Overland Park bans pit bulls

Overland Park bans pit bulls

There are 181 comments on the KSHB story from Jul 18, 2006, titled Overland Park bans pit bulls. In it, KSHB reports that:

Pit bulls are no longer welcome in Overland Park. The City Council voted to prohibit people from bringing any more pit bills into this Kansas City suburb after hearing more than 2 1/2 hours of debate and public ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at KSHB.

“Sugar Hill Gang Member”

Since: Dec 06

KC

#107 Jul 10, 2007
Lighten up kitty cat. Take it out or in context
and you may win 1st prize in the I don't care
category. But, please continue with the mantra
of it's the owner not the dog card./laugh
ShelterGirl

Overland Park, KS

#108 Sep 26, 2007
I worked at an Overland Park shelter (Animal Haven) after the ban. So many people would not think that one of our dogs was a Pit and would play with it, fall in love with it, and decide to adopt it because of its great personality only to find out they couldn't because it was a banned breed. We had more Pits than any other kind of dog, not because they were bad, but because they were not allowed to be adopted and were seized from their loving owners. And if you want to talk about dogs biting other dogs, then you should know, statistically, a larger percent of small dogs (ie. poodles, cocker spaniels, jack russell terriers, etc.) bite than larger dogs. The only difference is, they are too small to cause enough damage for it to matter to the city that they are biting. I worked at a pet store as well (I know, very conflicting) and I was bit by a cocker spaniel who the owner knew was vicious but still agreed to board. This dog jumped up three feet in the air and hung onto my arm until I could pry her jaws open. That was about five months ago, and I still have a pretty noticable scar. But I'm not going to go say "ban cocker spaniels" because I know that there is no "bad breed" only dogs who have been brought up the wrong kind of environment. I will admit, some dogs may be genetically predisposed to violence, but again, this is due to bad owners. If the only people allowed to breed dogs were people who knew what they were doing, then there wouldn't be inbreeding and dogs wouldn't go crazy and bite people. And yes, if I could have a pit bull here, I would in a heart beat. Someone moved from Florida while I worked at the shelter, and had an APBT mix without knowing about the ban, and the dog got sent to the shelter where it would stay until it got moved somewhere else and probably eventually was euthanized. This man loved his Pit so much, he bought another house and moved back to Florida within a week. He didn't care how much money he was losing, he didn't want him and his family to lose their pet. I think BSL (Breed-Specific Legislation) is a load of crap. And by the way, I'm not uneducated, I know all of these things because I have done research on the subject through academic/scholarly journals, veterinary interviews, as well as first-hand experience. Pit Bulls were bred to be FAMILY dogs, it goes against a well-bred Pit Bull's nature to attack a human. However, dogs have such great devotion to humans, they will learn to do anything the human wants in order to get affection and praise. And any dog you beat, no matter what the breed, will attack you if you push it too far. My Labrador Retriever (the most popular dog in America) has bitten me on more than one occasion because he had food aggression. That doesn't mean he should be euthanized. It just means that I know what I should or should not do with him, and I know that I should not trust anyone else to be around him when he is eating. And if Pit Bulls were such horribly aggressive dogs, why is it that Caesar Milan (the most well-known Dog Behavioralist in the country) has a pack of well over thirty dogs that consists mostly of PIT BULLS and PIT BULL MIXES? So before you call someone who does know about something you only think you know about because you've heard about it on the news stupid, do some research using UNBIASED sources. And do research before you decide that any broad topic (dog breed, etc.) is "dangerous."

“Sugar Hill Gang Member”

Since: Dec 06

KC

#109 Sep 27, 2007
Shelter girl..despite you not using paragraphs (good lord) I read what you wrote and appreciated your comments. The damage has already been done by the
'bad' owners of pit bulls and I don't see the perception changing anytime soon.

It also comes down to the damage these dogs do. I won't argue stats or science as anyone can pump out so called 'facts' to suit the needs of their topic.

My point is if I had to face down a dog in an alley...I'd prefer a Poodle over a Pit Bull.
(see above if you are going to go with the whole
% of attacks, bites, incidents.)

Anywhoo-- good post.
d in Kansas

Lawrence, KS

#110 Sep 27, 2007
Sophisticated towns that want to keep their "image" in good esteem usually will decide to ban pit bulls. After all, we struggle enough to attract people to move to Kansas without giving them a "negative" image regarding whether pit bulls are allowed or not. This is probably a good thing for Overland Park.

“Sugar Hill Gang Member”

Since: Dec 06

KC

#111 Sep 27, 2007
"After all, we struggle enough to attract people to move to Kansas"

Who is "we"? Is a push for people to move to Kansas
really an ongoing deal? What struggle? I must be
way out of touch....looks like I need to watch more
VH1.
d in Kansas

Lawrence, KS

#112 Sep 27, 2007
Knight,
Kansas is a net out-migration state. This means that far more people are moving out of the state than moving into the state. Johnson County is one of the few counties in the state that actually has a net in-migration of people.
Back to the point: When people see that a (suburban) city does not allow pit bulls it is usually looked at in a positive light for some people that are moving into Overland Park from other cities. It is basically creating a good positive "image" for the city in terms of not allowing pit bulls.

Since: Feb 07

United States

#113 Sep 27, 2007
more regulations and stupid laws = bad for any city

“Sugar Hill Gang Member”

Since: Dec 06

KC

#114 Sep 28, 2007
I guess it depends on what you want for your city..or county.

Post your sources though, I'd like read about this.
d in Kansas

Lawrence, KS

#115 Oct 8, 2007
k in ks wrote:
more regulations and stupid laws = bad for any city
More regulations and emission controls on polluting coal plants is a good thing for any city. Some regulations can be good and some regulations can be bad. It depends on the situation.

Since: Feb 07

United States

#116 Oct 8, 2007
...thread on pit bulls not coal.
Houston Girl

Houston, TX

#117 Nov 9, 2007
Is the ban in Overland Park only on pure pit bulls? How do they define pit bull? I'm thinking of moving from Houston to Kansas City and I've heard good things about Overland Park. I have a very mixed breed dog - part lab, part boxer, part terrier (probably some sort of pit bull terrier). I've even been told she may have Corgi in her. She does have some physical pit bull characteristics.
Dog Lover

Milwaukee, WI

#118 Nov 12, 2007
I really dont think thay should band bit bulls thay really are not a bad breed its just stupid people treat them badly. What I think thay should do is take all of them away ten give them to people who have made sure that the the families are right for the dogs and make sure if thay do breed them that the puppies go through the state first
jerk

Kansas City, MO

#119 Dec 28, 2007
pitbulls should not be seen like bad dogs cause they are not.
our pitt bull world

Kansas City, MO

#120 Dec 28, 2007
i have 2 pitts and they are the must dangeros thing u can imagine ,just dont mees with us and you will be fine!!!!
CT in OH

Brooklyn, NY

#121 Jan 2, 2008
First, I want to say that as an owner of Pits I wholeheartedly agree with the "blame the owner, not the breed" mantra here. Pits are not inherently any more dangerous than any other breed of dog.
Unfortunately, Pits have become a status symbol of urban criminal culture in this country. Individuals within this culture have no desire to be responsible dog owners and are producing dangerous animals. The trend in cities and townships across the country to Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is an effort to PRO-ACTIVELY protect the citizenry from dog attacks.
BSL gives law enforcement an actionable tool. Otherwise they have to sit and wait for a dog to attack before they can do anything. For many, this is unacceptable, and I cannot disagree.
I would like to hear alternative solutions. BSL does not work. It punishes the wrong people and is ineffective at its intended goal. But I also understand a municipality attempting to deal with dangerous dogs BEFORE they inflict harm. Any alternative to BSL has to be economical and effective at providing law enforcement PRO-ACTIVE tools to fairly identify and deal with irresponsible dog owners.
Any thoughts?
KC news hound

Columbia, MO

#122 Feb 11, 2008
Jim Carr wrote:
It's the owner not the dog that causes any breed to react!!!!!!!!
I have been around many well raised Pits and they are one of the most loving dogs I know of. Too bad OP is too PC
Overland Park Groomer

Lees Summit, MO

#123 Feb 21, 2008
HSUS Statement on Dangerous Dogs and Breed-Specific Legislation..........
You all should read ..........
The Humane Society of the United States offers the following position regarding breed-specific policies.
The HSUS opposes legislation aimed at eradicating or strictly regulating dogs based solely on their breed for a number of reasons. Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is a common first approach that many communities take. Thankfully, once research is conducted most community leaders correctly realize that BSL won't solve the problems they face with dangerous dogs.
There are over 4.5 million dog bites each year. This is an estimate as there is no central reporting agency for dog bites, thus breed and other information is not captured. Out of the millions of bites, about 10-20 are fatal each year. While certainly tragic, it represents a very small number statistically and should not be considered as a basis for sweeping legislative action.
It is imperative that the dog population in the community be understood. To simply pull numbers of attacks does not give an accurate representation of a breed necessarily. For example, by reviewing a study that states there have been five attacks by golden retrievers in a community and 10 attacks by pit bulls in that same community it would appear that pit bulls are more dangerous. However, if you look at the dog populations in that community and learn that there are 50 golden retrievers present and 500 pit bulls, then the pit bulls are actually the safer breed statistically.
While breed is one factor that contributes to a dog's temperament, it alone cannot be used to predict whether a dog may pose a danger to his or her community. A September 2000 study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (VetMed Today: Special Report) further illustrates this point. The report details dog bite related fatalities in the United States from 1979 through 1998, and reveals that over the nineteen years examined in the study at least 25 different breeds or crossbreeds of dogs were involved in fatally wounding human beings. Breeds cited range from oft-maligned pit bulls and Rottweilers to the legendary "forever loyal" breed of St. Bernards. The study was conducted by a group of veterinarians, medical doctors, and psychology and public health experts.
The main conclusion of the study was that breed-specific legislation doesn't work for several reasons: that there are inherent problems in trying to determine a dog's breed, making enforcement of breed-specific legislation difficult at best; that fatal attacks represent a very small portion of bite-related injuries and should not be the major factor driving public policy; and that existing non-breed-specific legislation already exists and offers promise for the prevention of dog bites.
Overland Park Groomer

Lees Summit, MO

#124 Feb 21, 2008
continued<<<<

Two decades ago, pit bulls and Rottweilers (the most recent breeds targeted) attracted little to no public concern. At that time it was the Doberman pinscher who was being vilified. In 2001, few people had heard of the Presa Canario breed, involved in the tragic, fatal attack on Diane Whipple in California in January of that year. Now that breed is being sought by individuals who desire the new "killer dog." Unfortunately, the "problem dog" at any given time is often the most popular breed among individuals who tend to be irresponsible, if not abusive, in the control and keeping of their pets. Simply put, if you ban one breed, individuals will just move on to another one. Banning a breed only speeds up the timetable.
Communities that have banned specific breeds have discovered that it has not been the easy answer they thought it would be. In some areas, media hype has actually increased the demand for dogs whose breed is in danger of being banned. Animal control agencies, even those that are well funded and equipped, have found the laws to be an enforcement nightmare.
Restrictions placed on a specific breed fail to address the larger problems of abuse, aggression training, and irresponsible dog ownership. Again, breed alone is not an adequate indicator of a dog's propensity to bite. Rather, a dog's tendency to bite is a product of several factors, including but not limited to:
Early socialization, or lack thereof, of the dog to people.
Sound obedience training for recognition of where he or she "fits" with regard to dominance and people, or mistraining for fighting or increased aggression.
Genetic makeup, including breed and strains within a breed.
Quality of care and supervision by the owner (is the dog part of the family or is she kept chained outside?).
Current levels of socialization of the dog with his or her human family.
Behavior of the victim.
Whether the dog has been spayed or neutered.
If the goal is to offer communities better protection from dogs who are dangerous, then thoughtful legislation that addresses responsible dog keeping is in order. Legislation aimed at punishing the owner of the dog rather than punishing the dog is far more effective in reducing the number of dog bites and attacks. Well enforced, non-breed-specific laws offer an effective and fair solution to the problem of dangerous dogs in all communities.
Comprehensive "dog bite" legislation, coupled with better consumer education and forced responsible pet keeping efforts, would do far more to protect communities than banning a specific breed. The HSUS encourages you to read the Community Approach to Dog Bite Prevention by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
The HSUS is committed to keeping dogs and people safe and is available and willing to offer advice, educational materials and model legislation to communities interested in decreasing the incidence of dog bites and aggression.
Former Potential Resident

United States

#125 May 5, 2008
My wife and I were considering purchasing a house in Overland Park/ Leawood. We aren't any longer. Nor will we be supporting that area of the KC metro area. I'm not willing to allow my tax dollars (even sales tax) to pay for frivolous laws based on fear. We will also encourage our friends to do the same.

A ban on breeds is simply pandering to the residents of the community that live in fear of anything and everything. I can understand the desire to have the neighborhood safe for children. However, this is America and as far as I remember from history we were founded on the principles of liberty. Regulations should be based upon fact rather than foolish impressions based on the 30 second spot on the evening news. Nor should it be a reaction to a random incident that was more than likely provoked in one way or another.

Seriously, Overland Park is going to outlaw a breed of dog. Spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to enforce a law that will continue to grow until the only dogs allowed within the city limits are Yorkshire Terriers or Tea Cup Poodles. Speak with a vet or employee or your many pet stores. Little dogs are more likely to bite. They are treated as dolls or playthings and lack the proper training. They are often not socialized with the human or dog public. The owner of a larger breed would be more likely to go through the proper training to gain dominance of their animal friend. Pit Bulls, what about the Boxer mix that "appears" to be a Pit Bull or what about the 20+ breeds that "appear" to be Pit Bulls. Sorry. Foolish waste of resources.

I have owned breeds that have been considered dangerous. Under the direction of a responsible owner they pose no threat to anyone.

Outlaw something more detrimental to the population and use their tax dollars more efficiently and effectively. Maybe it would help Kansas grow.

Knight- You may prefer a poodle, however I would prefer any large breed. I'm not sure if you have ever seen the show "the dog whisperer" please note that a majority of the dogs featured on that show are small dogs.

pet ownership requires education. regardless of breed, size or city limits.
katie

Sherbrooke, Canada

#126 Feb 17, 2009
i think some of you people are being stupid, and yes maybe someone else has pointed this out to you, if so ill be repeating it....
PITBULLS are not bad animals. You need to take the time to train them properly, and get the FIXED!
Fixing a pitbull diminishes aggressive tendencies!!!!
Training them makes them more aware of sounds, and people, and arent as likely to bite you....

so seriously people before you go pitbulls shouldnt go to heaven or they should be banned why dont you think about things little more...do some reserch read a freaking book

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Leawood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Does Anyone Know Jim Clark? (May '11) Jan 10 Dan Savage 9
News Methodists Trying to Avoid Church Split Over Ga... (May '16) Dec 25 Earburner 7
News Regulators allow AMC to buy smaller movie-theat... Dec 22 Will Dockery 1
News BEDCO approves strategic action plan (Nov '09) Dec '16 BTT 24
News Missing Man Larry Schnackenberg Found Alive (Jul '10) Nov '16 Still Wonder 221
Where can i find some meth in Los Angeles? (Jul '15) Nov '16 Greg 4
W33d and Meds Hookup! (Oct '15) Nov '16 Greg 2

Leawood Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Leawood Mortgages