The Observation Deck

A documentary film, Guilty Til Proven Innocent, will have its world premier screening April 28 at the Capital Theatre in the Gordon Square Arts District of Cleveland. The film should be of interest to Lakewoodites as nearly one-third of the footage is from various Lakewood City Council sessions, which deliberated and passed an ordinance in 2008 banning Pit Bull dogs within city limits.

Read the full article here: http://lakewoodobserver.com/read/2013/04/16/guilty-til-proven-innocent-premieres-locally-april-28

Is it time to readdress Lakewood's Vicious Dog Ordinances? Well, is it?

http://www.conwaygreene.com/Lakewood/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-hit-h.htm&2.0

Peter



Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the law in Lakewood in Lakewood being finalized, as the
the State of Ohio was finding the law unconstitutional?

I did hear it was an amazing film, but put Lakewood back in the the kind of spotlight we
last enjoyed (no really) when Mayor Cain decided to take on and make fools of 60 Minutes.

.

Just as many of us would be appalled to look at our own junior high pictures, so too will the actions taken years ago by our city council (that seemed perfectly reasonable at the time by some) sometimes seem hopelessly out of date these days.

I well recall this city's debate about so-called "pit bulls".

At that time, I wrote several strongly worded editorials in the Observer about that issue, generally in a historical sense relating to my Pennsylvania childhood dog Skippy. Essentially, my point then was that in the nature vs. nurture debate, if a dog is trained well and brought up around love, things can generally turn out pretty well.

Even though I strongly disagreed with the city's apparent "get rid of the pits" attitude, that whole thing was indeed an honest effort by our City Council to be responsive to a perceived safety need at that time. (Whatever their political or other motivations might have been, I cannot say) Aggressive dogs of that breed were indeed sometimes being used to guard illegal activities, and some had even attacked children.

I would think, (although I've not seen the movie of course) that the movie would not necessarily reflect poorly on Lakewood. It's quite possibly just a snapshot of the city's business at that time.

Truth be told, while there are different general characteristics for different dog breeds, a dog of whatever breed can often be a fine companion, given proper training, attention, and love, although there are those exceptions....

The only problem that I can think of, whether with dogs, (or even with children, for that matter ) is whether they are given the opportunity to receive those essential measures of training, attention, and love.

These points being made, appropriate caution around all animals is a good thing.

Now, as far as cats go.......

Back to the banjo.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Peter

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the law in Lakewood in Lakewood being finalized, as the
the State of Ohio was finding the law unconstitutional?

Jim (et al) -

Not exaclty sure what you mean by "finalized" .. but I can tell you that Chapter 506 (Dangerous and Vicious Animals) of Lakewood Codified Ordinances have been tweaked and revised numerous times since the 2008 pit bull ban. Some feel it has been "fixed" so many times because it was so poorly written and constructed in the first place.

These revisions have revolved around:
- "better definitions" of the breed;
- the legal hearing process for owners; and
- a change I am proud to have played an integral part in during the time I served on the Lakewood Animal Safety and Welfare Board: that "the terms 'dangerous animal' and 'vicious animal,' as used in this chapter (LCO 506), do not include police dogs that have been trained and may be used to assist law enforcement officers in the performance of their official duties. Pit bull dogs and canary dogs do not include service animals as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto."

Lakewood cites its Home Rule authority ... the power of a constituent part (administrative division) of a state to exercise such of the state's powers of governance within its own administrative area that have been decentralized to it by the central government ... when challenged on State decisions regarding breed specific legislation issues.

TODAY!

Hope to see many of you there!

Is your dog's breed next to be banned? Don't snicker, I know of at least two members of council who want to expand the list of banned breeds in Lakewood. One member of council would like to ban the top seven breeds that top annual dog bite statistics list.

We're talking about entire breeds!! Not individual dogs who exhibit vicious behavior (mostly caused by owner negligence, abuse and/or lack of proper training).

Gary Rice wrote:Truth be told, while there are different general characteristics for different dog breeds

Must be true for nationalities/ethnicities/sexes/etc., yes?

I'm Italian/American. Typical stereotype = Mafia!! Ban me! Why? Because my genetic makeup means I am a menace to society. I am Italian/American after all .. so I obviously have ties to the Cosa Nostra mobster underworld!!

i cant help noticing the similarities in this debate to those in the gun control debate.

a few bad apples...responsible owners...gonna ban all breeds!...blah blah blah

Peter,

I would respectfully suggest that you do a bit more research. Dogs are not people and indeed have been bred for specific purposes for hundreds of years. Your hunting-bred weimaraner, for example, may be your best friend and be very well-trained, but if a rabbit or a deer comes along?

That point made, I still believe that love and training, generally speaking, are what counts.

I am more of a case-by-case guy. I'm not a breed-banner type.

It's just....that...

Too many adults seem to me to be like the 5 year-old who wants a puppy, but has no knowledge about how to care for it properly.

All just my opinions here. I do love dogs, but my allergies don't.


Back to the banjo...

Gary - Respectfully, I stand by my statements on this topic. And you will hear sometime this summer about my (and several other colleagues') plethora of research.

First of all, as to the central issue of taking a second look at dog ordinances, I'm not even certain that Peter and I would be in disagreement. Were Peter to peruse my past Observer columns, he would discover that I wrote two very detailed columns in opposition to the breed banners.

As to how different dogs REALLY are from each other, and how much that breeding has made a difference in that whole nature vs. nurture argument? I won't even go there, not being an expert regarding the subject of dogs, but I stand by my statement too, that for hundreds of years dogs HAVE INDEED BEEN PURPOSE-BRED, according to multiple sources that anyone can freely access. How that applies to pet dogs today is still apparently very much a controversial topic.

What I have a serious concern with, of course, is quoting part of my comment without including the other part which ironically, would essentially seem to agree with and support the review of Lakewood's dog policies. That quotation is re-stated in its entirety below:

"Truth be told, while there are different general characteristics for different dog breeds, a dog of whatever breed can often be a fine companion, given proper training, attention, and love, although there are those exceptions...."

What I'm really at a loss at would be tying my edited quote to some kind of comparison with human beings? I've written much in the Observer and elsewhere regarding human rights, equality, and against stereotyping people in any way.

I would simply ask that when someone make's a point, that they please don't use a partial quote of my words to make it.

I would imagine by the commentary offered here that some people would probably be opposed to stereotyping animals. If so, fine. I would possibly be in general agreement with that at least, but again, on a case-by-case basis. All doggies are not necessarily "good" any more than they are all "bad"...

...and they are NOT people.

Back to the banjo.