Comments on: Dangerous Dog Laws Keep Dogs & People Safe?

By: MaryHaight

MaryHaight — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:41:52 +0000

(using next box to continue response from Me to Russ)…even when harsh words fly, having an exchange with people who have dismissed something out of hand is an opportunity to do what Shawn was–I think–trying to do the first place, move the discussion to a place that no one is really talking about: What to do once this law is a fact? That's what I thought was smart, that's what I saw as leadership, however she broad brushed what I personally consider to be a damaging approach to public policy. I think I said as much in some of my responses.

I had hoped to hear more from people who are working against BSL in their towns–this is a terrible uphill battle in places like Denver where some 2500 pit bulls have been killed just because–no bite records, literally dragged from their owner's homes by police. How do they even begin to crack an unjustified, decades long ordinance that has proven to be not only ineffectual and cruel, but was based on misinformation, misuse of statistics, and fear. We all realize how very difficult it is to upend laws once they are in place. I see no disrespect for Shawn in any of this, and I hope after this exchange, you will not either.

By: MaryHaight

MaryHaight — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:32:47 +0000

I don't refuse to print comments on my blog unless they are unintelligible or filled with hate/swear words. I have people disagree with me and not in a kind way, and of course I would not think of censoring it. Civility in blogging, as in daily life, is not always part of the deal. I simply have to be prepared to defend my position. Taking on heated topics often results in passionate responses.

I did ask Shawn, twice, if she wanted to add anything and forewarned her she could be in for a rough response. When we DM'd back and forth, Shawn left the publishing of it up to me, and I told her I saw no need to censor her view. People of opposing views need to communicate; how else to take the air out of anger, and come to a place where the other side of the argument can be heard?

Because I understand a point of view does not mean I agree with it. I know Shawn through many discussions and comments, and I know she likes pit bulls. I would not hesitate to use her as my Vet. If you read the next paragraph you can see that…

By: russlmnop

russlmnop — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:52:30 +0000

Shawn is my wife. She is the most caring, compassionate, and excellent vet in Omaha and has many clients that have dogs affected by this ordinance. Emily, how dare you attack someone on a personal level because you disagree. Mary, comments like Emily's do nothing to further the discussion set out in the article. This kind of garbage should be moderated out, not posted and agreed with. I expected more respect for Shawn from you when she gave you this article.

By: russlmnop

russlmnop — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:14:51 +0000

Shaming someone who you do not know is ignorant. That you think her post is blind support of the law shows that you barely read it before blowing up. That you think it is about appearance and not behavior shows you do not even understand Omaha's law. Dr. Finch approached a touchy subject with perspective and reason whereas the majority of people from both sides tend to make emotional rants and sweeping generalizations. Do that if you wish, but please don't stoop to shaming someone for making an intelligent and researched point just because you think you disagree. It makes you sound foolish.

By: Shawn Finch

Shawn Finch — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 11:26:53 +0000

Wow Emily. That was super mean.

By: Shawn M. Finch, DVM » Blog Archive » Follow Friday

Shawn M. Finch, DVM » Blog Archive » Follow Friday — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 10:56:48 +0000

[...] #PitBulls #Omaha [...]

By: MaryHaight

MaryHaight — Thu, 13 May 2010 07:01:11 +0000

Thanks for the link Emily, I always appreciate Brent's work, and referred to it in a comment above but was remiss in providing a link *sigh*. Omaha is another case of opinions winning over facts. Who cares if that's what Animal Control "wanted". Why would that be the guiding force against the piles of evidence that exists against this type of legislation? ApparentIy there was little if any counter to what Animal Conrol wanted at the City Council level. I don't know – I don't live there. I understand your pov.

What I want to know is, when towns and suburbs are ensnared with BSL, how do they take it apart in pieces when you're faced with a council full of people driven by fear or (irrational) hate? There has to be a real push back from the people. That requires a leader. If we can't help the local vets dig a little deeper and see why this is a despicable law, who will help lead towns away from this ignorant ordinance that doesn't work and costs a fortune to boot? If people are open to learning, that's important where the law is a done deal.