MINUTES 01-02-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jennifer Scott — 1229 Manor Park Ms. Scott expressed disappointment with the proposed ordinance, stating that it is still breed - specific legislation. She expressed concern about the requirements that pit bulls and other breeds be tethered or muzzled. She advocated for all dogs to be treated equally under the law. Jessica England —17883 Lake Rd. Ms. England spoke from her experience as a dog breeder and trainer. She has also won a national dog show. She expressed concern about the spaying and neutering requirements in the proposed legislation. She remarked on the risks and problems of spaying and neutering and expressed preference for providing low -cost clinics instead of a mandate. Sandy Iwaszho — 2364 Northland Ave. Ms. Iwaszho spoke from personal experience with her pets about the risks and problems of spaying and neutering at an early age. Carla Borchelt —14977 Lakewood Heights Blvd. Ms. Borchelt had to remove her dog from the City for four months until a DNA test proved that it was not a pit bull. She argued that breed specific restrictions are just as difficult to abide by as a ban. She posed a number of questions about how the proposal will be enforced. Venchise Glenn — 4424 Franklin Blvd. Cleveland Ms. Glenn expressed appreciation that the pit bull ban has been lifted and that the conversation has begun. However, she criticized the proposal as not providing fairness, equality, or a welcoming environment. She questioned the rationale of many of the breed specific provisions in the legislation. Motion by Councilmember O'Leary, seconded by Councilmember Anderson to receive and file the communication. Discussion: Councilmember George expressed opposition to the ordinance, stating that it expands breed - specific legislation by singling out new breeds and adding new restrictions on them. She suggested working collectively on a better proposal that does not single out breeds. In response to a question by Councilmember Rader regarding if legislation complied with state law, Director Butler clarified that the proposed ordinance complies with state law. In response to a question by Councilmember Rader regarding timing of the proposal, Mayor Summers provided background on his multiple discussions with the Animal Safety and Welfare Advisory Board about the proposal. He disputed the allegation that the City has rushed through the proposal. He explained the research and discussions that have led up to the proposal including benchmarking other cities and listening to public input. He acknowledged that the proposal can be improved and expressed interest in using the proposal as a starting point to the discussion.