Lakewood Eyes Dropping 'Dangerous Dog' Registration Fee
City council eyes measure that would ditch the registration fee for “dangerous dogs.”
Photos
Per its 2008 ordinance, the city of Lakewood requires that owners of dogs deemed “dangerous” pay a $50 registration fee each year.
That may change with an ordinance introduced this week by Lakewood City Council that would “eliminate the fees associated with the annual renewal of registrations of dangerous animals.”
Ward 2 councilman Tom Bullock, who proposed the measure, said that the fee was included in the 2008 ordinance to cover the city’s initial cost of registration — including verifying that dogs were insured and had microchips implanted in them.
“However, registration for subsequent years is less work-intensive,” Bullock said, adding that most of the work now consists of filling out a renewal form.
“Given that our rationale for collecting fees is not punitive but rather to compensate the city for expenses incurred, the attached ordinance proposes to adjust the fee to zero for registration of dangerous dogs in subsequent years after the initial registration.”
The ordinance was referred to council’s public safety committee where the issue will be discussed further.
The statehouse voted earlier this year to repeal the breed-specific language in the Ohio Revised Code, declassifying pit bulls as “vicious animals” at the state level.
However, it does not apply to local municipalities.
Under the new state law, a dog can be labeled vicious only if it kills or causes serious harm to a person while unprovoked. However, Kevin Butler, the city of Lakewood's law director, told Lakewood Patch earlier this year that Lakewood’s ban would stand.
Lakewood Patch readers overwhelmingly voted earlier this year that the city should end the ban. Take our poll, and let us know what you think in the comments
Allison Smalley
7:36 am on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Let's keep this momentum going! Do not just drop the fee -- DROP THE BAN! Let's educate council on pit bulls and pit bull type dogs! They are just like any other dog! Nurture not nature. Join the rest of the local municipalities that have recently dropped their BSL due to new understandings of these breeds; Bay Village, Avon Lake, Strongsville, North Royalton, Cleveland, Highland Heights, Painsville and the State of Ohio!
Steve
1:29 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
I wasnt sure how to respond to this, but here goes. City council is now throwing out another dog bone to the good owners of bullies. Is their conscience starting to bother them at night. In 2009, then council member Kevin Butler and I had a chat about this ord. He informed me he had misgivings about how this was handled. He bowed to pressure to follow the lies about BSL, not facts as presented. He believed that this would be changed to BNL instead, going after the bad owners, as we never really had a bad problem here in Lakewood, unless you take into account the mass media frenzy against pit bulls. Which, bye the way, they swallowed hook, line and sinker. In other words they caved to false information, not factual data as presented. I like Mr. Butler, but not his decisions on this issue, as he has strayed from his original thoughts on this subject. I would like to see him step up to the plate, and champion for Breed Neutral Legislation, going after the bad owners of ALL breeds, not an easy task, but a fair one to all safety minded residents of this Great city. Help us to end this discrimination. I would rather you give us a meal, than throwing us a bone every now and then. Together we can fix this, divided we fail.
Bob Bellamy
1:53 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
Ok, not sure if I should comment or not, but I shall...this latest proposal was brought to councilman Bullock by me...from an email on 7/16 from me to him..."Finally, it is hard to believe that several years have passed since the pit bull ban went into affect. I attended an Animal Safety Committee meeting (perhaps not the precise name) last year and asked the dog warden how many registered pit bulls were still in the city. He replied around 18. I then asked him if any of those 18 had been the cause of any issues, and he replied no. While I still believe the ban should be totally repealed (we’ll leave that a different discussion), I would like to start the conversation about getting the annual $50 fee repealed. Obviously, these 18 owners, myself included (and now could potentially be less), have dogs that are no more of an issue to the city than the other thousands of dogs that reside in our town. It is a totally unnecessary to “tax” us for having these dogs that are no different than the other dogs. Please let me know how to initiate this process."
So, while I too agree/want that the ban should be repealed, this is at least a potential baby step in the right direction. The longest journey starts with a single step...
Steve
2:04 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
@Bob- a good friend of mine that has been paying the city since 2008 for 2 dogs, just recently found out thru DNA that they are not dangerous dogs at all. Should she be able to recoup those funds that she paid into? We don't want a bone, we want justice...You need to get everyone involved, all 18, on a signed paper stating that this is now a punitive action, not compensation, and forward the signed letter to ALL council members and the Mayor and Law Director.
Jason
4:38 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
All pit bulls should be exterminated. And then fed to the homeless.
Steve
4:59 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
@Jason-If I was a cannibal, then I could say the same thing about you. You sound tasty, we could feed you to the shelter dogs. It's just to bad you have no brain, as that is the tastiest part.
Crystal Winters
7:33 pm on Thursday, October 18, 2012
Jason, your hatetred for the breed stems from,what happened to have you wasting energy on fact based FASENESS. DO YOU THINK A DOG IS REALLY BORN HAPPY,LOVING,READY TO OBEY COMANDS AT BIRTH?? or do you think a dog is born, then a HUMAN treats the dog inhumanly,beats it,straps a 10-25pound chain thats only 3-6ft in length to their neck and leavs the dog to sit in an area of what,lets esstimate circumfrance of 6ft. Try to please think for a min that your that dog, how would you act?? A life of nothin but beatings,abuse,never getting the chance to be loved on, not being able to count on meals, or clean water. Then everytime you do get a chance to get close with your so called owner, your put to work by fighting to the death, and hey you can count one 1 thing for sure, if you DON'T win the fight, or ya get mangled up so bad your owner will be there to through you to the side so you can die. Hows that life sound???
Lynne Schroeder
8:43 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
@Jason, you are one of the many reasons I have little hope for mankind. I thought we as the human race are suppose to be intelligent… but time and time again I am proven wrong. I agree with Steve, I wonder how many shelter dogs we could feed with you? But then again, I would never feed you to any of my dogs, you would probably make them sick. Sorry, I usually don’t show emotion like this….. I apologize to everyone for stooping to your level.
Jane Doe
10:19 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
@ Steve- I do have to correct you (although I understand what you meant)..a DNA test does not determine the 'dangerousness' of a dog..it only offers a remote idea of heritage/genetics. It's too bad Lakewood officials cannot comprehend this. Vicious is a BEHAVIOR not a LOOK. There are numerous dog owners who have proved the city wrong in their breed determination of our pets, yet nothing in the ordinance has changed..they are (not surprisingly) too proud to admit they were wrong & this ban has FAILED miserably. Although I feel strongly that I'm entitled to the reimbursement of my registration fee, my attorney does not believe they would willingly give my money back.
Steve
9:39 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
@Jane-Thanks for correcting me, that is what I ment to say. 50% vs 51% does not make a dog dangerous. Media frenzy and stubborn polititions are the ones doing the most harm spreading the fear when there is none. I for one would love to be able to adopt ANY dog of MY choice from CAC or other shelters, rather than having them put to sleep thru no fault of their own, only because they were born looking a certain way. I only wish Kevin Butler would put some pressure on city council, he knows this law is doing nothing positive for the people's safety, or our dogs.
Jane Doe
10:34 pm on Thursday, September 6, 2012
'Ward 2 councilman Tom Bullock, who proposed the measure, said that the fee was included in the 2008 ordinance to cover the city’s initial cost of registration — including verifying that dogs were insured and had microchips implanted in them' ...I find this comment interesting. As an owner that registered for 3 years, all I was required to do was have my agent fax over proof that my liability policy was paid & since my one dog was scanned initially, no other actions were needed to be done by animal control in subsequent years. So, what exactly was I paying the $50 for? The 'burden of proof' was on me, the 'dangerous dog' owner, to prove I was in compliance with the ordinance. How was this process costing the city of Lakewood anything at all?
Kathleen
1:18 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
Can't we just ban "Dangerous Owners" ??!!
Kim H
9:27 am on Friday, September 7, 2012
You can learn a thing here: http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/city-rejects-breed-ban-1.945356