“The breed ban effectively ends today,” Mayor Mike Summers wrote in an email to council members last week, “because I do not see the merits of enforcing a feature we are likely to eliminate in the near future.” In effect, the ban on pit bull breeds would be replaced with some new regulations and “stricter consequences on owners for failure to maintain control of animals.”
The move comes after months of concerted protest and vocal opposition to the breed-specific ban (although the opposition has indeed been present in the city from the get-go).
Still, though, the new ordinance language contains policies directed specifically at pit bull breeds (Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier and American Staffordshire Terrier) and the canary mastiff. For example, a “dangerous dog” — specifically those breeds, according to the proposed law — must be muzzled when “off the premises of its owner.” They must be walked by an adult at all times.
Only one such dog is allowed per household.
Those asterisks on the new dog law prompt concern from residents who’ve been watching this debate play out for the past year.
“This isn’t just about a blocky headed dogs,” resident Greg Murray said at last night’s council meeting. “This isn’t just about Charlie, Macie, Roscoe, Valentina. It’s about common sense laws. It’s about safety. It’s about respect. It’s about being a progressive lakewood. It’s about giving bite victims of any type of dog in lakewood the respect they deserve by taking safety seriously. It is the city’s job, along with it’s residents, to create an environment through many different tools and avenues that says, ‘We mean business when it comes to safety.’ That hasn’t happened in 10 years and we didn’t make any headway with Friday’s proposal.”
The ordinance has been referred to the city’s Public Safety Committee.
Summers joined three council members in introducing the legislation and adding a look toward the impending debate: “We recognize that the proposed changes to this existing ordinance are the beginning of the legislative process. We four are not in full agreement regarding every component of the proposed changes and look forward to the legislative process that will follow.”
This article appears in Dec 27, 2017 – Jan 2, 2018.
This is still breed-specific legislation. Any good dog owner would be discouraged from living in Lakewood with one of these regulated breeds. This certainly does not alleviate any of the roadblocks from dog training and daycare services to open in Lakewood.
What’s wrong with a fenced-in backyard?? Why do they ALSO need to be muzzled and restrained to a 10 foot radius?! This is not progress. This is setting breed-specific legislation biases for self-fulfilling results. I wouldn’t do this to my golden-doodles, why would you do this to a breed that already has a propensity for anxiety and aggression? It’s like the people who wrote this think our prison system is class-act too. #endrant
Although I’m happy to hear that there will no longer be a ban of particular breeds of dogs in our city I am disappointed in the caveats still to be imposed upon targeted animals and their owners. Muzzling a dog that is friendly and well-behaved is an undeserved punishment to both the animal and its owner. This is still breed-specific legislation; I had really hoped Lakewood was totally moving away from that approach. Perhaps the committee will reconsider the muzzling and enclosed dog run requirements. As mentioned in the previous comment, a fenced yard should really be sufficient.
Pit Bull type breed of dogs
account for OVER 1/2 of all dog attacks and fatalities — no matter how you slice it —Dobermans are a distant second —
the statistics are overwhelming.
If you truly love dogs, let this one please kindly fade away. The people who are attracted to Pit Bull type breed are LIKEWISE tending to be “higher-risk” humans (Ie they have more arrest records for violent crimes etc).
Do your own DD. The studies and numbers are absolutely overwhelming — this is a high risk dog. very sad.
The statistics are overwhelming.
The Pit Bulls are absolutely a HIGH RISK type breed of dogs. The studies are exhaustive. And the facts are that Pit Bulls account for 63% of all dog attack fatalities (Dobermans are a distant second).
And those humans who are attracted to this breed tend also to be “high risk” humans with higher rates of arrests for violent crimes etc.
If you truly love dogs, let this tragic breed fade away. Local ordinances are absolutely the right good thing to do. (Maybe i should get myself a Bengal Tiger and be real nice to my tiger. You wouldnt mind me letting him play with the neighborhood children would you ? you get the idea.)
test
Lakewood citizens wanted the ban on pit bulls repealed. This has now happened, and of course, now they want more. Just like all drivers pay higher car insurance rates in claim areas, all dog owners will now have limitations because of these dangerous breed owners. Victory for them, defeat for everyone else. They call it progressive, though. The rights of the few burden the many
Toronto’s ban on pit bulls failed miserably in reducing dog bites. They banned bringing in or breeding pit bulls in 2004 and by 2014 the number of dog bites had increased, not decreased. Granted, the population had probably increased, but the point is there was no decrease in dog bites. The number one biting dog in 2004 was German Shepards and it remained the number one dog. The second dog breed for dog bites is now the Labrador Retriever. So, go ahead and ban pit bulls, you won’t help anybody.
The American Veterinary Medical Association says,
“Any dog can bite, regardless of its breed, and more often people are bitten by dogs they know. Its not the dogs breed that determines risk its the dogs behavior, general size, number of dogs involved and the vulnerability of the person bitten that determines whether or not a dog or dogs will cause a serious bite injury. Dogs can be aggressive for all sorts of reasons. A dog that has bitten once can bite again, and a dog that has never bitten could still bite.”