The Observation Deck

When we move into a city, I suppose the only thing to do is read all of the local ordinances.

I don't know that I am aware of all of Lakewood's ordinances and I've lived here for a long time.

Sometimes people need to be reminded of or introduced to existing laws.

Then don't call them responsible. These are simply owners that haven't been caught yet.

Yanno

There are a lot of different ordinances, laws, codes, etc. that govern our lives (I would say way too many - but that's a discussion for another thread).

Even responsible people don't always know all of the rules. Sometimes it never occurs to them that there may be special rules for "Circumstance X"

This happens at all levels - local, state, federal, etc. and is why we have public service announcements and public education campaigns.

Yes, in a perfect world, when people move they will read (and understand) all of the laws for the city and state that they live in. But we live in a flawed world and that is not what typically happens. I find it is HIGHLY insulting to say that just because when I decided to get my sweet little puppy it never occurred to me that I would have to abide by a variety of laws over and above cleaning up after him and keeping him out of the neighbors yard that I am not a responsible person.

Always,
Charyn

Certainly alot of opportunities to go from innocently unaware to responsible. This ongoing discussion would be one. I'd be interested to find out if anyone who owns a pit bull, pit mix or any of the other dogs we've discussed have actually researched their policy to determine if a bite would be covered or excluded. In terms of the criticism of those who spoke out against the ban at city council, am I to believe that any of the 8 (and I don't know who the 8 were, if they truly are not in compliance, or if they are participants in this thread) went straight from buying a puppy unaware of what they purchased to jumping to the podium to speak out against a ban? I've spoken from time to time in public and I often find it prudent to do a bit of research.
I get that in some circles it is not accepted to call a spade a spade and be brutally honest about situations. Sure, there are a lot of regulations and laws that may seem frivilous. But really now, we're not talking about getting a fish drunk or walking a cow down Detroit Ave. I can see that situations may occur where a dog owner isn't fully aware at the point of purchase that their new pet will involve so much effort but what ever happened to accountability, buyer beware, consumer reports, researching a purchase, etc? If someone hasn't done their homework, is it really inappropriate or insulting to call them irresponsible?

I found this article tonight. Thought it was worth sharing.

Slightly Small Link

Sausage dogs are the most aggressive dogs
By Roger Dobson
Last Updated: 11:24PM BST 05/07/2008
Forget pit bulls, rottweilers and Rhodesian ridgebacks, it's the sausage dog that's the most aggressive breed.

GETTY
Miniatures bite their way to the top: The Short-Haired Dachshund tops an index of canine aggression
They may be small, but new research found that one in five dachshunds have bitten or tried to bite strangers, and a similar number have attacked other dogs; one in 12 have snapped at their owners.

Known as sausage dogs for their elongated bodies, dachshunds have not, until now, had a fearsome reputation, although they were originally bred to hunt badgers in their setts.

However, they topped a list of 33 breeds which were rated for their aggression, after academics analysed the behaviour of thousands of dogs.

Article continuesadvertisement
Chihuahuas, an even smaller breed, were the second most hostile, regularly snapping or attempting to bite strangers, family and other dogs. Another small favourite, the Jack Russell, was third.

In Illinois last week, Linda Floyd had to have her dachshund, called Roscoe, put down after the dog gnawed off her big toe while she slept. Mrs Floyd, 56, woke up too late because nerve damage from diabetes had left her with no feeling in her toes.

Dr James Serpell, one of the researchers, said smaller breeds might be more genetically predisposed towards aggressive behaviour than larger dogs.

"Reported levels of aggression in some cases are concerning, with rates of bites or bite attempts rising as high as 20 per cent toward strangers and 30 per cent toward unfamiliar dogs," he added.

Until now, research into canine aggression has almost exclusively involved analysis of dog bite statistics. But the researchers said these were potentially misleading as most bites were not reported. Big dogs might have acquired a reputation for being aggressive because their bites were more likely to require medical attention.

The findings have angered owners of small breeds. Chris Moore, secretary of the Northern Dachshund Association, said: "As far as breeders in the UK are concerned, this is rubbish. It is not in the dogs' nature. I have never been bitten in 25 years."

Tony Fitt-Savage, president of the British Chihuahua Club, added: "I have had Chihuahuas for 30-odd years, and they've never put anybody into hospital. They can be a little bit stroppy."

The study, published this week in the journal Applied Animal Behaviour Science, involved researchers from the University of Pennsylvania questioning 6,000 dog owners.

Breeds scoring low for aggression included Basset hounds, golden retrievers, labradors, Siberian huskies and greyhounds.

The rottweiler, pit bull and Rhodesian ridgeback scored average or below average marks for hostility towards strangers.

Joyce Summers, treasurer of the Rottweiler Club in Britain, said: "I have lived with rottweilers for 40 years and they give nothing but love and affection. I am not surprised Jack Russells are up there near the top; they are yappy little things."
Print this story
Email this story
Share this story
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Google
Newsvine
NowPublic
Reddit
StumbleUpon
RSS Feeds

More on: How about that? >

Shawn Juris wrote:Certainly alot of opportunities to go from innocently unaware to responsible. This ongoing discussion would be one. I'd be interested to find out if anyone who owns a pit bull, pit mix or any of the other dogs we've discussed have actually researched their policy to determine if a bite would be covered or excluded. In terms of the criticism of those who spoke out against the ban at city council, am I to believe that any of the 8 (and I don't know who the 8 were, if they truly are not in compliance, or if they are participants in this thread) went straight from buying a puppy unaware of what they purchased to jumping to the podium to speak out against a ban? I've spoken from time to time in public and I often find it prudent to do a bit of research.
I get that in some circles it is not accepted to call a spade a spade and be brutally honest about situations. Sure, there are a lot of regulations and laws that may seem frivilous. But really now, we're not talking about getting a fish drunk or walking a cow down Detroit Ave. I can see that situations may occur where a dog owner isn't fully aware at the point of purchase that their new pet will involve so much effort but what ever happened to accountability, buyer beware, consumer reports, researching a purchase, etc? If someone hasn't done their homework, is it really inappropriate or insulting to call them irresponsible?

I reiterate that so-called "dangerous breed" laws are so unreasonable, why would anyone assume that any dog they acquire would come with special requirements/restrictions? It makes no sense. Unless you have a stroppy dog... but I don't know if that's good or bad.

It's interesting that Golden Retrievers "scored low for aggression" in this study, when they average a score equal to or below "pit bull" breeds on the American Temperament Test. Yet more proof that breed-based generalizations are invalid.

Hope Robbins wrote: I am in compliance. The whole part of it. I got the insurance, the lease, muzzle, kennel, and the stupid signs. And I could make it all go away by getting her registered as a full breed, or heck if they pass it , I will get grandfathered in. But now after all this mess and the behavior of Mr. Powers, I am not taking the easy way out, just on principle alone.

And if he stays in council...if they don't pass the ban, I think I am still putting the old house on the market, let there be another empty house to add to the scenery...and get the heck out of dodge to a community run by some folks with my "real" safety in mind, and with some common sense.

Now if you have more questions, let me know. Again, I am a resident, home owner, registered voter, CAO member, Pit Bull "look a like" owner, and the big mouth on the news who said it and the one they keep showing every story they run! I have been at the meetings and I know clearly the story from being there...not hearing it.


Regards,

Hope

Hope

First the comment about putting the old house on the market hurts us the residents far more than council. I would hope that you would reconsider this. Lakewood is quickly becoming the capital of engaged residents, you are needed and will be missed.

You mention the "sign" what sign is that? I have always been told that a "beware of dog sign" is much like "watch your step" sign. In so much as you are aware of the problem, you admit liability instantly, and loose many rights in a court of law. Is this what you are speaking of?

I also own a dog that was rescued from the APL, he is part Bordeaux, and part Lab. However to the untrained eye, I could see someone think he was an "atomic pitbull." A name my other Bordeauxs had been called before. I agree that this is a legal and thereby a financial nightmare for the city, as sooner or later the law will be challenged and struck down. I also have the same fears as you with other breeds being brought in to the ban, which mean larger groups coming to Lakewood to challenege the law. I have heard Rotweillers, large dogs. I have also heard the ban is to protect the children. This was from a member that has no dog or children.

I was also wondering allowed, how many of council have dogs, or pets for that matter?

With all that being said, I believe no matter how misinformed and wrong the ban is that council will see their way through this and common sense and a plan will be formulated.

What upsets some of those I talk with is why this discussion continues, it would seem graffitti grows, litter grows, and the city's real problems grow.

Lakewood has a good law to protect all of us from "dangerous dogs" who themselves suffer from "dangerous owners." It should be applied, and enforced, and we need to move on to the real problems.

Thanks for signing in and putting it out there. You nearly lost me when you threaten to move. I prefer dealing with dedicated people that would like to stay and fix the problems of the city, then turn and run. I hope I read that wrong, or that is was just a hollow threat.

.

Hi all. I am the Melissa of the news story, (well most of them...LOL) I finally joined here and didnt know about this place. Glad I found it.
Anyway, yes I was targeted. I am on record everywhere as not owning a pit, not rescuing them. When and if they do come in to my program, I meet them, evaluate them and then they go to my foster home out of this state. She is equipped to handle them and rehab them. That is what she does for a living. But personally the last pit I had I think I was 4. I am way older than 4 now. I do have a lab, chihuahua, and a beagle. Ya'll saw the Chihuahua. (isnt he cute)
I am in full compliance with every law, I dont own a pit so that law was easy. I researched every ordinance so I can do rescue. I am registered with the State of Ohio, and the IRS. (official 501c3 with paperwork to show that I am....) I am a small rescue, against the ban. And people want to know why. Because I love all dogs. I love every breed. I have come across every breed, and every mix. I just adore them. I have seen the horrors of humanity with animal abuse, I have also seen pets spoiled rotten too.
I was terrified when their was a notice from the warden on my door. I missed him when he first came here. I believe I was at the vet's office with another foster. I had to wait until Saturday to speak to him. I cried all night. I honestly thought I did something wrong. I thought my rescue was in trouble. I didnt know why as I followed the law and did everything right. But why was someone coming to my house. I never slept that night. I cried. I held my fosters on my lap and thought this was the end, this is where I had to say goodbye. Turns out they were checking on my pit. I asked the warden what pit? I dont own a pit. You know I dont own a pit, you met my beagle and lab. He laughed, put it together who I was and the light clicked on. I get he was doing his job, and I do not have an issue with him. I am sure he was "happy" to get the list and go check us out. You know because he isnt busy enough during his day. LOL.
I have nothing to hide, and would never lie about owning a dog. Why would I lie to the city, to the community, to the mayor or council about owning a pit or rescuing them? The truth would have come out and I would have looked like a "donkey" (insert word of choice there).
And yes, the Chihuahua is a mean little doggie. Too bad the story didnt show his growling at the camera, trust me ya'll would have died laughing.

Hi Missy and Hope. Thanks for joining our discussion here. Can you post a link to the latest story?

I hope this works...you have to click on the picture for the video to show...

Slightly Smaller Link

Again I just stress that I do not own a pit bull so I felt frightened by someone coming to my door.

What bothers me the most is the council's apparent lack of interest in doing any research and dangerous dogs and breed bans. I've yet to hear or read a single valid argument from ban supporters, including Mr. Powers and Mr. Sinagra. It's all rhetoric and frenzy and unsupported claims.

I have read and cited (and e-mailed to council and the mayor, though I've never heard back) reports from the legal community and professional organizations that have studied BSL and found it ineffective. Most of these reports offer alternative suggestions, including the one I posted here from the AVMA which offered model legislation.

We've heard from experts like Mr. Dixson and Dr. Hutchison. I've received letters from several area veterinarians stating their opposition to BSL. The American Kennel Club, US Humane Society, American Veterinary Medical Association, and (clearly) Pit Bull Rescue Central, and many other professional organizations ALL oppose breed bans.

Yet I restate: not one shred of legitimate evidence has come from the city government.

Missy Limkemann wrote:I hope this works...you have to click on the picture for the video to show...

Slightly Smaller Link

Again I just stress that I do not own a pit bull so I felt frightened by someone coming to my door.

I wonder what he was about to say about Councilman Powers before reporter got cut off...

it was very "choppy". I was kind of hoping they would have showed my rescue side. (or at least the sign on my van which they taped) or more of my interview, but overall I was ok with it. My chihuahua is walking around like he owns the world now. He is sitting next to me demanding my attention. Litte Diva Man. (or it could be my granola bar I am eating...)
After the story aired the one newscaster lady asked Tom why they came to my house when I didnt own a pit and he couldnt answer. Neither could I answer when I was asked.