My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Some parting thoughts about the incident in Sikeston, MO | Main | Weekly Roundup -- Week Ending 12/16/12 »

December 12, 2012


Janette Hamilton

Do they honestly think the outcry is just going to die down and then they can continue on removing dogs from homes? Do they not realize that the second they start back up again they will get the same reaction from the public? This isn't a sweep it under the rug sort of thing! There will NEVER be a time where the public will stay silent as authorities condemn good dogs to death.

Cheryl Huerta

Thanks for the update Brent. I'll continue to encourage people to contact the Sikeston City council with respectful but factual information about what type of legislation can be effective in keeping citizens safe from dog related injuries.


I've been most shocked by the sanguine way "StopBSL" (and other "advocates) have treated this, just swallowing the city's line of bull whole. Your points here are dead-on.


Keep their feet to the fire, so to speak, so they don't revert back to taking people's pets in the dead of night. This needs to be kept in the public eye. Thanks for following this up and thanks to the reporter for not letting this drop.
I'd love to write, but not sure I can be as respectful as warranted . . . this is an atrocity!


and btw, since their ordinance says dogs "shall" (not "may") be seized and fines "will" be assessed, the city is violating its own ordinance if it DOESNT seize noncompliant dogs and fine their owners... leaving them open of course to charges of unequal application of the law. AKA "owning a pit bull while poor/minority"



The story is strange to say the least and I'm glad that Chris Hayes followed up on this and asked the questions I woudl have wanted to ask.

Obviously there are two sides to this story, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what's in it for Trace Allen White to lie. At this point, coming out against the city potentially threatens his job and SHS's relationship with the city -- but for him to stick to his story, and to have other people in the community speaking out about it has a lot of people on one side, and only the city manager on the other (who, at this point, has every reason to lie).

I also think his choice of messaging is odd - and seemingly only focused on what they didn't do, but no encouragement of people to follow the ordinance, or the "need" for it, or whatever. While Friend has every reason to be untruthful, I don't have any motive for White to be so..

Karen F

Thank you for your excellent coverage of this issue and for not letting it disappear.


1. Why can't the city manager be transparent about his plans, since they would have enhanced public safety? If BSL is so great, puff out your chest about it and educate us bleeding-heart pit nutters about why it makes communities safer.

2. If (as the city manager suggests) the Humane Society sent 40 dogs to St. Louis rescue groups simply to reduce population at the shelter, don't you think they'd do that every chance they got? Did the shelter director look like he'd never thought of that before?

3. Nice follow-up reporting, but can we PLEASE stop showing shelter dogs barking and howling in their cages? Take them out of their kennels where they usually act like any other dog.

4. That being said, nice of the reporter to cuddle up with one of the impounded pit bulls. He sure looked like a vicious one! Glad that threat to public safety is off the streets. Well done Sikeston!

The comments to this entry are closed.