Nothing But Pure Ignorance

[Shawn Juris]

So Valerie, did they roll their eyes at speakers from both extremes of this debate equally?

[Valerie Molinski]

So Valerie, did they roll their eyes at speakers from both extremes of this debate equally?

Nope, just during the testimonies against the ban. And to be fair, I only saw a couple panel members do it, one in particular, and I dont even think he realized he was doing it or aware of the vibe he was throwing out there. It was not Councilman Powers. I am a people watcher and this was just something that I noticed immediately.

[Shawn Juris]

What kind of comments were made to oppose the ban? Was this meeting open to residents only or are things like this a free for all? Is this being opposed on principle by residents or is it being opposed by those that would be effected directly? I'm really grappling with understanding who is opposing this ban and trying to find anything that would compare to this. I couldn't imagine seeing Ben Johnson and Mark McGuire taking the stand to oppose a ban of steroids. But to closer compare to our scenario, the example would have to include those who are already violating existing regulations opposing more stringent legistlation. I guess on the most simplistic terms it would be like a child trying to convince his mom to change the rules and that he should be allowed to eat cookies while he's got a mouthful of cookie and his hand in the jar.

[Jim O'Bryan]

I guess on the most simplistic terms it would be like a child trying to convince his mom to change the rules and that he should be allowed to eat cookies while he's got a mouthful of cookie and his hand in the jar.

Shawn


I think a closer analogy would be, asking Mom to keep the rules the same, and...



FWIW


.

[Valerie Molinski]

What kind of comments were made to oppose the ban? Was this meeting open to residents only or are things like this a free for all? Is this being opposed on principle by residents or is it being opposed by those that would be effected directly? I'm really grappling with understanding who is opposing this ban and trying to find anything that would compare to this..

I can tell you a decent cross section from those I listened to. The majority of the people I heard were actual pit bull mix owners, or potential ones, anyway, since it is quite difficult to tell. Among those people was a mix of the ones who had a well thought out oppositional stance, might have had notes, had really done their homework. There were others that just got up and were simply saying "Don't ban/kill my dog. He/she would never hurt a fly. They are so loyal and affectionate" and so on. Personal testimonies.

Then there was one woman who was an animal behaviorist who talked about her experiences with dogs. She may have had a mix breed as well....cannot remember. The people who spoke were for the most part very credible and organized. People were limited to three minutes speaking time and had to have been on the list from the previous meeting- they signed up to speak at that meeting. The council said they were going to stay until everyone got their turn, but I do not know how long it ran.

I can also tell you that I am not a Pit Bull owner and I not only oppose this ban strenuously, but I was one of several people at this meeting who does not own a pit bull but are involved anyway. So, yes, there are people who do not have dogs affected that were present as well.

[Shawn Juris]

Thank you for the response Valerie. In reference to Jeff's earlier suggestion about letter requesting proof of insurance, the list of speakers should help ease the burden on the city for identifying owners of pit bull and pit bull mixes. Out of curiosity, why are you so strenuously opposed to the ban? If the city ordinance was worded to read that lack of compliance with current leash, containment, muzzle and insurance regulations would result in the same outcome of this ban would that be more acceptable? This would avoid the property rights issue and leave the choice to the owner but provide the city officials with the tools needed to deal effectively with problematic dogs and their owners.

For those that are opposing this ban, are you also willing to defend the uninsured drivers that put the public at risk? If they drove a cute, furry car would it make it less of a hazard?

[Valerie Molinski]

Thank you for the response Valerie. In reference to Jeff's earlier suggestion about letter requesting proof of insurance, the list of speakers should help ease the burden on the city for identifying owners of pit bull and pit bull mixes. Out of curiosity, why are you so strenuously opposed to the ban? If the city ordinance was worded to read that lack of compliance with current leash, containment, muzzle and insurance regulations would result in the same outcome of this ban would that be more acceptable? This would avoid the property rights issue and leave the choice to the owner but provide the city officials with the tools needed to deal effectively with problematic dogs and their owners.

For those that are opposing this ban, are you also willing to defend the uninsured drivers that put the public at risk? If they drove a cute, furry car would it make it less of a hazard?

I will not support any breed specific ban, no matter the animal type. I think it is inherently wrong. I would not condemn an entire group of animals or people for specific acts by certain members of their group. This is not based on cuteness, and it is insulting to me that someone would even suggest that is anyone's reason.

There are current laws on the books that can be enforced. The city is spending a lot of time and resources on this when it has time and again been proven to be a failure in other municipalities. We already have the tools in place to deal with problematic pets and owners. We should use them.

And re: drivers- weren't you earlier saying you cannot compare human action with animals? You cannot have it both ways when it suits you.

Regarding the list of speakers- most of the people who spoke were adamant about cooperating WITH the city on this issue... with the current ordinance in mind. Many said they were also willing to instate good citizen tests on their dogs, help report problematic owners and their dogs, etc. People are clamoring to aid the city on this issue to avoid the extreme outcome (a ban and euthanasia) and I wonder if it is falling on deaf ears.

[Shawn Juris]

Legal question. I assume this would fall under sovereign immunity, but if someone is mauled by a pit bull next summer and the owner doesn't have insurance that will pay the medical bills and can't afford it individually, can the city be held accountable for the cost in the lawsuit? If a landlord can be named and the attorney can argue that they had an obligation to ensure that their tenant had proper insurance if they were aware that the tenant was housing a breed of dog capable of serious injury, couldn't the same be said to hold the city responsible? Doesn't the city have the duty to enforce state law, and if this law is not enforced couldn't they be found negligent, and if their negligence led to a unlawful dog being present in the city which allowed for the bite to happen, then that's the case, isn't it?
Does the city have a liability policy or is it assumed that sovereign immunity will always protect them from needing to payout a settlement?

[Jeff Endress]

If a landlord can be named and the attorney can argue that they had an obligation to ensure that their tenant had proper insurance if they were aware that the tenant was housing a breed of dog capable of serious injury, couldn't the same be said to hold the city responsible?

No. Any more than the city can be held liable if they failed to discover a drunk driver who later killed someone. The city is not the guarentor that everyone who breaks a law will be caught.

But, as I said a couple of pages, several hundred views ago, adding a new layer of legality is not a solution when the present ordinances are more than sufficient to deal with the issues.....provided, of course, that someone enforces them.

I know, from personal experience, that Newfs are prolific producers of piles. Owners are responsible for picking up piles, and yet there a great many that go unattended. So instead of enforcing the pile patrol law, we should outlaw dogs that are prolific producers? The lack of logic behind the effort stinks...the idea is crap. If action is needed, start by actually enforcing the ordinances on the books. Once you've done that, if there's still a problem, it can be addressed. No matter how many ordinances you have, they can never be self-enforcing.

As I stated very early on, there's an unspoken agenda otherwise this a a monumental waste of time.

Jeff

[Phil Florian]

For those that are opposing this ban, are you also willing to defend the uninsured drivers that put the public at risk? If they drove a cute, furry car would it make it less of a hazard?

I don't think this is an apt comparison. If you want to use cars, the example would more likely be that instead of enforcing speeding laws, people with cars that can go fast will be asked to destroy their cars or get out of town. This way, we ensure that those with the fastest cars won't be speeding.

I think we need to take this discussion out of the hands of the alarmists. I think the city would have encouraged more positive feelings in this to address the concerns of the alarmists yet be respectful to those who own dogs and know how to take care of them. They simply could spend some time re-educating people on the current dog laws, ask for compliance and begin to really enforce them (since they clearly aren't doing so right now or the alarmists wouldn't be dictating policy). This way, people that are already following the laws, regardless of breed, will not be bothered, those that want to follow the law have the chance to comply and those that never will follow the laws will be given fair notice. It is a policy of engagement, not division.

We have a Federal government that has essentially been reactionary by responding to the will of alarmists (and look where that has gotten us). We don't need that at a local level where the politicians and police walk the streets and can engage the citizenry in ways that larger entities simply cannot. I would think with Mayor Fitzgerald's neighborhood policing plan with local officers hitting the ground on foot and bike and getting to know their neighbors a more engaging policy would be helpful and successful.

[Valerie Molinski]

Im sorry. I just saw this on Craigslist. IM getting really annoyed with this scheduling. It's like the committee is trying to be secretive by scheduling these meeting and doing this IMPORTANT one on a day most people would be out of town for the holidays. So sneaky.

URGENT! LAKEWOOD RESIDENTS!!! (LAKEWOOD)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: pers-739727172@craigslist.org
Date: 2008-07-01, 8:46PM EDT



Lakewood Residents (and, unfortunately, only Lakewood residents):



CAO is giving a presentation this Thursday, July 3rd at 5:30 at City Hall. Councilman Bullock requested the meeting. I am not sure who else will be attending but it is important that Lakewood residents attend. All Lakewood residents opposed to the ban must attend. We need any Lakewood resident to attend and we need the name of each person before the meeting. Get your neighbors, anyone who has expressed opposition, dog owners, non dog owners, trainers, business owners, anyone! I must make clear that ONLY Lakewood residents can be present.



Last week, the Lakewood prosecutor stated that Lakewood residents generally are not opposed to the ban. He also indicated that only “8â€￾ Lakewood residents spoke at the last meeting and each of them were not in compliance with the laws. Now, please make sure you are in compliance with the laws by Thursday. If you are having problems obtaining insurance, please contact the following company:



Farmer’s Insurance

Agent: John Zohos
(440) 449-3276



We need names of each person. I’d also like to know whether you own what Lakewood would refer to as a “pit bullâ€￾ type dog and whether you are in compliance. We also need residents who are not “pit bullâ€￾ owners. This is not necessarily an open meeting so I’ll need a list of people. Not everyone will get in. We will ask any non-resident to sit outside if they come. DON’T JUST TRY TO ATTEND; ATTEND!!!!! YOU MUST BE THERE.



In addition, there is a meeting tomorrow morning. I will be there. Please try to attend.



Lakewood Public Safety Committee to Discuss Pit Bull Ban
Posted by jkreuz June 30, 2008 17:25PM
Categories: Breaking News
Lakewood Public Safety Committee will meet at 8 a.m. July 2 in the the Jury Room at Lakewood City Hall , 12650 Detroit Ave.

The committee will discuss the ban on pit bulls and canary dogs from Lakewood .

Meeting rooms are subject to change and attendees should check with the security guard for the location.

[J Hrlec]

[dl meckes]

Thought this was interesting (a tiny url to the Washington Post about Michael Vick's dogs):

http://tinyurl.com/6ypjxf

[Valerie Molinski]

[Shawn Juris]