bryan]

Update

I was speaking with the councilman from Ward 2, Tom Bullock. One thing he wanted to assure me was that while Brian Powers introduced this "plan." Council is behind him, and someone else including himself would have introduced this for the city. "They have studied this and feel with the attacks this is a needed law/ban.

I asked about the "attacks" he mentioned the man bit in the face was laying down on a couch when bit. I asked if he was interacting with the dog and he was not sure. He mentioned that when the Pit Bull lunged at the police office the police officer feared for his life and well being and needed to protect himself and shot the dog. I told Tom I have no problem with a police officer feeling in fear and doing whatever is necessary to restore order. While it was a tragedy I would not want the dog treated any different from anyone else threatening a police officer. I would still like to know about the man on the couch and the interaction. I have seen people do some pretty stupid things around dogs. Also, I was told by one source the pit bull jumped and bit his face while he was standing and now he was lying on a couch.

Also, it will not be a Pit Bull ban, Tom mentioned they are also looking at banning Rottweilers , Cane Corsos, wolf/dog hybrids and possibly other large breeds. Tom was speaking with a woman who lived in Ward 2 who thought she had a pit bull or rottweiller living next to her, and thought it was a good idea. Though admitted that dogs like children are products of their environments and upbringing.

I asked about my dog, who looks like a Bordeaux one day and an Atomic Pit Bull the next, and he was not sure. I asked about the only breed of dog mentioned and outlawed in the Geneva Convention "Airedales" and he was not sure. I asked about the only two breeds that have ever scared me, Neapolitan Mastiffs, and/or Fila Brasilero (developed to hunt humans ie. slaves, prisoners, etc.) and he was unsure. I asked about the Pit Bulls little cousins, Stafordshire Terrier, and Jack Russell terrier, and he was unsure.

I asked if there was a better way, like asking to see insurance policies, and he assured me it would be easier to tell the breed of a dog, even a mixed breed, than ask for insurance papers. I mentioned I find it hard to tell the breed of my dog and he is my dog! He assured me there are ways.

Then we both talked of the calls and letters we have gotten from all over America. I asked if they ever considered when rolling out this PR campaign that they would attract attention from not just the dog world by the legal world? Is Lakewood ready to take this to the Supreme Court if need be? Are we ready to pay for that cost?

He assured me Lakewood was ready and feels it is necessary "to protect our children."

I asked about when will they clean the streets, and get homes fixed and he assured me they were not related so could be done at the same time.

And to all again, why the need to have a large dog that proper treatment requires exercise in a city as confined as Lakewood? Or are we to believe that a pit bull should be considered a lap dog?

Shawn

It has been my experience that most large breed dogs or maybe I should say "giant breed" (mastiffs, great danes, etc) dogs require less exercise and running that sporting breeds (retrievers, labs, etc.), or small breed dogs like terriers.

FINALLY

After all the talk of safety last year I was finally able to talk my wife into getting a dog for the house, after years of saying no more dogs. We just feel safer with a dog int he house.

Dogs make a great first line of defense. They wake you so you have time to get the bullets, unlock the gun and go...




FWIW


.

[Joe Ott]

Is Lakewood ready to take this to the Supreme Court if need be? Are we ready to pay for that cost?

I'm glad the city has the resources to take on a fight like that since there are no other problems in the city...

He assured me Lakewood was ready and feels it is necessary "to protect our children."

When is the last time you saw a cop stop a kid on a bike not wearing a helmet? Out after curfew? Break up loitering? Protect our children...

I sat for half an hour last night sitting by the park across from your office Jim, I couldn't believe what I saw the group of kids doing. I saw 4 kids break branches off the trees and stomp on bushes. Not one cop drove by - not that they would have stopped though...

I asked about when will they clean the streets, and get homes fixed and he assured me they were not related so could be done at the same time.

Like I said earlier in this thread, lkwd is continuing it's downward spiral to the point of no return and yet the city finds the resources for these kinds of issues?

Anybody know when the housing market is supposed to pick up? Now is not the time. Several of my neighbors have put their houses on the market. They've seen enough.

P.S.
I spent some time googling "top 10 biters" lists and can't find Golden's on any of them. That's just bs. But of course anything with a mouth is capable of biting. Will my Golden Retrievers be banned? Sheesh...

[Shawn Juris]

Have there been any numbers provided so far on how many dogs would be effected (if not grandfathered) by this? It does seem strange to me that since this topic came up, I swear that I've been seeing pit bulls more often. I don't claim to be an expert on breed but they are certainly large dogs which to me look rather intimidating and certainly are not lap dogs or lassie. Then again, maybe it's just the same 3 dogs being walked by someone else each time.
I attempted to get the list of dog registrations from the county, but well it's the county so I wasn't really expecting much. In terms of enforcement it really seems that this should be turned over to the citizens so they may be aware of which neighbors have at least met the bare minimum level of responsibility and have registered their dog with the county. I picture a map, much like the sex offenders and foreclosures with red flags for breeds considered dangerous. From that point the city can add a layer of investigation to determine if the owner is abiding by the existing leash, containment and insurance regulations. Why not start now? Once the ban is in effect if it goes through they are going to have to inventory the pet population to determine which are grandfathered and keep up with new arrivals. If the ban doesn't go through at least they've enforced the existing laws. Again, tracking the pit bulls should be easy - start with the group that is showing up at council meetings opposing this. Some may not have one but I suspect several will.

[Shawn Juris]

Have there been any numbers provided so far on how many dogs would be effected (if not grandfathered) by this? It does seem strange to me that since this topic came up, I swear that I've been seeing pit bulls more often. I don't claim to be an expert on breed but they are certainly large dogs which to me look rather intimidating and certainly are not lap dogs or lassie. Then again, maybe it's just the same 3 dogs being walked by someone else each time.
I attempted to get the list of dog registrations from the county, but well it's the county so I wasn't really expecting much. In terms of enforcement it really seems that this should be turned over to the citizens so they may be aware of which neighbors have at least met the bare minimum level of responsibility and have registered their dog with the county. I picture a map, much like the sex offenders and foreclosures with red flags for breeds considered dangerous. From that point the city can add a layer of investigation to determine if the owner is abiding by the existing leash, containment and insurance regulations. Why not start now? Once the ban is in effect if it goes through they are going to have to inventory the pet population to determine which are grandfathered and keep up with new arrivals. If the ban doesn't go through at least they've enforced the existing laws. Again, tracking the pit bulls should be easy - start with the group that is showing up at council meetings opposing this. Some may not have one but I suspect several will.

[Valerie Molinski]

I asked about the "attacks" he mentioned the man bit in the face was laying down on a couch when bit. I asked if he was interacting with the dog and he was not sure. He mentioned that when the Pit Bull lunged at the police office the police officer feared for his life and well being and needed to protect himself and shot the dog. I told Tom I have no problem with a police officer feeling in fear and doing whatever is necessary to restore order. While it was a tragedy I would not want the dog treated any different from anyone else threatening a police officer. I would still like to know about the man on the couch and the interaction. I have seen people do some pretty stupid things around dogs. Also, I was told by one source the pit bull jumped and bit his face while he was standing and now he was lying on a couch.


I asked about my dog, who looks like a Bordeaux one day and an Atomic Pit Bull the next, and he was not sure. I asked about the only breed of dog mentioned and outlawed in the Geneva Convention "Airedales" and he was not sure. I asked about the only two breeds that have ever scared me, Neapolitan Mastiffs, and/or Fila Brasilero (developed to hunt humans ie. slaves, prisoners, etc.) and he was unsure. I asked about the Pit Bulls little cousins, Stafordshire Terrier, and Jack Russell terrier, and he was unsure.

This is what scares me about this entire thing. It sounds like it is not entirely thought out. He doesn't know these answers, yet he supports the ban? I find this ridiculous. No one seems the least bit informed on the the implications of this.

To me, this is a HUGE red herring. The city let in Section 8, and they cant go back... so how do they start getting rid of it? Ban the dogs that are most associated with 'ghetto' culture and make those people move on their own volition. Along with those people, you will have good people leaving like those in this thread. This isn't completely about dogs. They are the victims in this struggle.

[Brad Hutchison]

That worries me, Jim. It echos Mr. Powers's article... it sounds like they're so sure they want to do this, that no one's really interested in doing any research or listening to anybody. They can't hear over their own righteousness.

As far as the man that got bit in the face, isn't there a big difference between getting bit by your own dog and getting bit by someone else's dog?

Edit: Looks like we were posting at the same time Valerie, with similar thoughts. I still don't believe, though, that the types of pit bull owners this is meant to target will leave the city, because they don't care about their dogs. At best, the Animal Shelter will be overrun, at worst these dogs will be abandoned or killed.

[Jeff Endress]

ANd today, in the PD, there's a report about the Stowe Dog park/lake which is having problems with dog on dog attacks.....and the viscious breed involved? A POODLE! Yep, a POODLE. Swam up, grabbed a Daschund and apparently killed it.

Never like Poodles. Think we had better ban them!

Jeff

[Ed Dickson]

In my conversation with Mr. Powers I was stunned at the lack of information he had to basic questions I was asking. If you are going to propose something as drastic as this, it seems you should know the percentage of bite cases in Lakewood that involved the dogs in question. He didn't. That was only one simple question I put forth that he didn't have the answer for. He really didn't seemed concerned or embarrased to not have the answers either. Maybe he could learn from our recently departed Tim Russert about preperation. I'm even more concerned about the info that they would like to include other large breeds as well. I haven't had the chance to make calls to all the councilmen I need to get in touch with but it just rocketed up my priority list. Brad is right in saying that this won't cause the problematic dog owners to leave. They are the ones who don't really care if the dog is removed. It will cause some responsible citizens in Lakewood to leave though. I just told my wife 2 days ago that if a ban of this nature is passed I would seriously consider moving out of the house we just bought a year ago. This may be a minor issue to council and may be "just dogs" to someone like Shawn but it's an indication to me of how this city plans on dealing with the many problems facing it. The way this is being dealt with stinks to high heaven!

By the way, I don't own a breed that would be banned. I own a Border Collie and an Aussie mix and I'm happy to report to you Shawn that they sure seem very happy to me. Just because you don't get how to keep dogs happy in the city doesn't mean that others don't. Not being combative, just making a point.

Ed

[Ed Dickson]

Forgot to add that I can't believe this whole was started because someone was bit by his own dog. Are we protecting him from himself?