This is a news story that ran on last night's Fox News Report.
Earlier this year, Kansas City, KS woman Apryl Nash had KCK animal control break into her yard and seize her three dogs & 19 puppies while she was gone. No warrant. No probably cause. No immediate danger (although it does sound like conditions weren't ideal and the dogs needed to be spayed, they certainly don't sound like they were urgent situations).
The dogs were taken in...with 19 puppies euthenized for being "pit bulls" along with their mothers. Last Thursday, in court, the one living dog, one of the alleged parents of the puppies, was declared in court, with the ID of four veterinarians, as "not a pit bull".
This woman had all kinds of Constitutional rights violated including illegal search and siezure and lack of due process (dogs killed without a trial).
This, unfortunately, is not a rare incident -- as WAG The Dog has another example of this happening in Canada (where their Constitution is very similar to ours).
Without our help (kudos Cheryl), Ms. Nash wouldn't have had the resources or ability to navigate the legal system to fight for Fleas (her dog). KCK has preyed on these types of people for a long time with their pit bull ban -- that neither protects citizens from dogs, or protects citizens from government. At some point owners of all dogs need to fight against BSL and these types of restrictive, unnecessary ordinances.
Of course, as much as I thank Fox 4 for covering this story, it's still worth noting that the headline in the article is "Kansas City Woman takes City to Court over pit bull deaths" misses the whole point of the story that the dogs weren't "pit bulls" and a judge even said so. Sigh.
Can we move on with this thinking that pit bull bans are a good idea. Do we really want to be paying court fees (and the subsequent fee when she takes them back to court for killing her dogs without a trial) to rid people of dogs that clearly aren't dangerous? What sense does that make to use tax-dollars for that? I've got nothin'.
19 puppies were euthanized based on the assumption of an ACO. The assumption was the male dog is a pit bull and he is the father of both litters. Even though the ACO knew nothing about the mother dogs or witnessed the breeding act his declaration sentenced all those 4-5 wk old puppies to death.
The day the dogs were outside was a lovely spring day. There was water even if it was a kids wading pool. Do you really think dogs care if they drink out of a bowl or a big kiddie wading pool? The pool was up higher on a balcony so the puppies wouldn't accidentally climb into the pool and drown. Since the puppies were so little they were still nursing and did not need the same amount of water as the adult dogs. All the dogs were fed in the house in the morning. All the dogs were a good weight, no nasal discharge, or eye infections.
If this is neglect in KCK's dog population and these dogs were in imminent danger; why isn't KCK AC picking up a whole lot more dogs that are in deplorable conditions?
Posted by: Cheryl | October 02, 2007 at 09:35 AM
That is a very good example of the stupidity of the AC!
Piss on them for actions like that!!!!!
That is why I sold my house in grandview and moved, I was scared they would take my family pets and kill them before I could do anything!!!!
Posted by: morgan | October 02, 2007 at 07:24 PM