Pit Bull Ban Passes

Colleen Wing · Post by **Colleen Wing** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:38 am

http://www.house.state.oh.us/index.php? ... ict=33[url]

This is the State Rep that sponsored this bill. Contacting his office directly is the best way to influence this legislation. [/url]

Grace O'Malley · Post by **Grace O'Malley** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:48 am

Can a councilperson who was appointed, not elected, be recalled?

Anybody know the legalities?

Hope Robbins · Post by **Hope Robbins** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:07 am

Grace O'Malley wrote:Can a councilperson who was appointed, not elected, be recalled?

Anybody know the legalities?

Yes Grace, they can.
Secret weapon number one. City Charter.

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:23 am

Thought you might like to read the details of this ordinance.

AN ORDINANCE to amend Section 51026Pit Buil Dogs or Canary Dogs
of the Lakewood Codified Ordinances for the purpose of banning pit bull terriers within the City of Lakewood

WHEREAS canines of the breeds commonly known as Pit Bull Dogs and
Canary Dogs by whatever name pose a public safety risk in adensely populated area such as the City of Lakewood and
WHEREAS the protection of the health and safety of the residents of the City of Lakewood Is ofprimary concern

Now Therefore BE Ii ORDAINED BYTHE CITY OF LAKEWOOD STATE OF OHIO Section 1 That Section 51Q26 Pit Bull Dogs or Canary Dogs of the
Codified Ordinances ofthe City of Lakewood currently reading as follows
5102fi PIT BULL DOGS OR CANARY DOGS

a All pit bull dogs and canary dogs Petro de PresaCanario are deemed to be dangerous animals even in the absence oat hearing by the Health Commissioner and owners or custodians of such animals are subject to the terms conditions and restrictions ofSectioh 51016

b As used in this section pit bull dog means an Staffordshire Bull Terrier
American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier breed ofdog any dog of mixed breed which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of such breeds any dog commonly known as apit bull pit bull dog or pit bull terrier or a combination of any ofthese breads

c As used In this section canary dogs or perro de PresaCanario Dogs also
include any dog of mixed breed which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of such breed

d In the event of a dispute as to whetheronorta dog is a pit bull dog a
canary dog or some other breed the Health Commissioner shall make the

e Whoever violates this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the third degree on the first offense and a misdemeanor ofthe first degree for each subsequent offense under this section In addition to any other sentence that it imposes on the offender the court shall order the dog either destroyed or permanently removed from the City Any person found guilty of violating this section shall pay all expenses including shelter food boarding and veterinary expenses necessitated by the seliure of the dog and such other expense as may be required forthe destruction or permanent removal from the City of any such dog

Section 2 It is found and determined that all formal actions of this
Council concerning and relating to the passage of this ordinance were adopted in an open meeting of this Council and that all such deliberations of this Council and of any of its committees that resulted in such formal action were in meetings open to the public in compliance with ail legal requirements.

Section 3 That this ordinance is hereby declared to bean emergency measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace property health safety and welfare in the City and for the usual daily operation of the City for the reasons set forth and defined in the preamble to this ordinance and provided it receives the affirmative vote of at least five Sof its members elected to Council this ordinance
shall take effect and be in force immediately upon its adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor otherwise it shall take effect and be in force after the earliest period allowed by law.

Adopted
Approved
PRESIDENT
CLERK
MAYOR

dl meckes · Post by **dl meckes** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:24 am

Hope - you weren't the one who errantly mentioned the "five" wards in Lakewood.

I hope you and the Canine Advocates of Ohio can help keep us apprised of what's going on with specific breed legislation in the state.

There have been many twists and turns so far, but I had missed the great idea that if the state legislation passes that "pit bull" owners have 90 days to take their dogs in to have them killed.

This is one of the most horrifying and stupid ideas I've heard in a long time.

Will people who fight dogs comply with such a law? Even if they did, the rehabilitation of Michael Vick's dogs should be pointing the way to sanity.

This is Bella. Not a "Pit Bull".

Ryan Salo · Post by **Ryan Salo** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:32 am

I don't think we should worry too much yet.

There are plenty of laws on the books that are currently ignored by the mayor and police department. (to focus on more important laws)

This may be another one.

Council can say they passed the law to protect people and cover their butt, and no one will sue the city until someone is actually told to kill their dog, which may never happen...

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:33 am

There are a few areas here which really disturb me.

1) The burden of proof is on the pet owner to prove their dog is not part pit bull or... The burden of proof is normally in this country on the accuser not the accusee.

2) No grandfathering in of dogs that are currently good citizens of Lakewood as I read it. ( Jim, you say in the opening of this post that current dogs will be grandfathered in - did they change the ordinance to say that, because as I read it - that isn't in the ordinance.)

3) There is no period of time like 90 days for the person to move

4) Will this negate a contract e.g., if you are found to have a pit bull, will this negate a rental contract?

Missy, Hope, Ed, there are remedies in our City Charter if you would like to take them. A Referrendum will allow you to challenge at the ballot box this issue. I can tell you that it has been successfully used in the past.

ARTICLE XXI. REFERENDUM

SECTION 1. RIGHT TO REFERENDUM.
If at any time within forty (40) days after (a) the passage of any ordinance or the adoption of any resolution by Council, (b) the expiration of the time within which it may be disapproved by the Mayor, or (c) its passage or adoption notwithstanding the disapproval by the Mayor, as the case may be, a petition signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total votes cast for the office of Mayor at the last preceding regular municipal election at which a Mayor was elected is filed with the Clerk of Council requesting such ordinance or resolution be repealed or be submitted to a vote of the electors, such ordinance or resolution shall not become operative until the steps set forth in this Article have been taken.

I would also like to salute Councilperson Madigan as a Profile in Courage.

Missy Limkemann · Post by **Missy Limkemann** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:44 am

Again, if anyone out there sees me walking this dog...

PLEASE do not harass me. He is not a pitbull. The warden has met this dog, cleared this dog and I do not have to muzzle him. Please do not threaten to kill my dog, pray it kills one of my children or myself. He is a boxer mix. (anyone own a white boxer..please that is more of a headache than anything you wish upon me....) Please don't yell at my children and scare them.
Thank you.

It is so sad that I have to walk with eyes in the back of my head and on the side of my head hoping no one will jump out and get us. Everyone is going to have to do that.
But what happens next year? Is there going to be another breed of dog that they will go after? How long till Rottweilers, Dobermans etc are on the list?
This is the list that some people are looking at...
1.AIREDALE TERRIER
2.AKBASH
3.AKITA
4.ALAPAHA BLUE BLOOD BULLDOG
5,ALASKAN MALAMUTE
6.ALSATIAN SHEPHERD
7.AMERICAN BULLDOG
8.AMERICAN HUSKY
9.AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER
10.AMERICAN STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIER
11.AMERICAN WOLFDOG
12.ANATOLIAN SHEPHERD
13.ARIKARA DOG
14.AUSTRALIAN CATTLE DOG
15.AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD
16.BELGIAN MALINOIS
17.BELGIAN SHEEPDOG
18.BELGIAN TURVUREN
19.BLUE HEELER
20.BOERBUL
21.BORZOI
22.BOSTON TERRIER
23.BOUVIER DES FLANDRES
24.BOXER
25.BULLDOG
26.BULL TERRIER
27.BULL MASTIFF
28.CANE CORSO
29.CATAHOULA LEOPARD DOG
30.CAUCASIAN SHEPHERD
31.CHINESE SHAR PEI
32.CHOW-CHOW
33.COLORADO DOG
34.DOBERMAN PINSCHER
35.DOGO DE ARGENTINO
36.DOGUE DE BORDEAUX
37.ENGLISH MASTIFFS
38.ENGLISH SPRINGER SPANIEL
39.ESKIMO DOG
40.ESTRELA MOUNTAIN DOG
41.FILA BRASILIERO
42.FOX TERRIER
43.FRENCH BULLDOG
44.GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG
45.GOLDEN RETRIEVER
46.GREENLAND HUSKY
47.GREAT DANE
48.GREAT PYRENEES
49.ITALIAN MASTIFF
50.KANGAL DOG
51.KEESHOND
52.KOMONDOR
53.KOTEZEBUE HUSKY
54.KUVAZ
55.LABRADOR RETRIEVER
56.LEONBERGER
57.MASTIFF
58.NEOPOLITAN MASTIFF
59.NEWFOUNDLAND
60.OTTERHOUND
61.PRESA DE CANARIO
62.PRESA DE MALLORQUIN
63.PUG
64.ROTTWEILER
65.SAARLOOS WOLFHOND
66.SAINT BERNARD
67.SAMOYED
68.SCOTTISH DEERHOUND
69.SIBERIAN HUSKY
70.SPANISH MASTIFF
71.STAFFORDSHIRE BULL TERRIER
72.TIMBER SHEPHERD
73.TOSA INU
74.TUNDRA SHEPHERD
75.WOLF SPITZ

Hope Robbins · Post by **Hope Robbins** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:59 am

Lynn Farris wrote:There are a few areas here which really disturb me.

1) The burden of proof is on the pet owner to prove their dog is not part pit bull or... The burden of proof is normally in this country on the accuser not the accusee.

2) No grandfathering in of dogs that are currently good citizens of Lakewood as I read it.

3) There is no period of time like 90 days for the person to move

4) Will this negate a contract e.g., if you are found to have a pit bull, will this negate a rental contract?

Missy, Hope, Ed, there are remedies in our City Charter if you would like to take them. A Referrendum will allow you to challenge at the ballot box this issue. I can tell you that it has been successfully used in the past.

ARTICLE XXI. REFERENDUM

SECTION 1. RIGHT TO REFERENDUM.
If at any time within forty (40) days after (a) the passage of any ordinance or the adoption of any resolution by Council, (b) the expiration of the time within which it may be disapproved by the Mayor, or (c) its passage or adoption notwithstanding the disapproval by the Mayor, as the case may be, a petition signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total votes cast for the office of Mayor at the last preceding regular municipal election at which a Mayor was elected is filed with the Clerk of Council requesting such ordinance or resolution be repealed or be submitted to a vote of the electors, such ordinance or resolution shall not become operative until the steps set forth in this Article have been taken.

I would also like to salute Councilperson Madigan as a Profile in Courage.

Lynn,
Already on it. I am not just the resident big mouth. I am informed, work at a firm, and will most likely turn out be one of the council members who voted yes on this biggests thorns, I am ON IT already.
I answered Grace's question earlier, secret weapon number one, City Charter. I think by the end of the week I will have it memorized. I have no intention of going away. Thank you for putting it out there!

We do have the grandfather law here in Lakewood. People came rushing in to me at work today because apparently I was was once again all over the radio with the old sound bite from last month. They asked me aren't you happy? I said happy about what? This solves nothing, and only buys me a few months or even days until some one decides to target me and start calling stating my dog was out or who knows. No I won't be happy until BSL is gone all together. No one get's it more than I do. Other's will get it when it's their dog next. I have 3 directives as a resident now. You will all be made aware of them shortly.

Hope - you weren't the one who errantly mentioned the "five" wards in Lakewood.

Oh I thought I was...LOL well I am confused and posting first thing in the morning is never a good idea for me, or before my second cup of coffee.

I hope you and the Canine Advocates of Ohio can help keep us apprised of what's going on with specific breed legislation in the state.

I am happy to. And any one who wants to keep up and learn about it can go to our site. www.canineadvocatesofohio.org

There have been many twists and turns so far, but I had missed the great idea that if the state legislation passes that "pit bull" owners have 90 days to take their dogs in to have them killed.

This is one of the most horrifying and stupid ideas I've heard in a long time.

It has been a long battle for me, considering I started it 4 months after moving to Lakewood, in 2004. The heat of it this year, and come full circle. It is horrifying and this is why there has been such a passionate reaction from Pit owners and well a lot of dog owners period. Geez, it's like saying to some folks we are coming to kill your kids. Yes I know the distinction between my dog and my kids, but she is a close second believe me. Now if she dies on her own, without their help, I have no rights to replace her. Unacceptable and a true violation of my civil rights.
It's like the government saying hey you drive a Chevy now, but we are banning them you can keep that one till it dies, but when it does you can only have a Ford. Stupidity.

I wonder what happens if a female Pit Bull out here is pregnant and gives birth after the 90days? Those are new Pit's aren't they? Did anyone ask this question? I can't believe I missed it? I know we asked if someone is proved to have a Pit mix that was once thought to just be a boxer, after 90days...it's out? Boy they better expand that court house I see bad bad things happening.

Will people who fight dogs comply with such a law?

Nope
Nope, did I mention, NO! They are the one's who won't comply because they don't care and they are already breaking the laws of nature and the land.

Even if they did, the rehabilitation of Michael Vick's dogs should be pointing the way to sanity.

Sanity and these ban/bill are on totally opposite ends of the spectrum.

Brad Hutchison · Post by **Brad Hutchison** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:00 am

Lynn Farris wrote:There are a few areas here which really disturb me.

1) The burden of proof is on the pet owner to prove their dog is not part pit bull or... The burden of proof is normally in this country on the accuser not the accusee.

2) No grandfathering in of dogs that are currently good citizens of Lakewood as I read it. ( Jim, you say in the opening of this post that current dogs will be grandfathered in - did they change the ordinance to say that, because as I read it - that isn't in the ordinance.)

3) There is no period of time like 90 days for the person to move

4) Will this negate a contract e.g., if you are found to have a pit bull, will this negate a rental contract?

Missy, Hope, Ed, there are remedies in our City Charter if you would like to take them. A Referrendum will allow you to challenge at the ballot box this issue. I can tell you that it has been successfully used in the past.

ARTICLE XXI. REFERENDUM

SECTION 1. RIGHT TO REFERENDUM.
If at any time within forty (40) days after (a) the passage of any ordinance or the adoption of any resolution by Council, (b) the expiration of the time within which it may be disapproved by the Mayor, or (c) its passage or adoption notwithstanding the disapproval by the Mayor, as the case may be, a petition signed by qualified electors equal in number to at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total votes cast for the office of Mayor at the last preceding regular municipal election at which a Mayor was elected is filed with the Clerk of Council requesting such ordinance or resolution be repealed or be submitted to a vote of the electors, such ordinance or resolution shall not become operative until the steps set forth in this Article have been taken.

I would also like to salute Councilperson Madigan as a Profile in Courage.

You're right Lynn... not only is there no grandfather clause in there, but not even the original 40 day timeline...

I'd like to know what expertise the Health Commisioner has to determine the breed of a dog.

This is still my favorite: "any dog of mixed breed which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of such breeds." Don't they see how ridiculous that line is?

Brad Hutchison · Post by **Brad Hutchison** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:11 am

From WKYC's story on the ban:

"Those who already have pitbulls in Lakewood can keep them as long as they are registered in compliance with current vicious dog laws."

From the Sun:

"An amendment to the ban was also passed to add a grandfather clause to allow pit bulls who are currently kept in Lakewood in compliance with dangerous dog laws to stay in the city. Owners have 90 days to register the dogs."

Does "register" just mean a regular dog license, or something more?

Ruthie Koenigsmark · Post by **Ruthie Koenigsmark** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:25 am

the Grandfather Clause makes absolutely no sense...if they see these dogs as vicious why make an exception?

Hope Robbins · Post by **Hope Robbins** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:27 am

I don't think we should worry too much yet.

There are plenty of laws on the books that are currently ignored by the mayor and police department. (to focus on more important laws)

This may be another one.

Council can say they passed the law to protect people and cover their butt, and no one will sue the city until someone is actually told to kill their dog, which may never happen...

I wish I could rest on that Ryan. But that is the whole point by passing the ban. These dogs. or owners or well both are only 10% of the "problem" ....although the only one I have been a problem to so far is Council members who supported this, Powder is at home slobbering on my kids bed...., so we will be easy to target and get rid of , don't you see that? They don't want to enforce the current expansive law that covers all residents. They want to "streamline" it ....so they can focus on us and get us out. Not hard to do, won't take long, well the court battles that follow will, but not my point here. I wish that were true but sadly I think not.

This is Bella. Not a "Pit Bull".

Sorry DL...Bella is truly beautiful? You sure? You don't have her in a fluffy disquise do you? Sorry bad humor, but that is me and that is how I get through my day sometimes

Do I have to carry a stick with me to ward off those people that threaten me? Do I know have to start beating people?

Missy, you don't have to worry about carrying a stick it's just easier, get a license to carry a concealed weapon. Easier than owning a dog here anyway! That might solve your harrassment problem? Might cause the city a whole bunch of other issues though.

* There is no grandfather law in 568, there is a grandfather law with zero tolerance in Lakewood * We have 90days to come into full compliance and remain that way to keep our dogs. There was an amendment to the first "Powers" bill last night. The grandfather clause.

Brad Hutchison · Post by **Brad Hutchison** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:28 am

Ruthie Koenigsmark wrote:the Grandfather Clause makes absolutely no sense...if they see these dogs as vicious why make an exception?

Shhhhhhh............

Missy Limkemann · Post by **Missy Limkemann** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:47 am

you know i dont know anyone who would want me to carry a concealed weapon. OMG the trouble that would start. I keep saying I want to put "lasers" on my car to shoot people when I am driving, can you see me now with a real weapon. The city for sure would have problems. LOL. (ok I am joking..i am not really that "crazy"...hehehehehe)
What kills me is they were making amendments to amendments minutes before the council meeting. Does anyone really know what actually got passed? I was more confused after the meeting than before. And while granted I get confused easily, my head was pounding and I really thought I was going to have a migraine.