The jumping off discussion area for the rest of the Deck. All things Lakewood.
Please check out our other sections. As we refile many discussions from the past into
their proper sections please check them out and offer suggestions.
Ed Dickson wrote: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?
Ed
Not for that, "for the children."
I do not think the person bit owned the dog. I believe it was a friend. I am not even sure of how it was reported. I know from our own experience that even a mistake, "dog gagging on my wife's arm," it is reported as a bit, and it counts as a strike against the dog.
But when I had a Pit Bull the list of foolish things done around him or any dog is amazing. Taking biscuits from lips, playing tug of war, making funny faces in stare downs, waving arms and legs, dancing newborns in front of dogs like a chew toy, etc.
It is always bad when a dog bites, but understanding how it happened is very important.
As for dogs being dangerous, thank god they do not have opposable thumbs!
.
Jim O'Bryan
Lakewood Resident
"The very act of observing disturbs the system." Werner Heisenberg
"If anything I've said seems useful to you, I'm glad.
If not, don't worry. Just forget about it." His Holiness The Dalai Lama
When the council quotes number of complaints and dogs impounded, I wonder how many different owners are involved. I doubt that x impounded dogs were from x different owners.
It's amazing to me how shocked the council is at the public response they're getting. I would speculate that Lakewood has a relatively high percentage of dogs to people, especially given the number of renters. They should have known better.
I see it daily the things people do that would rank amongst "your more brave than I am". Sometimes ignorance is bliss. In this case, not so much. Nothing saddens me more when I have to have the discussion with a family that maybe the dog isn't in the right home for it's well being or even worse, if it were mine, I would have the dog put down. I do have those discussions though and in my time working at the APL had to euthanize. It's a sad reality. If the average pet owner only new how forgiving dogs actually are with what we put them through due to sheer ignorance in communication, outlooks might be changed.
Brad,
When I asked Mr Powers what happened to the dogs that had been seized, I believe the number was 46 last year, his answer was most of them were re-claimed by the owner. Take that for what it's worth. In my opinion it really weakened his argument. He didn't see it that way.
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.
Seems like a lot of work for the PD. Maybe we can make it more efficient and create the perfect blend of Bloshevik vigilance and McCarthyism... two great tastes that go great together.
We can have posters encouraging children to inform on their parents; 1-800-GRAB-PIT bumber stickers in case you see one when you're driving by; City agents who will swoop in in the middle of the night and take your dog; a neighbor who didn't get his weedwhacker back accusing his neighbor of having a pit; little old ladies calling the Pit Gestapo because they saw a bulldog.
Beaten-down dog from Vick case has his day
Pit bull rescued from famous dogfighting ring now helps cancer patients
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - It’s a dog’s life. And for Leo it couldn’t be better.
Leo — rescued from heavy chains that confined him as one of the pit bulls in former NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s dogfighting ring — is a lover, not a fighter. He now happily frolics in a clown collar as he makes the rounds at the Camino Infusion Center, where he brings comfort to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.
Despite his training as a killer, Leo is a sweetheart as he visits his friends on the ward.
“He is wonderful, and all the patients love Leo,†said Paula Reed, the facility’s oncology director. “They really love his eyes and gentleness.â€
Six months ago, Leo should have been dead.
When officers raided Vick’s Bad Newz Kennels in Smithfield, Va., last year, they found dogs, some injured and scarred, chained to buried car axles. Forensic experts discovered remains of dogs that had been shot with a .22-caliber pistol, electrocuted, drowned, hanged or slammed to the ground for lacking a desire to fight.
Vick, an All-Pro quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, was suspended indefinitely and is serving 23 months in federal prison after pleading guilty in August to bankrolling the dogfighting operation and helping to kill as many as eight dogs. Three co-defendants also pleaded guilty and were sentenced to prison.
About 50 dogs were rescued.
Animal advocates are divided over whether fighting dogs can be trusted to have new lives as pets or working dogs. One of the dogs seized at Bad Newz was put down as too aggressive, but the others were dispersed to sanctuaries and training facilities across the country.
An ‘incredible’ difference with patients
One of them was Leo, who ended up in the care of Marthina McClay, a certified trainer and counselor in Los Gatos, near San Francisco. McClay is president of Our Pack, an advocacy group for pit bulls.
“He was a little like a caveman at a tea party,†McClay said. “He didn’t have a lot of training.â€
But after five weeks of intense instruction and supervision, and more weeks of acclimation, Leo is now — with all due respect —a pussy cat. He loves putting his head on a patient’s lap and batting his big brown eyes.
“The difference that he’s had with our patients has been incredible — the smiles on their faces, the joy when they see him,†said Reed of the cancer center.
“Leo is a survivor and our patients are survivors, and I think they can relate to each other,†she said.
Leo also touches young people on probation at the Alternative Placement Academy in San Jose, where the young men seem to identify with the former tough guy.
“I think they saw this dog’s awful background, and it communicates to the kids that you can end up being what you want to be,†McClay said.
It’s the age-old story of second chances. By living his, Leo helps tear down entrenched stereotypes that pit bulls are irredeemable killers.
“Leo is definitely an ambassador to the breed,†McClay said. “The staff at various facilities will say, ‘I will never see pit bulls the same again.’â€
I heard, that next month the hospital is going to introduce a juggling activity for the children. Handgrenades and machetes are being considered.
Not to go on and on about the law and insurance but what kind of waiver do you suspect the hospital has the parents sign before they walk in a pit bull that was trained to fight by Micheal Vick's cohorts?
These dogs undergo thorough evaluation. Do you really believe they would allow dangerous dogs into hospitals?
There are a million stories like this about pits as therapy dogs, rescue dogs, etc. When are people going to stop approaching every pit bull discussion with the preconception that all pits are inherently dangerous? Once you get over that, you realize how silly and wrong these bans are.
wow, what a twist that is. the very dog that was seized from a fighting kennel is used with children for therapy and you accuse me of having a preconceived notion that all pit bulls are inherently dangerous. I don't suspect that ALL are inherently dangerous. I do acknowledge though that this one in particular was involved with dog fighting and was not exactly brought up for this use. I acknowledge that insurance companies almost across the board do not accept liability for pit bulls. I also acknowledge that hospital's have an obligation to protect their patients and have a liability exposure if their decision causes harm to their clients. I assume that this would mean that they would transfer the risk in this case back to the client and require that they sign a hold harmless agreement or some sort of waiver. I can further imagine the headline later; Pit Bull from Vick's fighting kennel maul 6 year old cancer patient in bizarre attempt to provide animal therapy. Hospital found negligent and to pay $8 million out of pocket because insurance carrier rejected claim.
when will those pro pit bulls stop trying to make us believe that NONE of these dogs are dangerous? and that those who own them (or any other breed capable of greater harm than the average pooch) should not be held to a higher level of accountability; ie. more expensive insurance premiums, muzzles, containmnent and leash laws than your average dog? I get it Brad and others, you want your dogs to be treated like people hence the references to stereotypes and comparisons to racial discrimination. The fact is that there are differences that are being ignored by irresponsible owners who pretend that the rules (either of nature or the laws of land) do not apply to them. What a selfish thought and what a terrible exposure they make the public face each day they believe this delusion.
Shawn Juris wrote:when will those pro pit bulls stop trying to make us believe that NONE of these dogs are dangerous? and that those who own them (or any other breed capable of greater harm than the average pooch) should not be held to a higher level of accountability; ie. more expensive insurance premiums, muzzles, containmnent and leash laws than your average dog?
Never once have I claimed that no pit bulls are dangerous. There are many dogs "capable of greater harm than the average pooch" but you cannot tell that based on breed. That's what I've been trying to get through for weeks. YOU CANNOT TELL A DOG'S TEMPERAMENT BASED ON BREED.
Shawn, if you don't believe that pit bulls are inherently more dangerous, then I've misread you completely and understand your support for the ban even less... that seems to be the fundamental reason behind your whole argument. What other reason is there to support the ban?
Brad,
I accept that you may not have understood my position for the ban. In a quick review through my posts many seem to be coming back to responsible owners which would be characterized by following the existing laws.
It is not my place or your's to determine if all or some or none of the animals that make up a category of pets (in this case full bred or mixed breed "pit bulls") are likely or more probable to bite someone. We can certainly discuss it but the decisions of a private company ie. the insurance carrier has their mind made up at this point. My argument is hinged on the fact that there exists a legal obligation to obtain $100,000 in liability insurance and to abide by the heightened regulations such as muzzling and containing your dog if it is considered a pit bull. This requirement of insurance is very challenging because most insurance companies exclude pit bulls. I know of one that does not.
The complaint from both sides is that the existing laws are not enforced. This is where the difference begins though for many (for some the split begins in that they want equal treatment for all dogs despite the fact that some dogs have a greater potential for damage). The difference it seems to me is whether an individual believes that laws are not working so let's do nothing or sees that laws are not working so and wants to make stricter regulations which can be enforced more easily. I chose the latter based on the old parental addage of if you can't play by the rules then you don't get to play. While some may be convinced that its a constitutional right, I see a dog as a dog not as some symbol of political freedom.
While I take positions on several aspects of this argument the one that I feel strongest about is that pit bulls create an exposure for the owner in part but moreso for the innocent public because if a bite occurs there is not an insurance policy in place which will pay the loss. I anticipate that this will result in a civil case where the owner is unable to pay and the only loss will be that of the victim. I have still yet to hear anyone who has followed the established laws to a tee to provide an example of how a pit bull owner can be considered responsible. You yourself, postured as an owner of a mix breed pit bull then admitted that you don't see the reason to do anything that is called for by the exisiting laws. If my opinion is going to be swayed that pit bulls should not be banned because owners can be responsible then I am going to need to see some responsible owners not consciencious objectors to the current laws trying to convince me to roll back what is already in place.
Thanks Valerie for posting the story about the pit bull rescued from Michael Vick's group now acting as a therapy dog. I saw the story on the Today show this morning. I think this example supports the argument that the concern should be with owners rather than breeds.
So can anyone update us on the latest? Where is City Council at with this.? I hope they will let the issue go and move on to making decisions about more pressing city issues.
Steven, I haven't heard anything more current than Jim's recent post about his conversation with Tom Bullock.
Shawn, I understand your point about financially protecting potential victims. I suppose those insurance policy restrictions are something else that needs pushed to change. In the meantime, however, I have to accept that point.
But, at least from what I've heard, that's not where Council is coming from on this. Mr. Powers touched on it briefly in his first "Q&A" article, but this has always been about "protecting the children" and pit bulls being especially dangerous as a breed... which is a fallacy.
Brad,
Thanks for that. Aside from the insurance point though and onto the points of protecting children and singling out this breed as more dangerous than other, I'm not sure that fallacy is the best description. Hospital records that I've found at least, pulled from the CDC I believe, show that children 5-9 have the highest frequency of bites. So any policy to decrease dog bites will effect a disproportionate number of children if effective. While I accept that there are all kinds of bad conclusions that can be drawn from bite results and hospital records and finding out the probability of a specific or worse yet a mix breed will bite, the top 2 were Pit Bulls and Rottweillers which made up more than 50% of the total.
At any rate, on related issue. The county was kind enough to forward me a list of registered dogs in the city. As it turns out there are 2600 dogs registered in Lakewood. So roughly 11% of our households which is reduced because 20% of these households (from a very small sample) have more than 1 dog. Oddly in a quick review, there were a couple of apartments that had large breed dogs considered excluded by most insurance carriers and even one that had an apartment with two dogs. I guess maybe it's a big apartment? So as far as the thought that Lakewood should be pet friendly because so many dogs are around, well it's not really supported. Now maybe there are alot more dogs that are not registered but really do we want city council to make policy in favor of those who do not follow the laws of the land?
Oh and for those wondering only 4 registered "pit bulls" and 1 registered American Staffordshire and a whole lot of mixed breeds. Now if 40+ pit bulls were siezed and only 4 are registered, I think this ban may be a necessary step. Frankly, I would like to see the county get on board and require owners to be more specific as they register their pets. But my chances may be just slightly better than Brad's chances of convincing the private sector to shift their policies on writing insurance policies on pit bulls.
Frankly, I would like to see the county get on board and require owners to be more specific as they register their pets.
There is really no way of identifying our dogs' backgrounds with any degree of accuracy because of all of the dogs we have had in the past eight years, we only saw the mother of one dog - and Mom was a mixed breed dog.
There are DNA kits you can use, but they are usually wildly inaccurate.
One of our dogs was about as generic a tan dog as you could find. We all guessed that she might have some terrier in her, but really, there was no way to know.
We have a dog now who has prick ears and a fluffy coat. She may have some shepherd in her. The best breed descriptive would be "cute as all get-out" but that isn't an AKC breed. The other dog is spotted. Was her dad the Australian Shepherd? Her mom appeared to be a Lab mix.
We don't know. Nobody knows.
But we do actually register our dogs.
And we would never ever leave our dogs alone or unsupervised with small children because bad things could happen. Our dogs could pay for our stupidity with their lives.
Shawn, did you read recently about the mother who left her toddler and her baby puppy alone together in a crib? Should any puppy be left with a toddler?
“One of they key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.”- 45
