RE: “Pit Bull” Bans Are Still Justified
Dear Denver Post Editorial Board,
What exactly is the job function of an Editorial Board? Is it to express opinions based on well researched facts? Or, is it to continue sensationalizing a tired, nonsensical storyline in the name of clicks? We want to know.
And, what qualifications must one possess to be on such a privileged committee designated to be the official voice of the news organization, who are handed over the task to make strong, compelling arguments about complex issues and affect the mindsets of their audience? We’d also like to know.
On Monday, January 29, 2018, the Denver Post Editorial Board released an opinion piece titled “Pit Bull Bans Are Still Justified“, due to a nearby community, Castle Rock, considering a repeal of their 26 year old ban on “pit bull” dogs.
The article begins by casually sympathizing with those residents who live throughout the Denver Metropolitan area, affected by laws called Breed Specific Legislation (BSL), which target certain types or breeds of dog – in this case, “pit bull” dogs, by restricting or prohibiting ownership within a municipalities jurisdiction, causing hardships for responsible families with good family dogs who have done nothing wrong.
By the time we get to the third paragraph, your position is quite clear in response to the repeal initiative in Castle Rock – “we must revisit why these breed-specific bans are justifiable rules in urban areas.”
Not only have the leading experts weighed in repeatedly against this type of ideology on numerous occasions, it’s become an increasingly unpopular opinion to have, as well. The reality is, there is no justifiable or rational reason in favor of Breed Specific Legislation. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch…none that wouldn’t apply to community safety with all dogs of all shapes, sizes, types and looks…that is, if we’re talking about actual undesirable behavior by an animal. But, oftentimes, the dogs are not even what this is all about…
By the fourth paragraph, you proudly pat yourselves on the back for actively supporting a proven failed concept, and applauded Aurora voters in 2014 for upholding their ban while it was on the ballot. It’s no wonder several communities in Denver metro still enforce BSL and attempts to repeal such legislation have fallen short, since the region’s largest news source – YOU, the Denver Post, have the mistaken point of view you publicly share, which starts at the top of the organization. You helped create this irrational fear.
There’s been a number of studies performed about the mass media’s power to shape public perception, especially about controversial topics. With attention spans seemingly getting shorter, and the advancements in technology with how ours news is delivered in bits, pieces and soundbites, it’s the primary way people get their information. But, the general public, for the most part, are impressionable to what they see and hear on the news, and you take full advantage of that with incomplete and careless journalism and editorials, ensuring we don’t take huge strides forward in public safety matters with dogs. It always starts with education, not legislation.
“We must revisit why these breed-specific bans are justifiable rules in urban areas.”
– Denver Post Editorial Board, 01/29/2018
During the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, the term “Fake News” was introduced into our everyday vocabularies, and used back and forth by supporters of both political parties, in an effort to downplay the significance or credibility of the information (or propaganda) the opposition shares. That election, as well as the subsequent following year, the political climate is unlike anything we’ve seen before in American politics. And, in many ways, there was this side war being waged against many of these news outlets, deservingly so.
We remind dog advocates and those who fight this political war targeting certain breeds, historically one of our biggest challenges has been media bias, where attention on “pit bull” dogs (for example) outweighed similar stories with other types of dogs. We put together an example of this very bias several years ago on our former blog project: DogsByte.Org
We can sympathize with the demanding job a journalist has. They are required to find interesting stories to report on that appeal to their demographic, and aren’t given the proper time necessary to thoroughly investigate and decipher what is factual and what is not. But, that should no longer be an excuse, especially as highly publicized this ongoing debate has been for several decades, and how quickly its evolved and flipped in recent years. We know better now. And we have the majority of scientific proof to back it.
Along the way, the media has helped move the needle incrementally in the right direction, but some still hang on to outdated and poorly researched propaganda, and that has handicapped those more skeptical and unwilling to entertain the overwhelming amount of modern day science that exists today. Part of it is due to what the media has shown, which psychologists say, fuels that irrational fear, and can impact the way people view certain dogs, even if they never personally met one that they were aware of. The public’s perception and acceptance of “pit bull” dogs have done a near 180, but instead of channeling the available time and resources into more education programs that could potentially prevent an unfortunate mishap happening by any dog, those efforts have to be made proving archaic policies and legislation such as BSL wrong and reckless, and the primary perpetuator of this is your profession.
You actually state a scientific fact in paragraph five, which completely contradicts much of the rest of the editorial. Yes, behavior of an individual animal – which includes humans, is heavily influenced by their environment. And, all individuals will respond to said environment in their own individual ways. The question that probably should have been asked – Is it nature, or is it nurture? And the answer to that – It’s both! Across the board.
Immediately following some common sense, you revert back to unsubstantiated claims that border myth in paragraph six, while also acknowledging one of the many reasons Breed Specific Legislation is severely flawed by defining your definition of what constitutes a “pit bull”. Literally, ask ten people, and you’ll likely get around ten different answers of what a “pit bull” is to them.
Breed identification has always been the number one issue pertaining to the real life individual dogs affected by these draconian laws. They’re incredibly subjective, as they are usually first identified through visual identification, by someone who is not qualified to make those determinations or is not a breed expert of any kind. Animal control officers and other law enforcement aren’t trained in breed identification, because it’s simply not relevant to the actual job function of keeping their community’s safe. Nor do they possess a special power that tells them the genetic ancestry of a dog by looking at him or her. No magic crystal balls to predict how an individual dog will behave in the future, either.
The primary problem with the two studies in paragraphs seven and eight are breed identification! Without getting too in-depth about the meaning of the term “breed”, we will pretend we are all talking about the same thing when we play this game and we will conform to your definition for this purpose; The generic term, as you state, “pit bulls”, are American Staffordshire Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. So, we admittedly aren’t talking about just one breed then, are we? Those are three separate breeds, recognized by different kennel clubs. If we agree on that, each deserves to be looked at individually, and not lumped together with a generic (your word, not ours) label of “pit bull”. And then, what about mixes? Where do they fit in this charade? Where is the cutoff in a mixed-breed dog, where the “pit bull” percentage doesn’t matter? What dogs are we talking about that are inherently guilty of birth?
One of the most glaring problems with breed labeling is, many households obtain dogs through shelter or rescue organizations, where there are no papers or documented lineage of the dog from a reputable breeder, and the dogs arrive with completely unknown histories. The person(s) doing the identifying is usually someone on the shelter staff, the rescue, and/or the adopter.
There has been studies done about the reliability, or lack thereof, with visual identification. One such study was done by Maddie’s Fund, where animal industry professionals guessed the predominant breed(s) from images of shelter dogs DNA tested at a miserable success rate of 27%. These are people who are in the animal field as their profession, and that’s their combined accuracy. What do you think yours would be?:
Paragraph nine – more baseless claims with no scientific facts to back it up. Please show us what you have.
Paragraph ten – We actually want to thank you for bringing up the infamous CDC study, because – as you mention to begin the paragraph, they have verbiage at the conclusion which explains exactly why their position on breed specific regulations are a waste of time and resources – reverting back to the difficulties of breed identification, and the rarity of fatal attacks by all dogs. Additionally, the CDC stopped tracking data years ago pertaining to breed/type involved in dog attacks and Dog Bite-Related Fatalities (DBRFs), because of its irrelevance in the equation. Our time would be more wisely spent, dissecting the environmental factors to see if there are the same consistencies usually present in investigations where dogs have behaved badly (family dog-vs-resident dog, for example). Dogs generally do not attack out-of-the blue. There is always a reason, even if it cannot be explained in a “rational” way to human beings.
Your eleventh paragraph, you lean towards logic and common sense once again, by discussing the realities of dog related incidents, and the rarity of those fatal ones. If you think about it, this is pretty remarkable, considering how many people and dogs there are on this planet, living in close proximity to each other, and more times than not – Nothing. Ever. Happens.
We push dogs into situations where they are routinely forced in uncomfortable settings and they attempt to tell us with their body language (tongue flicks, yawns, position of ears and tails, etc), but nothing happens. Dogs deserve a lot of credit, more than we give them. Dogs are extremely resilient, and do more than their fair share of compromising in this relationship. And it’s time we start acknowledging that fact, so we can move this conversation to productive grounds that truly have a level playing field for all – dog and human. We can have equality and safety. One doesn’t cancel out the other.
Now repeat after us – There is no logical, rational and/or justifiable reason for BSL.
Media Bias – https://dogsbyte.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/media-bias-study/
12 years ago today we brought you home. I remember it like yesterday. Even though, at the time, we more likely would have said, “We don’t really need a dog right now.” Boy, did you ever prove us wrong. Looking back, it is profound to think just how much you helped shape me and Mom into the people we are today.
You were goofy and always could make us laugh. Whenever it would rain you would come in and run from the bed to the sofa, back and forth and dramatically thrash around drying your face off. More humorous was that you’d do this after a bath, even if we hadn’t gotten your face wet. You’d use our pillows as your personal napkin. Raw eggs, canned tripe, raw-whatever you hated having a messy face and would always run away as soon as you were done. We’d find you jamming your face in-between the pillows of our bed as you grunted. Most people would get mad about this. We just laughed and invested in an extraordinary number of extra pillowcases.
Just as your clairvoyance would have you hiding behind the toilets long before the first rumble of thunder, without falter you had a knack for leaning into a person who needed a listener, or licking away the tears from someone needing comfort. No matter how much self-doubt or self-loathing someone was experiencing, you had this amazing ability to remind us, “Hey we got this.”
You were an amazing caregiver. Whether it was nursing someone back from the flu (dubbed ‘Nurse Hailey’) or helping grieve a family loss. I remember when we would visit Grandma while she was sick you would always carefully crawl into her bed and curl up next to her. Eventually the cancer took Grandma from us. Like clockwork, you velcro’d yourself to Mom for weeks.
Just as you comforted in times of need, you also celebrated the good times. You would always give some joyous barks at mealtime while we were filling bowls. However, in hindsight, you might have also been telling your brothers to step down before you had to hand out beat downs. You always met us at the door with some happy barks of ‘Welcome home.’ And you always passed by us with a ‘Hey friend’ tail wag. Occasionally, that tail wag meant, ‘Hey friend, the cheeseburger you left on the table a few minutes ago was delicious. Sorry. I couldn’t help myself.”
We’ve never shared an official dialect, though we’ve spoken to each other in profound ways over the years.
I remember the day you let us know it was time. The hardest phone call of my life was to your doctor the day before we said goodbye. I hung up the phone and immediately started sobbing, and, though you could hardly muster the energy to climb over to me, you did and licked away my tears one last time, as if to say, “It’s ok.”
This morning I awoke to a reminder that it was ‘Hailey Day’ on my phone. It’s not like I needed a reminder. I had already bought some treats and stuffed animals for your brothers, and, even though you are not here with us, we will still take some time to celebrate what an amazing teacher and companion you have been to all of us. I know wherever you are, you’ve found an amazing sunbeam to curl up in, and though we terribly miss the sound of your foot steps, the warmth of your snuggles, and the the smell of the scruff of your neck, we are doing ok.
Thank you friend, for the amazing memories. I love you. I miss you. Happy Adoption Day.
Dear Mayor Mike Summers, Lakewood City Council, Law Director Kevin Butler, residents and members of the media,
On Friday, October 20, 2017, we will be holding a “Lakewood Community Dog Safety Forum” event, presenting an advanced (rough cut) screening of “Guilty ‘Til Proven Innocent” (GTPI) at the Lakewood Public Library (westside suburb of Cleveland, Ohio) in the auditorium, open to the public FREE of charge, prior to the official release in the near future. Seating capacity is limited to the first 100 (first come, first serve), with doors opening at 6pm and the film starting promptly by 6:30pm. We expect the room will fill up fast, so please plan on arriving early.
The documentary – produced by our video production and media company, River Fire Films (a separate entity), was originally released in 2013, touring 20-some times (which included two film festivals) partnering with area dog rescue, welfare and advocacy organizations around the United States, to help arm those championing for dog ownership equality by providing a factual representation of the breed specific legislation (BSL) issue. We dubbed that rendition – the “Rescue Version”.
Although that film went on to have some success and make an impact, we felt it could have been even bigger and better. And, even though there has been much progress made in this social and moral cause – especially nationally in the States, where the recent trends to reverse and repeal these archaic laws are spreading like wild fire, reminiscent to the reactionary way they began in the 80’s and 90’s, the topic continues to pop up, which is why we decided to revisit the idea of doing a reboot with a more strategic plan to finally put an end to breed discrimination globally.
We gave it a complete facelift by re-editing the film, moving chapters around, adding more special effects, more original composed music, and additional footage – including recent coverage of efforts happening here in Lakewood to repeal what never should have passed in the first place.
Those of you who were on Lakewood’s City Council when the law passed in 2008, may remember me. I’m the guy who attended each and every one of those council meetings with my camera gear, recording every word you spoke. At the time, I wasn’t as knowledgeable about the issue as I am today. In a lot of ways, i was no more informed as you. I counted on the many who provided expert testimony against the legislation, which is packaged as a public safety measurement. Back then, I didn’t know enough to refute that. But, today, I can with ease.
In reviewing the archived video footage (which was also included in the film), the June 10, 2008 council meeting former councilman and current Law Director, Kevin Butler, made a comment about his position to support the legislation in the name of public safety that has alway stayed with me:
“You have to understand from our perspective, when we receive complaints about the perception of public safety declining, it can be that there are those who see pit bulls, and while they don’t tell the owners that they’re scared of that dog and they don’t call the animal control officer, they do instantly make a decision that the safety in their city is declining.
So, I think this is a somewhat targeted response to that – I’m not suggesting it’s the right one as it’s written. But, what I’m saying is, when you say there’s no problem because that pit bull hasn’t bitten someone, or hasn’t acted dangerously, I don’t think that’s necessarily accurate.
I think there’s a lot of folks out there, who see a dog, and make that decision. Frankly, there are a lot of folks out there who see a certain type of person, and make that decision. And that may not be fair…what I’m suggesting though is that, we are doing everything we can not only to actually create safety, but also to create the perception of safety.”
When we were building the storyboard for the original version of GTPI, we attempted to do a film as unbiased as humanly possible, which forced us to forget anything we thought we knew about dogs and dog behavior, and start from the very beginning. I say this as an admitted lifelong dog-lover, who currently shares his home with three dogs labeled “Pit Bull” in the shelter system. It may make me biased, since I willingly chose them, but, that, however, doesn’t automatically make me unable to see or think clearly about this complex issue.
Even still, we were incredibly neutral in our process – to let the viewer decide when presented with the verifiable facts. We gave both sides of this debate an equal and fair chance to provide their reasoning – for or against, and sought out only the most qualified experts to speak on behalf of the dogs. The only problem is, there legitimately is not a rational reason in favor of breed bans and restrictions. if it wasn’t for a couple sources who publish incomplete, misleading and inaccurate data, the pro-BSL camp wouldn’t exist…, and of course, the “perception” of public safety factor that former Councilman Butler alluded to, which perhaps existed more back then than now. Even still, perception isn’t based on reality or facts at all – just a warm, fuzzy feeling thinking they did something productive for the community elected to protect.
Over the last few months – mostly due to a dog named Charlie (#ImWithCharlie movement), the momentum has been building again with support all over the country, requesting Mayor Summers and Lakewood City Council finally fix this once and for all. Some of you may have noticed me back in the audience again with my camera, documenting what is transpiring. I’ve written several professional emails over the years to Council, and most have gone unanswered. One of the only responses I have received since I left the city in 2008, was a few years ago, and they just wanted to confirm that I am no longer a resident.
I am encouraged by two current council members – Sam O’Leary and Dan O’Malley, who have publicly spoken on the matter opposing the ban. This was brave of them to do, knowing Mayor Summers and the rest of Council has been against a repeal. One day in the very near future, I hope those words turn into more involvement and action, but at the moment I am just grateful they stuck their necks out with their opposition.
I am encouraged at the thought of new council members potentially being voted in to serve Lakewood residents in the upcoming local election, to replace some of the incumbents who stand firm against any challenge of their ban.
I am also extremely encouraged at the unity and grassroots community programs being thought of and constructed to tackle the public safety concern. Any city should feel so lucky to have passionate people who put safety and equality above all in their community. We don’t need to compromise one for the other. These two things can be of equal importance.
But, back to our upcoming screening event…
By now, you can probably see one or more reasons why we chose Lakewood to be the first city to hold a screening of our re-released film (rough cut). Our hope is we encourage more dialogue by current members of Council and the Mayor, even if we disagree. At least we’re talking.
This is your official invitation to our “Lakewood Community Dog Safety Forum” event. Once the film concludes, we will hold a brief Q&A, where discussions about the film, the law, and how to make our communities truly safer for all families, including our four-legged companions.
In the end, I think we can all agree Lakewood’s ban will be repealed one day. Whether it happens today, next year, or in another nine is up to you who currently represent and serve Lakewood. But, you can be heroes right now. It’s time.
River Fire Films, LLC
Executive Director, Founder
Dear Mayor Summers and members of Lakewood City Council,
I spent the day pondering what I would write to you about Monday evening’s council meeting. I thought long and hard, because I wanted to ensure whatever I wrote wouldn’t come across as confrontational, but still direct so the point won’t be missed. I don’t wish to waste your time, and I certainly don’t want to waste mine either. But, I feel this is an important discussion to be had.
Because most on Council were not elected officials back in 2008, I’d first like to take a few minutes and introduce myself, and talk a little about where I’ve been these last 9 years, as well as a glimpse in the near future.
My name is Jeff Theman, and I was a proud citizen of Lakewood, Ohio for a couple years. When I moved to Lakewood, I did so because I fell in love with the countless bars and restaurants lined up and down Madison (my old street) and Detroit, the close proximity to Lake Erie and downtown Cleveland, but most of all because whenever I drove around town I saw an abundance of humans walking their canine companions. A dog-loving community rates extremely high on my list of desirable characteristics about a city I would call home. That is what attracted me most about Lakewood.
In the spring of 2008, former councilman, Brian Powers, proposed legislation to ban “pit bull” dogs, disrupting the Human-Canine bond and tarnishing the image of being a dog friendly city. After all, it’s impossible to do so by having a policy that discriminates or singles out a type of dog for anything other than their actual behavior. The previous year, I had already begun a documentary film project about dog-fighting, started the day Michael Vick’s name and image was plastered all over SportsCenter for his participation in the inhumane crime.
I spent the next year locked in my tiny Lakewood apartment, researching everything available on dogfighting and pit bull dogs. I read everything, from each and every side, leaving no stone unturned. By accident, I came across this law called breed specific legislation (BSL), which targets the ownership of certain breeds or types of dogs, namely “pit bull” dogs (definitions vary). Up until then, as a lifelong dog-lover and Ohio resident, I never knew these laws existed, which is odd, because at the time I lived in the only state that had statewide restrictions on “pit bull” dogs.
I decided I would attend with my camera each of these council meetings where the breed ban was discussed, and do a side film project that followed the process of this law, using Lakewood as the backdrop. Since I was already directing an anti-dogfighting documentary, I figured I might as well include a chapter on breed discriminatory laws in this film, too. By mid-summer (2008) when this ban passed, I scrapped that concept, and began a film about breed discrimination titled “Guilty ‘Til Proven Innocent” (GTPI).
Five years later, on Sunday, April 28, 2013, we premiered the “Rescue Version” of the film in Cleveland, which went on to tour around the country screening over 20-some times, including two official film festival selections – 2013 St. Louis International Film Festival and 2014 Kansas City Film Fest. The film was also supported by one of the largest national animal welfare organizations, Best Friends Animal Society, who used the film as a tool to send to legislators who were faced with the issue.
Last year, we started updating the previous version to produce the final cut of the film, with updated material, completely re-edited with more special effects and original composed music, among other upgrades for this official release to make a better impact on the discussion, with the goal to put an end to breed discrimination globally.
Earlier this year, I also founded a 501(c)4 non-profit (filing pending), WOOFobia, which celebrates and secures this Human-Canine Bond, through ingenuity and inspiration – using the arts to bring attention and solve problems related to dogs and people, so this all important bond does not get disrupted. And, here we are, back full circle in Lakewood again, adding footage for our re-release of GTPI, with the goal of repealing Lakewood’s existing failed law banning “pit bull” dogs.
So, there is a dual purpose to this email:
- We are officially requesting interviews with you and your colleagues to be used in our feature length documentary film about this issue. Only complete statements and sound-bytes will be used, so that the context cannot be purposely changed to be something different. The integrity of the project is held to a high standard.
- We are in the planning stages of screening an advanced copy (rough cut) of our re-released film to be shown in Lakewood next month (October 2017), ahead of the upcoming November election. We are hoping Mayor Summers and Council will accept our invitation for this event, once the date, time and venue is publicly announced.
In all, we are hoping to open discussions about the repeal of the city of Lakewood’s pit bull ban, and come up with a solution to maintain public safety, while welcoming all – two and four legged, to a community who publicly prides itself on being progressive and accepting.
River Fire Films, LLC
Executive Director, Founder
Mayor Summers and current members of Lakewood City Council:
We know. You know we know.
Tuesday, September 5, many current and former Lakewood, Ohio residents, who probably last saw the inside of city hall in 2008, came back again with several passionate new dog advocates seeking justice. Many stood together in the back of the auditorium of council chambers and held signs in peaceful protest as we awaited the fate of Charlie – one of the newest family dogs affected by your archaic law.
Over 9 years ago, many of us who were present Tuesday, sat in that same auditorium listening to your predecessors cherry pick their “facts” about dogs and dog behavior – specifically “pit bull” dogs. Over the course of 2-3 months, Council repeatedly cited primarily two online resources for their “proof” of these dogs being different – Colleen Lynn’s DogsBite.org and Merritt Clifton’s annual “study” – Dog Attack Deaths and Maimings .., both of which have been proven unreliable, inaccurate, incredibly biased, and torn to shreds over and over again.
The proposal to enact a ban of “pit bull and canary” dogs in Lakewood by former Councilman, Brian Powers, was supposedly started, according to Powers, for a couple reasons; the state of Ohio’s (at the time) existing restriction on “pit bull” dogs that passed in 1987 (and repealed in 2012) explaining the duty the city has to enforce the statewide law without getting additional funding, as well as an unfortunate serious incident involving a drunk man, who went to an after-hours party at the home of someone he did not know, feeding meat to the owner’s dog at 3:30 in the morning. The owner suggested the man, who admitted to drinking all night long, had been teasing the dog before he got bit.
There have been other additional excuses for the proposal of the law back then, but these are the two most repeated during that period.
In an effort to remain transparent, I admit to having some personal motivation in this subject matter. The previous year (2007), I began a documentary film about dog-fighting, with a focus on the victims – the dogs, after NFL star quarterback, Michael Vick, was suspected of the crime. I stumbled upon these laws called breed specific legislation (BSL) by accident. If you spend enough time Googling “pit bull dogs” and “dog-fighting”, it won’t take you long before you do. Additionally, I am also guilty of being a lifelong dog-lover, who has shared my home with a variety of different dogs during my life, but none would have been considered a “pit bull”. So, now that my own bias is out there, let me just say, that doesn’t change the facts about this issue.
Just a couple weeks prior to the first council meeting where BSL was introduced, I visited the home of the founder of the only pit bull rescue in Cleveland – For the Love of Pits, for research on this film. And, again, by accident discovered my soulmate in the form of a dog. The moment our eyes met, I knew instantly Preston was my soul dog. On that day, I made my intentions known that I was going to adopt this dog…until Lakewood threw an unexpected wrench in those plans.
I started showing up and recording all of the meetings. I spoke at the very first one, telling council about my film, and threatened to leave the city I called home if they should move forward and pass their ban. In my few minutes of allotted time allowed to speak, I also told them what I loved about Lakewood. Besides the nightlife, I told them how when I drive through town, all I see are human beings walking their dogs. That’s why I chose Lakewood!
Publicly, the city prided itself on being progressive and open-minded, but I soon found out much of that was built on a lie and described best as – beauty is only skin deep.
After that first meeting, Council was caught in the middle of a Fox 8 I-Team News investigation for questionable practices relating to Lakewood animal control visiting residents who spoke and claimed to own one of these dogs, to ensure they were compliant with state law (i.e. liability insurance, containment requirements, etc.). My footage of council members squirming after being called out by a husband-wife attorney duo in the third council meeting was used in this news segment.
After this, the direction of the film abruptly changed to breed discrimination, and Guilty ‘Til Proven Innocent was born.
Meeting after meeting, expert testimony after expert testimony, Council chose to disregard verifiable scientific facts, choosing sensationalism and irrational fear to pass the ban in July 2008, with a grandfather clause to save face as a “compromise”. Owners of “pit bull” dogs were given a chance to keep them by registering their dogs annually, and maintain compliance with the other outlined stipulations.
Back then, Lakewood was able to call your dog a “pit bull”, and there was no real way to fight the designation. One of the first residents I met and interviewed was Jeannine and Jason, owners of Macey. If you were able to present a case that the visual identification done by ACOs was invalid, you were able to have your dog’s name removed off the registered “pit bull” list. After obtaining a letter from their vet, completing DNA tests that showed Macey was 51% English Bulldog and 49% Labrador (aka – no “pit bull” of any kind), and hiring an attorney, they finally received that elusive hearing date in 2011, after waiting three long years without due process. They subsequently won their case, and Macey was no longer a “pit bull” by Lakewood’s standards. She passed away on April 22, 2016, after a fight with lymphoma.
2009 marked the first full year of the ban being in effect. Any “pit bull” dogs who were not registered before the December deadline, were officially illegal. Two incidents of such cases were most memorable:
- A white boxer named, Otis, who got out of the house while his owner was sleeping. A horrific video surfaced of the dog warden tasing Otis not once, but twice, then using the catch pole, dragging him on his back before lifting him up into the van by only his neck. The dog community was appalled. A deal was made with the owner that would give Otis back, but only if he was removed from the city and never returned.
- The harassment of a 20-year military veteran, Leonard Shelton, who served in both Iraq wars, and suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Besides companionship, Leonard used his dog, Roscoe, to help with his PTSD. He ended up moving, then suing Lakewood, and later settled out of court.
Through the years, several members of that administration moved on. Former Mayor Ed Fitzgerald was elected to the top seat in Cuyahoga County – County Executive, then ran an unsuccessful campaign to be Ohio’s next Governor. There were always rumblings through the grapevine about Fitzgerald being the bird chirping in Councilman Powers ear to propose the ban. Brian was given his At-Large seat due to an open spot on Council, in an election year. As the old saying goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity, because Powers went on to win his seat in that election after his name and face was plastered all over the news for several months bringing him name recognition at the ballot box. He later became Council President, before leaving local politics altogether at the end of 2013.
If there’s one thing I can say positive about him, he did accept and follow through with an interview for my film in 2009. Towards the end of the interview, I asked him: if Ohio repealed it’s law, would Lakewood then propose legislation to repeal their ban, since the statewide law was such a big factor?
“Absolutely. If the state of Ohio changed the law – the breed specific legislation that covers the entire state right now, we cannot pass breed neutral legislation undoing that. If the state law changed, I’m very confident that we would explore changing the Lakewood law.”
A few weeks after the state law officially repealed in May 2012, I emailed Councilman Powers asking when we can begin discussions on Lakewood’s repeal. You see, I’m a man of my word, and when another man looks me in the eyes and tells me he’s going to do something, call me naive, but I expect him to follow through with that.
His reply was “not sure that any members of City Council would be supportive of changing our current law. Things have stabilized here and the law seems to be working fine. But I’ll keep an open mind if anyone proposes a change.”
What?! Working fine? No, it wasn’t.
This response did anger me a bit, to be blatantly lied to by a public official on camera…an example of the exact reason nobody trusts politicians nowadays. From there, I just wanted to Hold Politicians Accountable Again!
I took Mr. Powers advice and immediately forwarded that email to the rest of Council requesting to open dialogue about a repeal. Not one responded. I was under the impression public officials, are at the very least ethically obligated to respond to all inquiries from the public, including those who now reside outside their city. A couple weeks went by, I sent another, but this time I received a couple snarkier responses in return, including one who only wanted to confirm that I am no longer a Lakewood resident.
Most on Council from 2008 have left office, but some have found a way to stick around. Councilman Tom Bullock, who is up for re-election at the end of this year (2017) is the last remaining member still serving on council. Councilman Michael Summers was appointed by Council in 2011 to take over as Mayor once Fitzgerald left to run the County government. Last, Councilman Kevin Butler became Lakewood’s Law Director. Some of the most influential members in Lakewood’s current legislative branch of government, are from a previous regime with a checkered past regarding this law.
After Lakewood passed their ban, I took my videocamera to Avon Lake, and sat in on a year’s worth of council meetings beginning in 2009. Their Council eventually decided against moving forward with additional measurements towards “pit bull” dog ownership.
For the next several years, whenever there was a city, especially in my NE Ohio region, where this topic was on their agenda, I made every attempt to educate those public officials of the harms this law creates, with some success. I oftentimes point to my experiences with Lakewood. My reason for stating this is, I’ve literally heard every argument possible in favor of breed specific legislation, and not one actually does anything to solve the root problem of maintaining public safety, which is the stated goal.
In late 2015, Shaker Heights, Ohio – another suburb in the Cleveland area, proposed a ban. The Mayor of “The Heights” used Lakewood’s success as an example in his opening remarks to council and the public the day of the vote. Through a public records request, I discovered extensive one-on-one discussions by a Shaker Heights councilwoman and the founder of DogsBite.org, Colleen Lynn, attempting to get advice on how to respond to facts that go against their plan to enact a ban – the same “resource” that Lakewood council used to support their quest. It was eventually voted down 5-2 in January 2016.
This is for Macey. This is for Otis the boxer. This is for Roscoe. This is for Charlie. This is for all families and their dogs who were unfairly labeled in Lakewood as dangerous because someone identified them as a “pit bull” – whether said dog actually was or not. And this is definitely for my dog, Preston. I had to delay the adoption for 6 months while searching for a new city to live who would accept him as an individual. Now estimated to be 12 years old and closer to the end than to the beginning, I want those 6 months back, Lakewood City Council.
So, here we are full circle. Another family and their dog being negatively impacted by your law. Just yesterday, the results from the hearing came back, saying Charlie, short of a lawsuit, must leave the city within 30 days. Back in 2008, I liked to give the benefit of the doubt, because there was a very real (irrational) fear among the public and often a misconception about these dogs. Many of us in animal welfare have also made mistakes about this issue. But over the last 9 years, there’s been an overwhelming abundance of data showing the failure of these laws. There’s just no more excuses for being misinformed. I don’t know if it’s pride or what.
But, you know. We know you know.