Nothing But Pure Ignorance

[Brad Hutchison]

So any policy to decrease dog bites will effect a disproportionate number of children if effective.

That's a good point - but communties that enact BSL generally find that it does not, in fact, have any effect on bite incidents. The Netherlands just repealed its ban for that reason. There will always be dog bites as long as dogs and people coexist. But until you ban the people behind the dangerous individual dogs, instead of breeds perceived to be dangerous, bite incidents will never be greatly affected.

[Brad Hutchison]

Many of you may find this article to be of interest. It was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2001 by the AVMA Task Force on Canine Aggression and Canine-Human Interactions. Entitled "A Community Approach to Dog-bite Prevention," it outlines a community plan and even includes model legislation for the identification and regulation of dangerous dogs.... that is to say, individual dangerous dogs. The Task Force found BSL to be "inappropriate and ineffective."

I've only skimmed through it at this point, but it looks to be very relevant to our discussion, and goes some into the roles of community leaders and institutions in the prevention of dog bites.

I hope our mayor and council have seen/will see this.

[Shawn Juris]

Did places like the Netherlands find that the number of bites were uneffected (and that while pit bulls weren't biting people other breeds made up the difference), the severity of bites were unchanged or that the ban did not work and the dogs were still in the city and were still biting people? Is their enforcement similar to ours? Is it fair to compare ourselves to them in this case? From a scientific approach, I'm hestitant to accept this data as much more than anecdotal and flawed at best. It would be rather difficult, to say what would have happened in the Netherlands had they not enacted the ban. Couldn't it be considered that if they didn't ban pit bulls there would have been more bites? Interesting argument can be made from both sides.

[Brad Hutchison]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5joR68JV8kDejQzXJxtqVZX93Q5xAD916M6UO2

The following is copied from the Google link:

Dutch government to lift 25-year ban on pit bulls

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (AP) — The Dutch government says it will lift a long-standing ban on pit bulls because it did not lead to any decrease in bite incidents.

This is all I know, but I would think that after 15 years, they would have done their homework before repealing the law.

[Brad Hutchison]

LO,

Thanks for posting that letter from Pit Bull Rescue Central. Just out of curiosity, will that be published in the next print edition?

For more on the AVMA's stance, see the link I posted above.

It's becoming clearer and clearer that no one speaking from a position of expertise supports breed bans.

[Valerie Molinski]

Is anyone on here going to the meeting tomorrow night at City Hall?

[Shawn Juris]

It would be interesting to see how many that ask to be heard are 1) from Lakewood 2) have a pit bull or pit bull mix and 3) are law abiding. Thank you Lakewood City Council and our fringe citizens for once again offering another scene for scensational media.

Thank you city council for doing what is best for the city and not swaying to the whims of a very vocal, very small minority. Roughly 10% of the households have a registered dog. 5 pit bulls register in Lakewood according the the county. I think that these 5 can be dealt with. If we're going to start allowing those that violate the law to influence public policy then the "good" people (those who can appreciate personal responsibilty) are not going to come here. Pass the ban and start taking dogs away from owners that appear to be living a delusion. If you want a particular breed then read up on what you need to do to be a responsible owner.

People before pets.

[Brad Hutchison]

Shawn,

At this point you're just being spitefu, clinging to evidence that isn't there..

Why is a ban best for the city? What more evidence do you need that BSL is wrong? Every source Mr. Powers has cited (except for hysteria) has been discredited. Every professional that deals with dogs daily that we've heard from opposes BSL. Numerous professional organizations, including the Humane Society of the United States, the American Kennel Club, and the American Veterinary Medical Association officially oppose BSL.

On what are you basing that opponents of the ban are a "very small minority?"

Do you really believe that what's best for the city is for people to have their dogs taken away? Why? And don't give us insurance.

"People before pets"? You can't be serious.

[Shawn Juris]

"You can't be serious", funny that was the same thing that I said and the same response that others had when discussing that some want to fight for the "rights" of pit bulls.
What you may call spiteful, I call passionate. The minority that I refer to are the number of residents who own a dog (only 2600 registered, if you believe there are more then those are already in violation) and to drill down further the number of residents that believe owning a pit bull (5 registered, unknown number of mixed breed poorly documented) and to drill further those that believe owning a pit bull is a right that must be defended. You've mentioned in the past the 100 that show up at city council or the majority of posters that voiced their opinion here. Last I checked there were over 52,000 residents of Lakewood so 100 is but a drop in the bucket. On an average discussion on the deck maybe 8 people will chime in, 30 on a very hot topic (hadn't counted for this one in particular). So yes there is a minority which by nature of hearing so much from them would be considered vocal. Where's your evidence that it's not a minority opinion?
The reason that I believe so strongly that a ban is good policy at this point is that while you have a strong defense from the profession that by nature would be advocates for animals, I am approaching this topic from one of personal responsibility and accountability. I have asked repeatedly, for a role model, an example of someone who so loves their pit bull that they are willing to abide by the laws in place that regulate ownership of such property. I assume from the silence that this person must not exist. As an example only and not as an attack, you, yourself found reason to not adopt any of the regulations and take your chances with your pet (which you claimed was part pit bull) or more accurately to let the public take their chances with your pet. Which again is the crux of this argument, responsibility and the law. While you may want to dismiss the fact that insurance is an issue, when a dog bites someone the owner has an obligation to pay the medical bills. Without insurance, I have my doubts that an owner will have enough to cover the average cost of $20,000 to do the right thing. While the tempermant studies may show that pit bulls and golder retreivers are equivalent, I think I'll take my chances with the retreiver.

Yes, I believe it's best for the city to have illegal property taken away from irresponsible owners. Any owning a pit bull has the responsibility to follow the law so when the do not follow the leash laws, containment laws and obtain proper insurance they are then deemed irresponsible and do not deserve the priviledge, note not the right to own this kind of property.

[Brad Hutchison]

Your analysis of populations of opponents vs. proponents is flawed. First of all, you can't assume that only dog owners are against, and all non-dog owners are for.

Second, you're not taking the Deck and the council meetings for what they are - representative samples of Lakewood's population. If 100 people speak out against the ban, and 2 speak out in favor of the ban, you obviously can't assume that everyone else that didn't speak out at all is for the ban, while those 100 are the only ban opponents in the city.

It's clear that public safety is no longer valid justification for the ban. For the things that concern you, Shawn, the ban seems an extreme, draconian remedy.

[Ed Dickson]

Shawn,

I could give you many examples of those responsible citizens you say don't exist. Just because they don't post here doesn't mean they don't exist.

You have chosen to ignore every previous post of mine with reasonable, scientific evidence that this type of ban doesn't work and the well thought out and experiential reasons why. Instead you cling to "people before pets". I'm all for that as well. I left a home this morning with an 11 month old child and a 6 year old dog that has started growling at the child. Amongst the many other plans discussed was euthanasia. People and children should always come first. I will challenge you to point out to me the rash of bad dogs that would make something like this necessary. Mr Powers sure couldn't do that with his half hearted statistics. In my phone conversation with him, he told me he would keep me apprised of any upcoming meetings, evidently there is a meeting tonight. This would be the second promise he broke since our phone conversation.
From what I have seen, not a single council person has done enough research to fill in the gaps I see in the argument. They owe it to the responsible owners with good, well trained dogs to do at least that much.

Ed

[Valerie Molinski]

To be fair, I guess the meeting is a Public Safety Committee meeting:

The Public Safety Committee will host a public hearing Wednesday, June 25, 2008, at 6:30 PM in the Court Room at Lakewood City Hall, 12650 Detroit Avenue.

The topic for discussion is as follows:

1. Communication from Councilmember Powers regarding Amending Section 506.

12 of the Lakewood Codified Ordinances regarding Pit Bull dogs; (The Communication was referred to the Public Safety Committee at the 5/19/08 Council Meeting)

2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE 58-08 – AN ORDINANCE to amend Section 506.12, Pit Bull Dogs or Canary Dogs, of the Lakewood Codified Ordinances for the purpose of banning pit bull terriers within the City of Lakewood. (The ordinance’s first reading was at the 5/19/08 Council Meeting, the second reading was at the 6/2/08 Council Meeting.

[Ed Dickson]

I re-read my last post and realized how unfair that was to the coucil as a whole. After, I made the time to send e-mails and contact some of the council members and received very quick responses from two of them. Both stated they don't have a position yet because they are still researching and formulating what is right.
Just wanted to make sure I wasn't making a sweeping statement without facts behind it.

Ed

[Shawn Juris]

Ed's response about scientific evidence and well thought out reasoning had me hunting for more information. While I had initially discounted the site dogbitelaw.com in the same way that I tune out other personal injury ads, the site does seem to have an awful lot of information. Based off of this I admit that if given different circumstances than Lakewood's I may be open to the idea of breed restrictions over a breed ban. However, since Lakewood is so densely populated I still am for the ban here. So, I wonder of those who haven't grown sick to their stomachs with all this talk of pit bulls, how would you categorize your opinion on breed specific legislation as it pertains to "pit bulls". Here are the choices as they are broken down in the site's argument.
Against the ban - Do nothing at all
Against the ban - Educate, enforce, and study
For Breed Restrictions over Bans - Teach, Regulate, Restrict
For the Ban
Here's the link if anyone's interested http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/breedla ... #arguments

Also, the III (Insurance Information Institute) just released an article on dog bites. http://www.iii.org/media/updates/press.790552/ What they miss is that while the expense of dog bites for insurance companies is $356 million, the total AMA estimates, that I found through dogbitelaw.com, was $2 billion.

To go in another direction, maybe what the city should be doing as requiring a $100,000 bond everytime they see someone with a large breed dog capable of injuring someone. You want a pit bull, rottweiller, doberman, german shepard etc, great that's your choice. Show evidence that you can afford the victim's medical bills if that dog happens to bite someone, that's the city's obligation to look out for public safety. Can't do it, then let's trade in that pet for this weiner dog that you can afford and the insurance company will cover.
Still waiting for some of those responsible owners of pit bulls or commonly excluded dogs. I've been wondering which company and how they are insured for years now. I know of a couple that are looser on this but I still have to suspect that many owners are just coasting along hoping nothing happens.

[Beajay Michaud]

Here is a story of interest:

The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictibility is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards."