Nothing But Pure Ignorance

Missy Limkemann · Post by **Missy Limkemann** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:35 pm

If this works...this is Batman (my registered Boxer/English Bulldog mix) The warden called him a lab/bulldog mix

I have a ton more....LOL

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 5:52 pm

Just a question for Councilman Powers or Bullock who seem to be championing this issue.

Will the burden of proof lie with the city to prove the dog is a pit bull or a pit bull mix or with the homeowner to prove that it isn't?
Historically in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. Has there been any cost considerations of how much it will cost to do DNA testing on these dogs if the owners claim they aren't pit bulls?

Currentlly isn't the cost an issue on people accused of capital crimes to have DNA testing done to exonerate them before they are executed? Certainly if it is so expensive that it is an issue to have these tests done for people accused of serious crimes, do we want to spend that money on a dog?

Jim DeVito · Post by **Jim DeVito** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:11 pm

So is there ever going to be a vote one way or another?

Missy Limkemann · Post by **Missy Limkemann** » Sun Jul 20, 2008 7:05 pm

I know that I did the Wisdom Panel DNA test. They have the test with the most breeds on file. It cost me about $130.00 for my test. I was going to do the cheaper do it at home test, but I still don't trust those "do it at home" tests too much. LOL.

Bat's DNA reads...Boxer, Bulldog, French Bulldog, Italian Greyhound, Mastiff, Vizsla. (i laughed at the italian greyhound part...) and our warden said he looked more labish so on the paperwork from them I have, Bat is listed as a lab/bulldog mix.

I dont know if they are going to vote or not on Monday or if they are ready to vote. I am almost afraid to go tomorrow. But I will be there. Oh oh...should I bring the chihuahua too?

Brad Hutchison · Post by **Brad Hutchison** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:05 am

Lynn Farris wrote:Just a question for Councilman Powers or Bullock who seem to be championing this issue.

Will the burden of proof lie with the city to prove the dog is a pit bull or a pit bull mix or with the homeowner to prove that it isn't?
Historically in this country one is innocent until proven guilty. Has there been any cost considerations of how much it will cost to do DNA testing on these dogs if the owners claim they aren't pit bulls?

Currentlly isn't the cost an issue on people accused of capital crimes to have DNA testing done to exonerate them before they are executed? Certainly if it is so expensive that it is an issue to have these tests done for people accused of serious crimes, do we want to spend that money on a dog?

Lynn, that's a good question and one I've been wondering about too (we all know what the answer is). But this just highlights how ridiculous this whole issue is. Instead of looking at whether a specific dog is vicious, we're talking about doing DNA tests to see if the dog has Staffordshire Terrier in it or whatever. How much makes it dangerous? 10%? 20%? If a dog is 49% "pit" it's a good dog, but 51% will rip your throat out?

Gary Rice · Post by **Gary Rice** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:38 pm

Dear friends and neighbors:

Looks as if something might be cooking down at City Hall tonight, dog-wise.

To me, this dog controversy is all so incredibly disgusting, and reeks of the residue of 1930's pseudo-eugenics; where racial and behavoral traits were assigned to pre-judge our human family...only now, some may be thinking that those types of notions ought to apply to animals? I thought WWII was fought in order to banish these types of ideas from the earth.

I hope that you all will look for my regular column "Pulse of the City" in the Lakewood Observer this week, where this topic will be addressed in some detail.

Nearly 12,000 views here on the 'Deck tell me that this has been one of the most passionately discussed subjects since the West-End controversy.

Each side hanging onto their arguments, like, well, dogs do, with their chew toys?

And both sides occasionally nipping at the heels of the other? (...or was that-trying to rip each other's faces off?)

But enough fun-filled analogy...both sides seem to have made some good points, and the other kind too, I think.

I tried to look at the issue objectively. Honestly, I did. You may have noticed that I have not even expressed my thoughts in this section...up to this point.

In my opinion, this topic carries many of the same old and tired aspects with it that we've seen before, if you will read between the lines, and look below the surface. You name it: cultural, economic, racial, polemical, political, personal...they're all there, I believe; well below, and far deeper, than the simple aspect of some knee-high, big-headed dogs that no one seems to be able to define; whether agreeably, scientifically, or legally.

Those are the REAL elephants, er, dogs, in this particular chatroom fight, er, so-called discussion...at least, as appears to me...

...a sad commentary for Lakewood, this I do believe...but not surprising, in my opinion, given other knee-jerk responses that I've observed with other Lakewood social issues; discussed here with our blinking little virtual ant-cursors, on Jimmy's little virtual ant farm.

Don't get me wrong. Opinions are a good thing, and the more, the merrier...and we all certainly have a right to them. I just think, as a personal opinion of my own, that the line between civil discourse and uncivil gets kind of fuzzy around here at times.

It's easy to manage a disagreeable dog. They can simply be muzzled in polite company. We do not, however, have muzzles for people.

My main concern at this point is, behavior-wise in a round-up, how the authorities would differentiate between pit-bulls and people?

Kind of makes me want to buy a dog...

...knee-high, with a big head,

...and that's my opinion on this matter.

Brad Hutchison · Post by **Brad Hutchison** » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:21 pm

This topic remains, sadly, nothing but pure ignorance, and pure ignorance has won the day.