Nothing But Pure Ignorance

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim , In my early 20's, I was playing with a friend's Stafordshire. The dog and I were great friends, played rough all the time. Good dog, we could apologize to the other when we got too rough, it was kinda cool. I got too rough once, the dog clamped down on my face while I was standing up. No broken skin, just bruises, outside of both eyes. She nudged me afterward to see if I was okay. A person can easily get bitten in the face while NOT being on all fours. My friends dog could have easily torn my face off if it so desired in this fashion. I don't need to second guess this guy, these dogs are athletic as hell, and if one wants to bite you in the face while you are upright (even you, I've read you are tall), it will.

Robert

Thanks for the story, please read the story of my wife's bit from our Bordeaux.

In weighing out, this new law(?) and dog bites I always like to hear the facts. Was it a bite or an attack? If it was a bite how did it occur and/or why.

I am not trying to second guess the guy, trying to second guess the "bite." With us, the bite happened trying to save the dog's life and he gagged mouth closed my wife's arm was in its mouth. In the end it was recorded as a bite by the city, the police, and the dog warden.

Having owned a pit bull, I know how athletic they are, and how powerful. I believe the most powerful bite of any dog, with a jaw that can lock. Very powerful and possibly serious traits.

Just trying to figure it all out.

Video - Potential Problems Owner Related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK6VeP7B ... re=related

Owner is directly teaching pit bull to attack a toy monkey. STILL it has arms, legs, face with eyes.

Thanks for the note.


.

[dl meckes]

Jim-

You are a knowledgeable dog person, but you are perpetuating the myth of "locking jaws".

http://www.defendingdog.com/id5.html

f.w.i.w.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Jim-

You are a knowledgeable dog person, but you are perpetuating the myth of "locking jaws".

http://www.defendingdog.com/id5.html

f.w.i.w.

Why yes I guess I would be.



.

[Brad Hutchison]

Brad,
Thanks for confirming that owners of pit bulls are stupid. The example of the neighbor with a pit pup was just reaffirming the stereotype that some like to dismiss here about hud subsidy renters. Couldn't have been a better example of the stereotype.

Spoken like a true BSL supporter. Perpetuating stereotypes and making sweeping generalizations are always the best way to make a point. I still don't get the relevancy of HUD subsidy renters to this debate.

My point was to the issue of liability exposure and the lack of understanding that owners of vicious dogs have about their coverage.

I just can't understand the logic behind labelling a dog "vicious" the day it's born. That's my fundamental problem with BSL.

Let's ask a personal question since you've taken to taking to a condescending tone to belittle my concerns. Who is your insurance policy with to protect others in the event that your beloved pooch mauls some poor child? Please, prove that you're not in the same group that I normally come across who ignore the language of their policy and put the public at risk.

My poor little pup was adopted from from a rescue agency. He's a mystery mutt... might have some boxer in him, but who's to say for sure? His mom (also a mixed breed of some sort) didn't have a pedigree pinned to her chest when she was abandoned.


Dee, I'm glad you asked the question about pit bull attack fatalities not supporting my argument. I want to be clear that there are awful pit bulls with awful owners, but that's a minority. I said above that I would support a ban on certain offenders from ever owning a dog.

Ed and dl spoke appropriately for me. I think of it this way: there are instances of negligent drivers injuring or killing pedestrians. Isn't the only way to make sure it never happens again to ban all cars? Yes. But that's unreasonable. Instead, we punish only the negligent drivers. Why should this be different?

I'm so against the ban primarily on principle. It punishes people who are responsible, dogs that are friendly, and won't solve anything.


Diane,

What happened to your son should never happen. I would support a ban on that pit bull, and on its owner ever having another dog. The question is: can anyone say that if that guy had a German Shepherd instead of a pit bull, that it would not have attacked your dog/son?

[Shawn Juris]

Brad,
I'm speaking like someone who has read the policies that owners of these breeds deemed vicious misinterpret blantantly to lull themselves into a false sense of security. The problem is that they are not the ones that are most likely to suffer the loss. If an insured wants to believe that they have flood insurance even though it is specifically excluded on the policy then when the loss occurs it is their property that will be lost. In the case of these dogs; pit bulls and several others, it is a liability claim meaning that someone else is injured that did not have the opportunity or more to the point the financial responsibility to protect themselves. The responsibility is the dog owner's and they fail to take it. Based on your further deflections I have to assume that you too fall into that category. So which company covers your dog? Unless it's Cincinnati insurance which is one of the few standard companies that I have come across which does not specifically exclude certain breeds and mixes (which some include boxers as well) you may need to cough up the medical bills if your dog bites someone. Maybe you have $100,000 sitting around to make a dent in a reconstructive surgery bill but otherwise would you feel comfortable being in the headlines as the defendant in the case where little Susie has bite marks across her face and her family can't pay the bills because the dog's owner didn't have the proper insurance coverage and can't afford the legal settlement?
While you may want to believe that I am making sweeping generalizations and being such a big meanie, I am simply acknowledging the realities. The realities that those who let their love of animals distort their perception and lead them to statements like "well not in my case", "my dog isn't like that". It won't matter if you've signed a contract that says it's not a covered loss and you have to personally pay for the person who was bit.

Jim,
I've researched the basic sites around the web and it usually comes back to the same problems that always exist online. It depends on who's authoring the article. I suspect that this is in part a media obsession that puts pitbulls in the headlines more often than others. The source that I would recommend over insurance companies would be the hospitals. As mentioned the insurance companies would likely reject the claim if it was a certain breed and these statistics may not be accurately represented. As with so many of these discussions the statistics can probably be used to make either argument.

Lynn,
Owners of these dogs are required to carry insurance. Dog bites are covered under homeowners or renters policies UNLESS THE BREED IS EXCLUDED. The policy languange that I have come across excludes the dogs that would do damage like rottweilers, dobermans, german shepards etc. There are very few carriers that write vicious dog policies and the premiums are roughly $700/year. Now I have to wonder, how many would love that pit bull so much that they would spend that much to protect their neighbors and anyone that their dog came into contact with. Or would the more likely scenario be that the owner would neglect to keep the policy in force or pretend that it's either covered or not really one of those excluded dogs.


I see a couple of problems on this topic. One the city has laws on the books that don't seem to be enforced so making another law might not make a difference. Two, owners of these dogs don't understand what they do or don't have coverage for and chose (in my experience) to make excuses and explain away why they should have something that they do not. Owning a dog is not a constitutional right, just like driving is not a constitutional right. There is a financial obligation that exists to privileges such as these and if you are not willing to pay the necessary expenses than you should not be permitted to be a threat to public safety. If, and that's a huge if, an owner of a pitbull or any of the other "vicious" dogs as defined by the insurance policy choses to follow the letter of the law and do all the things required then so be it, keep the dog. But let me ask this for those who are feigning to be dog lovers on this topic. If you love pit bulls or german shepard or any of these other dogs, then why on earth would you force that big dog to live in a small confined area such as the vast majority of Lakewood? From a dog's perspective do you really think that they like running in a 8 by 8 yard? Is it really appropriate for a dog like these to live in most of Lakewood? Sure there are some larger lots but the facts that I would be curious most about are a view of a map of Lakewood and where pit bulls and other vicious dogs are housed. Is this something that would be more informative (and in reality something that would be more likely to be found on Crimewood than here) and help to quell or confirm the notion that certain breeds are more likely owned by a certain economic demographic?

[Ed Dickson]

Shawn,

You are abviously not a dog person. You make the assumption that dog owners simply allow dogs to be in the "8X8 yard". Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are a lot of activities for dog owners out there and people are taking advantage of them in record numbers. I don't walk around this city afraid of when the next killer dog is going to come at me. My hunch would be your not either. I have no problem with the fact a person may not be a dog lover but that right shouldn't be taken away from others. I HATE the noise that motorcycles make and I think the way I have seen people ride them around my neighborhood is dangerous. I'm not going to go screaming for a ban.

You and I will agree to disagree but that won't change my mind that if this gets passed, it won't solve anything.

Ed

[Diane Helbig]

Diane,

That is a horrible story. It sounded as if your son was okay - just scared to death, but did your dog survive?

There is no excuse for a dog being allowed to attack 5 times. With humans it is 3X and your out - dogs shouldn't have more rights than people. I agree with you that the breeder was most likely irresponsible and the owner and the city.

If I thought that banning pit bulls from the city would stop an experience like that from happening to another child, or even dog, I would be all for it. But pretty much any dog can do what this dog did. At least any big dog. Not that little dogs can't be crazy too - they are just easier for someone to subdue.

Maybe everyone with a dog should be required to have insurance to cover them. For most if I understand this correctly, it is covered by their homeowners insurance or is it covered under rental insurance? Then if insurance companies with their tables determine different rates for different breeds, that is fine. That way we treat all dogs basically the same.

But insurance wouldn't have covered the trauma you suffered.

Lynn, yes my dog survived though she is now skittish around other dogs she doesn't know. Probably not a bad thing.

The ordinance required pit bull owners to carry a $100,000 insurance policy on their dog. They also had to have a cage in their yard, a muzzle for their dog, etc. It didn't stop it. The owner was young and stupid.

At the end of the day, the ordinance was completely insufficient to protect the children. I agree that any dog can become mean. However, I think we all know that this particular breed has some sort of inclination to be agressive.

Any dog should get one shot at hurting another dog, or person and that should be the end of it. Jail the owner, sue the owner, get rid of the dog. But do SOMETHING to ensure that that animal will not inflict harm on any other living thing. Do you know what the fine was for our occurence????? $150.00. That's it. Not exactly a deterrent.

[Ed Dickson]

Diane,

This breed does not have an inherent nature to be aggressive. I'm sorry for your incident and I don;t wish that upon anyone but that's not factual information.

For everyone's info, a state rep. from Cincinnatti has now introduced a bill to ban Pit Bulls (still need that defined as "Pit Bull" is not a breed) in the state of Ohio.

Let the games begin,

Ed

[Shawn Juris]

Ed,
In my defense, I see this more as being for personal responsibility than being a dog lover or not. If some are willing to be blinded by love and ignore their responsibility then I don't see how that should reflect negatively on me or others who call for stiffer measures when their negligence creates a public hazard. I see this as similar to the uninsured motorist problem. Laws are in place but are ignored by the irresponsible. If there was a way to ban those cars from the road that would be great but that's impossible. There does appear to be a correlation between certain breeds and the harm they cause, so ban them.
As far as the 8x8 yard reference, if you believe that you can convince me that a 140 lb, athletic dog is bred to live in a small house and will be content with a leashed walk around the block then go for it. I'm not a dog lover but for the majority of homes in Lakewood I would think that would be a terrible life for a large dog.

[Diane Helbig]

Diane,

This breed does not have an inherent nature to be aggressive. I'm sorry for your incident and I don;t wish that upon anyone but that's not factual information.


Ed

Ed - read what I wrote. I didn't say inherent - I said inclination. The anecdotal data tends to support this - you don't hear as many stories about any other breed of dog - except maybe rottweilers. No, still not in the same volume.

[Ed Dickson]

Shawn,

You're right. That would be a terrible life for a young dog. That's not all that's available and that's not all that is being done. Are you saying that people in Lakewood shouldn't have dogs at all? Irresponsible people are going to be around no matter what breed of dog they choose to have. So today, you get rid of people having Pit Bull type dogs. Tomorrow, a German Shepherd will be climbing the fence to chase after you.

No need really to defend yourself. I'm just having an open and constructive conversation about why I think this is a waste of time.

Ed

[Ed Dickson]

Diane,

Just because you don't hear about them doesn't mean they aren't happening. As a matter of fact, in my business it is more common for me to see a Lab with a bite history than a Pit type.
So I'll change to your word. This breed type is not any more inclined to be aggressive than other breeds of dogs. It's what is done or not done with them that matters.

Ed

[Lynn Farris]

Shawn you said:

Laws are in place but are ignored by the irresponsible.

I don't think they are enforced either. So the city is also to blame. I have no problem with requiring that all dogs have licenses and to have a license, you have to show proof of insurance. Let the city enforce the laws that are currently on the books. Not make new laws that are ignored and go unenforced.

Then punish behavior - both dog and irresponsible owners. Diane makes an excellent point about how the dog was allowed to attack 5X.

I think everyone is in agreement that dogs that attack should not be in Lakewood. I believe everyone would be in favor of the law being enforced.

It is just having one breed singled out as a problem when it may not account for the largest number of attacks in Lakewood, Ohio or the country doesn't seem fair.

[Lynn Farris]

Shawn,

Your comment about the 8X8 foot yard jogged a memory. I worked with disturbed, behavior problem children in a behavior modification situation throughout college.

One of the things that the psychologist would always tell us is that if you get a German Shepard dog, they tell you that you have to walk it at least a mile a day. (She had shepards.). But people have children and expect them to sit quietly all day long in the house. She constantly harped on the need to get your children out and excercise them. If we saw problem children we would often "run them" until they were tired enough to come in and do the lessons. Maybe it isn't a surprise that she was extremely successful and her assistants were always exhausted.

According to her, people often took much better care of their dogs than their children. I know, I know - way off topic. But it is true. There are irresponsible dog owners out there and irresponsible parents too.

[J Hrlec]

Maybe someone could answer some questions I have from reading this thread. I am trying to not form any opinion before I have more knowledge on the matter...

1.) I understand that pit bulls may or may not be the "bite leaders" or problem makers, but I would like to know if they are the top one in Lakewood, since that is our area of focus.

2.) As well, it makes sense that a part of the problem surely lies with the owner and enforcement of the laws (whichever laws there may be) to limit dog issues. However, it seems like these are not being enforced... probably due to lack of manpower /money? Would you rather have city resources solving issues such as crime, housing standards, etc...or taking from those areas and focusing on dog owners?

To me it seems like the law in talks is based on both of those items... but what seems is not always the case.

In a perfect world the city could easily have manpower/money for all those things, but I get a feeling that Lakewood does not and the law would help curtail a known issue in Lakewood without trying to re-appropriate fund or people. Does this sound possible?

Thanks!