The end of BSL in Lakewood is near!
Many people have worked diligently for 10 years.
Congratulations!
COW recommends Ordinance 1-18 for adoption
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Peter Grossetti
- Posts: 1533
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:43 pm
COW recommends Ordinance 1-18 for adoption
"So, let's make the most of this beautiful day.
Since we're together we might as well say:
Would you be mine? Could you be mine?
Won't you be my neighbor?"
~ Fred (Mr. Rogers) Rogers
Since we're together we might as well say:
Would you be mine? Could you be mine?
Won't you be my neighbor?"
~ Fred (Mr. Rogers) Rogers
-
Bridget Conant
- Posts: 2896
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:22 pm
Re: COW recommends Ordinance 1-18 for adoption
Were references to specific breeds removed?
-
pj bennett
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:56 pm
Re: COW recommends Ordinance 1-18 for adoption
It appears, that the reference to BSL will be removed.
But, at the time that I left COW tonight, there was much discussion over insurance.
Such as:
Should everyone in Lakewood, who owns a dog, be required to have insurance in case of a bite injury?
What if the dog does not have a bite history? Should those folks still have to have insurance?
People with homeowners insurance are automatically covered.
But, what about renters? Not all renters have renters' insurance.
Should renters be forced to pay for insurance? An added expense is not in everyone's budget.
And, what about those on fixed incomes with aging, teacup sized dogs?
Should they be required to pay for liability insurance?
There are 11,300 dogs in Lakewood, but what about all the dogs, that the city doesn't know about.... because those dogs are not licensed?
At this point, It seems, that nowhere else (I'm unsure whether they were referring to Ohio or the the United States) are dog owners required to have insurance.
Another whole can of worms has been created.
A new draft had been created after last week's COW meeting, but due to technical difficulties, it could not be displayed on the screens for us to see.
I'm assuming, that after tonight's discussion, yet another new draft will have to be drawn up. We'll find out at next week's meeting.
While I am covered under homeowner's insurance on the chance, that my dog bites someone, I am totally opposed to everyone having to pay annually for insurance.
A dog bite is not pleasant. I know from personal experience. But, there's a big difference between the injury that a dog under 15 lbs. can cause vs. a dog weighing over 30 lbs. Plus, what caused the dog to bite? Was it because he/she is protecting their property? Most dogs bite out of fear.
The loose dog, or the dog that is not properly controlled, is the real problem.
Like I said, I left early, so I don't know what was said, after 6:45pm.
There seemed to be more questions, than answers. Maybe a council person can fill in.
But, at the time that I left COW tonight, there was much discussion over insurance.
Such as:
Should everyone in Lakewood, who owns a dog, be required to have insurance in case of a bite injury?
What if the dog does not have a bite history? Should those folks still have to have insurance?
People with homeowners insurance are automatically covered.
But, what about renters? Not all renters have renters' insurance.
Should renters be forced to pay for insurance? An added expense is not in everyone's budget.
And, what about those on fixed incomes with aging, teacup sized dogs?
Should they be required to pay for liability insurance?
There are 11,300 dogs in Lakewood, but what about all the dogs, that the city doesn't know about.... because those dogs are not licensed?
At this point, It seems, that nowhere else (I'm unsure whether they were referring to Ohio or the the United States) are dog owners required to have insurance.
Another whole can of worms has been created.
A new draft had been created after last week's COW meeting, but due to technical difficulties, it could not be displayed on the screens for us to see.
I'm assuming, that after tonight's discussion, yet another new draft will have to be drawn up. We'll find out at next week's meeting.
While I am covered under homeowner's insurance on the chance, that my dog bites someone, I am totally opposed to everyone having to pay annually for insurance.
A dog bite is not pleasant. I know from personal experience. But, there's a big difference between the injury that a dog under 15 lbs. can cause vs. a dog weighing over 30 lbs. Plus, what caused the dog to bite? Was it because he/she is protecting their property? Most dogs bite out of fear.
The loose dog, or the dog that is not properly controlled, is the real problem.
Like I said, I left early, so I don't know what was said, after 6:45pm.
There seemed to be more questions, than answers. Maybe a council person can fill in.