jeraldjcook
Contributor
You consider that a great ordinance? Sounds like another move toward a totalitarian state to me. I agree that aggressive animals should be dealt with and euthanized if that is what is necessary. But the city having their own means to determine that without an incident is a little extreme to me.
I agree with you to a point, and there are numerous cities within 50 miles of me where this ordinance would not be a good idea. I'm originally from a suburb of Kansas City where pit bulls are banned and I could see how an ordinance like this could get out of hand. If the temperament test if fair, you have nothing to worry about. Lawrence, the city I live in, is EXTREMELY pit bull friendly. The city council is pro pit bull, so is the local humane society (it travels to city council meetings all over Kansas and Missouri speaking out against breed bans and explaining how successful their breed neutral policy is and its safety record), and you can't walk downtown without out seeing at least a handful of them. The ordinance was originally passed because there were a few individuals who were involved in dog fighting that the city had a hard time pinning charges on them. The city just about has to catch them fighting the dogs to get any charges to stick, but if you can take their dogs, it's at least something. As for the ordinance, the actual wording if very fair, breed neutral, and the testing is performed by the humane society, which again is pro pit bull. Someone must complain about your dog for it to be tested. If it fails the test you can appeal, and failing the test, except in extreme cases won't cause the dog to be euthanized. Lawrence is a college town, home of the KU Jayhawks, and is very liberal. These aren't the type of people who are going to run a totalitarian state.