
The Why

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.
—————
Links:
Media Bias – https://dogsbyte.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/media-bias-study/
If you are reading this, be sure to first read Part 1 – The Worst Part Of Dog Advocacy, to get a bit more of the backstory, and to understand why we feel it’s necessary to do this follow-up in the first place.
To begin, this is an update to the previously reported tragic fatal attack of a 22 year old Virginia woman, Bethany Lynn Stephens, by her own two dogs last week. When the story first broke, we were 60-40 that at least one of her two dogs committed the crime. But, this national story had massive holes that needed filled before we were willing to go along with that narrative…possibly bigger than many other fatal attacks by dogs in recent memory. I’m sure the viral nature of the story helped incentivize the need to make a push for and examine this further, but it also probably affected readers in profoundly negative ways – both dog lovers and non-dog lovers alike, more than most because of the way the vague events were told to us by Sheriff Agnew. It had all the ingredients of a Hollywood horror film, like Stephen King’s Cujo.
How could her own dogs do such a thing? Especially when Bethany’s friends publicly came to the dogs defense about the bond they shared, stating how she raised them both as puppies. This would go against all we’re told about the loyal nature of our companion dogs and can be viewed as traitorish behavior by the only species worthy of being called “Man(kind)s Best Friend”. For this reason, and many others, here are our final thoughts on the Bethany Lynn Stephens case.
Our organization focuses strictly on the Human-Canine Bond, regardless of what type or breed of dog he or she may be. In our eyes, the conversation isn’t as simple as, there are good dogs and there are bad dogs, either. Because that can also have unintended consequences that reinforce and compound unnecessary stereotypes – such as, there are inherently dangerous breeds/types of dog, and others that won’t ever hurt a fly. Both are inaccurate statements, and that type of rhetoric gives the public a false sense of security. All dogs – like any animal in the kingdom, which includes humans, their behavior most often is dictated by their environment. Is it nature or nurture? It is both! So, naturally, we took exception with some of the out-of-line remarks made by Goochland County Sheriff, James Agnew, whose opinions about the dogs in question perpetuate and also create new stereotypes. In some ways, it felt intentional.
Judging solely by the comments made, our initial post was well-received and shared quite a bit on social media. It was almost unanimously praised for our position to question the circumstances further of what took place on that night, with the exception of one respected voice in the dog welfare community, who gave some well-intentioned criticism and thought we were being unfair to this law enforcement department. Her primary concern was that we (as dog advocates), must not be so defensive and reactive when it comes to defending dogs in Dog Bite-Related Fatality (DBRF) news. Dogs have, do and will continue to behave badly at times, or in ways we simply don’t understand. While we do agree, we also believe we must turn these unfortunate incidents into opportunities to learn why a dog who was raised as a puppy could do the unthinkable, and not just chalk this up as, “We can’t stop them all from happening…”. Every one of these can give us new insight that may help prevent others in the future, when we are able to apply research, while simultaneously being able to secure and celebrate the natural bond dogs have with us.
In Sheriff Agnew’s initial comments about the dogs, he immediately described them as 125lb “pit bulls”, but later corrected that published report saying collectively they weighed in that range, and the specific breeds of the animals are unknown. He also stated the possibility of them being “bred for fighting”, without any proof to make such claims. But, for this sake, we are not going to discuss what constitutes a “pit bull” dog…we will save that complex conversation for another day when more time can be appropriately spent on it. Debating that is, oftentimes, a very touchy subject to get into, and usually results in proponents as well as detractors of the “breed” or type of dog, arguing about the validity of their definition over the half dozen others floated around. The purpose here is to focus strictly on this case and this case alone, with the facts that we know or are being told.
After receiving heavy scrutiny, Agnew released additional graphic details initially withheld to spare the public some of the gruesome first person accounts of the severity of Bethany’s death that he and the other officers witnessed. This was done in an effort to put to rest the notion that an investigation wasn’t performed or still ongoing. There, he told the public the two dogs have already been euthanized, and explained when they arrived at the scene the dogs were found still attacking and consuming her body.
As other behavior professionals have repeatedly stated, we may never know exactly what happened. But, as one expert said best, this incident didn’t just happen out-of-the-blue, and the two dogs definitely didn’t pre-plan this by giving a wink to the other as if to signal – “now is the time to attack her“. Behavior is on a continuum – it either grows or it dissipates, depending on a threat level or how the animal feels. With these specific dogs, there were most likely a series of changes and other variables that occurred in their life through time before this became the inevitable outcome or even a remote possibility.
Since, there has been reports about the living conditions and environment drastically changing. To preface those changes, the two dogs were 2.5 years old – right smack in the middle of the average maturation for dogs, when their adult behavior becomes more apparent. While this alone probably didn’t contribute, it should be noted that the dogs previously may not have exhibited any form of noticable or obvious aggression, because they were still growing and analyzing their world around them. Possibly more noteworthy, is they were moved as family dogs living with her in her home, to on her father’s property, where they were kept outside and allegedly not given their proper diets (and possibly starving). An even greater in-depth analysis by some behavior industry professionals shed more light in this Washington Post article, rationally discussing the what-might’ve-beens in this case, applying science and their research to back up their claims. This was indeed, the perfect storm of everything that could go wrong, did go wrong.
Hidden in all this, is a discussion that seems necessary about why we expect dogs to be better mannered and behave better than us, humans. Proof of this argument can be found in the countless stories where mothers and fathers kill their own child – their own flesh and blood. Or, the homicides and pre-mediated murders that occur in the U.S. every single year. We force dogs in some of the worst situations where incidences should be expected, and most often don’t ever happen. Dogs are extremely resilient and do more than their fare share of compromising in this relationship. It’s about time that we pay this forward to them, by understanding our dogs limits better, and putting them in positions set up to succeed, so we continue securing and celebrating their vital positions as parts of our families.
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.
#EndBSL
Sincerely,
Jeff Theman
River Fire Films, LLC
Director, Producer
WOOFobia
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:
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.
Sincerely,
Jeff Theman
River Fire Films, LLC
Director, Producer
WOOFobia
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:
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?
He replied:
“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.
I turned 40 years old yesterday – July 28, 2017. There was a time, just a couple years ago, where I didn’t think I’d survive and get to see this somewhat irrelevant milestone.
Since 2008, there’s two days each year I take off from work – July 28th and October 4th. Every. Year. And, both involve me and my soulmate/souldog, Preston.
On July 6, 2006, Preston and two other dogs were confiscated from a home in Akron, Ohio – about 30 minutes south of Cleveland, where the owners allegedly used them for dogfighting purposes. I say allegedly because the owners were never charged with the animal cruelty crime, but instead on only illegal drug charges. From there the three “pit bull” dogs were brought to an area humane society where they were kept as evidence while the case moved forward. This was pre-Michael Vick, so the outrage around the country towards animal fighting “sports” wasn’t as prevalent as it is today. And in Ohio, where we had a statewide restriction (BSL) of “pit bull” dog ownership since 1987, these dogs taken from situations like this were typically systematically killed without much, if any, publicity at all.
After Preston was brought to the shelter, he was visited by a woman, Shana Klein, who owned a rescue – For The Love Of Pits, specifically for “pit bull” dogs in the northeast Ohio area, and began to walk him around the confines of their property. Along the way, because of the stance back then about dogs who came from this type of environment, the other two dogs brought in were killed, but Preston’s life was spared, temporarily at least, mostly due to being a shelter favorite.
On a Friday afternoon, the shelter gave a courtesy call to Shana, to notify her that Preston would be put to sleep at 4pm that day. She then hung up, and scurried to find a foster home where he can go. Luckily, she found a safe, temporary place, before being moved in with her, until I met him (in April 2008) and was able to officially adopt him on Saturday, October 4, 2008.
The entire encounter could be considered accidental – a coincidence of sorts, due to the only reason I was visiting the rescue to begin with, was for research on my documentary film, “Guilty ‘Til Proven Innocent“, about Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) in Ohio, that labeled all “pit bull” dogs inherently vicious at birth. I knew there was something special about this dog, as I never felt the way I did about an animal when our eyes first locked. Within 15 minutes of meeting him, I had already made my intentions known that I was going to adopt this dog.
Soon after, the suburb of Cleveland I was living in – Lakewood, Ohio, proposed and passed a ban of pit bull dogs within their city limits, claiming the state law as being the primary reason for the legislation, which delayed my ability to adopt Preston. It took me nearly six months, and a new residence, which wasn’t easy, due to landlords perceptions of his alleged “breed”, but with perseverance, I was finally able to welcome him home.
We began on a journey together, where we both took the time to understand and trust each other, which only helped to solidify our natural bond, while my editor and I went to work and finished the documentary. There were some lows during this time, such as my grandpa passing away in 2009, and the loss of the human version of the love of my life, but there were many highs as well, such as the 20-some screenings GTPI was screened at around the United States, and other recognition for our accomplishments because of it.
Then, towards the middle of 2014, I noticed I didn’t feel right, and things went south in a hurry. I was in the infancy stages of severe anxiety and crippling depression, mostly due to being outspoken about some of the problems I recognized in the field I had immersed myself in, as well as all the unnecessary pain and suffering – to both human and animal, I saw on a daily basis, which made me react in uncharacteristic ways. My mental health, as well as my reputation within the community I built a name in, was crashing and burning simultaneously together. Without getting into specifics, my personal life suffered greatly, too.
I remember going to sleep nightly with all three of my dogs, holding Preston close to me with his head resting alongside mine on the pillow, and repeatedly telling him “I love you so much”, over and over and over again, until I drifted asleep. It became so bad that on the early morning of November 2, 2014, I closed the door to my home office and wrote what was to be my final blog entry titled “Save Me, and I’ll Save You“, with the intention of making it public, and then blowing my head clean off with my S&W 9mm. Weird, because I purchased that handgun for my and my dogs safety, but I never thought I’d have to protect myself from myself.
At the moment I decided to proceed, Preston nudged the door open with his nose. I took one look into those beautiful brown eyes of his, and wept. Preston prevented me from carrying out an action I had no way to take back.
The following spring, I got into a serious auto accident, and suffered a concussion – the third of my life, from slamming into the cement highway guardrail on a pouring rain morning commute to the office. This manifested itself into post concussion syndrome a month or so later, which lasted for nearly a year. During this, I visited all three of Cleveland’s main hospitals seeking their help and expertise. They all prescribed several pharmaceuticals, which made my suicidal thoughts resurface again. I had no quality of life – I went to work, took my meds to ease the pain, went home after the 8 hour day, let out and fed the dogs, and was in bed by 7 that night…every night, most nights without dinner. I felt like a shell of myself, like a robot…numb to everything. I knew, this was not living.
On a January 2016 morning, I made the decision that if I am going to survive, I will need to do it myself. All by myself…but, with the help of my dogs, obviously. I threw away the prescriptions, and began venturing out in the cold with my camera and a dog (mainly Preston), photographing the urban decay of Cleveland. There’s something beautiful about rust and graffiti-laced, dilapidated vacant buildings, and the way they appear in the dead of winter. Bringing one of my dogs with me served two purposes. They still needed to be walked, and it gave me a companion to be a pair of eyes for me while I get lost in the moment framing my next shot.
Art and expressing my creative self was one of the things that was missing prior to, and by reintroducing it back into my life, it was the therapy that temporarily took away the pain I was in. My dogs – specifically Preston, were the only reason that kept me from “pulling the trigger” – both figuratively and literally speaking. Which bought me time to get myself better – mentally and physically, again.
Since, I still have some bad days, but they’re not as often as before. Each day my well-being gets a little better. Because of those experiences, I am now armed with a new sense of what’s important, and the message it has with the creation of this start up non-profit (filing still pending) organization I founded, WOOFobia, because I noticed a growing need for more advocacy work which includes both dog and their human counterpart. Especially with the spike in cases of mental illness, and trend of them being brushed aside where nobody wants to talk about it, which leads to more suffering of all at the hands of it.
Back on July 28, 2006, I was at my local Honda dealership buying a brand new car for a birthday present to myself, at the exact same time Preston’s life was scheduled to expire. When the rescue stepped up and fate saved him from his demise, it happened on my birthday. His new life started the day we celebrate mine. Some things are just supposed to happen, like celebrating the human-canine bond with your best friend, hero and soulmate (or souldog), as we do every July 28th and October 4th, since we crashed into each other’s lives.
It brings up the age old question – who rescued whom?
— Jeff Theman
WOOFobia, Executive Director
River Fire Films, LLC, Filmmaker/Director/Producer
— To submit your “You Had Me At WOOF” story, click HERE! —
Humans are exceptionally complex beings. The same can also be said for other species who we coexist together with on this planet, especially those we share our homes with, such as dogs. In its simplest form, like us, they are not only in the world, but aware and conscious of it. They are sentient individuals who depend on the same basic principles for survival as we do – air to breathe, food to eat, and water to drink. Also like us, they desire shelter, companionship, freedom of movement, and the avoidance of pain.
But, too often, we attempt to simplify and compartmentalize individuals by broad, sweeping generalizations, regularly by stereotyping by appearance or physical traits. We do this naturally to be more efficient in life by fitting everything into neat, little boxes, to help satisfy our intuition to quickly analyze, and possibly predict our world around us, to avoid a potential threat to our well-being. These mental shortcuts we learn from family, friends, peers and other influences, such as the media, are a result of how we process and communicate “knowledge”, especially those with negative associations – whether we are directly or indirectly affected by them.
There are many examples that can be found where an accident is not a matter of life and death. We chalk it up to “To Err Is Human”, which is used to exonerate any fault or blame, and say – “No harm, no foul”. But, what about cases where zero error in judgement is imperative and expected, and comes with a price if and when it does occur?
Laws like Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) – or breed discrimination (BDL) to be more accurate, which target certain breeds or types of dogs as inherently vicious at birth, are found in all 3 types of developed human settlements – urban, rural and suburban environments. They can include one or more targeted breeds/types of canine, which almost always includes at least “pit bull” dogs. Here in the United States, these laws can be enforced as a restriction (i.e…liability insurance, public muzzling, special containment, among others) or an outright ban, and can be implemented at every level of government – Federal (i.e. Military bans), the State, or local municipality (county, city, town, etc.).
In other countries, it can be implemented in a region of land independently governed – i.e. a Province, as is the case with Ontario, Canada; or in places like the United Kingdom, which incorporates 4 separate countries – England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, to name a world example. Branched off of the actual laws (as in, legislation), there is also policy that can and has discriminated towards one or more breeds/types of dog, including the insurance (home and rental) and housing industries, as well as animal boarding/grooming corporate policies.
These laws enacted by government are oftentimes used as a tool by law enforcement and humane agencies, directed at specific classes of people (social, or even racial, prejudice), due to the way laws work where you cannot draft legislation that discriminates against a protected class…Dog owners are not a protected class. There’s internet memes that have become running jokes about the inability to accurately identify dogs via visual identification alone. These images display half a dozen or so images of various items and all are labeled ‘Pit Bull” beneath them to comically show the plight of the cause.
The chore to enforce and carry out the laws are often bestowed upon the the local municipality’s Animal Control Department, which frequently produces subjective identification practices, and otherwise innocent dogs (if not for the subjective law) are impacted – at times even with the loss of their own life. None of this, mind you, is due to how that individual dog actually behaved, but simply because their physical appearance resembles that of a targeted dog – We should all hope to be defined by only what we do, say and how we act.
Although the following scenario presented below humorously characterizes the failure of enforcement and makes a case against the laws and policies which identify dogs as vicious due to breed/type, the real life situations of families and their pets affected are anything but funny. They’re downright scary.
This morning, I drove to the local grocery store near me – Giant Eagle in Parma, Ohio (the city of Parma has a ban of “pit bull” dogs since the 80’s) to pick up a few items needed to make breakfast for me and my three dogs. It’s an every weekend ritual we do. First, I went to the produce section and grabbed some bananas, then ventured to the bread and dairy aisles to grab English muffins and butter spread. And then, on towards the checkout registers I then went.
Passing through, I stopped at a rack that had an assortment of pet related items, like the dog bowls below with photographs of breed specific dogs to attract those who adore those certain breeds.
First, there was one with PUG on the side, and a photo of a typical looking Pug inside…
Next, BICHON, with a typical Bichon Frise…
LAB, with a typical black Labrador Retriever puppy…
A BOXER with a typical Boxer…
Then, AUSTRALIAN SHEPHERD, with a typi-…{abrupt record scratch sound}, Say what?!?
Now, we understand that this can also go against us, because we are looking at a photo of a dog and also visually identifying the breed, but we’d like to think in no way would someone say the dog inside this bowl conforms to an Australian Shepherd (see AKCs photo).
Clearly this was human error at the manufacturing plant these bowls are mass produced at. Nobody got harmed. We can all have a good chuckle at the expense of them. There’s always tomorrow to correct this mistake.
But, through this, there’s a strong argument that can be made which shows the very reason these laws and policies are inept – human error. Additionally, animal control departments serve primarily one function – to keep the city safe from potentially dangerous dogs and other animals.
If we are to truly be serious and want to protect our communities from dangerous dogs, we need general, breed-neutral dog laws, with an emphasis on behavior, so the focus doesn’t get sidetracked from the actual problem.
Our first widespread initiative at WOOFobia is focusing the attention on removing any law or policy that singles-out any dog by looks alone, in any place around the world, to help ensure all dogs are judged on a level playing field, and to secure and celebrate the all-important Human-Canine Bond. Because, killing innocent family dogs who have done no wrong, is something that does not deserve forgiveness, and should be placed in the history books with all other forms of discrimination and intolerance.
There just is no rational or logical reason for the law – short of fear-based propaganda. We invite you to join us in this fight. To collaborate and/or volunteer, Contact Us HERE!