Council To Change Animal Control Proposal
Council To Change Animal Control Proposal Save Email Print
Posted: 8:20 PM Jul 31, 2007
 Last Updated: 8:20 PM Jul 31, 2007
 Email Address: news@kake.com
74 comments
A | A | A

As expected, lots of people have been voicing their concern over a possible change in animal control laws in Wichita. Some City Council members are taking issue with the part of the law targeting pit bulls specifically.

Pit Bulls continue to be the greatest dog menace, say local animal control officers. They come into the most conflicts with the public. Even so, some council members say city staff is barking up the wrong tree to make it a breed specific ordinance.

Pit Bulls have been the bad boys of the dog world in the public's eye for quite some time. From a numbers standpoint, one can understand why some want more controls on that breed.

One-quarter of all dogs picked up by animal control in Wichita last year were Pit Bulls. One-third of all dogs euthanized by city staff last year were Pit Bulls.

Right now, the ordinance defines a dog as vicious only after it bites someone. Some call that giving a dog a one free bite pass. Environmental Services Director Kay Johnson says that definition is too restrictive.

Whatever they decide, council members know that they're not going to please everybody.
More Stories
Local Company Steps Up To Spread Holiday Cheer

Rollover Accident Near Hesston Injures One

Holiday Airline Travelers Should Expect Changes

Bowlers to Bring $127 Million to Reno in 2011

 Wichita Police Launch Dash Cam Pilot Project

High Speed Chase Ends In Oklahoma City

Group Censures Salerno For Backing Out Of Contract

Outstanding Economic Stimulus Payments in Jeopardy
Post Your Comments
First Name:
Location:
Enter Comments: characters left
Email (optional):
Email will not be displayed on site. For station contact purpose only.
Read Comments
Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
Posted by: stevenlk Location: emporia on Aug 19, 2007 at 04:06 AM
pit bulls are misunderstood they are one of the best dogs for a family, its because of people misuse and abuse the priviledge of having a pit in gaming them. i think the law should just be they should hav its shots liscense and chippd. Punish the Deed not the Breed!
Posted by: Ken Blackburn Location: Indiana on Aug 8, 2007 at 06:22 PM
Your story lists statistics on the number of problems encountered with "Pit Bulls" an yet it has been proven time and again that most animal control employees are unable to correctly identify a "Pit Bull" and simply lump all problem animals into that catch all catagory. Breed specific legislation opens the door for many mistakes on the part of animal control. Leaving breed identification to those who are to often uninformed and unable to correctly identify the breed. Stating that "Pit Bulls" were picked up and euthanized by animal control more than other breeds says what? That your city has large number of irresponsible owners of the breed. People need to be made aware of the responsiblity of dog ownership. Don't punish the dog or the resposible owner.
Posted by: Shauna Location: Fallon, NV on Aug 7, 2007 at 04:22 PM
I just read the comments from Danny of Augusta and my heart is breaking. Please, Danny and anyone else who is using their dog to mitigate any disability or handicap - YOU HAVE RIGHTS UNDER ADA!! DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR DOG! You have a right to use a pit bull (AM Staff, American Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any mix thereof) or any dog for your service dog, indeed you have a choice of service animal not restricted to canine. Fight for your partner, don't give up your housing, get help to protect your rights. Just search online and then fight back! Shauna http://shaunaru.bravehost.com/mygirl.html
Posted by: Shauna Location: Fallon, NV on Aug 7, 2007 at 03:40 PM
My service dogs are pit bulls and I've had pit bulls as family pets because, unless criminals abuse and misuse them, they are naturally great family pets. They are loyal, loving, dedicated, intelligent, animals who love to please their people. When you own pit bulls, you are guaranteed to wake up to a smile and someone who wags so hard the whole body is happily wiggling. Put the responsibility for behavior on human beings who are the most destructive force on earth! Even pitties who have been abused have been turned around within a few months and become well adjusted and trustworthy pets and hard working dogs. You need owners who are trustworthy and know how to discipline them - consistently and firmly, but gently - these dogs have a very sensitive nature and do not need a heavy hand.
Posted by: Charlene Location: Illinois on Aug 7, 2007 at 02:10 PM
stop putting the blame on pit bulls once again it is not the breed put your efforts towards arresting & convicting the horrible people that turn pit bulls & other breeds into fighting dogs for what they consider a sport & make money off of by making these innocent dogs suffer unspeakable cruelty these are people without souls & will go to hell for what they do
Posted by: Joe Location: Kansas on Aug 6, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Dog specific leg. has been shown not to work. Those who are responsible pet owners work with their dogs to keep them calm and non vicious. The "bad" dogs are usually owned by uncaring and unconcerned owners. If you must look at your laws, enact valid vicious dog laws, not breed specific laws.
Posted by: Jan Location: AL on Aug 6, 2007 at 08:49 AM
A ban on "pitbulls" doesn't change the others - even pomeranians have been cited in fatal attacks but those aren't an issue. Banned pitbulls have been trained for K9s - that alone says a lot about the breed. There's some areas that ban anything over 100# or any terrier. Improper training isn't good for any dog. On here shelties are criticized - yet I have one who hasn't ever hurt anyone. Even CNN reported the #1 deterrent to crime is a dog in the home - and the slandered breeds just existing deter people because of a few irresponsible fools. There will always be another breed to blame. Truly you can't think if every "pitbull" were eliminated tomorrow there would be no more dog attacks or bites? The *majority* aren't a problem. A minority of teens, sadly, go into gangs or enter schools and shoot people - should teens be banned because they might be dangerous?
Posted by: Marleen Location: Shawnee Mission, KS on Aug 6, 2007 at 07:52 AM
Isn't targeting one breed because of prejudice the same kind of thinking behind such atrocities as the Holocaust and slavery in this country? Think about it. Could your breed be the next? Why not punish irresponsible owners instead?
Posted by: TERESA on Aug 6, 2007 at 04:07 AM
WHAT I AM ANGRY ABOUT IS THE YEARLY RABIES VACCINE REQUIREMENT, HARMFUL TO ANIMALS! UNNECESSARY, ALMOST EVERYWHERE ELSE IT'S EVERY 3 YEARS
Posted by: J.S. Location: Ohio on Aug 5, 2007 at 07:06 PM
Good grief, how much more ignorant can this stupidity get? As usual stupid people punish the WRONG end of the leash. BSL is RUINING the world with their ignorant agenda. I have owned "pit bulls" and other "so-called" aggressive breeds. NONE of them were ever violent or aggressive. What would be the key is if the government got off their sorry rear ends and enforced the leash policy, and responsible ownership, instead of punishing INNOCENT animals for stupid people and their actions. ANY breed can be MADE aggressive by how they are treated, raised and trained. Why target responsible dog owners? To the government: GET OFF YOUR REAR ENDS AND GET TOGETHER, stop wasting money on stupid laws and ENFORCE the laws you have.
Posted by: hermine Location: California on Aug 5, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Animal Rights people are good at ONE THING ONLY which is COLLECTING MONEY under false pretenses. THEY HATE ANIMALS.Their solutions for cruelty, real or imagined, would result in the extinction of the domestic dog. And food animals. We would all be eating soybeans and suffering from protein deficiency which of course affects the brain, which is why the Animal Rights people seem so downright LOONY. Next to the REAL evils of society, (23 thou murders per anum, USA), running after alleged dog fighters seems like a misuse of our tax dollars as regards crime fighting. No, I am not a dog fighter, one good reason being that dog fighting is used as a weapon of mass destruction against the bull breed of dogs, my chosen breed. THAT ALONE MAKES ME OPPOSE IT. in 27 years with the APBT I have never been bitten or menaced by the breed. Dogfighting is already illegal. our Civil Rights are going into the toilet over this issue, and nobody notices this menacing trend, only DOG FIGHTING.
Posted by: arnetta manno Location: hoffman estates, il on Aug 5, 2007 at 07:03 AM
I own a Rottweiller, the 'other' known 'bad breed'. He's my second. Both have been loving, friendly, lap dogs. It's a shame when you hear some of them as well as Pit Bulls, attacking, but I do believe the reflection of the dog is the reflection of the owner. And IF, IF there is one bad seed among the breed, one bad seed does not make a bad breed. Perhaps if you got truer numbers...of ALL the people in the world who own Pitt Bulls, or Rotts, even all the breeds for that matter, and compared those numbers of non-problem dogs against the 'attacks' on people, i think you would be surprized with the numbers. If that doesn't convince you, investigate the owners...thoroughly. They are usually the problem.
Posted by: Florence T. Robinson Location: Baton Rouge, LA on Aug 4, 2007 at 09:32 PM
Punish the the deed, not the breed! I have known many Pit Bulls over my 36 year of experience. They have all been incredibly sweet. It is irresponsible owners that need to be penalyzed, and penalyzed severely. As long as government only gives a rap on the knuckles to those involved in fighting dogs, there is going to be a problem with vicious dogs.
Posted by: Patricia Rice Location: Schaumburg IL on Aug 4, 2007 at 07:04 PM
As usual the law makers are not thinking, and punishing the wrong end of the leash with BSL. Dog fighting is against the law, but it still goes on. What we need is tougher laws and bigger fines against animal abuse and irresponsible owners and the money used for educating the public and helping poorer owners with spaying and training. That probably makes too much sense.
Posted by: TJ Location: Virginia on Aug 4, 2007 at 05:50 PM
It would be better if cities everywhere would provide adequate funding for existing ownership/humane laws to be meaningfully enforced in the first place, and participate in community dog bite prevention awareness programs. The AVMA, CDC, and USPS sponsor Dog Bite Prevention week every May, but few cities participate in this proven method of reducing dog attacks. A great resource is doggonesafe.com, which is full of valuable, free information, complete with videos and coloring-book style information that even small children can understand. Instead of enacting more regulations that also can't/won't be adequately enforced, try preventing problems in the first place by properly funding animal control enforcement and providing community-wide education. Providing spay/neuter & vaccination services on a sliding fee scale based on income at city shelters would help prevent many animals from becoming problems and ending up there in the first place.
Posted by: Monica Location: Lafayette, IN on Aug 4, 2007 at 05:01 PM
BSL does not work. Banning a specific breed won't solve the problem. Look to stronger spay/neuter laws and penalties to the owner for letting dogs run loose etc. More than likely the people who are making pit bulls bad won't stop having them just because you pass a law. These people don't care about laws, most seem to think they are above the law anyway. BSL hurts responsible dog owners. I own pit bulls and they are the greatest dogs I have ever met. Mine are UTD on shots, spayed/nuetered, microchipped and registered with the city. My dogs are a excellent example of the breed. You should punish the other end of the leash. BSL doesn't work.
Posted by: dusty Location: wichita on Aug 4, 2007 at 03:13 PM
yes it is true what some say pits were and still are by some ppl raised for fighting but the ones you see for sale arent bread for fighting most of the ones that attack ppl dont get the attention as a pup they should and are mistreated so there for become aggressive just like any other pet cats included in this it depends on how they are raised you can make a mean animal tame it just takes the right person to do it and if you dont wanna take the time to train an animal then dont get one
Posted by: Leigh Location: CA on Aug 4, 2007 at 09:51 AM
No, specific breeds should be singled out. All dogs can be dangerous,regardless of size and strength. Our county tried the same thing here, but we managed to get them to change it to a "vicious dog" ordinance instead and that makes much more sense. The last few years it's been Pits, the next could be mastiff or some other strong breed like boxers.
Posted by: Gail Location: Illinois on Aug 4, 2007 at 08:15 AM
My daughter just adopted a pit bull as a playmate for her shep/rottie mix. She was outside walking her dogs. The shep mix was off leash but the pit was on a leash. A chow came up and started attacking the off-leash dog. The pit immediately went to the rescue of the shep mix, growling at the chow and scaring him off. Then the pit stood between my daughter and where the chow was. If not for this pit she had, I wonder if she would also have been attacked. Instead her pit protected her AND got the chow off her other dog. Pits are loyal and protective, NOT mean UNLESS taught to be mean. But ANY dog can be taught to be mean, it is NOT inherent. Please do not ban pits just because of the actions of a few. I'm sure you can find ANY breed that has at one time or another bitten someone. Please do not single out pits. Thank you.
Posted by: Dina Location: Somewhere, USA on Aug 4, 2007 at 08:08 AM
Frankly, I won't move or visit anywhere that has mandatory spay/castrate or breed restrictive laws. I think that people have the right to choose what breed of animal that they want and whether or not to breed that animal. If the current laws concerning dangerous pets (no breed restrictions), roaming at large, nuscience, etc were enforced, I would not be writing this letter. There would not be a problem. Since those easily enforceable black and white laws aren't being enforced...is this one going to be enforced. I still don't know how the vicious dog ordinance is too restrictive. Maybe it's because it also covers small dogs which are more commonly biters. Naw you don't need another law if you enforce the ones that you have. I guess I'll go spend my hard earned $$$ elsewhere. Dina
Posted by: Angie Location: wichita on Aug 4, 2007 at 07:45 AM
I just moved in next door to a Pitbull. I'm afraid that my kids or myself are going to be attacked in our own backyard. not by the pitbull- she's very sweet. It's those SHELTIES that belong to the other neighbors. Every time they see me, they lose their minds. They get so excited they even bite each other! Their owners come out and try to make them stop, but they won't listen. The last place I lived there was a pair of Miniature Schnauzers that were always getting loose and biting people. It was a mobile home park where pit bulls were not allowed. Did banning pit bulls from that MH Park keep people from being attacked by dogs? No! Is passing strict pit bull laws going to keep my neighbor's Shelties from attacking me? No! Are all the drug dealing gangsters with a closet full of stolen guns all of a sudden going to microchip and spay their pit bulls and give away all but two because they "don't want to break the law"? Hmmmmmmm.
Posted by: Lori DeVries Location: north carolina on Aug 4, 2007 at 06:27 AM
These laws start with one breed and next thing you know they want all dogs banned as per PETA's belief that noone should own a pet! Don't pass this law!
Posted by: Rosanne Location: Illinois on Aug 4, 2007 at 03:40 AM
Pit bulls are not the problem, its education for the public in understanding any breed. Dogs are what we as owners make them!
Posted by: Susan Location: Wichita on Aug 4, 2007 at 03:18 AM
Many of the dog problems in Wichita stem from certain owners who encourage their dogs to be aggressive and often allow them to run loose. Why should responsible owners have to pay with higher license fees?? Why not penalize these owners and leave license fees as they are? Raising them will create hardships on some people and is very unfair to responsible dog owners.
Posted by: Ravensara Location: USA on Aug 3, 2007 at 10:10 PM
A few years ago it was Rottweilers. Then it was Dobermans. As I grew up it was German Shepherds. Dogs bite for a couple reasons, one being fear. Pitbulls, like many dogs, can be trained to fight. In a meeting I went to on a law they explained that in certain parts of town the dogs were chained, starved, and fed methamphetamine. To ban a breed that has been mistreated in this way when the vast majority of the breed is great makes no sense. Much of this goes back to dog fighting and a certain culture that likes macho dogs. That criminal element cannot be changed by making laws, and especially laws that hurt good dogs and good citizens. Ban pitbulls and the criminal element finds another breed. The worst bite cases I've seen are goldens. Could you people quit falling into the hands of the Animal Rights groups like HSUS and PETA who want to legislate pets out of existence? Go to pet-law.com. Friends do not let friends donate to HSUS, PETA, AHA, ASPCA.
Posted by: Sharon Location: Lisle Illinois on Aug 3, 2007 at 07:26 PM
NO Breed should be singled out as bad. It is the humans who make mean animals. The humans are the ones who should be punished NOT the dogs!!! NO NO NO to breed specific ordinances!.
Posted by: Lyndall Location: Australia on Aug 3, 2007 at 05:21 PM
Seems that the AR/PETA/HSUS agenda is working a treat! "Everybody" blames a NON-EXISTENT "breed"! There is NO bad dog...only bad owners. Dogs are 100% the way they are raised/trained by their owners. If the owners are irresponsible and do not take responsibility for their dogs they will ALWAYS be that way. Why should a dog "pay" for their owners in-actions with their lives. If you have been sucked in by the AR hype then why not also ban all Ford Cars if they are "responsible" for most car accidents? And if giving your 2YR OLD DAUGHTER a hysterectomy sounds horrendous...why "demand" the same for a 4-6 mos old puppy or kitten? Wake up World! You have all been sucked in by the AR/PETA/HSUS PROPOGANDA!
Posted by: Deborah A. Brown Location: Virginia Beach on Aug 3, 2007 at 05:14 PM
Breed banning is beyond discriminatory and should be unconstitutional!!!!! The law should be one that is applied to ALL VICIOUS dogs - not just a few specific breeds. It is a totally racist & biased act. You might as well start stating that if you are of this race or that religion certain laws should apply to only you. I think the one who constituted that was known as HITLER!!!!! Last I heard, this was supposed to be AMERICA!
Posted by: Suzanne Day Location: chicago on Aug 3, 2007 at 04:03 PM
I say look @ the end of the leash! I have raised Pit Bulls for the last 10 years as family pets and my theory is if you raise them right they turn out right, just like people.
Posted by: Pat Location: Palm Springs CA on Aug 3, 2007 at 12:33 PM
When you see Pit ulls end up in the hands of people that want to use them for fighting then I feel there are too many breeders out there not caring where their puppies end up. The cruelty involved in dog fighting, and lets face it is Pit Bulls used for this fighting. If I loved the breed as so many express I would stop if ony for a year or two until the amounts of puppies available to the wrong people subsides. I am a breeder but this time I am on the side of the law, if the Pit Bull people love those animals then they should be sick to their stomach about what has been on the news these last weeks. We have the same problem in LA. It is gang members that are attracted to this breed and they in turn are breeding their own to sell to other gang members. Had the dogs they purchased been neutered before being placed we wouldn't be haing half the problems that keep cropping up.
Posted by: Diane L. Finch Location: Kelley, Iowa on Aug 3, 2007 at 12:20 PM
I am against any changes to Wichita's animal control laws and any laws that discriminate against any breed of dog. The problem is not the dogs; it's the people who raise these dogs and others to fight that is the problem. There needs to be more undercover stings and strong penalties for people who engage in this horrific sport.
Posted by: Mary Location: Tulsa on Aug 3, 2007 at 12:19 PM
There are already laws in place to deal with dangerous dogs and their owners. These should be vigorously enforced. New laws will do nothing if current ones are not taken seriously by those officers charged with their execution. Remember that if you ban "pit bulls" and dogs that look like one today, tomorrow it will be Am Staffs, Bull Terriers, Bull Mstiffs and Bulldogs (and dogs that look like one). The day after it will be Akitas, Chows, German Shepherds and Rottweilers (and dogs that look like one). It will go this way until they get to the Yorkies, Chihuahuas and Pomeranians (and dogs that look like one). The last step with be "dog" or anything that looks like one. This is the thin edge of the wedge and you need to beware.
Posted by: Rosemary Campbell Location: Indiana on Aug 3, 2007 at 12:12 PM
There is no one breed that should be banned. Any dog can be made vicious by their treatment or training. This can be documented over and over.
Posted by: Andrea Location: Illinois on Aug 3, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Whoa! Becki, I think you should take step back and think before you post something so ignorant. First of all, Staffordshire Terrier is not a breed in the AKC at all. The American Staffordshire Terrier is the official name of the breed in the AKC, UKC registers them as American Pit Bull Terriers. If you trace the bloodlines back, they are the same for each name of the same breed. The American Kennel Club changed the name because they did not the same name that was associated with the fighting dogs of the past. I have a dog that is dual registered, AKC and UKC. Now how can that be if AKC does not register American Pit Bull Terriers? Guess you had better do your research, and I agree with the other person who cannot believe you are involved with dogs, that is really scary! Zachary Pike-You tell them!! I love the fact that you quoted the stats from the TT website, I used those same facts myself in writing a research paper about this marvelous breed. Keep supporting the breed!!
Posted by: Carol Location: USA on Aug 3, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Well - then let's label ALL males as rapists! They have the equipment!
Posted by: Beverly Location: lOS ANGELES on Aug 3, 2007 at 09:02 AM
PASSING LAWS MAY MAKE THE LAWMAKERS FEEL IMPORTANT, BUT REALLY DOESN'T FIX WHAT IS BROKEN. RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS USE LEASHES, TRAIN THEIR DOGS, WHILE OTHERS DON'T BOTHER WITH TRAINING. THE RESULTS ARE OBVIOUS. WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE REAL PROBLEM PEOPLE, AND THAT ISN'T DONE WITH THIS KIND OF LAW.
Posted by: Judy Location: Picayune ms on Aug 3, 2007 at 08:59 AM
I gree with most of the comments I have read. If we are concerned about people safety around dogs, it should be all dogs and the dog's owner should be held responsible and the dog ordinances or laws should be enforced. Place heavy fines and then jail time on owners who let their dogs run loose, regardless of breed.
Posted by: Jean Lazzaro Location: Cedar Lake, IN on Aug 3, 2007 at 08:57 AM
Pit Bulls, until the pitbull fighters started making them fighters, were known as "America's Number 1 family dog. Petey was a Pitbull in Spanky. If you want to enact laws, enact them against the humans, not the dogs, make it a felony to fight and raise pitbulls for fighting. Make harsher sentences. My son's pitbull was great with my grandson until the day he died. He was a wonderful and loving family members. Take a look at the curelty these dogs endure at the hands of these low life, gangbangers, no matter how much their income is, they are still low life gangbangers. Read up the origin of the pitbulls and there temperament. Dog Breed Information on the internet, very easy to find and many other sites. Look at what goes on at these fights, heartless people that enjoy watching dogs tear each other apart, drug addicts and criminals and they expose their children to these fights also.
Posted by: Barbara Location: Illinois on Aug 3, 2007 at 08:41 AM
Pitbulls continue to take the rap thanks to the media. Look at the statistics - LABS are the number one breed for reported bites. Stop focusing on Pitbulls being bad and start charging the people who abuse, neglect and fight them instead. They are the innocent victims of society. Helen Keller had a Pitbull, what does that tell you? Highly intelligent and affectionate dogs. They used to be the symbold for America before the eagle. Let's focus on the big picture here. Start arresting the people and putting them in jail. Dog fighting is sick.
Posted by: Geraldine Clarke Location: CA on Aug 3, 2007 at 04:47 AM
Every age has a breed that is branded as being the most dangerous dogs. In my youth, it was Dobermans. In Victorian times, it was "common knowledge" that collies were inherently vicious. Whatever breed is branded as dangerous, the people who want dangerous dogs will get. If you ban pit bulls (there is no such breed BTW), those same people will find another breed which will cause those same problems. People who want bad dogs will turn whatever dog they get bad. Banning breeds is absolute stupidity. If you really want to learn more and understand the truth behind "pit bull" hysteria, read the wonderful "Bandit: Dossier of a Dangerous Dog" by Vicki Hearne.
Posted by: josh Location: newton on Aug 3, 2007 at 03:37 AM
leashes and muzzles are great tools to control and animal, but sometimes its the dog owners that need the muzzles. not the dogs.
Posted by: jenni Location: California on Aug 2, 2007 at 06:46 PM
I think some kind of standard for regulating people who want a pitbull should be put in place. They should be scrutinized not the dog. I have owned my pitbull for 9 years and she has no problem with people and protects children as if they were her own!
Posted by: Jen Location: VT on Aug 2, 2007 at 03:51 PM
Why not enforce your current leash law instead? Targeting a specific breed doesn't make sense. Keeping owners accountable for their animals does. No breed of dog is really more aggressive than any other, but because pits are considered a "bully breed" some people buy them for the wrong reasons (protection, fighting, etc...)as happened with Dobermans and Rotties in the past. Breeders who care about the breed are cautious about who they sell to and pit bulls can make excellent companions when raised in a loving home with an informed owner who will train it correctly.
Posted by: Cat Location: Texas on Aug 2, 2007 at 03:13 PM
The Am Staff and breeds like it are such wonderful animals and I just wish that the press would publish more news about these dogs and how great they are. Irresponsible owners shouldn't taint the breed any more than actions by an individual of any given race make that whole race bad. It just isn't so.
Posted by: Wendy on Aug 2, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Why is it, in our culture, we feel the need to place blame on anything but ourselves? I have worked with animals from domestic pets of all sorts to livestock to wildlife. I have yet to EVER have one of those animals bite ANYONE and I have also never been bitten in my adult life by anything but a cat. Though I was bitten by a beagle/lab mix as a kid, and a dalmatian a few years later...I wouldn't push to ban them, however, I hold their owners 100% responsible for them. Why would you want to make the responsible people suffer for the irresponsible? People need to step up and be accountable for their responsibilities. I have 5 children and 3 'pit bulls' and without incident, why? Because I'm a responsible parent and dog owner. I care enough about my family and pets to be such. Why should I suffer because we refuse to place the blame where it belongs. Also, why only pit bull owner? Why not ALL pet owners? My neighbors Pom runs free and has attacked people knocking on MY door...
Posted by: Jo Perez Location: Houston TX on Aug 2, 2007 at 11:25 AM
I own three dogs that are all rescues. The youngest is a Pit Bull that was bound for extermination at my local SPCA simply because of it's breed or looking like a "Pit Bull". She was only 2 1/2 weeks old. She's now 59 lbs and the sweetest dog. I never knew what a gentle and sweet nature this dog had until I got her and she is the best of all three with children. She has the highest tolerance for what a young child can put a dog through. As with all dogs, child and dog play is supervised, but I also understand why the breed was once popular as a "Nanny Dog". "Petey" from "The Little Rascals" was a Pit Bull and this breed is owned by many more responsible owners than irresponsible ones that neglect or abuse them. I hate to see laws forbidding a breed where families could be broken up as a result, or forced to leave town, or unable to visit others with their animals because of the breed they own. Laws are best when they punish offenders and not responsible people and innocent animals.
Posted by: Kym Location: Ca on Aug 2, 2007 at 11:18 AM
I notice in this article on possible pit bull regualtion the complaint is about loose dogs. Why not enforce a leash laws. All dogs can bite and MANY dogs are dog aggresive so why single out a breed of dog? This will be very ineffective. Enforce leash laws against all dogs to make your community safer. THIS WORKS and you can gain revenue also if you make the fines very stiff. Keep all dogs off the street unless held on leash by a person able to control them. IE No children holding leashes of 90 pound dogs.
Posted by: danny Location: augusta on Aug 1, 2007 at 06:25 PM
i think that its bs the way pepole look down on pitts ive been in a wheelchair for the last four year and i had pitts up until the twon of augusta made me movie them and the were the dogs that helped me with my physical therapy ands they helped me get to my wheelchair when i feel out of it and now that i had to movie them i can not get on my floor nd do my phsical therapy .and ne body that has never had one can keep their mouth quite caz becaz of them i cant do the stuff i use to caz of them if i fall out of my wheelchair i have to lay there til sum1 cames nd helps me up nd i live by myself.it is bs that everyone tries pushing us around caz we have pitts
Posted by: Heather Location: Wichita on Aug 1, 2007 at 04:28 PM
You have to punish the owner not the breed of dog! The owner of the dog is basically "the parent" and is responsible for teaching, diciplin, and taking care of the dog. I am a owner of 2 staffordshire terriers. Who are very lovng and playfull. I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY DOGS ACTIONS. Specifically selecting one breed and having regulations on just that breed is just plain stupid! No matter what laws get passed , I'm NOT getting rid of my dogs nor MOVING! And you bet I live within the city limits (college hill). Guess that would be one law I would break!
Posted by: DOGMAN Location: Wichita, KS on Aug 1, 2007 at 04:26 PM
It is a well established fact that some breeds of dogs are more aggressive than others and that the factors that drive certain behaviors in breeds are very pronunced. The dog is the product of breeding, training (or lack of training), the environment and, last but not least, the specifics of the situation leading to the biting incident. The human factor is the one we really must be concerned with. If a person is determined to fight dogs the non-availability will result in an alternative breed being used. The Animal Control ordinances in the of Wichita are sufficient as presently written, however the city needs to focus its attention on the behavior of owners and enact ordinances to restrict their ownership of dogs and then enforce those ordinances in a responsible manner. Regardless og any ordinances or laws, if they are not properly enforced by the courts they are meaningless. the bottom line is DOG OWNERS MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS OR INACTIONS.
Posted by: Kami Location: Wichita on Aug 1, 2007 at 03:15 PM
Out lawing PitBulls would be the dumbest thing ever, if you out law one breed why not out law them all ?
Posted by: MARIA on Aug 1, 2007 at 03:14 PM
ALL DOGS ARE VICIOUS..I HAD A CHIUAHUA AND HE BIT 2 PEOPLE INCLUDING MYSELF AND IT DONE SOME DAMAGE I THINK IT DEPENDS ON HOW THEY ARE RAISED..IF DOGS ARE DANGEROUS
Posted by: pork chop Location: california on Aug 1, 2007 at 01:51 PM
Becki.. it really scares me to think you actuallydo somethng with dogs.. as you know nothing about them.. nor the AKC.. Staffordshire Terriers have nothing to to do with the NON BREED of "pit bulls" and are a much older breed than ..American Staffordshite Terriers. American Staffordshire Terriers may be crossed registered with the AKC and the UKC ( United Kennel Club) .. There is NO SUCH BREED OF DOG AS A "PIT BULL" 18 months later .. what? YOU are the type of person that causes these problems for a NON BREED of dog.. Wichita WAKE UP..what's next.. or don't you care as long as you are "protected".. BBAAAAA Sheeple......
Posted by: Laura Location: Washington state on Aug 1, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Please do NOT pass breed specific legislation. Once you start it's a slippery slope and dogs that are NOT dangerous wind up being included.
Posted by: Misty Location: Wichita on Aug 1, 2007 at 01:16 PM
First of all we have the right to own whatever kind of dog we want that is our right but now its being taken away because someone wants to whine about it come on why are we worrying about dogs instead of murderers and robbers out there. I mean what is the world coming to when they have nothing better to do then try to hurt those responsible people. It is calling out one breed. So thats basically saying we can outkast someone. So okay I dont like certain people so we should lock them up and say okay no more certain kind of race we have enough of them and they have the numerous record of killings. So because of what one person or dog has done doesnt give anyone the right to baned them from us or take our rights away I will be damned if I ever get rid of my dog because of anyone I will get more dogs and they will be grandfathered in before the new changes.
Posted by: Ginny Location: Baltimore, MD on Aug 1, 2007 at 11:49 AM
I have owned a rescued pit bull for 9 yrs. He is the most loving happy dog I've ever had.Those who say they "revert" are ridiculous ! What good are bans when the dogs that cause problems are owned , mistreated and usually abused by people who have no respect for laws that already exist ? Punish the deed not the breed. You are focusing on the wrong end of the leash.
Posted by: Sharon Sullivan Location: Richmond VA on Aug 1, 2007 at 11:12 AM
It is the owner not the dog. Why do all responsible owners have to pay the price for the Michael Vick's of the planet? Many of my best friends are Pit bulls. This is discrimination and a violation of my rights not to be able to care & love in my home the dog of my choice!! Woof!!
Posted by: Sara Steele Location: New Jersey on Aug 1, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Pit bulls are not a menace in the hands of responsible owners/handlers. I have a bully type, which I rescued from the middle of a country highway where I feel that she had been dumped. After some socialization and training gained by attending obedience classes, she sailed through her AKC CGC (Canine Good Citizen) test, has earned all of the titles in Rally Obedience, and is now working towards her CD and NA (Agility.) She is a good dog! As we know, there is an element in society that is breeding and using/abusing bullies for the wrong reasons. These reasons need to be rigidly cracked down upon. On another note, many pit bull and other dog bite incidences happen because dogs are running loose, sometimes in groups. Leash laws, which are on the books just about everywhere, need to be executed.
Posted by: Carol Location: West Virginia on Aug 1, 2007 at 09:24 AM
The only thing singling out one breed will accomplish is penalizing responsible owners and good dogs, for the irresponsibility and problems of a few bad apples.Strongly enforced leash and containment laws will be much more effective. Picking up at large dogs, and penalizing THEIR owners is the way to go.
Posted by: zachary pike Location: US ARMY on Aug 1, 2007 at 08:40 AM
This is ridiculous. Pets are like people, they all start out with good hearts. If they are raised to be mean, they will be. If they are raised to be gentle, they will be. Pets just want to please their humans, if you teach them at what is acceptable, they will not let you down. I would know, I have a pit bulls who will lick your face of & is afraid of the dark.Does that sound like the dogs that were once stereotypically feared? Prejudice is all the same whether it is with people or animals, & it is all out of ignorance. It is reported on temperament tests conducted by the American Temperament Test Society that Pit Bulls had a passing rate of 82% or better -- compared to only 77% of the general dog population. These temperament tests consist of putting a dog through a series of unexpected situations, some involving strangers. Any signs of unprovoked aggression or panic in these situations result in failure of the test. The achievement of Pit Bulls in this study disproves that they are inherently aggressive to people. (Please visit ATTS.org)
Posted by: cp Location: wichita on Aug 1, 2007 at 07:28 AM
It is not the dog's fault, it is the owner's fault
Posted by: Angela Location: Mulvane on Aug 1, 2007 at 05:56 AM
My neighbor's dog (Great Dane) is STILL running loose after it dug under our fence, KILLED some of our goats and injured another goat! And she has YET to pay for any of the damages! I'd say some MORE changes need to be made to the laws! Regarding Pit Bulls, I've taught a child who was in 5 schools in one yr because her mother's Pit Bull attacked people, causing them to have to move rather than get rid of the dog! She was in my class for less than 2 months before moving again. (And the girl has a scar on her own face from the dog!) People love their dogs more than they love their own children! Sad.
Posted by: Angie Location: Wichita on Aug 1, 2007 at 03:01 AM
When you hear GOOD things about pit bulls they are usually told by knowledgeable professionals in the animal business (veterinarians, animal behaviorists, humane society workers, expert dog trainers, dog show judges, temperament testers, etc.) These are people who REALLY have done their research and really know about the breeds commonly referred to as pit bulls. When you hear BAD things about pit bulls they are usually told by a person who probably met a few "pitbulls" owned by some drug dealer down the street that beats and starves them and keeps them on a chain, which would turn any dog vicious. Or maybe they've never even met a pit bull, they just keep hearing everyone else talk about how bad they are, and they pass it on. People like that probably wouldn't even be able to pick out a real pit bull in a line-up of 20 or 30 other breeds...... Who would you believe?
Posted by: Jamie Location: Rose Hill on Aug 1, 2007 at 02:47 AM
Melissa Location: ElDorado I think that pit bulls should not be allowed to be in the city limits at all. If found in so the owner should pay a heavty fine or even jail time. I think MORANS like you out to be in jail..The reason I say this is because you MIGHT kill someone so we might as well stop you before you do..HOW DARE YOU say that ANY PIT BULL OWNERS should be put in jail. I as for one have pitbulls and they are wonderful dogs. I have control on my dogs..do you think that these dogs asked to get starved or chained up or beaten up NO all they want is to be loved like any breed of dog but if treated badly they are going to act badly... I would encourage anyone who wants to ban this breed to get to know the real breed not what the media makes this breed out to be..PUNISH THE DEED NOT THE BREED
Posted by: Lynda Location: Detroit on Aug 1, 2007 at 12:45 AM
If pit bulls are banned, it will only hurt the responsible owners, and their wonderful pets. The people who abuse these dogs for their own status will simply turn to another breed. History will repeat itself. First it was German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Dobermans, Now Pit bulls. Once all the Pit bulls are gone, they'll move onto the next intimidating breed-- Mastiffs? Akitas? Chows? Yet another breed will be ruined. Pit bulls are like any other dog. They can be ruined, they can be wonderful family pets. You have to target the bad people, because there is no such thing as a bad dog. They only do what their owners teach them to do. Would you punish a young child if she stole something her mother told her to? I doubt it. Even the child should know better-- But how can you expect a dog to?
Posted by: Wendy Location: Michigan on Aug 1, 2007 at 12:37 AM
Pit bulls aren't human aggressive at all, or so their standard calls for. They are friendly to all people, strangers, and especially good with kids. Just so you know, American Staffordshire Terriers (AKC) and American Pit bull terriers (UKC) can be dual registered as both breeds, in both registries-- they are virtually the same breed. Pit bulls are the most abused breed, they act out the way they do because they're beaten, fought, chained in yards, and confined beyond what any dog should have to withstand. Is this teaching them to be friendly, or socializing them the way they should be? The reason people go for Pits is because nobody is going to chain a Golden retriever in a yard, and expect people to be intimidated or afraid of it. It's a "Status Symbol" to own the biggest, baddest pit bull on the street. Maybe we should target the people abusing the dogs, rather than the dogs that have done nothing more than what their "Owners" have bred and taught them to do, like good dogs do.
Posted by: j Location: butler co on Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13 PM
A pitbull is only as bad as the owner has trained them to be. Mine is not mean because it has not been trained that way. I have small children that visit therefore mine will not harm a child. If I should be attack by someone I am sure his instints would kick in to protect me like any other dog would their owner. I say don't judge all dogs by their breed any dog can and will bite.
Posted by: Melissa Location: ElDorado on Jul 31, 2007 at 10:05 PM
I think that pit bulls should not be allowed to be in the city limits at all. If found in so the owner should pay a heavty fine or even jail time.
Posted by: BECKI Location: WICHITA on Jul 31, 2007 at 09:43 PM
PIT BULLS CANNOT BE COMPARED TO OTHER BREEDS BECAUSE PITS WERE BRED TO FIGHT AND KILL.OTHER BREEDS CAN BE AGGRESSIVE BUT WON'T HAVE THE DRIVE OF A PIT BECAUSE THEIR NOT BRED FOR THAT. A DOG WILL BECOME WHAT IT'S BLOODLINE CALLS FOR. AMERICAN KENNEL CLUB WONT EVEN ALLOW THEM INTO THEIR REGISTRY. THEY DO HOWEVER REGISTER THE STAFFORDSHIRE TERRIOR WHO LOOKS ALOT LIKE A PIT, BUT HAS HAD ALL THE FIGHT BRED OUT OF THEM . I DO WONDER THOUGH IF THEY HAVE BEEN CROSSED WITH THE PIT BULL AGAIN. AS LONG AS WE HAVE PEOPLE STILL FIGHTING PITS, THERE WILL BE PEOPLE...CHILDREN AT RISK. WE USED TO TRAIN DOGS,AND HAVE RAISED DOBERMANS FOR OVER 25 YEARS.THE DOBE'S HAD TO GO OFF MARKET FOR 15 YEARS TO CLEAN UP THE BLOODLINES AND BREED OUT A LOT OF THE AGGRESSIVENESS.THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB.LOOK AT THE PAPER AND NOTICE ALL THE PITS FOR SALE.THEIR ALL OUT TO MAKE MONEY,BUT DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE BLOODLINES THEIR CROSSING...IN THE MEANTIME A PUPPY LOOKS CUTE AND IS TAKEN HOME...18 MONTHS LATER,
National AP Video
Offbeat News Headlines
FCC Appeals Janet Jackson Case to Supreme Court

Janet Jackson's breast-baring performance at the 2004 Super Bowl is still making news. (Full Story)
Traffic Stop Nets Cops Designer Jean Counterfeiter

New York police say a van carrying nearly 1,000 pairs of counterfeit jeans — complete with fake Saks and Bloomingdale's price tags — has been intercepted because of a broken taillight. (Full Story)
Florida Man Accused Of Hurling Sandwich At Girlfriend

A Florida man is accused of tossing a sandwich at his girlfriend as they cruised down an interstate, knocking off her glasses and nearly causing her to lose control of the car. (Full Story)
Massachusetts Woman's 1 Cent Debt Paid In Full

A 74-year-old blind woman's 1 cent debt to a Massachusetts city has been settled. (Full Story)
Iowa Magician, Hand Model Sues Over Snipped Finger

A hand model, magician and actor blames a Martha Stewart-branded lounge chair for snipping off a bit of his livelihood. (Full Story)
Goodwill Finds Man Who Mistakenly Donated $7,500

It took some fancy footwork, but a Goodwill store in Illinois has found the owner of $7,500 in cash mistakenly donated with old shoes. (Full Story)
Skull With Built-In Sauna Turns Heads In Austria

An oversize skull with a built-in sauna is turning heads in the Austrian capital. The white walk-in structure, situated near a busy Vienna intersection, is known as the "Wellness Skull" and also boasts a bathtub and shower. On either side of the neck, that is. (Full Story)
Squirrels Blamed For KSU Power Outage

A couple of squirrels put Kansas State University in the dark for a few hours. (Full Story)
Robber Threatens To Complain After Finding No Cash

Police say a central Pennsylvania man tried to rob a bank, but tellers' empty cash drawers thwarted his attempt. (Full Story)
Beer Truck Driver Accused Of Driving Drunk

A contract beer truck driver has been arrested on suspicion of drunken driving after his rig flipped over. (Full Story)
NY Pet Cemetery Ranked Among Taj Mahal, Pyramids

A travel guide's list of the best places in the world to be entombed includes a cemetery for animals in a New York City suburb. (Full Story)
Salvation Army Testing Credit, Debit Cards At Red Kettles

It's a true season of change: The Salvation Army is experimenting with a plastic alternative for folks who don't have cash to throw in a holiday red kettle. (Full Story)
More Headlines

KAKE Mobile