Kansas


Since being rescued, Liam (pictured here) has gone on to earn his CGC. He now visits schools as part of an outreach program for the Lawrence Humane Society

***

While serious attacks by dogs are very rare, the intense media coverage that may accompany such an incident can mislead the public and/or lawmakers into imagining that dogs pose a significant threat to the community.  Sensationalized publicity, combined with a lack of understanding of the infrequency of dog attacks, and of their true causes, has resulted in reactive and uniformed policies directed against certain types of dogs.
More than a dozen towns, cities and counties in Kansas have banned or restricted certain types of dogs, in the mistaken belief that focusing on the appearance of a dog will address the behavior of a dog . . . or a dog’s owner. While all of the  breed bans / restrictions include pit bulls, some Kansas towns have targeted other breeds. A total of nine different breeds of dogs have been banned or restricted in various jurisdictions.

These ordinances can only be considered reactive and arbitrary.  For example, Arkansas City has banned eight breeds. Not among those eight is the breed of dog implicated in a 2001 fatality.  Town officials of Arkansas City did not ban that breed — correctly, in the opinion of the NCRC.  Nor should they should have banned the other eight.

Today, dogs contribute more to the welfare of individuals and society than perhaps any other time in the history of the human-dog bond. Over the past three decades, increased awareness of the importance of humane care and control of dogs, the enactment and enforcement of leash laws, and dog bite prevention education, have all been instrumental in drastically lowering the number of reported dog-related injuries nationwide.

Fortunately, most of the residents of Kansas understand and recognize the value of dogs, and do not legislate their fate based upon physical appearance.

National Canine Research Council