Mobridge News

KATIE ZERR: Public should know official’s reasons REBUTTAL

Katie Zerr, editor of the Mobridge Tribune, recently wrote the following editorial.  This is my rebuttal.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009 4:32 PM CST

The job of an elected official is to represent his or her constituents as best they can, do what is best for the community as a whole, through their actions and words.

The job of an elected official is to weigh the facts and respond from a position is knowledge and intelligence, not from a position motivated by the pressure to please people, look good to those they seek to impress or to quiet the squeaky wheels of ignorance.

On every level, the city councils, and school boards, county commissions, officials and the sheriff, work for the people who elect them.

No, they work for some of the people that elect them.  The rest of the town, those not born in Walworth County or who’s last names end in SON or SEN are SOL.

It is our job to let those individuals know how we feel on issues that will have an impact on our lives and the lifestyle we want to continue to live.

I agree that our job is to let people know when the elected officials are doing something with which we do not agree.  In that vein, I have notified thousands of pit bull owners and people who oppose Breed Specific Legislation.  Those people will never spend another penny in Mobridge.  A town that owes a large part of it’s economy to the dollars brought in by hunters and fishermen can surely appreciate the fact that the recent pit bull restrictions will cost the community directly and indirectly.

In addition to having a job, we also have options that we should exercise when a community passes laws that infringe on freedom and liberty.  To that end, we will be leaving Mobridge, SD as soon as possible.

Controversial issues, such as the new dog ordinance, is one of those issues that needed feedback from all sides of the issue.

Really, you were not too interested in learning anything about my dog before you set Dennis Wheeler’s phone on fire with complaints, were you?  If I were you I would be concerned about the people who buy our house when we leave.  You could very likely have a vicious dog living next door that is not on the new list, but that would just spur you to pressure those that pass laws based on emotion rather than fact to pass a new law to make your life easier.

When the discussion was open on Monday, Nov. 16 on the second reading of the proposed ordinance, only one councilman who voted against the ordinance spoke out against an aspect of which he did not approve.

Would it have mattered?  The Council was presented with a volume of information in June 2009.  They were also given samples of more reasonable and more effective laws that are in place in other cities.  They chose to ignore those just as they have ignored the opinions of pit bull owners.  In fact, if the ordinance did not say “pit bull” they did not want it.

Councilman Gene Cox asked who would pay for evidence to argue against two veterinarians who deem a dog meets the criteria for a pit bull breed. It would make sense that the person who was fighting the pit bull designation would pay for expert evidence to counter the two veterinarians’ evidence.

The answer to that question is very simple.  The City shoulders the burden of proof and the City must prove that a questionable dog is or is not a pit bull.  I would really be surprised if you could find a veterinarian that would go on record making an identifying statement.  Doing so, and making a mistake, could open them to civil liability.  So that leaves the police department to make the decision.  Do they have a qualified person?  Working as a K9 officer qualifies you to identify dog breeds as much as taking a commercial airliner qualifies you to be a pilot.

Cox’s original argument that other breeds be included in the insurance requirements, which is one that probably should have been included in the ordinance, was not brought up again.

Then we can clearly see that public safety was not the main concern of the Council.  If it were, then including other dogs that have bitten people would have been a no-brainer.  By the way, what was the breed of dog that bit Justin Jungworth?  Was it one of the dogs that has been restricted?

Neither Councilmen Yellow Boy nor Godkin requested any changes to the ordinance on Monday, yet both voted against it.

Because they both opposed the entire ordinance!  That is not hard to understand and it is not hard to understand that any statement would have been redundant.  Their “No” vote said all that needed to be said.

As one who attends every meeting, with the exception of one a year, I cannot stress enough how important it is to attend some of these meetings. It doesn’t take much time and is a vital component of the democratic process.

Right, because when the Kings and Queens of Mobridge make up their mind they are often changed by the voice of the people.  (Read Sarcasm)

Whether it is the council, school board or county commission, these people are representing you and your neighborhoods.

I refuse to be lumped in with neighbors that support stupidity that flies in the face of hard data.  They are not my representation.  They are your representation and that has lost you all of the neighborly benefits that you once enjoyed.

Having the chance to see the tape of the meeting through the Tribune website or on Tuesday on Channel 7 is a wonderful opportunity, but in viewing the tape, many aspects of the interaction are missed.

You don’t get the see the deals made on votes that happen before the meetings start.

And the ability to offer feedback and ask questions is gone if residents do not attend the meetings.

In a kangaroo court asking questions or giving feedback is nothing more than a waste of time and energy.

There were people at the Monday meeting who were pit bull owners. They did not speak up and I was disappointed.

Really?  I thought that you would have been thrilled.  After all, it was you that used the Mobridge Tribune as your forum to fan the flames and get this controversy moving in the first place.

It is important to hear from every side and having a legitimate debate from those who are responsible dog owners. It could have opened up debate on aspects of the ordinance that should have been discussed.

You own a dog that is a large-breed terrier that was bred to kill; one that scores lower in temperament testing than do the pit bull breeds.  Did you speak up and offer your opposition to laws that punish dogs and dog owners that have done nothing wrong?  No, you sat back in happy silence that the law did not mention Airedale Terriers.

Cox said after the meeting that he had many phone calls from dog owners opposing the tougher ordinance.

I was one of them and I want to thank Councilman Cox for taking the time to listen.  I also want to thank Councilman Godkin for seeing the ignorance of this ordinance and for voting the right way.  I also want to thank Councilman Yellowboy for changing his vote when presenting with the facts.

I only wish those arguments had been presented in the form of those presented by Councilman Dennis Wheeler and not in a protest “no” vote.

I would really like to see the information presenting by Councilman Wheeler.  I find it amazing that the information presented by the Humane Society, the Centers for Disease Control, the United Kennel Club and the American Veterinary Medical Association, which all shows that Breed Specific Legislation is ineffective in reducing dog bites could somehow be overshadowed by Mr. Wheeler’s ad hominem presentation.  Maybe I am wrong.  Maybe he is in fact a Dog Whisperer.

Then people would understand why those casting opposing votes did so.

Those the voted “No” did so because the law is a bad law and will cost the City more than doing nothing.  You don’t see that because you choose not to see.

It should have been part of the process and follows a pattern that should change.

Oh, the process needs to be changed, but I simply do not have the energy to change anything in a dying town.   I will cherish the day when I no longer have to spend any time in Mobridge, South Dakota.

If there is a legitimate reason for opposition, let the public and the people you represent know what that reason is.

It is a little late for legitimate reasons for opposition, but since you asked…

Telling the groups gathered at the local coffee shop or watering hole your reasoning is not letting the public know.

Agreed, it is much better to use the local paper as your personal sounding board.   The coffee shops and watering holes are where the people gather and where you can get the real story.

That is letting a small group of the same people gathered at the same place every day know how you feel about an issue.

Again, not everyone has the keys to the printing press in hand.

Those arguments should be public knowledge, not just knowledge to a handful of members of this community.

Their “No” vote is as much as needs to be known.

Let the public know why you chose to take a stand. That is part of your job.

Why?  Are you kidding?  They voted “No” beacuse they understand that these kinds of laws are expensive and ineffective.  The bigger question should be: “Why did those that voted “Yes” do so when there is mountian of evidence that points to the failures and shortcomings of Breed Specific Legislation.

It is not enough that your won.  You want to know why.  That is the epitome of narcissism.

Things will be better when the river comes back up.

Things will be better when the power plant comes.

Things will be better when we ban pit bulls.

Things in Mobridge will never be better.  Mobridge, South Dakota is a dying town and I hope that I live to see they day that it slides in the Missouri River.  Then things will be better.