The Observation Deck

I think what scares the majority of people is what is a pit bull? A big head? Have you ever seen a large lab? (if not come to my house...) They can have block heads, and when they "smile" they can look like any other dog. Wide body? Again, any large breed dog can have a wide body. They are large breeds after all.
What is "one strike"? If your neighbor hates your dog, can they call the warden/police and say "That dog growled at me and came at me" even if the dog didnt. How will it be proven? His word vs her word now is going to be hard to prove. If a dog barks wrong is that one strike? If so then my beagle should have been gone a long time ago. LOL. What exactly is a bite? Breaking the skin, or scratching? I get that daily at feeding time from the puppies. Should they be considered dangerous now? I just really want clarification on what is "one strike" and what will we do about his word vs her word.
And me being me, and all panic like, worry that after a million phone calls to the warden about my boxer will they now say "hey we got a million calls, you now have to muzzle him and do this stuff too, just to make those callers happy." Even though he is not. Or any dog for that matter because someone doesnt know what breed they are. Do we have to put out fliers everywhere to show people what each breed of dog looks like? Even then, that is hard to determine with so many mixed breeds.
What do we do for the people who rent here? How will they know the "laws" if the landlord doesnt tell them. The renters never get a "Welcome To Lakewood" packet. Do we punish them because the home owner did not tell them? That is not fair they didnt know. Most people really dont think to look up city ordinances when looking for a place to rent or buy. I never did. I never really knew the animal laws here till I started rescue and wanted to make sure I was following them.

And the most important question that no one has yet to answer...Where is the money going to come from to pay for this? It surely is not coming from me when schools are closing and I have 2 kids.

Ivor, I've never had an issue with you before, but you are so misguided it isnt even funny. You are making some seriously incorrect assumptions here. Im sorry if you think I am being rude, but I just shake my head with my mouth agape while reading your thoughts on this.

First, who made you the topic police? What we can and cannot post about and how many times? It's a losing argument, so give it up.

If I was walking an animal that had a tendency to attack strangers who came to close, I'd walk it with a muzzle regardless of what the law said.

Of course you would...for that particular dog. Not all pit bulls have a tendency to attack other people or animals. Yes, some do, and they should be handled or dealt with accordingly. Any dog is capable of attacking, regardless of the breed, yet we are forcing one breed to wear muzzles because they are 'potentially dangerous.'

And you know that dogs dont sweat right? They pant to relieve themselves of heat. Muzzles can be an issue in extreme heat that doesnt allow the dog to ventilate itself properly. But the issue is not the muzzle. People were willing to comply with that, which was the previous law. What people are in an uproar about is the outright ban that was just passed. More people are willing to muzzle than give up their dogs to be destroyed. Please try to keep up.

I guess if a dog rips off one kids face, you can teach them not to do it again with plenty of bacon bits...but if a socialized human being commits a crime, they will always have a tendency to do it again?

If we were banning ex-killers from Lakewood I'm sure this conversation would be reversed. But since we're talking about dogs, it's not.

Wow, yeah sure. All of us fighting this ban would take that sweet puppy who just "ripped someone's face off" and ply him with treats. Yeah. Im sure most people would agree that any dog who did this to a person would need to be destroyed. And ex killers? Why don't you go talk to the pit owners at these meetings and find out how many people their dogs have previously killed.

Ed, of course I won't find a dog expert that thinks this is a good idea because they're in service for dogs! That's like finding a psychologist who thinks the only way out of depression is to commit suicide. Or finding an activist who believes the opposite of what he/she is campaigning for. You just won't find it

.

Again, a ridiculous comparison. Dog experts are EXPERTS for a reason. Because they work with these animals on a daily basis. To discount their opinion by merely stating what you did it just.... dumb. Sorry, I have no other word for it.

But look at who GENERALLY owns pit bulls around Cleveland and you'll find that they A) can't afford training, B) don't have time for taking their dog to training, and C) don't really care about their dogs. How do I come to that conclusion? Look at the kids they're raising and how much trouble they're making!

You're making generalizations. Did you attend ANY of the meetings on this? There wasnt one non white person in the rooms at the ones I attended and for the most part, the people who testified were clean, dressed nicely and well spoken. But maybe I should have looked outside at the kind of car they drove and maybe their babies were in the hot car, only in diapers and playing with matches, while screaming the F word and listening to gangsta rap.

Valerie Molinski wrote: First, who made you the topic police? What we can and cannot post about and how many times? It's a losing argument, so give it up.

I think what Ivor is getting at is that it's considered bad form (and bad netiquette) to post multiple threads about a topic when there is already an active thread. I'm a member of several forums, and members get admonished on a daily basis when posting without looking through the active threads or using the search function.

It's not a matter of who's topic police or not. It's just bad netiquette.

David Lay wrote:

Valerie Molinski wrote: First, who made you the topic police? What we can and cannot post about and how many times? It's a losing argument, so give it up.

I think what Ivor is getting at is that it's considered bad form (and bad netiquette) to post multiple threads about a topic when there is already an active thread. I'm a member of several forums, and members get admonished on a daily basis when posting without looking through the active threads or using the search function.

It's not a matter of who's topic police or not. It's just bad netiquette.

While I would normally agree, I see only two threads on this and the last one is very long and becoming unwieldy. Take it up with Jim, who started this new thread to report the passing of the ban... I wouldn't admonish those who are replying. I dont think his intent was to talk about netiquette based on this. His complaint is that we are ranting and raving about the same things over and over while Rome is burning:

I just hate seeing four threads going on simultaneously with the same rants and complaints. There are other things going on in the city too, and they're being pushed further down the forum because threads are brought back to life and they all contain the same thing. Keep it simple, folks!

I don't think the other thread is that long. Look at the Lightspeed thread, 30+ pages, hundreds of thousands of page views, and still going. You don't see other threads popping up about Lightspeed; people post about it in the same thread.

I've seen threads on other forums go to 50+ pages, sometimes longer, without other related threads popping up.

Making a personal attack on Ivor when he was making an observation was simply uncalled for.

Todd Shapiro wrote:I agree with all the people who say that if the Pit Bull ban was put to a vote, it would pass in a landslide. This is another case where a strong, well-spoken, and well-informed minority attempted to thwart the will of the majority. I hope that none of the people who have implied they would leave Lakewood if this ban was put in place actually follow through on this threat. However, I know that if someone who owned a pit bull moved next door to me, I would be moving into a new house at the end of that month. That's how afraid myself, and I am sure others in the community are of these animals.

I kept my comments to myself during this whole battle because I realize I am not an animal lover nor do I have children (who are most likely to be attacked by dogs). I thank the council for passing this ban to make the residents of Lakewood safer (and before someone tosses out a bunch stats or quotes from a study perception is reality and there are many people like myself who are terrified of these animals).

I hope that the state of Ohio passes a statewide ban on pit bulls in short order and thereby takes the pressure off of city councils across the state.

If it was put to a vote it probably would pass, because most people are ignorant of what these breeds are really like. They believe what they see on TV. I just hoped I was justified in holding members of council to a higher standard... apparently I was not.

The amount of substanceless rhetoric that was spewed out by all supporters of this ban was frightening. And people like Todd swallow it up, because they don't know any better. I don't mean this to sound as harsh as it does, but it's true. Why people tend to believe stereotypes and rhetoric over expert testimony, facts, and the experiences of other cities never ceases to baffle me.

Public education on how to care for dogs, how to act toward strange dogs, etc. would have been 100 times more effective in preventing bite incidents than this ban. And it would have cost the city nothing, because people would have volunteered their time.

Brad Hutchison wrote: The amount of substanceless rhetoric that was spewed out by all supporters of this ban was frightening. And people like Todd swallow it up, because they don't know any better. I don't mean this to sound as harsh as it does, but it's true. Why people tend to believe stereotypes and rhetoric over expert testimony, facts, and the experiences of other cities never ceases to baffle me.

Public education on how to care for dogs, how to act toward strange dogs, etc. would have been 100 times more effective in preventing bite incidents than this ban. And it would have cost the city nothing, because people would have volunteered their time.

I couldn't have said it any better.

I was reading about Garfield Heights' passing of a Pit Bull ban last year and came upon this thread:

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/bedford ... CVKU32VQRL

David Lay wrote:
Making a personal attack on Ivor when he was making an observation was simply uncalled for.

You're mistaken. It isnt a personal attack. It is in the sense that he said it and I am responding to what he said, but beyond that, it is not personal.

Valerie Molinski wrote: You're mistaken. It isnt a personal attack. It is in the sense that he said it and I am responding to what he said, but beyond that, it is not personal.

I wasn't referring to what you said. I was referring to what Mike said:

Mike Deneen wrote:Hey Kiddo....this topic is much more important than your football photos, so deal with it.

Mike, I like you, but that was uncalled for.

[quote="Hope Robbins"]
No one in compliance. You reallly don't want to go there do you?
Were you at the meeting sir? That is NOT what they said.

I checked further and I stand corrected. Essentially what was said is that prior to the introduction of the ordinance few if any owners were in compliance. Now more owners are in full compliance. In some if not many cases, compliance was accomplished only after visits to the owners by the animal control officers. You are correct. There are owners who complied with existing law. I again commend Council for passing the ordinance.

On that compliance issue...why did the dog warden come to my house? Why do I have to be compliant of the pit bull law? I stated from the beginning I do not own one. So when they keep saying "All those that spoke were not in compliance" is a big fat lie. I know several people who spoke who dont own pits and 1 person doesnt even own A dog.

Mr Murtaugh,

Care to answer my questions?

Put the issue on the ballot.
But when it passes, I'm sure it won't douse the flame.

You could hope that voters would get educated on this issue just like you would hope that they educate themselves on which candidate to vote for, but the system isn't always perfect.

Valerie,
It's just a matter of "netiquete" as David wisely said. I participate in other forums and If I were to have four threads on one topic then I would probably have my account banned.

Sorry for being a "dumb" individual.

David,
you go brother!

Shapiro, you're the man. Give me a call and we'll play tennis soon without having to worry about crazy dogs chasing after the ball!

I love Lakewood and this forum. The conversations are priceless, but always constructive.

Keep it going!

Our elected officials seem to want citizen engagement to help solve problems on certain issues but shut the door of opportunities on others. They either want citizens at the table or they don't. This is not true citizen engagement. This picking and choosing strategy creates polarized and confused citizens.

David, you may agree or disagree with the ordinance passed by Council, but I don't agree for a moment that this was a case of Council discouraging participation. The ordinance was introduced in May. At the first meeting, scores of people attended to discuss just this issue; we listened to them at length. The ordinance was referred to the public safety committee for further deliberation.

The public safety committee, staffed by Councilmen Bullock and Powers, had several more hearings on this issue than almost any other in my memory. Many advocates attended those meetings (at least the ones I attended). When the ordinance came up for its second reading, scores of people showed up to the Council meeting to speak on it. It was referred back to the public safety committee for further reflection.

The public safety committee met a few more times. Finally, the committee met on Monday and made a determination that the original ordinance introduced was untenable after all these deliberations. A smattering of people attended. The committee voted to place a revised version before the full Council, which was meeting later that evening. Most councilmembers, if not all, were at the public safety committee meeting and discussed the revised version with the committee members.

At the full Council meeting Monday, many more advocates showed up. After considerable discussion, Council voted to pass the revised ordinance. The majority of us ostensibly believed we had heard enough from the citizens to make a decision. So we made a decision.

By simultaneously passing an ordinance establishing an advisory board to continue to monitor our animal policy, and by arriving at a compromise ordinance that immediately strengthens our current law and yet permits dogs whose owners are currently (or soon to be) compliant to remain within the city, I believe our decision was rational, measured and fair.

A wise judge liked to say to me, sometimes you're just the one who has to call the balls and strikes. Observation Deck or not, we did not make this call without ample observation.

Kevin Butler
(Ward 1 Council)