Complaints about cruelty to animals and dog fighting have dropped significantly during the past year, and Lawrence Humane Society officials credit changes made to city ordinances.
"The anti-tethering law, I think, has been the best thing for Lawrence," said Midge Grinstead, executive director of the Lawrence Humane Society's animal shelter.
In 2005, there were a little more than 800 such complaints, Grinstead said, including about 50 about dog fighting. As of last week, there had been only about 260 similar complaints, with about 25 of them involving possible dog fighting, she said.
"I honestly can't remember the last time we took in a pit bull that was scarred," said Jeaneen Hercha, the Lawrence Humane Society's cruelty investigator, referring to the dog breed often associated with dog fighting.
Two years ago, the city adopted an anti-tethering ordinance that prevents dog owners from keeping pets chained outside. Some dangerous dogs are able to break their chains or ropes, so the dogs must be kept inside or in pens.
More on animal cruelty cases
"The dogs aren't languishing outside, so our cruelties are down, and we don't have the dangerous dogs chained up outside like we'd had before," Grinstead said.
Both Lawrence and Douglas County have vicious dog laws, too. The laws define what a vicious dog is and set steps for impounding the dog - and, if a district court judge orders it, putting it to death. Grinstead and Hercha said they thought the laws also had an effect on dog cases.
Grinstead said she had talked with city representatives in Topeka and Charleston, W.Va., who have called inquiring about the local dog laws.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
Oh, I didn't know Marion had an opinion on dogs.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
OMB -
G'morning. The funny thing is Marion Sydney Lynn didn't even address anything in the article. Just spewing about the same nonsense. He saw dog in the article and then the drivel started flowing out of his 9 fingers. In fact, this has to do with the success of the anti-teathering law and Mr. Lynn is a known teatherer.
prospector (anonymous) says…
I am glad to see dogs and people are safer today. These are facts, sybil, not PR.
-------------------------
Sybil wrote:
"Oh and prospector you should review the forum rules about posting from other forums. The statement you cut and pasted was a violation by OMB and now you have violated."
Wrong again for the third time in one day and that was only on one article.
--------------------
OMB
Like taking candy from a baby. In reading the sybil threat from above, all I could think was, one man's violation is another man's pleasure. HE HE
-----------------------------------
"Posted by sybil (anonymous) on September 5, 2006 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Due Process violations that is why the Appelette court accepted the filing...."
"Posted by swbsow (anonymous) on September 5, 2006 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
...And Sybil, it is "Appellate". I don't normally nit pick on spelling but that one was particularly distressing."
swbsow, isn't an "Appelette" a dessert special at Applebee's?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Apparently, "due process" has been tethered, too.
Does anyone else wonder why Luna has been held at the animal shelter for nine months? I mean, as I understand it, animal shelters would rather have *empty* cages, than full ones. They generally *want* to place pets back with their owners... and only when they absolutely have to, will they euthenize an animal.
For example, this comes from the city of Athens, TN:
http://www.cityofathenstn.com/publicw...
I'm beginning to wonder if some folks aren't spending too much time on message boards, when they could be improving the dog's home, pen, enclosure etc.
I'm having a hard time seeing the city, animal shelter folks etc. as "villains" in all this.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
What is he mumbling about? Is he drunk again? He attacks folks all the time for spelling and grammatical errors but... reading that post reminds me of talking to the drunk ol' guy at the bar. Just mumbling stumbling nothing makes sense. Living the life in his own world I guess.
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Okay, Marion, I'll bite...
Exactly what "process" that is "due"... has been "denied?" Something in the city codes & regulations, perhaps?
You talk about "due process" a lot, but have never really spelled it out. Makes me wonder if you even understand it yourself.
Ball's in your court.
Thanks
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
ForThePeople (anonymous) says…
Really we should all pity folks like Marion and enforcer....so sad that they live life behind a computer fighting for lost causes. If they would just contain some of the hatred...they might actually be assets to the community!
prospector (anonymous) says…
OMB
nonthinking nutcase
nforcer noodling
narcissistic nobrain
gr (anonymous) says…
"The dogs aren't languishing outside, so our cruelties are down, and we don't have the dangerous dogs chained up outside like we'd had before," Grinstead said.
Let's see what we have here from what the article said:
Complaints about cruelty "to animals" are down.
The anti-tethering law had something(?) to do with it.
The anti-tethering law prevents dogs from being kept outside where they may be able to break free and (cause cruelty to humans? or is it each other?).
Therefore, since the dogs aren't outside, "animal cruelty" is down.
And someone who doesn't make any more sense than that is in charge of welfare for animals? I guess you have to read more into it than what the article says.
acg (anonymous) says…
The Bobs are killing me this morning.
"Oh, I didn't know Marion had an opinion on dogs."
I shot coke right outta my nose when I read that!
trinity (anonymous) says…
lmao, me too acg-just gotta luv them bobs! :)
angelofmine (anonymous) says…
That coke-out-of-your-nose reference didn't sound so good, acg! LOL Goodness, its getting scary on these boards!
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
The Teatherer is back.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
Hmmmm...So, there's this article about how wonderful all the puppies are being treated in town. This article just happens to contribute part of this success to the new laws pushed by the Humane Society. Then, you've got an article asking for major donations to the Humane Society. Coincidence?
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Thanks, Marion.
3-202b aggressive animal at large defined; penalties.
(a) An "aggressive animal at large" means any animal at large that without provocation, exhibits aggression or combativeness toward a person or another domestic animal, whether or not said person or animal is attacked, bitten, or scratched by the aggressive animal at large. (Ord. 7690)
(B) Any person found guilty of animal at large as defined in Section 3-202, where such animal is an aggressive animal shall be fined as follows: $30.00 for the first offense within a twelve (12) month period, or by imprisonment, for not more than 10 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; $40.00 for the second offense within a twelve (12) month period, or by imprisonment, for not more than 10 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; $60.00 for the third offense within a twelve (12) month period, or by imprisonment, for not more than 14 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and $100.00 for the fourth and subsequent offense(s) within a twelve (12) month period, or by imprisonment, for not more than 30 days, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The Municipal Judge shall have no authority to suspend the fine or any portion thereof of fine established by this Section but shall have the authority to suspend the term of imprisonment. The fine shall be in addition to any applicable court costs or impoundment fees. The Humane Society or other impoundment facility shall not release an animal to an owner if the owner has failed to pay a fine or has failed to appear in municipal court for the adjudication of a violation of this Section. (Ord. 7690)
3-202c habitual violator; aggressive animal at-large.
It shall be a separate municipal offense for any person to receive four (4) or more citations for violation of Section 3-202B within a twenty-four (24) month consecutive period. Such person shall be cited as a habitual violator. Any person found guilty of violation of this Section shall be fined a minimum of $100.00 and a maximum of $500.00 for each habitual violator citation. The Municipal Judge shall have no authority to suspend the minimum fine or any portion thereof. A person cited for violation of this Section shall be required to appear in municipal court. In addition thereto, the Municipal Judge shall have the authority to sentence the individual to up to six (6) months in jail. It shall be a defense to an alleged violation of this Section for the defendant to have been adjudged not guilty, or the charge dismissed, of Section 3-202B for a specific citation issued under Section 3-202B. (Ord. 7690)
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
3-203 pursuit onto private property.
An officer may pursue and capture any animal, including a dog or cat, found to be running at large as defined in Section 3-202 of this Article. The officer shall have the authority to enter upon private property to effectuate capture. However, the officer shall not enter into any secured fenced area or structure located upon private property. (1990 Code 3-203; Ord. 6389)
3-204 impounding, redemption and disposition.
a dog, cat or other animal found running at large within the corporate limits of the city, contrary to the provisions of Section 3-202 may be taken up by the officer or brought in by a member of the public and may be impounded at the Lawrence Humane Society. The officer shall make a record of all dogs or cats so impounded with their description, date of impoundment and rabies vaccination number. If, within seventy-two (72) hours from the date any dog or cat is impounded and the owner of such dog or cat shall appear and claim his or her dog or cat, said dog or cat may be released upon payment of the following fees:
(A) Impoundment fee for the first twenty-four (24) hour period or any part thereof in any consecutive twelve (12) months:
(1) First pickup and release - $10.00;
(2) Second pickup and release - $20.00; plus an additional fee of $10.00 if the animal is not spayed or neutered.
(3) Third pickup and release - $30.00; plus an additional fee of $15.00 if the animal is not spayed or neutered.
(4) Each subsequent pickup and release - $40.00; plus an additional fee of $20.00 if the animal is not spayed or neutered.
Owners may seek a refund of the additional fee if proof that the animal was spayed or neutered is presented to the City within thirty (30) days of release of the animal.
(B) Board Fee: Five dollars ($5.00) for each additional twenty-four (24) hour period up to a maximum of forty-eight (48) hours to pay the cost of keeping the animal. If any animal so impounded is not claimed by the owner thereof within three (3) business days of the date of such impounding, such animal shall become the property of the Lawrence Humane Society. The above described costs for impounding and keeping such animal will be due and payable to the City for any animal claimed by an owner after the three (3) business day period. All impounding fees shall be paid to the City and no animal shall be released until the owner proves the animal, if a dog, cat or ferret, is currently immunized against rabies. (1990 Code 3-204; Ord. 6389; Ord. 6704)
Agnostick (anonymous) says…
Marion writes:
"the dog Luna bit no one, threatened no one "
Well, according to 3-202B, paragraph (A)... dog didn't need to bite, scratch or attack anyone. It only had to "exhibit aggressiveness or combativeness." Those are probably pretty subjective... viewed a lot more differently by a mother with young children, than a full-grown adult male human.
The dog is not dead, and I've not heard of any plans to kill it. As to being "deprived" of property, 3-203 clearly states the conditions under which an animal control officer can capture and/or impound the dog.
Anybody else here see something that I'm missing?
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
Agnostick - Where are the pictures? That was too confusing for me to follow.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
I believe the Teatherer just became unteathered.
ForThePeople (anonymous) says…
"that the megalomaniacal Judge Randy McGrath"
Hardly! This, in no way describes the Randy McGrath I've come in contact with. However it does rightly describe your behavior on this forum!
Sheesh Marion....why don't you put your time and efforts into fighting for something that might actually make a difference in the community?
DaleRogers (anonymous) says…
I must object to the accusations that Agnostik is a liar!
Here is due process:
(A) An "aggressive animal at large" means any animal at large that without provocation, exhibits aggression or combativeness toward a person or another domestic animal, whether or not said person or animal is attacked, bitten, or scratched by the aggressive animal at large. (Ord. 7690)
Dangerous dog, as used in this Article, shall mean:
(A) Any dog with a known propensity tendency or disposition to attack, to cause injury, or otherwise threaten the safety of human beings or domestic animals; or
(B) Any dog which in a vicious or threatening manner, approaches any person in apparent attack upon the person while on the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds or places; or on private property; or (C) Any dog which attacks or bites, or has attacked or bitten a human being or domestic animal; or
(D) Any dog owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of dog fighting, or any dog trained for dog.
dogs; threats to public safety.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article to the contrary and irrespective of whether the dog has been declared dangerous pursuant to this Article, the Municipal Judge may order any dog destroyed if the Judge determines that the dog is an immediate threat to public health and safety and that confinement and registration of the dog by the owner or keeper of the dog as provided in this Article will not adequately protect public health and safety. No person shall harbor, own, or possess a dog that is an immediate threat to public health and safety. In making such determination the Judge may consider the severity of the attack and such other relevant information. The Municipal Judge shall have the authority to sentence the person adjudicated guilty of this Section to serve up to a maximum of six (6) months in jail and to pay a fine not to exceed $1,000.00.(Ord. 7112, Ord. 7690).
For help with definitions:
Notwithstanding:
preposition, adverb FORMAL
despite the fact or thing mentioned:
irrespective:
adverb
without considering; not needing to allow for:
btw - Kansastalks no longer exists
prospector (anonymous) says…
Thanks for the picture swbsow and DaleRogers. I will also thank you for TOB because it might be nap time or brewery time.;0)
http://www.retronutcase.com/nutcases/...
ForThePeople (anonymous) says…
UH....Hester....did you not notice that Marion, enforcers "lawyer" was the one who brought up Luna. Perhaps you could conjure up another little incantation and make it all go away!
prospector (anonymous) says…
"Posted by sybil (anonymous) on September 6, 2006 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Public Relations at work again."
-----------------------------------------
"Posted by prospector (anonymous) on September 6, 2006 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am glad to see dogs and people are safer today. These are facts, sybil, not PR."
--------------------------------------
"Posted by HesterPrynne (anonymous) on September 6, 2006 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here we go again! Did anyone read the article?..."
Enforcer blah blah blah
"Keep your discussions on the topic at hand"
----------------------------------------
Opinions on article as you demand are stated above. Where is your's?! You noticed any dirt being tracked in from your door step?
DaleRogers (anonymous) says…
Yes, please, go talk to enforcer, I mean sybil, I mean yourself, somewhere else.
ForThePeople (anonymous) says…
Because you are better than us...Now leave us to our bickering.
omg....rotflmao!
Sas...your giving the bobs a run for their money on the funnies!
Confrontation (anonymous) says…
Sasquatch34: I would apologize if I hurt your feelings, but that would imply that I cared. I was just pointing out the LJWorld coincidence. Get over yourself.
Tychoman (anonymous) says…
Hey Bobs, you rock for keeping this thread bearable. Marion's ad hominem attacks (and blatant strays from the topic at hand which I remember him clearly lecturing everybody and their dog [haha] on in previous threads).
Marion here's a song for you:
"I'm too hypocritical for my shirt.
Too hypocritical for my shirt.
So hypocritical it hurts!"
No one wants the dog dead, everyone wants it returned to enforcer or at least someone more responsible, so go take a rabies vaccine before your keyboard short-circuits from all the slobber you've been raining down on it every time you post on Luna.
gr (anonymous) says…
Sasquatch34: "You see gr, the city made it against the law to tether your animal outside for over a certain amount of time. This means that people, in fear of breaking this law, are no longer tethering their animal for days on end, forgetting to feed and water it and such. Therefore, neighbors and others are not calling the police because poor Fido has been outside without food and water for days. Hence, the decline in animal cruelty, at least in this capacity."
I see you made my point even more clear. Keep in mind, just because a dog is tethered, does not mean people forget to feed and water it. Likewise, just because a dog is inside and out of site does not mean it is being fed and watered. It may be true that neighbors are not calling, but only because they can't see it happening. The only capacity that there is a decline in animal cruelty is that it's not being reported. But, that's not what the "English" said. You could not declare there is any "real" decline.
Logic sure is tough, isn't it Sasquatch34.
gr (anonymous) says…
sasquatch,
Conjecture is what I was accusing you and the article of. Just because there are less reports of cruelty doesn't mean it's not happening. For that matter, it doesn't mean it was happening before. Only that there were reports.
Like, reports of Martians doesn't mean there are any.
Fewer reports of Martians doesn't mean we are being visited less.
Saying animal cruelty is down because it's not being reported as much, makes as much sense as saying that after discontinuing the cruelty hotline, animal cruelty has dropped to an all time low.
Not tying dogs up had little to do with it. For your logic, requiring all home owners to build an eight foot solid fence around their yard would cause the same reduction of reporting.