Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Get RSS FeedPit bull ban stealthily defeated by council
By KEVIN CORVO
Text Size 
In a move that seemed to shock, anger or elate everyone in attendance, Whitehall City Council members unexpectedly introduced, then defeated Councilwoman Jackie Thompson's second effort to ban pit bulls in the city at council's meeting Tuesday, July 21.
Who knew of the maneuver in advance is a matter of conjecture, but clearly not every council member was aware. During an agenda conference held immediately prior to the council meeting, Council President Brent Howard indicated Thompson's ordinance, up for a second reading, was to be read by title only. There was no discussion.
But during the meeting, Councilman Chris Rodriguez made a motion to suspend the three-reading rule and consider the ordinance as an emergency. Councilman Bob Bailey seconded it.
Councilwoman Leslie LaCorte interceded, stating it was to be read by title only.
Who knew of the maneuver in advance is a matter of conjecture, but clearly not every council member was aware. During an agenda conference held immediately prior to the council meeting, Council President Brent Howard indicated Thompson's ordinance, up for a second reading, was to be read by title only. There was no discussion.
But during the meeting, Councilman Chris Rodriguez made a motion to suspend the three-reading rule and consider the ordinance as an emergency. Councilman Bob Bailey seconded it.
Councilwoman Leslie LaCorte interceded, stating it was to be read by title only.
"I have a motion on the floor," Howard continued.
"That's sneaky," said LaCorte, as a vote to suspend the three-reading rule progressed. It passed 5-1, with LaCorte abstaining and Thompson dissenting.
"Unbelievable," LaCorte said at the conclusion of the roll call.
Thompson also questioned the action and LaCorte responded, "Let them play their games."
Next, Rodriguez moved to adopt the ordinance, also seconded by Bailey, but Rodriguez inadvertently cast a "yes" vote for the ordinance. Following the advice of City Attorney Mike Shannon, council members completed the vote that resulted in a 2-4 vote on the ordinance banning bit bulls.
Even though the ordinance was defeated, with only Thompson and Rodriguez voting in favor and LaCorte abstaining, Rodriguez made a successful motion to reconsider the vote.
In a second vote, the measure failed 2-5, with only Thompson and LaCorte voting in favor of the ordinance.
"I'm glad there are lots of people here to see this," said Thompson, referring to the 50 residents in attendance along with a television camera crew.
Thompson also elicited reaction from the audience by repeatedly asking the council clerk to repeat the question during the battery of votes.
At the conclusion of the meeting, LaCorte said, "What unfolded before my eyes was well-planned. I see the smiles out there. I think the audience knew and that is disturbing."
LaCorte offered an apology to the victims of dog attacks in the past year, adding she was disappointed the remainder of council took the issue "lightly."
"I'm not against pit bulls. I just want what is best for everyone in the city, (but) I have hated being on council for the past 18 months," LaCorte said.
"Then resign," said several people in the audience, after which Howard used his gavel and admonished residents not to speak.
"I'm very sad for the city ... people were deceived," Thompson said of the premature vote.
"It's obvious this was set up beforehand and people were deprived of a chance to speak," she said.
The rejection of the pit bull ban follows a 2-5 vote in June 2008 to ban pit bulls, with only LaCorte and Thompson approving.
Instead, council members in July 2008 voted 6-1 to enact an ordinance Bailey crafted placing stricter regulations on harboring vicious dogs of all breeds. Thompson dissented.
Citing failure of that ordinance to adequately protect women and children, Thompson renewed her effort to ban pit bulls and other vicious dogs -- the ordinance that was defeated July 21.
"I'm proud of the measures that are in place," Bailey said. "The statistics show we are beginning to make a difference."
Legislation is pending to employ an animal control officer in the city, which Bailey said would further improve the safety of residents and reduce the frequency of dog attacks.
Meanwhile, LaCorte said she is moving forward with proposed legislation to seek an "advisory election" on the Nov. 3 ballot, asking voters for their nonbinding opinion concerning a ban of pit bulls or vicious dogs.
"(Breed-specific legislation) is a strong voice ... but there are silent people who are not here to scream out. It needs to be (considered) by all," LaCorte said.
"That's sneaky," said LaCorte, as a vote to suspend the three-reading rule progressed. It passed 5-1, with LaCorte abstaining and Thompson dissenting.
"Unbelievable," LaCorte said at the conclusion of the roll call.
Thompson also questioned the action and LaCorte responded, "Let them play their games."
Next, Rodriguez moved to adopt the ordinance, also seconded by Bailey, but Rodriguez inadvertently cast a "yes" vote for the ordinance. Following the advice of City Attorney Mike Shannon, council members completed the vote that resulted in a 2-4 vote on the ordinance banning bit bulls.
Even though the ordinance was defeated, with only Thompson and Rodriguez voting in favor and LaCorte abstaining, Rodriguez made a successful motion to reconsider the vote.
In a second vote, the measure failed 2-5, with only Thompson and LaCorte voting in favor of the ordinance.
"I'm glad there are lots of people here to see this," said Thompson, referring to the 50 residents in attendance along with a television camera crew.
Thompson also elicited reaction from the audience by repeatedly asking the council clerk to repeat the question during the battery of votes.
At the conclusion of the meeting, LaCorte said, "What unfolded before my eyes was well-planned. I see the smiles out there. I think the audience knew and that is disturbing."
LaCorte offered an apology to the victims of dog attacks in the past year, adding she was disappointed the remainder of council took the issue "lightly."
"I'm not against pit bulls. I just want what is best for everyone in the city, (but) I have hated being on council for the past 18 months," LaCorte said.
"Then resign," said several people in the audience, after which Howard used his gavel and admonished residents not to speak.
"I'm very sad for the city ... people were deceived," Thompson said of the premature vote.
"It's obvious this was set up beforehand and people were deprived of a chance to speak," she said.
The rejection of the pit bull ban follows a 2-5 vote in June 2008 to ban pit bulls, with only LaCorte and Thompson approving.
Instead, council members in July 2008 voted 6-1 to enact an ordinance Bailey crafted placing stricter regulations on harboring vicious dogs of all breeds. Thompson dissented.
Citing failure of that ordinance to adequately protect women and children, Thompson renewed her effort to ban pit bulls and other vicious dogs -- the ordinance that was defeated July 21.
"I'm proud of the measures that are in place," Bailey said. "The statistics show we are beginning to make a difference."
Legislation is pending to employ an animal control officer in the city, which Bailey said would further improve the safety of residents and reduce the frequency of dog attacks.
Meanwhile, LaCorte said she is moving forward with proposed legislation to seek an "advisory election" on the Nov. 3 ballot, asking voters for their nonbinding opinion concerning a ban of pit bulls or vicious dogs.
"(Breed-specific legislation) is a strong voice ... but there are silent people who are not here to scream out. It needs to be (considered) by all," LaCorte said.
 |
 |
|
| Pair o' troopers | Thompson deflects residents' calls for resignation |
Article Rating
Video Comments
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of Suburban News Publications.
LisaD wrote on Jul 27, 2009 1:11 PM:
" Perhaps the residents of Whitehall need to be aware that there has not been a pit bull involved in a dog related fatality in the state of Ohio since 1992. Even in that case the dog owner was convicted of using a dog as a murder weapon and sentenced to 20 years. In that case the man incapacitated the woman and forced the dog to attack multiple times. This outcome would have been the same if any medium to large breed dog had been used.
So in 17 years - no Ohio deaths related to pit bulls. But in those 17 years there have been 7 Ohio dog related deaths, not by pit bulls. "
So in 17 years - no Ohio deaths related to pit bulls. But in those 17 years there have been 7 Ohio dog related deaths, not by pit bulls. "
Reality Check wrote on Jul 25, 2009 10:39 AM:
" Thompson's legislation begins: pit bulls, as a breed of dog, have characteristics that have been selectively bred into or are otherwise commonly found, and these characteristics may be intensified by improper treatment or training; these generally-exhibited traits include: powerful instincts for dominance; a strong prey drive; a stubbornness that results in sustained, unyielding aggressiveness once an attack begins; powerful jaws capable of crushing bones and hanging on to victims even while the animal withstands infliction of injury or pain...
I was there last year during the reading of her proposed legislation and when this was read by Council President, Brent Howard, the pit bull people laughed out loud, as if it is not true. But here is the reality of the pit bull breed:
"If you've travelled in Pit Bull circles for any length of time, you've
probably heard mention of something termed a "breaking stick" or
"break stick". This is a safety item every Pit Bull owner should possess. It is a hammer handle-sized piece of sturdy material (usually wood, but sometimes fiberglass) with a handle end and a flat, wedge-shaped end. This tool is used to break a Pit Bull off of another dog
during a fight should such an unfortunate event occur. The flat end of
the break stick is inserted into the corner of the Pit Bull's mouth and
then twisted to pop the jaw open and allow for enough leverage to
pull the Pit Bull off of the other dog without doing damage to either
dog." (www.realpitbull.com/breakstick)
How disgusting is that? I want to thank Thompson for bringing this very dangerous situation to our attention. You don't need to convince me, Councilwoman. "
I was there last year during the reading of her proposed legislation and when this was read by Council President, Brent Howard, the pit bull people laughed out loud, as if it is not true. But here is the reality of the pit bull breed:
"If you've travelled in Pit Bull circles for any length of time, you've
probably heard mention of something termed a "breaking stick" or
"break stick". This is a safety item every Pit Bull owner should possess. It is a hammer handle-sized piece of sturdy material (usually wood, but sometimes fiberglass) with a handle end and a flat, wedge-shaped end. This tool is used to break a Pit Bull off of another dog
during a fight should such an unfortunate event occur. The flat end of
the break stick is inserted into the corner of the Pit Bull's mouth and
then twisted to pop the jaw open and allow for enough leverage to
pull the Pit Bull off of the other dog without doing damage to either
dog." (www.realpitbull.com/breakstick)
How disgusting is that? I want to thank Thompson for bringing this very dangerous situation to our attention. You don't need to convince me, Councilwoman. "
3rd World Lover wrote on Jul 24, 2009 9:57 AM:
" It's time we are honest with ourselves Whitehall. Addressing dangerous dogs by the way they 'look' will only result in failure.
To the 'outside world' it appears you have someone in your city government who has some sort of strange fixation on the 'look' of certain dogs.
Legislation such as breed bans reek of bigotry, and generally, safety is not at the root of the effort. "
To the 'outside world' it appears you have someone in your city government who has some sort of strange fixation on the 'look' of certain dogs.
Legislation such as breed bans reek of bigotry, and generally, safety is not at the root of the effort. "
Lisa wrote on Jul 24, 2009 9:36 AM:
" Thanks Leslie. It was nice speaking with you as well. Education truly is the key.
PS- If you are having a hard time making a decision - my girl Charlotte would win you over in a heartbeat. She is 37# of pure wiggles and kisses, CGC certified, service dog and best friend extraordinaire. You are welcome to meet her any time :) "
PS- If you are having a hard time making a decision - my girl Charlotte would win you over in a heartbeat. She is 37# of pure wiggles and kisses, CGC certified, service dog and best friend extraordinaire. You are welcome to meet her any time :) "
LaCorte Ward 4 wrote on Jul 23, 2009 11:37 PM:
" Lisa, Nice speaking and meeting you at Tuesday council meeting, what a night!!! I just want to say thank you for posting this information, hopefully this will help educate our citizen as and if needed in casting a vote in November, I know personally it's a tuff one to make!
I truly appreciate your professional efforts : )
Leslie "
I truly appreciate your professional efforts : )
Leslie "
Lisa wrote on Jul 23, 2009 11:36 AM:
" There is new research from the American Veterinary Medical Association indicating that DNA testing may just be debunking any studies ever done on dog bite studies by breed. Basically, every dog bite by breed study out there is based on people's visual identification of the dog breed -- and we're finding out that people really aren't that good at identifying breeds of dogs by looks -- and in fact, it is more or less impossible.
But when you put images with it, it is really telling.
So last week, the NCRC published a "Find the Labrador Retriever mix" visual ID game. Similar to other version of the Find a "Pit bull" game, it turns out that a lot of mixed breed dogs that we assume to be mixed breeds that are predominantly common breeds don't often contain any of those breeds at all.
Most people, including many who work in animal rescue, are not all that great at knowing the looks of all the different dog breeds. The AKC/UKC combined recognize over 150 different breeds of dogs....but at this point, there are over 400 recognized dog breeds. And often, when these breed intermingle, they don't carry with them looks of any of the breeds they represent.
However, because we are familiar with a few dog breeds, we have become pretty good at grouping dogs together in groups with other similar looking dogs. Is the dog about 80 lbs and black? "Lab Mix." Boxy head and muscular? "Pit bull". Long hair and snout? "Shepherd mix". Never mind that there are several breeds of "Shepherd" that don't look all that much alike -- and many of the "shepherd mixes" don't really look like any of those breeds.
We group them, because in our mind, it's easier to classify them. Besides, what does a Chesapeake Bay Retriever/Chihuahua mix look like? And what does that mean to a potential adopter? Mostly nothing. But it's a cute black dog that kind of looks like a Lab, so let's call it a Lab.
So what do our classifications mean? It means we group a lot of mixed breed dogs of uncommon breeds into a grouping of more popular breeds. So go to PetFinder, your local shelter, or look at any bite study. Almost anywhere you look for classifications by breed, you see "labs", "shepherds" and "pit bulls" as the most common breeds. Most often it's not because these dogs share the same DNA -- but because the LOOK similar to each other and it they are more easily categorized that way.
I think this is a really important distinction. When communities say they are putting restrictions based on "breed" because they say they are "inherently dangerous based on their DNA" -- we need to be honest about what that means. These communities are not making decisions based on DNA, or breed at all -- but on LOOKS. They are determining that a LOOK is aggressive - not genetics. Which is an even crazier notion than the genetics argument which doesn't hold up to science either.
It's turning out that the more we learn about dogs and breeds, we find out the less we ever knew in the first place. And that pretty much every study we have ever done about dogs and breeds is completely irrelevant now because we didn't identify the breeds right in the first place. "
But when you put images with it, it is really telling.
So last week, the NCRC published a "Find the Labrador Retriever mix" visual ID game. Similar to other version of the Find a "Pit bull" game, it turns out that a lot of mixed breed dogs that we assume to be mixed breeds that are predominantly common breeds don't often contain any of those breeds at all.
Most people, including many who work in animal rescue, are not all that great at knowing the looks of all the different dog breeds. The AKC/UKC combined recognize over 150 different breeds of dogs....but at this point, there are over 400 recognized dog breeds. And often, when these breed intermingle, they don't carry with them looks of any of the breeds they represent.
However, because we are familiar with a few dog breeds, we have become pretty good at grouping dogs together in groups with other similar looking dogs. Is the dog about 80 lbs and black? "Lab Mix." Boxy head and muscular? "Pit bull". Long hair and snout? "Shepherd mix". Never mind that there are several breeds of "Shepherd" that don't look all that much alike -- and many of the "shepherd mixes" don't really look like any of those breeds.
We group them, because in our mind, it's easier to classify them. Besides, what does a Chesapeake Bay Retriever/Chihuahua mix look like? And what does that mean to a potential adopter? Mostly nothing. But it's a cute black dog that kind of looks like a Lab, so let's call it a Lab.
So what do our classifications mean? It means we group a lot of mixed breed dogs of uncommon breeds into a grouping of more popular breeds. So go to PetFinder, your local shelter, or look at any bite study. Almost anywhere you look for classifications by breed, you see "labs", "shepherds" and "pit bulls" as the most common breeds. Most often it's not because these dogs share the same DNA -- but because the LOOK similar to each other and it they are more easily categorized that way.
I think this is a really important distinction. When communities say they are putting restrictions based on "breed" because they say they are "inherently dangerous based on their DNA" -- we need to be honest about what that means. These communities are not making decisions based on DNA, or breed at all -- but on LOOKS. They are determining that a LOOK is aggressive - not genetics. Which is an even crazier notion than the genetics argument which doesn't hold up to science either.
It's turning out that the more we learn about dogs and breeds, we find out the less we ever knew in the first place. And that pretty much every study we have ever done about dogs and breeds is completely irrelevant now because we didn't identify the breeds right in the first place. "
Edwina wrote on Jul 23, 2009 11:00 AM:
" To the citizens of Whitehall reading this online:
It is time to step up and stop the madness. It is time to elect a council person who takes pride and joy in serving ALL of the citizens of Whitehall.
It is time for a councilperson who does not hate her job.
It is time for a councilperson who does not use discrimination as a factor in decision making.
It is time for a councilperson who does not devalue the importance of those in the community who are renters.
It is time for a councilperson who is able to behave like an adult and not have temper tantrums and storm out of meetings.
I urge you to get out and vote!
Van Gregg for Ward 4 Council. "
It is time to step up and stop the madness. It is time to elect a council person who takes pride and joy in serving ALL of the citizens of Whitehall.
It is time for a councilperson who does not hate her job.
It is time for a councilperson who does not use discrimination as a factor in decision making.
It is time for a councilperson who does not devalue the importance of those in the community who are renters.
It is time for a councilperson who is able to behave like an adult and not have temper tantrums and storm out of meetings.
I urge you to get out and vote!
Van Gregg for Ward 4 Council. "
Stephanie wrote on Jul 22, 2009 11:20 PM:
" I find it very funny that Ms. Thompson would say that this ordinance was to protect women and children; when most people that were in the audience at this council meeting who owned "pit bulls"; were women. The audience was also very unaware of how this meeting would play out; our intention was to fight this ordinance as we have before. Kudo's to council who considered this a waste of time and moved to remove it once again....I'm sure it will come before us once again, which leads people to believe that this is a personal agenda of some sort (how bizaar is that?). "
LaCorte Ward 4 wrote on Jul 22, 2009 9:39 PM:
" To the citizen of Whitehall reading this on line:
First of all let me thank each of you that has supported me these last eighteen months during this issue of Pit Bulls. It has been a tuff issue to face not once but twice. I have put my personal
feelings aside and listened to every side to how you have wanted to discuss this with me. I listened not to one side but all sides more then once. I am a person with compassion for my city and the people in it. I know when I need to put my personal beliefs aside and go with what is best....and I have. I have struggled with council and the behavior of members fighting not to be heard, but fighting against each other to destroy and be the winner. As the Whitehall News has reported on me these last two weeks, that is correct, I am tired of
the embarrassment and harassment that has come to my city and I over this issue. Also as reported, I have hated THIS legislation ONLY the last
18 months on council, it has been alot for anyone to have to deal with for the period of time we have had to.
I understand the people of the pit bull breeds wanting to defend themselves, it no different then a parent defending a child. I got to hand it to them, they are a strong voices with alot of support! Even so, all should be able to be heard even if they can not come and speak. I have the solution and one that lets all voices be heard when you vote in November. Thou this issues needs to end, I have
come to a conclusion even if there is no change in the out come, every resident should be heard and with that vote we will know then if we have your safety in place as you would want it. That is what is most important here, YOUR SAFETY!
Know as I complete my final 5 months in this term, it has been an honor serving the people of Whitehall.
Leslie LaCorte "
First of all let me thank each of you that has supported me these last eighteen months during this issue of Pit Bulls. It has been a tuff issue to face not once but twice. I have put my personal
feelings aside and listened to every side to how you have wanted to discuss this with me. I listened not to one side but all sides more then once. I am a person with compassion for my city and the people in it. I know when I need to put my personal beliefs aside and go with what is best....and I have. I have struggled with council and the behavior of members fighting not to be heard, but fighting against each other to destroy and be the winner. As the Whitehall News has reported on me these last two weeks, that is correct, I am tired of
the embarrassment and harassment that has come to my city and I over this issue. Also as reported, I have hated THIS legislation ONLY the last
18 months on council, it has been alot for anyone to have to deal with for the period of time we have had to.
I understand the people of the pit bull breeds wanting to defend themselves, it no different then a parent defending a child. I got to hand it to them, they are a strong voices with alot of support! Even so, all should be able to be heard even if they can not come and speak. I have the solution and one that lets all voices be heard when you vote in November. Thou this issues needs to end, I have
come to a conclusion even if there is no change in the out come, every resident should be heard and with that vote we will know then if we have your safety in place as you would want it. That is what is most important here, YOUR SAFETY!
Know as I complete my final 5 months in this term, it has been an honor serving the people of Whitehall.
Leslie LaCorte "
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
More News Headlines
- City, student look for 'safe routes'
- Resident: Stepped-up code enforcement 'class warfare'
- Voters may be asked for opinions on pit bull ban
- City pays tribute to McGowan
- Svagerko's goal: Reach every kid
- Pair o' troopers
- Pit bull ban stealthily defeated by council
- Thompson deflects residents' calls for resignation
- Carryover will cover deficit spending in 2010 budget
- British officer takes home lessons from Whitehall
- Return to: News « | Top of Page ^
huh wrote on Jul 27, 2009 4:17 PM:
If a pit bull's jaws can "break bones" as quoted from Thompson's legislation, what would make you think it couldn't break a "break stick" just as easily? Not sure where you're going here... Go to any shelter, looking in their 'dog fight break up kit,' I bet you'll find a "break stick," it's a safety item anyone around any number of breeds might possess.
A question for you... What happens if you ban pit bulls, do you think EVERYONE is going to adhere to it? Does making something illegal, really get rid of the problem? Does it really make you any safer? With a ban you aren't addressing the real problem. "