Lakewood Patch readers say it’s time to end the ban on breed-specific legislation.
By a wide margin.
In Ohio, pit bulls are no longer “vicious” animals, according to a new state law that went into effect on Tuesday.
But that did little to change Lakewood’s ordinance, which considers them both dangerous and vicious.
We asked Lakewood Patch readers on the matter.
The vote was lopsided, with 89 percent (528 votes) in favor of ending the ban, and 10 percent (63 votes) in favor of keeping it going.
(It's also important to note the that rolled in)
The statehouse voted 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 law, a dog can be labeled vicious only if it kills or causes serious harm to a person while unprovoked.
Kevin Butler, the 's law director, told Lakewood Patch earlier this year that Lakewood’s 2008 ordinance deeming all pit bulls and canary dogs as “dangerous animals” would stand.
http://blog.dogsbite.org/2007/12/online-pit-bull-forum-blamed-for.html Even to the point of advising each other to delete cookies so they can vote again and again. Shame on you Patch! I'm glad Lakewood officials are ignoring this nonsensical exercise, and Patch's decision to act as a narrow-interest lobby instead of as a news source. I could've changed the results to my own view single-handed to if I felt like deleting the cookie 466 times...and if I felt okay telling Lakewood residents what to do with their lives. Again, shame on you Patch!
Not (at all) really feeling like getting into a debate with you, If the vote had gone the other way, I would have reported that, too. We do note that it's a completely unscientific poll. No secret 'bout that. Seems like a lot of work to delete cookies... I wouldn't do it. Thanks for sharing.
Real journalism means you reveal whatever personal conflicts of interest you have, background that influences your writing, and so on. Yellow journalism is something else again -- but you might not know what that is? Saying 'not scientific' is quite another thing than saying 'so open to manipulation as to be in fact worthless'. Vicki: You must know that the so-called American bulldog is a pit-bull derivative, but bred up to be twice the size of the classic Ku Klux Klan pit-bull type dog of the 1930s. Citing an AmBull attack as a non-pit attack doesn't fly. As for real names -- everyone who speaks any truth about the pit-type dogs ends up terrorized by the pit fans. This can be on-line, but they also go to great lengths to find out where people live and work, so as to terrorize them in the non-virtual world. If you object to me not subjecting myself to this, then don't post this comment. If you're a real journalist, you'll investigate why and how the pit-lobby is imitating other criminal organizations. Up to you, it seems there's no editor-in-chief with real credentials watching you.
I'm not blogging anywhere, have no idea what you're talking about. I'm a Maryland resident (I won't go any farther than that in telling the pit fans where to search for me), so I have every right to be taking part in this discussion. Ya know, all the Maryland ruling does is impose insurance requirements on pit owners. If they have adequate insurance, their landlord won't feel like s/he is the one who will have to pay through the nose for the tenant's choice of killer dog. I have a goofy-benevolent non-pit ordinary household dog. I carry $500,000 insurance just in case a leash breaks or something, and this goofy-benevolent dog runs into traffic, causing an accident when someone tries not to run him over. What is the problem? Why is it that the pit fans are coming into big-time 'oh, poor-me!' rebellion at the very idea that they must (now) do what any responsible dog owner does? I thought they were all for responsible ownership?...