Ok I’m a little late to the party, and thank you Brent for a great entry on the KCDogBlog about Jacquelyn Thompson’s letter to the editor in the Columbus Dispatch On 6/14/08 regarding her failed Pit Bull Ban. After hearing “We’ve had enough outside influence” I politely obliged and stopped my contact with the Whitehall council. I have to bite on this one though…
Pit Bull lobby??? Perhaps she is talking about the concerned dog owners of Whitehall and the handful of central Ohioans who have been out to voice their opposition to the ban. This coming from the woman who, after receiving extremely limited local community support for her “legislation,” used this very same newspaper to drum up allies as she pled for help weeks ago.
Here’s my take… Laws should be designed to protect ALL members of a population, not discriminate against a few. By aiming legislation at dogs (in the instance of a ban), you are inadvertently discriminating against law-abiding members of the population merely because they have chosen a certain type of pet. To be effective, legislation should be aimed at people. It is the person who allows their dog to run loose, untrained, and out of control who should be held responsible. This is an 'ownership' issue not a 'dog' issue.
With all of that being said, there are solutions that have been proven effective, and are completely 'breed neutral.' Despite receiving several examples of these 'breed neutral' solutions, it appears that Thompson can’t be bothered, and seems merely concerned with ridding the streets of these "Pit Bull type” dogs all the while hiding this agenda behind the cloak of ‘safety.’ I fail to see how eliminating 'Pit Bulls' will ever address, improper confinement, neglect, abuse, or incidences with other breeds.
In this letter to the editor the “Pit Bull Lobby” has been accused of "threatening, and bulling communities"… interestingly enough, the author of the letter, is the one who has publicly singled out members of the community she is serving, harassing citizens by drudging up decades old criminal reports. She is also the one pointing fingers around the council chambers accusing other councilmember’s of everything from not having concern for public safety to “reading plays.”
I personally have had my own testimony twisted and thrown back in my face by her. Somehow after politely thanking the officials for allowing me to speak, giving a testimony as to how a breed ban could negatively affect a city with, costs, enforcement, the fact that they don’t address ‘vicious’ dogs of other breeds, and the fact that many citizens do lawfully and responsibly own Pit Bulls as family pets; I was asked by Thompson in an email, “Why I was advocating for vicious animals in Whitehall?” My reply was simply, “I am NOT advocating for vicious animals, I’m advocating for the responsible owners in your community.”
I mean talk about bullying… I’m not surprised many citizens weren’t coming out and speaking up. It was obvious if you spoke out against the ban, you were making yourself a target. Despite my polite correspondence I was talked down to. Unfortunately for Thompson, all that did was cement my position, and cleared my calendar’s Tuesday nights so I could make sure my face was in the crowd at each meeting.
“Abused, a twisted status symbol, killer, maimer. That, too often, is the reality of the pit-bull breeds. They are to be pitied, but we are left with no alternative but to remove them from society.”
Interesting… wouldn’t a better, more admirable (let alone effective), ‘alternative’ be to target the people who neglect, abuse, and use these dogs to engage in criminal activity instead of banning these dogs into extinction. It is after all it is human error at the root of the problem.
“It's just too bad that the majority of members do not see the danger coming and chose to come down on the side of darkness when they voted no on the ban.”
The “side of darkness”… What!? It’s called Democracy… Thompson stated her intentions, the council voted, her ban failed. I wonder if in her eye’s, the council members who voted “no” are also now considered “evildoers,” (as Thompson once described Pit Bull owners)?
“The United States led the way to the formation of the United Nations as a means to settle differences diplomatically…”
Did she really mention the United Nations!? Huh? What? Yes, the UN was formed partly to help come about ‘diplomatic’ solutions, so I wonder how Thompson would explain how her Pit Bull ban and recent actions have even resembled ‘diplomacy.’ She has had her heels dug in, and mind made up from the get go.
Pit Bull lobby??? Perhaps she is talking about the concerned dog owners of Whitehall and the handful of central Ohioans who have been out to voice their opposition to the ban. This coming from the woman who, after receiving extremely limited local community support for her “legislation,” used this very same newspaper to drum up allies as she pled for help weeks ago.
Here’s my take… Laws should be designed to protect ALL members of a population, not discriminate against a few. By aiming legislation at dogs (in the instance of a ban), you are inadvertently discriminating against law-abiding members of the population merely because they have chosen a certain type of pet. To be effective, legislation should be aimed at people. It is the person who allows their dog to run loose, untrained, and out of control who should be held responsible. This is an 'ownership' issue not a 'dog' issue.
With all of that being said, there are solutions that have been proven effective, and are completely 'breed neutral.' Despite receiving several examples of these 'breed neutral' solutions, it appears that Thompson can’t be bothered, and seems merely concerned with ridding the streets of these "Pit Bull type” dogs all the while hiding this agenda behind the cloak of ‘safety.’ I fail to see how eliminating 'Pit Bulls' will ever address, improper confinement, neglect, abuse, or incidences with other breeds.
In this letter to the editor the “Pit Bull Lobby” has been accused of "threatening, and bulling communities"… interestingly enough, the author of the letter, is the one who has publicly singled out members of the community she is serving, harassing citizens by drudging up decades old criminal reports. She is also the one pointing fingers around the council chambers accusing other councilmember’s of everything from not having concern for public safety to “reading plays.”
I personally have had my own testimony twisted and thrown back in my face by her. Somehow after politely thanking the officials for allowing me to speak, giving a testimony as to how a breed ban could negatively affect a city with, costs, enforcement, the fact that they don’t address ‘vicious’ dogs of other breeds, and the fact that many citizens do lawfully and responsibly own Pit Bulls as family pets; I was asked by Thompson in an email, “Why I was advocating for vicious animals in Whitehall?” My reply was simply, “I am NOT advocating for vicious animals, I’m advocating for the responsible owners in your community.”
I mean talk about bullying… I’m not surprised many citizens weren’t coming out and speaking up. It was obvious if you spoke out against the ban, you were making yourself a target. Despite my polite correspondence I was talked down to. Unfortunately for Thompson, all that did was cement my position, and cleared my calendar’s Tuesday nights so I could make sure my face was in the crowd at each meeting.
“Abused, a twisted status symbol, killer, maimer. That, too often, is the reality of the pit-bull breeds. They are to be pitied, but we are left with no alternative but to remove them from society.”
Interesting… wouldn’t a better, more admirable (let alone effective), ‘alternative’ be to target the people who neglect, abuse, and use these dogs to engage in criminal activity instead of banning these dogs into extinction. It is after all it is human error at the root of the problem.
“It's just too bad that the majority of members do not see the danger coming and chose to come down on the side of darkness when they voted no on the ban.”
The “side of darkness”… What!? It’s called Democracy… Thompson stated her intentions, the council voted, her ban failed. I wonder if in her eye’s, the council members who voted “no” are also now considered “evildoers,” (as Thompson once described Pit Bull owners)?
“The United States led the way to the formation of the United Nations as a means to settle differences diplomatically…”
Did she really mention the United Nations!? Huh? What? Yes, the UN was formed partly to help come about ‘diplomatic’ solutions, so I wonder how Thompson would explain how her Pit Bull ban and recent actions have even resembled ‘diplomacy.’ She has had her heels dug in, and mind made up from the get go.
2 comments:
niiiiiccceeeee
Great post! I am frequently amazed at the hypocrisy displayed by the Thompson hag. She is outraged than any non resident of Whitehall would dare get involved in her city's business yet she turns around and get's involved in the business of other cities.
Post a Comment