I kept my comments to myself during this whole battle because I realize I am not an animal lover nor do I have children (who are most likely to be attacked by dogs). I thank the council for passing this ban to make the residents of Lakewood safer (and before someone tosses out a bunch stats or quotes from a study perception is reality and there are many people like myself who are terrified of these animals).
Todd,
I respect your feelings and your rights. And believe me I am not being smart when I ask this. And I am not going to give you any stats...it is a legitimate question and I am only looking to understand why you are afraid of "these" dogs? And to clarify is it just Pits or all large dogs?
I think what Ivor is getting at is that it's considered bad form (and bad netiquette) to post multiple threads about a topic when there is already an active thread. I'm a member of several forums, and members get admonished on a daily basis when posting without looking through the active threads or using the search function.
David & Ivor forgive me for my ignorance only because I am newer to this forum (but that me first say I have been a moderator on a forum similiar to this for years so I am not a novice forum person)
We call it bumping posts, or spamming? Did I miss something here?
I see some random speaking on this in some other areas, but I don't see any other expansive threads on this except Brads, which closed after the ban was passed, nice closing by the way Brad, and the new once which I see us all in that Jim posted after? Sorry just curious?
Public education on how to care for dogs, how to act toward strange dogs, etc. would have been 100 times more effective in preventing bite incidents than this ban. And it would have cost the city nothing, because people would have volunteered their time.
Agreed. And I was one of them who went on record and asked to be put ono the "community task force or education committee to donate my time and any services I could for free. I also said, please table this ban, like many others did, and let us go out and get the real Lakewood statistics for you. Create data bases, incorperate ways to inform both new and older residents on the ordinances so they understand and can comply or well leave before they put that old down payment on the new home. To help micro-chip, go door to door, sponser children's classes to know how to be safe around "all" dogs, adult classes on how to be responsible then bring the dogs, let's see how they act , like tempermant testing, and how about a good citizen award for both, so we know they are about as "safe" as anyone can be. How about a small charge for these so we can pay for it independantly, help the dying APL, but offer free classes to those who qualify due to hardship situations or income, so we are covered and fair?
How about after all that data and notice, the town and city can actually know how has a dog and who doesn't and the fact folks are informed NOW not later. HOw about involving the landlords in advsing tenants who have "dogs" period about the laws, and how about they help inform those in charge of the data base or do it themselves via web or something? We offered to design for free the websites? That is just a part of what we offered....and this was IF the BAN was tabled, after this was done for a "testing" period. We never tried any of this before, so how the heck do we know if we could have saved some of this from happening , injuries, neighbors fears or hassles or headaches, and hey know how many dogs there are in Lakewood who are "safe" and have responsible owners, and who doesn't with all of that combined and more. Never done it, so you can't answer the questions, so pass it anyway? I dont' see the logic here. I think we could have tabled it for a few more months, being the numbers are not on the "increase" in Lakewood to a "dangerous" level NOW. Then we would have had more facts, and at least had the education and data out there to know what is really going on in our own backyard. Not Parma, not Garfield, not Columbus. Here, home. And not During, certainly NOT AFTER THE BAN. That was not the "offer" I made. Withdrawn.
By simultaneously passing an ordinance establishing an advisory board to continue to monitor our animal policy, and by arriving at a compromise ordinance that immediately strengthens our current law and yet permits dogs whose owners are currently (or soon to be) compliant to remain within the city, I believe our decision was rational, measured and fair.
Um I am happy to keep my dog Kevin, but I am sorry to say I don't think it will be for long, someone, somewhere, out of fear, ignorance, or just plain old malice will do exactly what will be done to us all eventually, which is call and say we are out of compliance some how, some way, and I am inclined to believe on my own history and others I have witnessed that no one is going to believe me over them. Then this was for not. I am where I started , a few more days, weeks or months if I am lucky, looking over my shoulder, but square one anyway.
So Kevin, my old friend, sorry. I have to disagree with you on some points there. And I fully agree with others here who said it too, best said by Jim,
What does bother me is that it seems once again council had this plan, then studied it to get the answer they wanted. Just once it would be nice to see a study done without the "right ending" written at the beginning.
We can agree to disagree as we have before. I believe you have been honest with me so far and always in the past and I respect you as a person, a friend, and in your position, but not on this one! I think it could have been handled better, and I am positive left like this, it will turn out badly for us all.
The ignorance, the fear, the facts shown this does NOT work anywhere to make dog bites go down or stop "stupid people from owning dogs period" , the costs, the lack letting us prove our points for free and helping our community to not live in fear while making more people educated and responsible , is NOT going to happen and those are the problems.
It is however, not over. Not by a long shot folks.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safetyâ€
