Wichita, Kansas May Consider BSL/MSN and Mandatory Microchipping
Wichita’s animal control officials say they’re still struggling with aggressive and stray pit bulls despite a “dangerous dogs” law approved in 2007.
A year’s worth of experience with the law has led officials to return to the City Council next Tuesday with options that include a pit bull ban, new breed-specific restrictions or the status quo.
A ban would simply make it illegal to own or keep a pit bull inside city limits.
The restrictions would require spaying or neutering and microchipping of all pit bulls, except those held by licensed breeders. It would also limit households to two pit bulls — except for breeders.
In 2007, animal control proposed similar laws.
But some council members, the Wichita Kennel Club and others opposed breed-specific laws. Instead, they opted to toughen their “dangerous dog” rules.
The law lets animal control officers pick up a dog that displays aggressive behavior, even if it hasn’t bitten anyone. The dog could then be tested for aggression and, if deemed dangerous, an owner would be forced to let the city embed an identifying microchip and have the dog sterilized.
…The pit bull proposals come despite a modest decrease in the number of bites and strays logged by animal control officers.
…The presentation council members will see Tuesday also shows more than half of all the dangerous dogs documented were pit bulls and a third of the dog attacks and bites in the city were attributed to pit bulls.
One-third of all dogs euthanized were pit bulls.
Read this article in its entirety here.
Yes, but what is a “pit bull” exactly? And how does Wichita define it? If Wichita defines “pit bull” as other cities do as a handful or more of breeds (In some cities, even a Labrador is considered a “pit bull.” In other cities, all mutts are categorized as “pit bulls.”), then Wichita doesn’t really have a “pit bull” problem but a free-roaming dog problem, or people in general just not being responsible for their dogs. Please write the Wichita City Council here and politely inform them that they should consider adding more Animal Control staff to enforce their dangerous dog law, and that breed-specific, mandatory spay/neuter, and mandatory microchipping laws are ineffective, unenforceable, and expensive.
Related Posts By Category
- Cypress, California May Consider Breed-Specific Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance
- Indianapolis, Indiana May Soon Consider Mandatory Spay/Neuter for “Pit Bulls”
- Barstow, California May Consider Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance for “Pit Bulls”
- Hoisington, Kansas May Consider Breed-Specific Ordinance on August 12
- Spokane, Washington May Consider Breed-Specific Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance for “Pit Bulls”