Dog Safety Policy Rationale

Tagline: Ban on non-compliant dogs plus “no new pit bulls” policy with major ramp-up in enforcement and new animal safety “best practices” advisory board.

Elevator Speech:
We're strengthening dog safety by taking immediate action to address widespread non-compliance with dangerous dog safety laws while putting the City on track over the long term to develop “best practices” dog safety policies with expanded owner education.
[We're adopting a zero tolerance policy for irresponsible pit bull owners and putting the burden for dog safety where it belongs: on the owners. We're improving dog safety so kids can play in their front yards and seniors can walk on their streets.]

Opening Statement & Report of the Public Safety Committee:

I have a longer-than-normal statement to make regarding the Public Safety Committee's work to strengthen dog safety. I realize that it is not Council's common practice to make such extensive remarks, but I think they reflect the complexity of the issue, the thoroughness of the work we've done to address it, the care we've put into our deliberations, and the breadth of public comment on this issue. So I thank you in advance for your attention.

We opened Public Safety hearings noting that our job as a community is to balance competing interests as best we can. The balance we strike is often between competing interests, both or all of which can be legitimate. In the proposed ordinance before us, they include: safety, keeping Lakewood neighborhoods family-friendly, fairness, individual liberty, and an enforceable, workable standard.

We also noted that different standards will work for different communities. Our task is, of course, to find the right balance for Lakewood. One dog safety standard may fit a rural community; a second may fit a sprawling suburb with big lots and houses far-apart; a third will fit for Lakewood. We are a compact community, with small yards, families close-together, thousands of dogs, thousands of school-aged kids riding bikes and playing in their neighborhoods, and senior citizens walking the streets. And in tough economic times with $4/gallon gasoline, we're seeking to make our community even more walkable, even more safe, even more clean, even more family-friendly, so that more families choose to live and stay in Lakewood.

When it comes to our dangerous dog safety ordinances, what we're doing now isn't working. We have a rising caseload of pit bulls who have the potential to be dangerous, and we have a widespread pattern on non-compliance with our dog safety laws. That needs to change. We can do better.

Some facts:
We have never—literally never, out of the more than fifty pit bull owners registered in Lakewood—had an owner comply fully with the law prior to a visit by an Animal Control Officer. Much of this is due to the need for better public education about the law's requirements. But ignorance of the law is never an excuse for noncompliance. We are all always responsible for complying with the law.

In general, owners have not come into compliance without multiple visits from the Animal Control Officers. The average is two to three visits, with weeks in between each visit, and with the worst cases requiring action by Animal Control Officers on as many as 19 different dates.
A look at County dog registration records for pit bulls turned up still more non-compliance. The county had only five pit bulls registered, compared to the more than fifty lakewood has on its records—meaning most were out of compliance with state and county law. Worse, of these five who were properly registered with the County, only two were registered with the City of Lakewood. That means an additional three pit bulls were residing unregistered in Lakewood, possbily not in compliance with dangerous dog safety requirements.

How many more pit bulls live in Lakewood, unregistered with both the city and the county? How many of these dogs lack the required liability insurance? Dog pen? Get walked without a muzzle? Are kept by an owner not practicing dog safety and not understanding how to responsibly care for and control their dog?

Under our current practices, the burden for compliance with dog safety is not where it belongs. Right now it's falling on neighbors to call in problems, and on our Animal Control Officers to teach people their responsibility under the law, and to make multiple follow up house visits, with weeks of delay in between each visit, to give multiple chances for compliance. That's backward. We ought to place the responsibility for dog safey where it belongs: on the owners.

The most troubling step in our current dog safety system for me is this: we are putting neighbors in the position of babysitting a problem not of their own creation, and then waiting weeks—sometimes many weeks—to get a solution. That's unacceptable. A family with kids, or senior citizens, should not have to avoid playing in their front yards or walking on their street because of an irresponsible pit bull owner.

This is part of a broader pattern in City Hall I'd invite us to address. Whatever it is that we're doing in City Hall, we should do it more effectively, more quickly, more efficiently, and with better customer service. I am most of all interested in reducing the amount of time between a neighbor calling with the problem and City Hall delivering a solution. Another example the Mayor has already acted to streamline is cutting high grass at vacant properties. We can and will identify in the future more examples of City services we need to streamline. Our dog safety policies are an early example of this broader pattern, so it in my view it's worth the time and effort we've spent as an early case study in figuring out how we can deliver better customer service, more effectively, with the tools that we have. As a great animal lover, Teddy Roosevelt, said: “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.” That's what we are tasked to do.

Tagline: Ban on non-compliant dogs plus “no new pit bulls” policy with major ramp-up in enforcement and new animal safety “best practices” advisory board.

Elevator Speech:
We're strengthening dog safety by taking immediate action to address widespread non-compliance with dangerous dog safety laws while putting the City on track over the long term to develop “best practices” dog safety policies with expanded owner education.
[We're adopting a zero tolerance policy for irresponsible pit bull owners and putting the burden for dog safety where it belongs: on the owners. We're improving dog safety so kids can play in their front yards and seniors can walk on their streets.]

Opening Statement & Report of the Public Safety Committee:

I have a longer-than-normal statement to make regarding the Public Safety Committee's work to strengthen dog safety. I realize that it is not Council's common practice to make such extensive remarks, but I think they reflect the complexity of the issue, the thoroughness of the work we've done to address it, the care we've put into our deliberations, and the breadth of public comment on this issue. So I thank you in advance for your attention.

We opened Public Safety hearings noting that our job as a community is to balance competing interests as best we can. The balance we strike is often between competing interests, both or all of which can be legitimate. In the proposed ordinance before us, they include: safety, keeping Lakewood neighborhoods family-friendly, fairness, individual liberty, and an enforceable, workable standard.

We also noted that different standards will work for different communities. Our task is, of course, to find the right balance for Lakewood. One dog safety standard may fit a rural community, a second may fit a sprawling suburb with big lots and houses far-apart, a third will fit for Lakewood. We are a compact community, with small yards, families close-together, thousands of dogs, thousands of school-aged kids riding bikes and playing in their neighborhoods, and senior citizens walking the streets. And in tough economic times with $4/gallon gasoline, we're seeking to make our community even more walkable, even safer, even cleaner, even more family-friendly, so that more families choose to live and stay in Lakewood.

When it comes to our dangerous dog safety ordinances, what we're doing now isn't working. We have a rising caseload of pit bulls that have the potential to be dangerous, and we have a widespread pattern on non-compliance with our dog safety laws. That needs to change. We can do better.

Some facts:
We have never—literally never, out of the more than fifty pit bull owners registered in Lakewood—had an owner comply fully with the law prior to a visit by an Animal Control Officer. Much of this is due to the need for better public education about the law's requirements. But ignorance of the law is never an excuse for noncompliance. We are all always responsible for complying with the law.

In general, owners have not come into compliance without multiple visits from the Animal Control Officers. The average is two to three visits, with weeks in between each visit, and with the worst cases requiring action by Animal Control Officers on as many as 19 different dates.

A look at County pit bull registration records turned up still more non-compliance. The county had only five pit bulls registered, compared to the more than fifty Lakewood has on its records—meaning most were out of compliance with state and county law. Worse, of these five who were properly registered with the County, only two were registered with the City of Lakewood. That means an additional three pit bulls were residing unregistered in Lakewood, possibly not in compliance with dangerous dog safety requirements.

How many more pit bulls live in Lakewood, unregistered with both the city and the county? How many of these dogs lack the required liability insurance? Dog pen? Get walked without a muzzle? Are kept by an owner not practicing dog safety and not understanding how to responsibly care for and control their dog?

Under our current practices, the burden for compliance with dog safety is not where it belongs. Right now it's falling on neighbors to call in problems, and on our Animal Control Officers to teach people their responsibility under the law, and to make multiple follow up house visits, with weeks of delay in between each visit, to give multiple chances for compliance. That's backward. We ought to place the responsibility for dog safety where it belongs: on the owners.

The most troubling step in our current dog safety system for me is this: we are putting neighbors in the position of babysitting a problem not of their own creation and then waiting weeks—sometimes many weeks—to get a solution. That's unacceptable. A family with kids, or senior citizens, should not have to avoid playing in their front yards or walking on their street because of an irresponsible pit bull owner.

This is part of a broader pattern in City Hall I'd invite us to address. Whatever it is that we're doing in City Hall, we should do it more effectively, quicker, more efficiently, and with better customer service. I am most of all interested in reducing the amount of time between a neighbor calling with the problem and City Hall delivering a solution. The Mayor has already acted to streamline cutting high grass at vacant properties. We can and will identify in the future more examples of City services we need to streamline. Our dog safety policies are an early example of this broader pattern, so it in my view it's worth the time and effort we've spent as an early case study in figuring out how we can deliver better customer service, more effectively, with the tools that we have. As a great animal lover, Teddy Roosevelt said: “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.” That's what we are tasked to do.

In addition, the much-debated question of whether pit bulls are dangerous is not open to question for Lakewood City Council. On this issue, we must follow Ohio law, which defines pit bulls as dangerous dogs and lays out heightened safety requirements for their owners. Council may consider strengthening, but not weakening, Ohio's dangerous dog safety law, and, in fact, we have done so previously by prescribing more specifically the safety standards for Lakewood pit bull owners. But, to be clear, our business is not to second-guess Ohio law's determination that pit bulls are dangerous, but rather to determine how to best implement it for our city. The theater in which to debate whether pit bulls are dangerous is Columbus, not Lakewood.

After extensive public comment, multiple rounds of consultation with the Administration, and much deliberation by the Public Safety Committee, I propose that Council act on two parallel tracks: first, take immediate action to address widespread non-compliance with dangerous dog safety laws; and second, put the City on track over the long term to develop “best practices” dog safety policies.

On the first track, I propose we amend Councilman Power's proposed ordinance by adopting a zero tolerance policy for irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs, including pit bulls, and putting the burden for dog safety where it belongs: on the owners.

Specifically:
Strengthen penalties for non-compliance with dangerous dog safety requirements, thereby strengthening enforcement and creating an incentive for owners to be more responsible and take preventative action;
Set up a grandparented prohibition on new dangerous dogs in Lakewood that would allow existing dangerous dogs to register with and remain in the city if their owners fully comply with the law (and remain in compliance thereafter) within 90 days of enactment. Any future biting incident or failure by owners to comply with safety requirements shall result in loss of the grandparented status and removal of the dangerous dog from the City;
Add new requirements for registration of grand-parented dangerous dogs: micro-chipping and photographing (to aid tracking and effective enforcement); neutering/spaying; annual renewal of registration and annual proof of valid of insurance; notice of moving residence; and a $50 registration fee.
Note that appeals and due process rights for owners are reserved throughout.


Importantly, this strengthened policy is also a streamlined policy. In other words, it's easier to effectively enforce. Our goal should be to bring irresponsible pit bull owners into compliance with “one touch” from law enforcement. Under our current policies, pit bull non-compliance cases have averaged three to four visits, with weeks in between visits, which can lead to months of delay for compliance, months of additional risk to the public, and months of additional damage to the sense of safety in our neighborhoods. In the most egregious cases, our Animal Control Officers have made half a dozen or more house calls to irresponsible owners. This new grand-parented registration requirement would front-load all safety compliance that has been, in practice, slipping to within the first 90 days, and afterwards would be require the Animal Control Officer to make a simple, streamlined check against our micro-chipped registry of dangerous dogs and a simple determination of compliance. That means that the job of our Animal Control Officers is greatly simplified, so they can cover more ground and more caseload with their limited time while delivering superior and more timely customer service to aggrieved neighbors.

On the second track, I propose we take a second step with the long-term in view: to establish an Animal Safety and Welfare Advisory Board consisting of Lakewood citizens and animal experts who can support our Animal Control personnel. By forming a partnership, citizen volunteers on this Board will, in effect, expand the City's expertise, resources, and community reach.

As a first project, this Board might propose a “best practices” dog safety policy over the long-term that focuses not only on pit bulls and other dangerous dogs, but on all dogs and all owners. As part of deliberations on this issue, I learned about innovative practices that other communities have pioneered that Lakewood might also implement, such as greatly expanded dog registration, owner education, and spaying and neutering coupled with penalties that provide incentives to owners to take preventative measures. The Board could examine the success—and stumbles—of other communities and devise a package of policies suited to Lakewood's unique mix of animal and human residents. The Board could report back to Council with its recommendations for an expanded dog safety policy, and in the meantime partner with our Animal Control Officers to help improve dog safety compliance and reduce animal abuse. A number of committed Lakewood residents have already volunteered their time to energies to such an expanded animal safety effort. I'd like to thank all who have done so: a great feature of Lakewood continues to be our community spirit.

One example to show the advantage of this approach: dog safety problems that are serious but not related to pit bulls came to light during the Public Safety Committee's work. For example, a large Labrador has frequently roamed one neighborhood off-leash because the owner has chronically left the gate open, or the fence is easy to jump. This can pose a safety threat to kids and residents on that street as well. That dog has the potential to be dangerous, but falls outside the scope of the dangerous dog ordinance we're considering today. By creating an Animal Welfare and Safety Advisory Board, we are putting ourselves on track to address such situations, because we can look at safety for all dogs and all owners and design policies in a comprehensive manner. Important work remains to be done there.

This two-track approach of short-term and long-term measures would combine the best elements of both strategies and would, in my judgment, correct immediate safety problems while putting us on track to significantly improve dog safety across the board, which I am optimistic we can do. I believe this policy achieves a good balance between safety, fairness, and enforceability and that it has listened to the concerns both of owners and residents concerned with safety. I respectfully recommend its adoption by Council.

Read More on City Council
Volume 4, Issue 16, Posted 5:31 PM, 07.29.2008