My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« KC Pet Project 2013 year in review | Main | Canton Township (MI) repeals breed-specific vicious dog ordinance »

January 14, 2014


Nancy Tranzow


Lisa Hospets

Brent I am unable to access the letter


Lisa. Sorry for the technical difficulty. Trying to work with typepad to get this fixed. Please check back, I hope to have this fixed shortly.

don cummings

As an Omaha, NE resident and owner of a "minority" pit bull I hope at some point our city will make this same decision some day. I must say that the employees of the Nebraska Humane Society have been more then professional on the times they have been called to our home because our dog "looks" like a pit bull-- not because she has ever exhibited any aggressive or dangerous behavior. Congrats to the residents of Bonner Springs & keep up the great work on the KC Dog Blog.

Dog hero

well another bsl ends. i wonder how many more.


Awesome for Bonner Springs. Pray for the day I see the same headline for Overland Park, Leawood, Mission Hills, etc etc.


Municipalities ban assault weapons for the same reasons they ban pit bulls (to prevent a problem they have never had.) Notice that notwithstanding a few small advances, the gun control people (the "pro-ban people") have lost the fight virtually all across the country. The pro2A movement has been successful at not only fighting back infringements to gun rights but at expanding them nationwide. I have said it many times - the pit bull type dog advocates would gain much taking a page out of the pro2A strategy handbook. Why they don't I have no idea. If their strategies work for expanding ownership and lessening restrictions on things that are actually designed to kill other people, just imagine how you could use them to help dogs.


For a whole host of reasons, I'm not sure a comparison between hand guns and dogs makes much sense at all, regardless of which side of the argument you're on.


Actually, as someone who is involved in both the similarities are uncanny. The arguments for and against are identical. The hidden discrimination against "the handlers" is there in both. They are almost 100% the same argument. The only difference that I can see is that the right to bear arms is written into the constitution and the right to own any type of dog you want is not.

I can argue for guns or dogs using the exact same words and just change out "pit bull" for "assault rifle". And I have done it to illustrate exactly that many times.

Regardless your position on gun control I am simply saying: If you want to win the fight against BSL start looking at how the gun guys fight against gun control. The strategies work for guns and they would work just as well for dogs.

But eh you guys. You're so invested in avoiding the things you "don't like" ... you'll throw the baby out with the bath water. What a waste. It's a shame. Really.


Mina -- my opinion on this is in no way shaped by my feelings on gun control. I simply think that promoting family pets as in any way similar to assault weapons is a poor strategy.

And we are winning the fight against BSL...without the comparison.


How are we going to get these decisions made in Johnson County?


Thank you for writing. Just sent the link your blog to my WA legislators who are about to vote on HB2117 to ban BSL in WA urging them to vote yes. I just noticed this link in your article is not working: Here are some snippets from the document -- that you can read in its entirety here. Can you please fix it? I want them to have access to all the great info provided in the full doc in addition to your blog! Thank you!


Can somebody describe this proactive method of identifying aggressive behavior might work in the real world....seems impractical to me.


Sisdeh -- I'm trying to get the link fixed...

Matt, here is what we have proposed in several communities here:

1) Have separate designations for "potentially dangerous" and "dangerous" dogs.

2) A dog can be ruled as "potentially dangerous" based on exhibited behavior, but not any type of bite. For instance, if you live next door to a scary dog, that you think "wow, if that dog ever gets through that fence, I'm a gonner", you can call animal control to come and inquire about the dog. If they feel that a reasonable person would be concerned about this dog, they can designate it as "potentially dangerous" based on behavior and put some restrictions in place. The behavior to be classified as potentially dangerous does need to be well defined.

2) An owner can have the designation lifted if it goes to responsible owner classes and dog training classes and improves the dog's behavior.

3) A "dangerous" dog would then be one that had escalated to a point of having bitten. The requirements for owning a "dangerous" dog are much more rigorous than the "potentially dangerous".

The point here would be to allow some intervention by animal control on a dog (or owner) that is showing reckless behavior before a bite occurs.

Given that nearly every animal control department in the country is under-funded, I'd much rather them spend the resources investigating whether they thing a dog is exhibiting aggressive behavior or not, than showing up to determine if the dog is a pit bull or no.


Interesting...what is the proposed penalty to the owner if a dog leaves it's yard and bites another dog? Penalty if it leaves and kills a dog that was leashed? If it bites a person?


Matt, here's a more detailed example of a law that I think has a proactive, behavior-based approach. I'm sure we could all debate subtleties in the law, but I think the idea here is spot on:


What kind of country is this thank god i live in a free society I will have a pitt if i want one

Karen Batchelor

So good to see getting the outing it so richly deserves.

The sooner the media understand the harm that woman and her cult members have done - along with their own hype and misinformation - the better!

Zorica Stancevic

Hi there -

This blog is great and I know you are working on the link for the whole Committee document on the blog but we are currently working to stop a proposed MSN for pit bulls only in the Los Angeles region right now and access to the document would be incredibly useful in our efforts.

Thank you.

Mike Stein

Here's a working link to the working group doc.


Thank you Mike Stein. How did you do that?! I've fixed it in the article now as well.

PAMM - People Against Mad Mothers

I think Mina is talking about copying the strategy - not making a comparison when testifying in city hall.

If you look at Obama's strategy for winning his first election it is very much like Hitler's nazi propaganda. He used the same strategy for VERY different purposes. (And NO, I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler!!!!)


Nice reporting, Brent! Now we have to spread that information far and wide and hope others snap out of it and face reality.


Just wanted to point out that I NEVER suggested making a COMPARISON between the dogs and guns.

What I said: Listen carefully, now, is USE THEIR STRATEGY. That's it. Nothing more nothing less.

Why dog people can't get this through their heads I have no idea. The gun rights people have a WINNING strategy. They stamped out gun control. Meanwhile the dog rights people piddle piddle and piddle. I have brought this up so many times and every time I mention all anyone hears is "just compare the dogs to guns, that will work!" No - what I am saying 100% is use their strategy. It wins!

Yes you are making headway. Slowly, tiny bit by tiny bit. Your STRATEGY, as compared to the gun rights STRATEGY, is not as efficient, not as strong, not as convincing.

But - whatever - I have suggested over and over that the dog rights people adopt some of the winning strategies of another group also fighting restrictions and bans. Far be it for me to point out how much better their strategy is than yours. It just seems to me that no one listens to anything that is said after the word "gun" is typed .... coincidence? I think not.

The comments to this entry are closed.