The Observation Deck

Missy's story is where the whole issue becomes one of "human rights." The people who speak out in favor of breed bans, or prohibiting dogs in parks, always want to make it an issue of dog rights vs. human rights, so human rights always win.

But in my mind, dog walkers have the right to walk a leashed, controlled dog on the sidewalk or in a park without being threatened by others or harassed by police. Dog walkers have as much right to public spaces as joggers, bike riders, picnickers, ball tossers, cartwheelers, jugglers, etc. Everyone should be held to the same standards of social responsibility (whether it's picking up trash or waste, or keeping your dog, bike, ball out of other people's personal space). But why are dog owners second class citizens?

And to rebut some obvious objections, I would maintain, admittedly with no hard numbers, that more accidents are caused by errantly thrown balls, or uncontrolled bikes on walkways, than by attacks from leashed dogs.

This is not an issue of the rights of dogs, it's an issue of the rights of dog owners.

Finally getting to reply to some of the questions posed.
Christopher, you asked the question about putting dogs welfare and safety before children and people. I can only speak for myself when I say nothing could be further from the truth. People do exist that would answer yes, dog first. That's unreasonable and nonsensical to me. As I stated earlier in this thread, I see aggression cases regularly. One of my most recent was a golden retriever that bit a child in the face and the child required stitches. In a case like this or even one that involves a dog growling at a child the first words out of my mouth to the client are I will always default to the safety of the child. If that means rehoming or euthanizing the animal in question then that's the conversation we have. I am the father of a 15 month old girl who just so happens to be one of the most beautiful creatures I have ever set my eyes on so I am more full aware now of the safety of children than I have ever been in my career.

Valerie, you make a good point about addressing the animal control side first and foremost. First, your numbers are off. Animal Control has two full time employees and one full time shelter manager. That's three full time, not one part time employee. I would debate wether that's enough but in today's economic climate it's probably more than the city can afford. (Again, I am a sensible person.) I couldn't even go into the animal control angle of this earlier because I can't even wrap my head around the actions of the animal control officer in this case. His actions are cause for immediate termination in my eyes. He is the one that choose to drag the animal 10 to 15 feet across the asphalt and lift him into the truck using nothing but the catch pole. I have statements from animal control around the country saying how absolutely innapropriate that was. Why I think the police need help in this case is they choose to act before animal control arrived. It wasn't necessary. There was no immediate danger. They must be able to recognize that and let the professional do what they shoudl be trained to do.

Christopher, You also raised the point that the city is not saying they would refuse potential training in the future. I can only say I hope not and I do plan to pursue this much, much further. Why should I be pessimistic? Well, one of our own city council members who is self proclaimed as very involved with CCLAS, the local citizens committee that is designed to assist the shelter says he doesn't think this was handled poorly. Also, at the hearing, the staement made by a city representative when a citizen (not me) asked if charges would be brought against the officers and animal control was "well, we would first have to acknowledge that the officers did anything wrong". Sounds like they are good with it as is to me. That is an assumption on my part and probably not fair but I'm human and the city doesn't have a real favorable animal welfare track record in my eyes. Again, I will be pursuing this further.

Charlie, yes, police are only allotted a certain amount of education hours. They CHOSE to take the forefront on this and if they will continue to make those choices then they should pursue education. I have a friend who is a Cleveland police officer. I was told that some the education that they were required to attend last year was the proper way to put on and remove latex gloves. If Lakewood is the saem, I think they can find the time.

Missy, I hate to say this like this but you can thatnk our city governament for this as the decision was made to bring this to the forefront when they discussed a breed ban last year. It wouldn't have happened to you if that had never been discussed. I will state clearly again that this issue with Otis was not a pit bull issue for me but I think it's important to bring up right now that news broke the day of the hearing that Denver is looking into repealing thebreed ban they put into effect. Why you ask? The police and animal control openly acknowledge that after many years of enforcement, the amount of dog bites in the city has actually increased not decreased. It's just not that particluar breed doing any of the biting. 3 1/2 years and over 2000 dead dogs later, they are realizing what all the prfessionals told them long ago. Probably not much different than the information our council received before passing our law. Of course, I wouldn;t know that because when I inquired about such information as to what lead them to pass the law I either got no reply from council member or the reply I received was very short and basically said I made my decision, now live with it. That reply was from council president Michael Dever.

A final point. The fact that the city demanded that the dog owner drop his right to sue the officers and the city as a major point of settlement is in short order an admission of guilt. If they really felt they were right, why was that necessary? Just something more to chew on.

My wife and I are forming a Citizens Advocacy Comittee for Animal Welfare. If any Lakewood residents reading this would like to be a part of it or just be informed as to what we are doing, please send me an e-mail at ed@northcoastdogs.com.

Christopher, sorry it took so long to reply to this but thanks for posing the question you did. It was a valid one and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my posiiton.

Ed,

Thanks for getting back to me. As I said before, I did not think you truly thought that dogs wellbeing should be taken before people and children, but that in all the post by everyone, in their haste and anger, this is how it came off. I just wanted to try and clarify for those opposing your view that that was not the case since I believe this is why they were so admit. However there is still one of my questions you did not answer. I had asked that if an officer without any animal training faced a situation where there is a dog running around & barking while people are out in about if you think it is better for the officer to tase the dog if it does not comply, or wait until it is possibly to late and the dog bites someone?

Oh I wanted to add, that I too would put my children/family above a dogs' need. I had a dog that ripped my hands apart, plastic surgeons and hand specialists, I am ok now. But sadly, after having the dog evaluated, knowing his background (he was a bait dog in a fighting ring) and knowing that I could never trust him around children, let alone other adults, I had to make the decision to send him to the Rainbow Bridge. I still to this day cry over him. But at that time, I had to put my family first, as well as my other dogs. This dog was unpredictable, unstable, and suffered tremendous abuse, the only thing was to set him free. *crying now...again*

I dont want ya'll to think I am some kind of dog loving loon who thinks of only the dogs. My family and children come first as do other children.

Ok,off my box now...lol