Nothing But Pure Ignorance

[dl meckes]

We saw a news item this morning. We were sitting on the bed looking at the paper and we had two dogs with post-breakfast syndrome wanting to nap with their heads on our legs.

I saw something that said that a dog owner would have 40 days to get rid of their pet or turn it in to be euthanized.

I wondered how the enforcement of that was going to work. We'd have to hide our dogs, not get them licensed, stop getting vet care and never walk them in Lakewood. Or move.

Is someone going to go door-to-door with dog license information from the county and make us produce our dogs for visual inspection?

We have dogs that are shepherd-based mutts, so this specific breed legislation doesn't affect us (yet).

Our dogs are members of our family. We could never just get rid of them.

Brad - I look forward to reading your article.

Joe - Your news brought tears to my eyes. There is way too much canine osteosarcoma. Facing the pain of losing a beloved pet is heartbreaking. We are so sorry your family must go through this.

[Brad Hutchison]

I saw something that said that a dog owner would have 40 days to get rid of their pet or turn it in to be euthanized.

I heard this somewhere a few weeks ago. The ban is unfair, why should the enforcement be any different? Luckily I'm a renter, I can move my family somewhere more rational if the ban passes. But I'm sure many responsible pit owners in Lakewood own homes. What are they supposed to do?

In the article dl posted a couple days ago, about The Netherlands repealing its pit bull ban, it said an expert would administer temperment tests. I think that's a good idea. I would happily subject my dog to such a test, and think it should probably include all breeds and mixes.

Has there been any talk of how they plan to determine the "pitbullishness" of individual dogs? In Brian Powers's article from 2 weeks ago, he says Lakewood's law includes dogs with the "characteristics and appearance of being predominantly such a breed." My dog, who is probably half pit/half boxer, basically has a pit head on a boxer body. What does that mean? If he had a boxer head on a pit body, what would that mean?

[Phil Florian]

Minus any actual behavior problems, does this law (if enacted) have any Constitutional legs? Has draconian dog laws withstood the scrutiny of higher courts elsewhere in this country? Again, beyond proven crimes of dogs attacking people, etc. This just seems too loose and unfair to stand any reasonable testing. Our dog is a mutt with unclear past and no two people looking at her come up with the same history. Some histories point to "pitbull" but others, none at all. This is pretty ugly.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Minus any actual behavior problems, does this law (if enacted) have any Constitutional legs?

No


Brad/DL

Councilman Powers was on TV this morning, and spoke of grandfathering current pets in. Which made me think, now we have a problem, people trying to decide if they should even own a dog, what alone a pit bull, hurrying out and getting one just to be grandfathered in.

FWIW


.

[Brad Hutchison]

Minus any actual behavior problems, does this law (if enacted) have any Constitutional legs?

It was ruled unconstitutional in Ohio a several years ago resulting from a case over Toledo's breed-specific legislation. It went all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court, and just last summer they overturned the original decision and ruled that BSLs were constitutional after all.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... 4/70801051

Councilman Powers was on TV this morning, and spoke of grandfathering current pets in. Which made me think, now we have a problem, people trying to decide if they should even own a dog, what alone a pit bull, hurrying out and getting one just to be grandfathered in.

That's the first I've heard of that, that must be new. Hopefully it's true, but hopefully it will be irrelevant.

Jim, my dad says Hi.

[Brad Hutchison]

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/06 ... od_ch.html

This is the PD article from a couple days ago about the most recent council meeting. It looks like it's Kevin Butler that is pushing for the grandfather clause.

I don't understand trying to push through something in the face of overwhelming opposition.

The last paragraph is really scary.

[Shawn Juris]

Do 100 residents consitute overwhelming opposition? Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. From http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies ... troduction

I wonder how many of those in the audience either didn't have the required liability insurance or do not follow the existing leash laws for this breed. I still haven't heard how much pit bull (Staffordshire terriers, american Staffordshire, etc) or mixed pit owners are paying in premiums or which carrier they are obtaining their coverage from. A Pit Bull/Boxer would be excluded on most policies, who's paying the bill if a normally well tempered dog bites someone?

While the grandfathering idea will certainly ease the transition, I question how this will roll out. It seems that if a big issue with this breed is that the owners do not properly register them. This is based on one report that showed the number of dogs that were siezed in Cleveland vs the number of dogs that were registered. The number were very lopsided and showed far more were being siezed than were even supposed to be in the city. So, with this in mind, will the grandfather clause be written to read that owners who have properly registered and filed all required paperwork and abide by the leash and containment laws already on the books will be permitted to keep their dog? Or will it become a giant loophole where anyone who wants a pit bull will argue that they've had it since before the legistlation was put into place?

[Brad Hutchison]

My point, Shawn, is simply that other than you, Brian Powers, and Ed Fitzgerald, no one that I've heard of on the Deck, at the council meetings, in the paper, or on the news has spoken out in favor of the ban. The council meetings are reportedly full of anti-ban citizens, and this thread has been largely anti-ban.

The people are speaking out, as Mr. Powers admitted in his recent Letter to the Editor, yet he vows to push on through it all. When does he step back and say, "You know what? Lakewood doesn't want this ban."

[Jeff Endress]

no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right.

Which precisely why, valid, scientific, and appropriate studies on any given breeds' intrinsic behavior (as opposed to training and use) should be required in support of this proposed breed ban. The anecdotal evidence which is the basis for the current legislation is based, not so much on issues of scientific animal behavioe study, but more an the weight of what a lot of people tend to believe.

Jeff

[John Viglianco]

Jeff:

You asked a very good question. Here are some others.

1. I read that specific PIT BULL issues have increased over the last few years. Have the overall dog incidences increased too? What is the ratio of PIT BULL/ALL DOG ISSUES.

2. Do we have an active DOG WARDEN? Has the budget dilemma effected this position? Who would enforce the new ban if they don't enforce the existing laws?

3. How do you figure out what percentage of "pit bull" genes constitutes a PIT BULL in a mixed breed.

4. Based on existing dog licenses, how many PIT BULL dogs are there in Lakewood. What percentage of dogs are PIT BULLS and their mutts in the dog population?


I am not convinced that this prohibition is necessary.... and I am not a pet person in the least.

[Shawn Juris]

What will be easier to enforce, the existing leash laws and heightened regulations or a flat out ban?
Scientific or statistical analysis of this issue would certainly help. My concern in that is that these statistics are going to be an issue because part of the problem that I have come across is that owners will represent pit mixes as the other breed or just not register them at all. In my experience with working with owners who have any dog which the insurance carrier excludes, the owner almost always has some reason why they should be treated differently. This dog lover delusion should be added to the next version of the DSM and be considered a mental disorder but I digress. This behavior creates an exposure for the owner but more importantly it creates a risk to the public. Imagine if your neighbor bought car insurance that only covered him if he drove a Chevy but he had a Ford. If you knew this wouldn't you stay off out of the way when you saw him coming? So many insurance companies are hands off of pit bulls and mixes yet their owners keep pretending that they have something they do not. From the perpsective of City Coouncil, what should the do? Throw up their hands and accept that one segment of the population is violating exisying laws or should they look to a more simple option of a ban. Think of the parental decision where a child is not following the rules of the house and Mom takes the toy away because someone's going to get hurt. Should we have to rely on our local government to serve this role? Well if the residents can be responsible then maybe so. I guess since I lack the dog lover delusion, I fail to see how it's a constitutional right to own a particular breed of dog. Sounds like a lot of rubbish to me.
I'll ask again and maybe someone who owns a pit or a pit bull mix will be brave enough to answer, which carrier is insuring your dog and how much are you paying for it? I would fully expect that if you took the council room full of opponents of the ban that had pit bulls, maybe 10% of them actually follow the existing laws and regulations. I hope that the city is taking attendence and following up on these people first, chances are these are some of the offenders.

Here's a thought for the enforcement issue. Obtain the list of registered dogs in Lakewood and publish it in map format. If you know of a dog living in your neighborhood and you do not see it on your map, report it. Enforcement rarely is done without a complaint and since it's so difficult to know if your neighbor has registered their dog or more importantly follows the leash laws, containment laws and has proper insurance (which doesn't specifically exclude the dog they have) how can you know if you should complain? But I'm sure that the same group that shows up at council meeting and complains about their constitutional rights being violated would oppose this idea (mostly because it's an effective way to hold them accountable and I doubt they want that).

[Anne Steiner]

My point, Shawn, is simply that other than you, Brian Powers, and Ed Fitzgerald, no one that I've heard of on the Deck, at the council meetings, in the paper, or on the news has spoken out in favor of the ban. "

Well, I'll say it I'm with Shawn, Mr. Powers and the Mayor....

I'm sorry, but I live next to a person who owns a Presa/Cane Corso, a LARGE un-nutered male. And while my renting neighbor says..."oh he wouldn't want to hurt a fly" You can bet I don't want to try to wrestle that thing off my 6 year old son---should the day ever come. You can also bet that my neighbor probably doesn't have the insurance.

If we can't enforce the current law--which seems to make it pretty difficult to own a Pit/and or Presa---if the owners ACTUALLY followed the law and if the city would ACTUALLY enforce the law.--this all out ban makes sense.

I'm just thinking about the safety of children, and really when it comes down to it--whos life is worth more? A persons? Or a dogs?

[Brad Hutchison]

Shawn, you're always on and on about insurance. I know that's your business, but I continually fail to see why that point should be used in support of a ban on all pit bulls.

Anne, would you be similarly nervous if a doberman lived next door? German shepherd? Rottweiler? Any large dog should be treated with caution when it comes to young children. But again, because you're nervous about you neighbor's dog, which you've never known to show any aggression, every pit bull or presa canario owner should be forced with a choice: give up your dog or leave the city?

The whole problem here is that too many people get all of their pit bull "expertise" from the evening news. Mr. Powers was dramatically indignant in his most recent article about some people using a racism metaphor for the ban. But anyone who has ever had a dog knows that dogs have individual personalities and characters. Because they're "just dogs" we can throw a blanket over the whole breed? Nonsense.

[dl meckes]

If present laws aren't followed or enforced, does adding more laws help?

[Shawn Juris]

The two responses from Brad and dl go hand in hand. I am "on and on" about insurance because it is an existing law and because it is one that I have experienced firsthand as a willfull violation. The problem is that dog lovers like to defy reason and believe they are the exception. The cost should fall on their shoulders but in the end it is the victim that pays. While dog lovers may be able to sway public opinion with their plea to tolerance for one breed, the very industry that would pay for the loss if a bite should occur has not been swayed. By and large their policies are written to exclude pit bulls (along with many of the other large breeds that Brad mentions but since the focus of the ban is Pit Bulls, I'll try to stay on point). So, Brad the reason that I am so focused on it is that this is the point that, in my mind at least, determines if a dog owner is responsible or not. Sure the owner could have the best intentions and rescue a pitbull but if they are not willing or able to go through the necessary steps to be financially responsible for the liability that they incur by owning property such as a pitbull then what is the difference between them and someone who owns pit bulls to protect their drug stash. In the end if the dog bites someone they will still be financial responsible for the medical bills.
The further reason that I focus on this step is if pit bull owners are going to show up at city council meetings railing about the unconstitutionality of BSL and they have not abided by existing legistlation that their point should be discredited. Why should the city care about what violators think? They pose a risk to the very public that this legistlation is trying to protect. It would be like taking into consideration the opinion of drunk drivers and speeders who just haven't been cited but flaunt the fact that they do so.
So Brad, I will ask again, you have a pit bull mix, so which carrier covers your liability insurance. I know of few standard carriers who are willing and a couple that charge a tremendous premium. If your dog were to bite someone tomorrow would you be on the hook for the victim's medical bills once the adjustor rejected the claim?
If those that own this animal, either full breed or mix, are so willing to violate the existing law and blame the PD for not being able to enforce the existing laws then it is understandable to me that they make more stringent laws to simplify the enforcement. If they can't handle the leash, containment and insurance laws then you can't have the breed. Simple. I'm am now a bigger supporter of Fitzgerald, Powers and Steiner than ever before and am proud to be listed in their company.