Nothing But Pure Ignorance

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:26 pm

I'm really finding this whole dog issue very interesting and I'm looking carefully now at every dog I see walking on the street - could that dog be part pit bull?

I'll confess I'm an animal person. I have only known a few pit bulls and they were very friendly dogs. They had good responsible owners and were well socialized from an early age on. But there are many big dogs that have the ability to protect and hurt people. I love German Shepards and Dobermans and Rotweilers - will they be next? All of them have the ability to hurt a person.

Is this a slippery slope that has been brought on by someone who has a fear of dogs? I know when I had a golden retriever there was a mother who wouldn't let her son come over to our house to play until I assured her I would have the dog secured either in an outdoor run or in the basement the entire time her child was here.

On the other side of the issue, my heart goes out to people who have been attacked, had their children or their pets attacked by another dog, animal or person. Can we enforce the law regarding dogs that attack? (Now I'm not sure how one distiguishes a legitimate attack versus a nonlegitimate one - that is another issue.) Enforce dog owners to have insurance? But keep BSL out of our legislation?

Regardless of the decision on BSL, I strenuously believe that you have to grandfather in the dogs that are already residents of Lakewood. To ask a dog owner to move within a certain number of weeks in this real estate market or to put their dog to death, a dog who may be a model citizen is unforgivable.

Brad Hutchison · Post by **Brad Hutchison** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:16 am

Lynn, the article I posted a bit ago from the AVMA Task Force may be of some interest to you. It has model legislation for dangerous dog laws, including defining/identifying "dangerous dogs." I thought it was interesting.

My wife's sister refused to bring my 3 young nieces to my 30th birthday party last summer if my dog was going to be there. He was 7 months old at that point. Raising children to be afraid of dogs is not the answer either.

Jeff Endress · Post by **Jeff Endress** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:06 am

Enforce dog owners to have insurance?

Now there's a novel idea.....enforce the laws we already have! If you get stopped driving your car, your required to show registration and proof of insurance. No insurance, big problem.

Lakewood (and other cities) have this weird method of dealing with problems. Instead of using present laws, already on the books, and adequate enforcement, they pass NEW laws directed at a problem that could be addressed under the OLD laws. Now we have 2 ordinances that don't get enforced!

This huge bruhaha is another example of that mode of dealing with problems. Got obnoxious neighbors? Let's pass a new nuisance ordinance rather than enforce the one we already have! Biting dogs a problem? Let's put a new ordinance on the books targeting "dangerous dogs"!

Look....we already have what we need. There is a requirement of licensing. THere is a requirement for insurance for certain breeds. All that's needed is enforcement of what we've got. See a dog? "Registration and insurance please". Don't have it? Confiscate the unregistered, uninsured animal. Cross check county dog licenses, send out "proof of insurance" letters. Is there anyone out there that REALLY thinks that adding another layer of ordinances, when those we already have are unenforced (but could resolve the problem) is going to do anything?

(Except maybe generating 11 pages, 151 replies and 7980 views)

Jeff, Guinness and Honey Brown (2 registered and insured Newfs)

Shawn Juris · Post by **Shawn Juris** » Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:54 pm

Great idea Jeff. I'm sure that the "city" is checking in from time to time. If they would like the list of dogs that likely do not meet the insurance requirements feel free to drop me a note at info@thejurisagency.com. I'll be happy to supply you with the name and address of the dog owners that are most likely excluded by their homeowner's or renter's policy. I'm sure their agents would be happy to provide you with the policy language explaining that the carrier considers households with those dogs ineligible.

If anything else it certainly could create an awful lot of business for whatever insurance carrier really is willing to write the policy. City Hall can call it the Dangerous Dog Economic Stimulus Package.

Bill Call · Post by **Bill Call** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:39 am

Jim O'Bryan wrote: The city already has a three bite and dead policy.

Does that apply to the owner or the dog?

Jim O'Bryan · Post by **Jim O'Bryan** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:02 am

Bill Call wrote:
Jim O'Bryan wrote: The city already has a three bite and dead policy.
Does that apply to the owner or the dog?

depends

.

Shawn Juris · Post by **Shawn Juris** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:38 am

Three bite and dead??? Again if this is the case then this is just a matter of one side not understanding what the other is doing. If you have a large breed like the one's that we mentioned it is difficult to meet the insurance requirement, if your large breed has bitten someone then it's next to impossible. Why wait for the third bite? Get the dog out of the city. Fine, don't euthanize it if there is that much of a problem with it but I would like to avoid hearing about a victim who was bitten by a dog that has bitten 2 others.
Now, if we could apply this 3 and dead rule to repeat offender dui cases then I would think that it's closer to reasonable.

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:09 pm

I'm not a big fan of the 3 bites and your dead rule either Shawn.

I think this decision should be left up to a judge or animal warden. If a dog bites when someone attacks his owner - that may be what he is trained to do. If a dog bites after he has been injured - that also may be justified or at least forgiveable. If someone has abused a dog and that dog strikes back - they maybe should also be forgiven. Puppies bite when they are teething and it isn't the type of bite that they should give their life for.

However one out and out attack - may indicate a dog that shouldn't be given a second chance to attack again.

Other than considering each incident and dog separately can a fair decision be reached. JMHO

Shawn Juris · Post by **Shawn Juris** » Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:59 pm

I believe that bites as a result of a break in or provocation do get consideration.
The thing to consider in this discussion is that a complaint needs to be filed. One bite that justifies authorities is enough for me.

dl meckes · Post by **dl meckes** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:12 am

A friend of mine who happens to be in greyhound rescue sent me the following link regarding our specific breed ban legislation from the National Canine Research Council:

http://www.nationalcanineresearchcounci ... tbulls.asp

Grace O'Malley · Post by **Grace O'Malley** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:41 am

Great article, thanks for posting it , dl.

It raises many concerns about Mr. Powers' motivation for pushing this legislation. A Harvard education person should be capable of comprehending reports and studies, and I'm quite sure he does, but instead he chooses to refer to that material and use it to distort, mislead, and downright lie to achieve his agenda.

This suggests to me an arrogance toward the citizens of Lakewood. Does he think we are incompetent and unable to discern the truth through our own investigation?

I recall quite clearly many inaccurate and deceitful statements he made during the 47 debacle. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

Shawn Juris · Post by **Shawn Juris** » Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:45 pm

Oh my God. That link is as credible as me posting that my son is the cutest baby in the world. It may be true but come on now. Are we really going to use that drivel to determine what we should do in this matter?

Valerie Molinski · Post by **Valerie Molinski** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:57 am

Grace O'Malley wrote:Great article, thanks for posting it , dl.

It raises many concerns about Mr. Powers' motivation for pushing this legislation. A Harvard education person should be capable of comprehending reports and studies, and I'm quite sure he does, but instead he chooses to refer to that material and use it to distort, mislead, and downright lie to achieve his agenda.

This suggests to me an arrogance toward the citizens of Lakewood. Does he think we are incompetent and unable to discern the truth through our own investigation?

I recall quite clearly many inaccurate and deceitful statements he made during the 47 debacle. It didn't work then and it won't work now.

I went to the last public safety committee meeting on Thursday. I couldnt stay the whole time because I had to bring my 11 month old and he began to fuss. But I was there for a good 45 minutes. I can tell you from observing the meeting and its participants, nothing is going to get solved.

Most of the people there were speaking against BSL. One woman got up before I left to speak in favor of the ban. She was not treated respectfully. She didnt say much except to throw out a lot of horror stories on dog attacks without much explanation, and while I didnt agree with her, she was not afforded the same respect during her testimony that others were, unfortunately.

I also viewed some board members' faces during varying testimonies. There were some bored looks, some eyerolling, etc... which leads me to believe that this entire thing is a collossal waste of money and time. The people that are in favor of this ban are not going to change their minds, and neither are the people on the other side. It's going nowhere.

Lynn Farris · Post by **Lynn Farris** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:24 am

I also viewed some board members' faces during varying testimonies. There were some bored looks, some eyerolling, etc... which leads me to believe that this entire thing is a collossal waste of money and time. The people that are in favor of this ban are not going to change their minds, and neither are the people on the other side. It's going nowhere.

This bothers me trememdously. I was hoping the change in council would bring a change in behavior. When we were fighting Eminent Domain Abuse, we encountered for the most part the same type of behavior at the city level.

However Senator Grendell at the state level ran a totally different type of hearing. The Senators listened carefully to what you had to say. They asked questions of most speakers. They thanked you for your testimony and Senator Grendell often sent thank you letters for your coming to testify. It didn't matter what side you were on - the Senators treated you as if your testimony mattered. Even the drafting of the legislation was hammered out in the public forum going sentence by sentence. One could see the effort and the compromises in effect. I thought watching the Senators at the state level was a great way to see how pubic meetings should be handled or at least the way Senator Grendell ran meetings. Our council should take a field trip if they are not giving the citizens of Lakewood the same respect. After all they do work for us.

Grace O'Malley · Post by **Grace O'Malley** » Mon Jun 30, 2008 10:57 am

Eye rolling is a classic sign of contempt.

I can't think of anything more depressing than knowing that elected officials hold their constituents in contempt, and nothing more despicable than knowing that they will look you right in the face and lie.