My purposes for writing this are twofold: it is intended first as a rebuttal to Councilman Brian Powers’ article from the May 27th Lakewood Observer; second, I write this as an open letter to all citizens of Lakewood, so that both sides of the issue may be understood.

Let me start by saying that I do truly believe that Councilman Powers has the best interest of Lakewood citizens at heart. I appreciate what he is trying to accomplish, specifically ensuring the safety of our residents. I wouldn’t wish it any other way. I do believe, however, that his proposal to ban “pit bulls” and other breeds, though well-intended, is misguided.

Breed-specific legislation (BSL) makes no sense. There is no other crime for which we would stereotypically criminalize an entire population due to the actions of a small minority of its members. If a negligent driver struck and killed a pedestrian, would we respond by banning cars and drivers from the city? Of course not; that would be ridiculous, even though it is the only way to ensure that it never happens again. Instead, we would punish only the negligent driver – it would be unreasonable and unfair to punish other drivers.

Mr. Powers cited an example in which one Lakewood man in recent months was attacked and disfigured by a dog. I agree that this dog – and its owner – should be severely punished. But why punish all of the other owners and all of the other “pit bulls”? Where is the reason in that?

Dr. Robert V. Hutchison, who is recognized internationally for his work with purebred dogs and is the operator of a 16 veterinarian small animal hospital in North Ridgeville, Ohio, has been a practicing veterinarian for over 35 years (he also happens to be my father). He had this to say,

"Realizing that Mr. Powers feels he is trying to protect the citizens of Lakewood, the fact is that people who actually work on a daily basis with dogs of all types understand that no one breed is any better nor any worse than any other breed. The truth is that it is the owner - not the breed - that makes a dog good or evil. The person in charge is where the legislation should be directed. Just as profiling humans by race or nationality is totally inaccurate, trying to profile a canine by no other criteria than breed is no less a fallacy."

This is an emotional issue for dog-lovers, dog-haters, and those concerned with public safety alike. Some of Councilman Powers’ quotes, such as, “…there are many things we don’t want to bring back from the Depression, and pit bulls running loose with children is one of them,” are typical of the inflammatory, substance-less comments made by people on both sides of the argument. That Petey from the Little Rascals was a “pit bull” is similarly meaningless as far as I’m concerned. What does have meaning to me, and meaning to thousands of dog owners in this city, is that I love my dog, and he is an essential part of my family. But because he may, in the eyes of the city, be a “dog of mixed breed which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly [a “pit bull” breed],” he could be banned from Lakewood and I could be charged with a crime. I would leave the city in a heartbeat before I would give up my dog, and a lot of others would too.

Do you know who won’t leave the city? The abusive, neglectful people who train their dogs to be aggressive and violent; they will abandon or destroy their “pit bulls” and get Rottweilers, Dobermans, German Shepherds, or any other large dog with a tradition of protection that is not considered by governments to be a “vicious breed” (a term I fully reject as invalid).

For those readers influenced by practicality, Councilman Powers issued statements on the difficulty of enforcing Lakewood’s current vicious dog laws. A ban on the entire breed is, “stronger [and] simpler,” and, “…easier to enforce,” he argues. How can criminalizing the whole population be easier to enforce than targeting just those dogs (and their owners) that are known offenders? According to the study, “Attacking the Dog-Bite Epidemic: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Won’t Solve the Dangerous Dog Dilemma,” published in the Fordham Law Review in 2006, it isn’t.

Using Prince George’s County, MD as an example, the study argues that policing a suddenly larger illegal dog population is a strain on law enforcement and animal control officers. Furthermore, a task force charged with studying the BSL in Prince George’s County found that the average cost to the county, “of maintaining a single pit bull throughout the entire determination and appeals process was approximately $68,000,” leading the task force to ultimately recommend repealing the ban. That same county has also seen an increase in other, “large, powerful breeds not subject to the ban,” which is not surprising. As I noted above, the humans who seek out dogs that they can make vicious and violent will simply move on to the next breed.

Which leads me to the real issue: when a dog goes bad, it is the owner that is the real monster. The force of any legislation should be targeted at the humans who abuse, neglect, and train these dogs to be violent. If we as a society can prevent a few awful people from ever owning any dogs, we can mitigate the danger from dog attacks and start to repair the reputations of these breeds that have been slandered by sensationalizing media and reactionary officials for far too long.