Manhattan Kansas going after anything even resembling 12 different breeds.

[BIG_DADDY]

I got to pat myself on the back, some of you said I was crazy. WTF is going on out there in Kansas and Missouri? The mass majority of the country is throwing out BSL but you guys are catering to PETA and HSUS like nobody else by far. Fast track to the slaughter of man's best friend.

Sec. 6-25. Dangerous dogs.
(a) As used in this section, “dangerous dog” shall mean and include any of the following:
(1) Any dog, whether purebred or mix, which is more than ninety (90) days
old, and has the appearance and characteristics of any one or more of the
following breed(s):
i. American Pit Bull Terrier
ii. American Staffordshire Terrier
iii. Bull Terrier
iv. Staffordshire Bull Terrier
v. Argentine Dogo
vi. Cane Corso
vii. Dogue de Bordeaux
viii. Dogo Cubano
ix. Dogo Sardesco
x. Fila Brasileiro
xi. Perro de Presa Canario
xii. Wolf hybrids
(2) Any dog which has attacked a human being or domestic animal without
provocation; or
(3) Any dog, while at-large, that, without provocation, exhibits aggression or
combativeness toward a person or another domestic animal in an apparent
attack, whether or not said person or animal is actually attacked, bitten, or
otherwise physically injured; or
(4) Any dog kept or harbored primarily, or in part, for the purpose of dog
fighting, or any dog trained for dog fighting; or
(5) Any dog, not owned by a governmental or law enforcement unit, used
primarily to guard public or private property; or
(6) Any dog which is known to his keeper or harborer, or reasonably should
be known to his keeper or harborer, to have a propensity, tendency or
disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury or to otherwise endanger
the safety of human beings or domestic animals. It is hereby declared to

[banyon]

These dogs aren't being banned, right?

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by banyon

These dogs aren't being banned, right?

They are basically making it so hard to own them it's basically impossible. This stuff was written HSUS people it's obvious. It also includes mandatory nuetering of all these dog types or anything tht even looks like them in an effort to make these breed extinct. You want to know how bad it really is, here you go:

DRAFT
2
be the policy of this city that keepers and harborers of dogs that are of a
size and breed that allow the animal to be capable of inflicting lifethreatening
injuries upon human beings are hereby held to a very high
standard of care regarding their knowledge of such propensity, tendency
or disposition as to their animal. The court, in determining whether or not
a keeper or harborer of such an animal reasonably should know about such
propensities, tendencies or dispositions shall apply such very high
standard.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or harbor a dangerous dog, unless the
keeper or harborer complies with all of the following requirements:
1) Confinement: Any keeper or harborer of a dangerous dog shall keep such dog
confined, except as set forth hereinafter. “Confined,” as that term is used in
this section, shall mean such dog is securely kept indoors or in a securely
enclosed and locked pen or dog-run area made of, at least, nine-gauge chain
link with no more than one-inch spacing. Said pen or run must be locked with
a key or combination lock whenever such dog(s) are within the structure. Said
pen or dog-run area must have sides at least six (6) feet high and be secured
over the top. If the pen or dog-run area has no bottom secured to the sides, the
sides must be embedded into the ground no less than one (1) foot deep.
2) Leash and Muzzle: Any keeper or harborer of a dangerous dog shall, when the
dog is not confined pursuant to subsection (b)(1), securely muzzle and restrain
the dog with a leash, chain, rope, or harness having a minimum tensile
strength of three hundred (300) pounds and not exceeding three (3) feet in
length.
3) Notice: Any keeper or harborer of a dangerous dog shall display, in a
prominent place on the premises where the dog is kept, a sign easily readable
by the public using the words “Beware of Dog.” In addition, a similar sign
shall be posted on the pen or run of such animal.
4) Registration and Reporting: It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or
harbor a dangerous dog, unless such dog is properly licensed pursuant to
section 6-36 of this code, and pursuant to the provisions set forth in this
subsection. In addition to having, or obtaining, the license required by section
6-36, a keeper or harborer of a dangerous dog shall submit a completed
application for a dangerous dog license to the city clerk or his/her designee, on
or before May 1, 2007, or within five business (5) days of the date upon which
the dog would be deemed to be dangerous under the provisions of this section,
if such occurs after May 1, 2007. The application for a dangerous dog license
shall be submitted on forms provided by the city clerk, and to be considered a
completed application it shall be accompanied by all documents and other
information required hereunder. Upon issuance, the dangerous dog license
shall be effective for one (1) year from the date of issuance, or for the duration
of the liability insurance required by this section, whichever is shorter, and
shall be reapplied for prior to its expiration. Such dangerous dog license shall
not be transferable, and shall expire whenever changes occur that would make
DRAFT
3
the keeper or harborer ineligible to obtain a license. The keeper or harborer of
the dangerous dog shall pay a $50.00 annual registration fee for each
dangerous dog, and such fee shall be submitted with the application for a
dangerous dog license. No dog shall be considered to be unlicensed under the
terms of this subsection, if the owner or keeper has timely filed a completed
application, until such application has been denied. The keeper or harborer of
the dangerous dog shall maintain with the city clerk or his/her designee the
address where the dangerous dog is primarily kept or harbored. The keeper or
harborer shall notify the city clerk or his/her designee within five (5) business
days if any of the following occurs:
i. A change in the primary address where the dangerous dog is kept
or harbored, whether in or out of the city limits.
ii. A change in the person who is keeping or harboring the dangerous
dog.
iii. The death of the dangerous dog.
iv. Any change in the information supplied in the application for the
dangerous dog license, or in the information submitted along with
such application.
5) Insurance: Any keeper or harborer of a dangerous dog shall maintain liability
insurance in the single-incident amount of $100,000 for bodily injury or death
of any person(s), or for damage to property which may result from actions of
the dangerous dog, or from actions or inactions of the keeper or harborer
related to the dangerous dog. The application, or reapplication, for a
dangerous dog license, pursuant to subsection (b)(4), shall include a certificate
of liability insurance that indicates the required insurance level and is valid for
the intended registration period.
6) Neutering: Any keeper or harborer of a dangerous dog shall have the dog
spayed or neutered by a veterinarian licensed by the state of Kansas. The
application, or reapplication, for a dangerous dog license, pursuant to
subsection (b)(4), shall include documentation showing that the dog has been
spayed or neutered.
7) Identification: Any keeper or harborer of a dangerous dog shall have an
identification microchip inserted into the dog, which shall not be removed
during the dog’s life. The application, or reapplication, for a dangerous dog
license, pursuant to subsection (b)(4), shall include documentation showing
that such microchip has been properly inserted. Any keeper or harborer of the
dangerous dog must, prior to the issuance of the dangerous dog license, make
the dog available to the City to take photographs to be used to depict the
animal’s size, coloring, and distinguishing features. Failure to make the dog
available, when reasonably requested by the City, shall be grounds for denial
of the application.
(c) In the event that an animal control officer or law enforcement officer has probable
cause to believe that a dog is dangerous as defined by section 6-25(a), such officer shall
file an affidavit with the municipal court judge, setting forth the facts upon which such
officer relies to support such probable cause. Upon receipt of such affidavit, if the judge
DRAFT
4
determines that the facts set forth in the affidavit are sufficient to establish such probable
cause, the judge shall schedule a hearing for the purpose of determining whether or not
the dog in question should be deemed dangerous as defined by section 6-25(a). The
judge shall also, upon request of the city prosecutor, issue a search warrant, pursuant to
Charter Ordinance No. 34, to seize the dog, and to impound the dog at the municipal
animal shelter pending the determination of whether the dog is dangerous. The court
shall provide notice of the hearing to any known harborer or keeper of the dog. Such
notice shall be served on such harborer or keeper in the same manner as the service of a
subpoena. The hearing date shall not be less than five (5) days nor more than twenty (20)
days following the date of service upon the harborer or keeper. At the hearing, the city
shall have the burden, by clear and convincing evidence, to prove that the dog is
dangerous pursuant to section 6-25(a) and shall present evidence to that effect. The
keeper or harborer of the dog may present evidence to rebut the city’s evidence. The
failure of the keeper or harborer to attend or participate in the hearing shall not prevent
the judge from making the appropriate determination concerning the dog. After the
hearing, the keeper or harborer of the dog shall be notified in writing of the judge’s
determination. If a determination is made that the dog is dangerous, the keeper or
harborer shall submit a completed application for a dangerous dog license and shall pay
the costs of impoundment as set forth in section 6-53 of this Code within the time frame
established by the court, which shall not be more than twenty (20) days. If the dog has
been impounded pending the determination by the court, the dog shall remain impounded
until the harborer or keeper has complied with this subsection. If the keeper or harborer
fails to comply with the provisions of this article within the time frame established by the
court, and the court has not granted an extension of such time, the keeper or harborer
shall be deemed to have abandoned the dog and it shall become the property of the city.
The city shall have the right to dispose of the dog in any manner it determines to be
applicable, including the destruction of the dog. Either the city or the keeper or harborer
may appeal the judge’s determination to the Riley County District Court, by filing an
appeal, and posting the appropriate bond, pursuant to Article 46 of Chapter 12 of the
Kansas Statutes. If the dog is not determined to be dangerous, the court may determine
whether the keeper or harborer shall pay any, or all, of the costs of impoundment, taking
into consideration whether other reason(s) existed for impoundment and such other
relevant factors as the court determines.
(d) In addition to any penalties the court may prescribe for violation of this section, if the
court finds, after notice to the keeper or harborer and an opportunity for hearing, that
such dangerous dog represents a continuing threat of serious harm to human beings or
other domestic animals, either because the court finds that the keeper or harborer is
unlikely to comply with the provisions of this section, or because the court finds that,
even with compliance with this section, the dangerous dog poses a threat to the public
that is unreasonable, the court shall order such animal destroyed.
(e) No person who has been convicted of a violation of this section shall keep or harbor a
dangerous dog, nor shall such person be eligible for a dangerous dog license for a period
of five (5) years following such conviction. In addition, no dangerous dog shall be kept
or harbored, and no license shall be issued for any dog, if the primary location where
DRAFT
5
such dog is to be kept or harbored is the residence of a person who has been convicted of
a violation of this section within the previous five (5) years. Except that, if the court
permits the person who has been convicted of a violation to keep or harbor his or her
dangerous dog(s) existing at the time of the conviction, the person may keep and harbor
such dogs and apply for or re-apply for a dangerous dog license only for those particular
dog(s).
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in
the official city newspaper.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF
MANHATTAN, KANSAS, THIS __ST DAY OF ____, 2007.
CITY OF MANHATTAN, KANSAS

[BIG_DADDY]

TOP

[Eleazar]

Hey, it's kinda like how they want to ban "assault rifles", but really they are banning anything that kinda looks like an "assault rifle".

[HonestChieffan]

Looks fine to me. Bad animals are bad. Be gone with them.

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Looks fine to me. Bad animals are bad. Be gone with them.

When they were handing out brains you thought they said trains ans asked for a slow one didn't ya?

[acesn8s]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Looks fine to me. Bad animals are bad. Be gone with them.

But not all dogs are bad. If you have a dog in your house and he barks at someone approaching your door, he is considered a guard dog and therefore banned by the outlined criteria.

[HonestChieffan]

I just figure it this way...

A guy wants a dog....many kinds of dogs out there

So he says, what kind of dog do I want...

Big dog, little dog, companion dog, hunting dog what have you..

So hes doing his due dilligence and arrives at a choice. And he chooses a breed that has demonstrated time and time and time again that they are unpredictable, mean spirited and have been involved in this very community in attacking other dogs, other people, kids, owners....Now what makes him want such an animal...would he have a snake that is poisionous for a pet? Probably not a wise idea.

So now said pet owner moves into a neighborhood full of kids and neighbors and nice other kinds of dogs with this animal....is it somehow out of the question for these folks who have seen the news, been well informed of the attacks in the community...in KC we have had a killing by a pit bull and numerous attcks by pit bulls...that they dont care to have that kind of animal in their midst?

Bottom line for me is they are what they are and there is no need for such an animal in a setting where they can do what they are bred to do.

In time, this too shall pass and we wont have to deal with it. Ban the Pitbulls and move on. Its not a big issue and life will proceed.

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

I just figure it this way...

A guy wants a dog....many kinds of dogs out there

So he says, what kind of dog do I want...

Big dog, little dog, companion dog, hunting dog what have you..

So hes doing his due dilligence and arrives at a choice. And he chooses a breed that has demonstrated time and time and time again that they are unpredictable, mean spirited and have been involved in this very community in attacking other dogs, other people, kids, owners....Now what makes him want such an animal...would he have a snake that is poisionous for a pet? Probably not a wise idea.

So now said pet owner moves into a neighborhood full of kids and neighbors and nice other kinds of dogs with this animal....is it somehow out of the question for these folks who have seen the news, been well informed of the attacks in the community...in KC we have had a killing by a pit bull and numerous attcks by pit bulls...that they dont care to have that kind of animal in their midst?

Bottom line for me is they are what they are and there is no need for such an animal in a setting where they can do what they are bred to do.

In time, this too shall pass and we wont have to deal with it. Ban the Pitbulls and move on. Its not a big issue and life will proceed.

Either you are the biggest idiot here or you're baiting me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the latter.

[acesn8s]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

I just figure it this way...

A guy wants a dog....many kinds of dogs out there

So he says, what kind of dog do I want...

Big dog, little dog, companion dog, hunting dog what have you..

So hes doing his due dilligence and arrives at a choice. And he chooses a breed that has demonstrated time and time and time again that they are unpredictable, mean spirited and have been involved in this very community in attacking other dogs, other people, kids, owners....Now what makes him want such an animal...would he have a snake that is poisionous for a pet? Probably not a wise idea.

So now said pet owner moves into a neighborhood full of kids and neighbors and nice other kinds of dogs with this animal....is it somehow out of the question for these folks who have seen the news, been well informed of the attacks in the community...in KC we have had a killing by a pit bull and numerous attcks by pit bulls...that they dont care to have that kind of animal in their midst?

Bottom line for me is they are what they are and there is no need for such an animal in a setting where they can do what they are bred to do.

In time, this too shall pass and we wont have to deal with it. Ban the Pitbulls and move on. Its not a big issue and life will proceed.

OK So we hear of every time a pitbull attacks...what about all of the other breeds? Do we hear of those attacks? Pits are not the only dogs that have gotten aggresive. My neighbors pomeranian attacked a little girl but did you hear about that one? Hell, he still has his damn dog. Would he if it were a Pit Bull? If you ban Pits then ban them all. Cats too. They scatched my daughter once.

[TrebMaxx]

WTF?? - (5) Any dog, not owned by a governmental or law enforcement unit, used primarily to guard public or private property

Hell, I have two Australian Cattle dogs and since I have no cattle for them to earn their keep, their job is to guard the house. If I wanted a dog just to pet, feed, pay medical etc. I would get a Yorkie. Nothing against Yorkies folks! Just that I don't think one would be a good guard dog, alarm dog yes. My inlaws have one and boy does she go off whenever someone comes to the door!

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by acesn8s

OK So we hear of every time a pitbull attacks...what about all of the other breeds? Do we hear of those attacks? Pits are not the only dogs that have gotten aggresive. My neighbors pomeranian attacked a little girl but did you hear about that one? Hell, he still has his damn dog. Would he if it were a Pit Bull? If you ban Pits then ban them all. Cats too. They scatched my daughter once.

Dude is just baiting, don't waste your time.

[HonestChieffan]

Its certainly not baiting to have an opinion on the issue that is contrary. I just see no need for pit bulls as a pet.

I understand the pet owners desire to have them I just dont think they are a reasonable choice..I know if one lived near me Id do whatever i could to be rid of it legally.

And if a community decides to ban them, thats fine with me. I dont see banning pit bulls as the next assault on our way of life.

[acesn8s]

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

Dude is just baiting, don't waste your time.

It's just that stupid people irritate me and I'm suffering from lack of sleep.