Nothing But Pure Ignorance

[Jeff Endress]

I've been following the discussion with some interest. From the outset, I confess to being a dog (and cat) person. And even though Shawn might take pity on my two Newfoundlands in my tiny Lakewood yard, I think they're both pretty happy (at least they always are glad to see me when I get home ) But what I haven't heard, is what has motivated this sudden need. Exactly what problem are we addressing?

If there was a pit bull attack, perhaps that is a rational. But, is this the only DOG biting incident? If not, what about banning the other breeds involved in those incidents? I'd like to know the scope of the problem that this is supposed to address. I mean if we're dealing with a single dog, it seems that there are sufficient legal remedies available. If there are complaints about specific dogs (and hence their owners), again, we have a number of remedies already on the books. So what is it that we're REALLY talking about?

Please excuse me (or pillary if you like) while I wax cynical:

Pit Bulls are viewed by some as a fashion accessory. It makes a statement, just like the Bling, low riders and sagging. I'm probably REALLY wrong about this, but in my mind, absent any other COMPELLING reason, I begin to suspect that the real purpose is rein in the ghetto image often associated with Pit Bulls. And absent any compelling reason otherwise, I'd be willing to bet you'll see people leave, rather than euthanize their dogs. And maybe that's the real message?

But, I'm certain I'm wrong on this analysis.

Jeff

[Brad Hutchison]

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!

I can't really answer, your first question; all I've seen are the stats in the paper: 44 pit bull complaints in 2007, 1 pit bull bite in 2008 (Jim O'Bryan has all the details about the bite ).

Your second point I've seen others bring up. I have no hard facts, but I really have a hard time believing that the entire LPD spends their time chasing dog complaints, and that's why we need this law. And if I'm wrong, banning two breeds isn't going to fix the problem.


Jeff, I certainly think image has a lot to do with negative pit bull stereotypes. Shawn, if I'm not mistaken, seems bothered by that image, and he's not the only one that associates "ghetto" with pit bulls.

But this seems an extreme measure for the city to take to rid our streets of saggy pants. I believe they're acting out of true public safety concerns, they're just going about it the wrong way.

[ryan costa]

The current trend is that Pit Bull type dogs are more likely to attract owners who are particularly bad at keeping dogs. They are very fashionable dogs.

It is hard to make legislation against hillbillies, hayseeds, hicks, "ghetto" types, and white trash owning dogs. Particularly, owning dogs that are more physically capable of dishing out violence.

council members, the police, the mayor, teachers, social workers, dog wardens, and the press are not equipped to call people hillbillies, hayseeds, hicks, "ghetto" types, dingbats, kooks, hosers, or white trash. They don't have the right licenses and permits. And it would take all kinds of new stationary to document. Then review committees, inquiries, and lawsuits would take place.

It is hard to even tell what a Pit Bull is. It seems to be any dog that is:

not small
has short hair
ears stick up
jaws not long

[Jim O'Bryan]

Brad

But the 44 complaints, what are they? Barking? Dogs off leashes?

I am sure the truth on the ban lies somewhere in the middle. However enforced leash laws, and mandatory insurance of $XXX,XXX for a dog that has shown aggression seems logical, simple and legal. Would accomplish the same thing. I really do not see a problem with the ban at the dog park for dog aggressive breeds, or dogs that can't play nice with others.

I am not even sure the "cool" factor is there any more, when you have breeds like Neapolitan Mastiffs, Cane Corsos, and Fila Brasileiros (most human aggressive breed I have ever seen) coming on way higher in the urban "cool" thought process.

Ryan

As always, hilarious and right on the point.


.

[Ed Dickson]

Councilman Powers returned my call yesterday afternoon to discuss the matter. It was a very good open discussion about what was driving this at this time.
He said that animal control and police officers have been discussing this for some time now (by that, I mean years). He cited last years numbers of 44 seized combined with the fact that 16 have been seized in the first quarter of this year. Also mentioned was an incident I believe in January of attack and disfigurement that finally pushed the discussion to this point. The nature of all the incidents that led to seizure was unknown and to be fair he said some of those animals were re-claimed and put back into the home.
This discussion left me feeling very good about the fact that the political process is being used to discuss all options. This is simply a first step to open the door for discussion on the matter. City employees have expressed a concern for safety so it's being opened for that discussion. So, advocates and non-advocates, this is your time. There will be more open discussions on the topic scheduled and you can't really complain if you don't plan on getting involved somehow. As I said, the conversation was a good, open discussion where Councilman Powers was willing to listen to my thoughts and even potential alternate solutions.

Hope this helps with some of the questions,

Ed

[Beajay Michaud]

I still think that the City should propose that owners of certain breeds be required register their dogs with the City of Lakewood, if you have a dog that is not registered, you are fined and given a certain amount of time to do so or have the dog seized.

I have rottweilers they have their CGC (Canine Good Citizenship) We spend a lot of time and $$$ training and socializing them. I would move from Lakewood before parting with them. I would not be apposed to having them registered with the city. I already have to purchase a dog tag for them every year.

[Ed Dickson]

The argument against what you are proposing is that the current laws can't be enforced due to manpower. It's already required that people have a dog licensed but a whole lot of people don't. I can see the point about not being able to enforce the current law from the animal control point of view.
If every owner were like you the problem wouldn't exist. I know we are busier than ever at NCD but the last numbers I saw said something like 10% of owners actually seek training. A lot of people that do wait to long and many issues already exist. Follow that up with all the horribly bad advice being perpetuated on TV these days and the problem gets worse rather than better.
The ban is a bad idea as I think many other avenues have not been explored but I see why some would think it's necessary.

[Anne Steiner]

I am not even sure the "cool" factor is there any more, when you have breeds like Neapolitan Mastiffs, Cane Corsos, and Fila Brasileiros (most human aggressive breed I have ever seen) coming on way higher in the urban "cool" thought process.


.

I think Cane Corsos/Presa Canarios or "Canary" type dogs are on the banned list

[Stan Austin]

Quote from the dispatcher, 4:45PM 05.26. 2008 in response to a request from an officer dealing with an animal for the animal warden---"they're not on duty today, and we can't call them anymore."

[Dee Krupp]

Quote from the dispatcher, 4:45PM 05.26. 2008 in response to a request from an officer dealing with an animal for the animal warden---"they're not on duty today, and we can't call them anymore."

Hmmm...sounds like something was cut.

[Brad Hutchison]

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/tell-a-friend/789745

Sign a petition to oppose Lakewood's pit bull ban, if you're so inclined.

[Shawn Juris]

I saw this the other day. It's odd to me that a petition on a local proposal is gathering signatures from all over the globe. From what I saw earlier there were few if any from Lakewood. It's also unclear of what the petition is needed for. Maybe someone can explain why a petition would be needed since there is not currently a ban that is being overturned so why sign a petition to keep something the same?
It's a handy way I suppose to identify those who have dogs that may not be properly registered or have inadequate insurance. Kinda like the old claim about the FBI gathering warrants by promising them super bowl tickets.

[Brad Hutchison]

I don't think there's a problem with having a petition to prevent a proposed law, though I do agree that it should only be open to Lakewood residents.

[Shawn Juris]

I don't think there a "problem" with any petition. But what's the purpose of it? At best it seems to function more like a poll than a petition. We agree on the need for it being limited to Lakewood residents. In seeing what they have there I am just waiting for the twisted proof that will be presented by someone at some point to claim that 10,000 people have signed a petition without mentioning that only 5% were from Lakewood. Naturally there will be those for and those against this proposal. Isn't a petition needed to introduce a new item? I haven't heard of a petition being needed to block a proposal.

[Brad Hutchison]

Poll, petition, whatever. If someone feels proposed legislation is unjust, it's easier to stop it at that point. Why wait until it becomes law?