.

POLL: Should Lakewood End its Pit Bull Ban?

The state law removing pit bills as “vicious dogs” went into effect on Tuesday. What do you think?

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. 

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.

“I don’t believe that merely removing pit bulls from the definition of vicious animals in the state code alone would affect our ordinance, because it doesn’t classify them as vicious animals,” he said.

pitbullmom May 24, 2012 at 04:33 PM
I was mauled by a dalmatian (had to have reconstructive surgery on my ear). My husband was mauled by a Shetland Sheep Dog (skin on kneecap was torn off, through his pants). He was also bit by a German Shepard when he was young (on the arm). My step-son was bit in the face by a collie. A good friend was put in the hospital for bite wounds from a Chinese crested. Another friend had to have her heel reconstructed due to a bite from a chihuahua. So, we should put regulations on all of those breeds, right? Oh, and while we are at it, we should add dogs that are more media reported dogs like Akita's and Dobermans. Hell, why not add dogs that have been beaten because they seem to be scared of humans and growl and bark at people. And, if you agitate them enough they might bite you. By the way, my rescued BOXER was used in a dog fighting ring. "Pit Bulls" are not the only dog used in dog fighting. Pits aren't dangerous, PEOPLE are dangerous. When will people come to the realization that a dog is a product of it's environment. Well socialized, well trained and altered dogs very rarely ever bite someone. When a dog is starved, abused, left outside and had no interaction with other dogs and humans, they are timid and afraid and more likely to bite. But, the common denominator here is HUMANS. We can make dogs loving and caring or we can make them mean and fearful. It's up to us humans.
Colin McEwen May 24, 2012 at 04:34 PM
Let's stay away from name-calling. Stick to the topic. We don't allow personal attacks.
Bob B May 24, 2012 at 04:37 PM
That is about the most uneducated response I can imagine. I'd be upset if any dog killed a kid. I'd also be upset if a semi-truck killed someone in my family, but I don'e see Lakewood banning them.
Steve May 24, 2012 at 05:42 PM
@Colin- Are you going to present this poll to city council?
Max Primero May 24, 2012 at 06:05 PM
Yes, please end the ban it's flat out discrimination and it's just plain wrong. These are amazing dogs and they do not deserve such treatment.
keith a dewey May 24, 2012 at 06:38 PM
Keep the ban. It is a breed that has a propensity for killing. If you treat them right and socialize them they may never cause a problem. The gene is there and is not in other dogs. I have been attacked and seen attacks at the Lakewood Dog Park. All of the attacks were by pit bulls or partial pit bulls. You can't stop bad owners from getting dogs but, you can stop potentially bad dogs manifesting their instincts.
Bob Smith May 24, 2012 at 07:14 PM
Pitbull mom - You are right about people being the main problem. Now go over to Birdtown and explain to those animal renters that they need to be smart and responsible about their dogs. Tell them that they need to train their dog. Explain that instead of buying a bag of meth and a big screen tv, they should neuter thheir rottweiler. You think they are going to nod their heads and change their ways? Because the answer is a strong no, regulation is the only way we are going to move forward. Go watch the movie Idiocracy, which is a glimpse into our future.
Steve May 24, 2012 at 07:14 PM
@Keith- about a week or so ago, you told me you were on the fence about this issue. What changed your mind? Also, pit bulls, are not allowed in the lakewood dog park as far as I know. But my friends that go there daily, well, not one of them has ever seen a fight, except for a few fiesty small dogs picking on much larger dogs, none of which were bullies. Do you really know with certainty what a pit looks like, probably not. And this gene, never heard that one before. You need to educate yourself better, not spread the fear you hear from the media. Humans have a propensity for killing at a much higher level than any dog alive.
Peter Grossetti May 24, 2012 at 07:19 PM
:) http://youtu.be/NhOjT8KWYe8
Peter Grossetti May 24, 2012 at 07:25 PM
"The gene is there"?!?!?!?? Reminds me of ignorant Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder who was fired from CBS in 1988 when he intimated that African Americans were naturally superior athletes. "The black is a better athlete to begin with because he's been bred to be that way, because of his high thighs and big thighs that goes up into his back, and they can jump higher and run faster because of their bigger thighs and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes back all the way to the Civil War when during the slave trade'n the big… the owner… the slave owner would, would, would, would breed his big black to his big woman so that he could have ah, ah big, ah big, ah big black kid."
Steve May 24, 2012 at 07:47 PM
@Peter-Touche, I forgot about that one, and it fits right in here. :)
Jane Doe May 24, 2012 at 07:51 PM
Ok Shawn Juris, we all know it's you.
Steve May 24, 2012 at 08:16 PM
@Jane- You don't say...LMAO. He wouldn't do that, or would he, still LMAO.
Allison Smalley May 24, 2012 at 08:32 PM
Has this poll be presented to city council? Can we get an official to sound off here and explain why the ban is going to remain in place? Kevin Butler simply said (2/2012) that the ban would remain in effect but did not give his reasoning. Higher courts than his have deemed this issue null. I would like to understand Power's agenda as well... we can look to him as to the one that got this ball rolling. His reasoning back in 2008 was with flawed research. The locking jaw and propensity to kill nonsense. This is discriminatory (as BobSmith is proving with his comments regarding Bird Town) that this is a bigger issue than dogs… Beautiful.. loving … friendly and loyal dogs are being killed every day in shelters because of media hype and public prejudice. Step up Mr Butler.. please answer.
Jane Doe May 24, 2012 at 09:16 PM
Allison, it's apparent that Lakewood officials do not listen to the concerns of residents, that was made clear in council meetings when all this started 2008. Unfortunately, this issue isn't about 'safety' or dogs. It's about getting the 'trash' out of the city (we have copies of internal emails from then ward 3 councilman Summers). According to most of our closed minded council members 'only drug dealers & thugs' own 'pitbulls'. God himself could come down & demand the ban be repealed..it won't happen. City council admit they were wrong? Never!
Peter Grossetti May 24, 2012 at 09:48 PM
Not Shawn. Shawn may be staunchly pro-ban ... but he would NEVER call anyone "trash."
Peter Grossetti May 24, 2012 at 11:52 PM
... and still waiting!
mary pearl cherry May 25, 2012 at 02:16 AM
End it.,and never see it again. No breed should be subject to bsl. All of my dogs a pitbull mixes and out of every kind of dog I have owned I trust these dogs the most.
Peter Grossetti May 25, 2012 at 03:36 PM
... my phone # hasn't changed, Bob!
Peter Grossetti June 07, 2012 at 01:00 PM
@ Ms Cherry - "No breed should be subject to bsl." AMEN!!! You should know that there are those in Lakewod who are championin a breed on even more breeds--up to seven more breeds as based on the insurance industry's annual bite statistics--as well a talk about limiting the number of dogs per household.
Sam Bridgeman June 07, 2012 at 01:37 PM
The B.S.L. doesn't make sense. The Center for Disease Control went through the records of dog attacks over the last 50 years and found no link between specific breeds and attacks. Studies done on breed's tendencies to bite found pits to be less likely than most to attack people. Pit bull's bite is less powerful than many bully breed dogs. Golden retrievers have more incidents of bites per year than pit bulls and they have a larger bite area. Almost 100% of all fatal dog attacks are done by unfixed dogs. The dog that fatally attacks the most in any given year is the same breed most popularly used for home security. BSLs only change the breed that usually becomes the most violent it doesn't prevent violence by dogs or to them. BSL laws force people to hide their dogs giving them less exercise and socialization. This leads to more violence and less safety. The majority of dog attacks are by unattended dogs chained outside. If the laws required dogs not being used for breeding to be fixed and no dog to be left unattended outdoors for more than short amounts of time serious dog attacks would be curtailed by at least 90%. If you make laws that force people to responsible than their will be less violence. Plus, you can't tell what a pit bull is through visual means. The $1000s of dollars that have been used on law suits, won by people who it turns out don't own pits speaks to this. Let's use science and facts to solve this problem not fear and ignorance.
Peter Grossetti June 07, 2012 at 01:55 PM
*should read ... "championing a ban on even more breeds" (this whole bsl concept is so unjust that I can't even type straight!!)
Steve June 07, 2012 at 03:01 PM
@Peter- How did you get wind of this? And who is propossing? Thanks in advance.
Peter Grossetti June 07, 2012 at 03:39 PM
I keep my ear (and nose) to the ground. :-) I will not say who is proposing the expansion of the breed ban until something formal is presented (I do not want to be be accused of yellow journalism) ... but please be assured that the concept is being kicked around. With regard to the limit of dogs per household: Councilwoman Madigan asked Lakewood Animal Safety and Welfare Advisory Board to "look into" this issue. I believe at LASWAB's March 2012 meeting this was discussed (with Lakewood Animal Control's input) and it was determined that any situation where an unusual amount of dog (or pets in general) were being kept by a single household could be dealt with under existing "nuisance" ordinances rather than creating new laws/ordinances to specifically address "limits." The reason I bring the "limits" situation up is to give an example of the kind of thinking which exists our there.
david d swank August 16, 2012 at 03:14 AM
I think your right. When a man is convicted of anamial abuse they should be banned from owning any animal there after. BY LAW FOREVER. Violaters should be charged with a felony if caught after they are banned from owning an animal with a $10,000 fine to boot.
david d swank August 16, 2012 at 03:19 AM
i was almost attacked by a golden retriver while walking my pitbull. and he dident do a damn thing to that dog.
david d swank August 16, 2012 at 03:21 AM
Amen
david d swank August 16, 2012 at 03:23 AM
Ok lets really protect ourselves and ban blacks from our cities and just watch the crime rate plumet to all time low's.
david d swank August 16, 2012 at 03:25 AM
I really dont feel that way but you get the point. either way this is not what civilized humans do. you cant judge the many by the few.
Angelo Evans March 20, 2013 at 03:33 PM
ok my name is angelo evans im 15 and i hsve been bit by chiwawas and german sheperds but never a pitbull a pitbull saved my fathers life twice i believe they should be aloud

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »