Posted by crackinsack (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure if you told the police dept that you felt threatened they would have responded. From you description above, it sounds like the dog just "walked" into your yard minding its own business. There’s no sense rushing to the scene if the dog is just walking by. I don’t know why the animal control was unavailable… I’m sure they’d want more tax money to have someone available at all times.

Posted by Iloveemporia (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

next time it happens just say yes he is vicious and i see him barking and running after kids on there bikes that will get there attention. serious what else could the animal control be doing thats their job if u have to exaggerate to get them to do there job then do it!

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In the past two months we've had two incidents in our neighborhood. The first was when a pit bull got loose and approached our house. My wife, who was outside, took a couple of steps toward the dog and it crouched, then began to growl and bare its teeth. She came into the house and we called animal control. There was a voice mail. We called the police department. No one ever came. We stayed in the house for a while and assume that the dog was either picked up by its owner or went back to its home.

Last week I was outside mowing and I heard our mail carrier asking for help. I looked down the street to where she was and saw that there was a dog loose dragging a chain. She didn't feel safe with the dog and asked me to call animal control. She said that another letter carrier had been bitten by a dog the previous Saturday and she did not want to take a chance on the dog where she was. I tried approaching the dog and was unable to get it under control I called animal control and got the voice mail. I then called EPD and about ten minutes later animal control came. I spoke with the officer and he said the dog was not a problem. He chained it back up in the yard it had escaped from. We had a brief conversation that left me with the impression that those of us who feel we have a public safety issue here are too concerned with what is not a problem at all.

This seems to me to be a problem where things feed on one another. There are too many irresponsible pet owners. City officials really don't seem to care about solving the problem. The two elements feed on one another.

These type of things will continue as long as the current environment is "acceptable."

Sooner or later the bomb will go off. A child will be attacked and mauled. Someone will be seriously injured. I wish it weren't so, but given thge current climate it seems almost inevitable.

Posted by offc_grl76 (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to know our police departments and city commissioner's answer to that question. I have placed many calls to the the animal control officers and the police department for dogs running loose and provoking my dogs who are in a fenced yard. One of the responses I got from the animal control officer was "I dont like coming to your neighborhood, there are too many loose dogs running around." Other times I have gotten the response from the police that if the dog isn't vicious they cant do anything about it when there are no animal control officers on duty. I know that people in my neighborhood wait until animal control is not on duty and let their dogs out (they have confessed this). Our city commissioner's need to WAKE UP and get more funding for our officers. If they dont want to have someone directly on duty all of the time, make them be ON CALL so when a call comes in they can come out and deal with it.

Posted by emporian (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Maybe animal control wasn't on duty. They only have 1 full time and 1 part time officer with only one working at a time. Maybe they were backlogged with calls. One person can only respond to 1 call at a time. You could've been #5 in line. If you want the service you are gonna have to pay for it.

They also have duties at the shelter too. Their only job isn't cruising the streets.

Posted by rox_alan (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is what the tax payers pay the Police and Animal Control to control animals that are running loose or is or could be vicious and for the safety of the public. If it isn't the Police's job nor the Animal control doesn't want to go into a certain neighborhood cause they know that there is loose dogs running around then the Commissioners need to come and pick up the animals. That is their job too to make sure the public is safe from these animals. So unless you commissioners want to get a phone call to come and get a vicious animal or a dog that is on the loose then I suggest you think about hiring a couple more Animal Control people. There is no reason why we can't go outside in our own neighborhood and not feel safe. Sad that our Police dept. has that attitude that they can't do something until an animal mauls a child or even an adult. Will it take a death before you wake up that something needs to be done?

Posted by flexj66801 (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The patrol officers won't respond unless it is a emergency plain & simple. That means unless the dog is aggressive or has bit someone the officers have other issues to attend to. How many of you have ever spent time at the Shelter? I would venture to say not many. That phone rings off the hook with loose dog calls. Emporian is right, There is usually one animal control officer on duty at a time. They only have one animal control truck & there in absolutely no way they can respond to each & every call, Especially since the owners of the dogs will probably have found their dogs by the time they can respond anyway. The shelter itself is only open from 11am until 3pm because of being short staffed. I understand the problems, I am not dismissing any of it as trivial but don't blame the already short staffed animal control officers & shelter staff. Its bad enough to be short handed & have more things going on than you can handle without getting the blame for the public not feeling "safe". Emporian is right in the fact that if you want more control officers, More patrols & better services, Then be ready to pay for it. Otherwise it is a mute point.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This sounds a bit like the conversation I had with the animal control officer last week. I don;t think anyone is blaming the front line personnel. We see this as primarily a city management problem. There is a big problem here and if it doesn;t get fixed someone will really get hurt, which is tragic. Then, the lawsuits will follow, including suits against city management for neglecting the problem. It shouldn't have to come to something like that, but unless something is done it will.

Posted by SpamGangrene (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ok, someone either knows (or thinks they know) the answer to this one: what happens if you kill or incapacitate a threatening dog on your property?

Posted by purplebutterflyhippie (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)

netloafer: You made the comment that an officer put a dog back in the yard that it came from. I have a dog that got loose at the start of spring and when someone called animal control they took my dog to inpound and I had to pay to get him out. That is bull and I would like to know why? If the person that turned my dog in knew where I lived and I know that they do why was my dog not returned to our yard? We had to go to court and pay out the ying yang and my dog is a very nice dog and would not hurt no one including the person the turned him in. I find that I was miss treated and if you are going to take one dog then you need to take them all.

Posted by dml (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I went to emporia.ws and clicked on "City Code" and found this:

Sec. 6-21. Owner Or Harborer Defined:

Any person who shall keep a dog or cat or allow a dog or cat to remain or lodge or to be fed within his home, store, yard, enclosure or place of business or at any other premises which he controls or in which such person is lodged, shall be considered as owning or harboring such dog or cat. (Ord. 87-3, § 1, 1-21-1987)

Sec. 6-22. Running At Large:

(a) It shall be unlawful for the owner or harborer of a dog or cat to permit the same to run at large. For the purposes of this article, a dog or cat shall be deemed to be running at large:

(1) When the dog or cat is not confined by a building, fence, cage or within a closed vehicle; or

(2) When the dog or cat is not restrained by means of a lead, leash, rope, chain or cord held by the owner or harborer; or

(3) When the dog or cat is not securely fastened by a rope, chain or cord to the ground, a tree or structure with strength sufficient to keep the dog or cat within the limits of the owner's or harborer's premises.

(b) An absolute defense to a complaint alleging a dog or cat to be running at large shall be proof that said dog or cat was at the time of such alleged violation within the limits of the owner's or harborer's premises and in the actual control of its owner or harborer actively exercised in the immediate presence of such owner or harborer, and should such defense be proven, the impoundment fee established herein shall not be collected, or if already collected, such fee shall be refunded. (Ord. 87-3, § 1, 1-21-1987)

Posted by dml (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sec. 6-23. Impoundment And Redemption Of Animals:

(a) Any police officer or other person charged with enforcing the provisions of this article is authorized to capture all dogs or cats running at large within the city and impound and safely keep any such dog or cat for the period of three (3) business days following the day of receipt of the dog or cat, during which time such dog or cat may be released upon the owner or harborer thereof paying to the city any fees due for such dog or cat.

(b) The fee for impoundment and keeping a dog or cat, or other animal, shall be ten dollars ($10.00) per day, including the day of capture. The owner or harborer of an animal impounded at the animal shelter is also responsible for the cost of reasonable veterinary care for the animal during impoundment, if any. Any police officer, or other person charged with enforcing the provisions of this article, after expiration of the redemption period, may euthanize or dispose of all unredeemed and unclaimed dogs or cats, or any other animal impounded and kept at the animal shelter.

(c) Animals not redeemed by the owner or harborer within the statutory holding period may be made available for adoption to a suitable prospective owner. An adoption fee of twenty dollars ($20.00) plus costs of medical care, if any, received while impounded shall be paid to the city. No dog or cat shall be transferred to the permanent custody of a prospective owner unless such dog or cat has been surgically spayed or neutered; or the prospective owner signs an agreement to have the dog or cat spayed or neutered and deposits an amount as determined by the city which shall be refunded upon presentation of a written statement signed by a licensed veterinarian that the dog or cat has been spayed or neutered. (Ord. 87-3, § 1, 1-21-1987; Ord. 03-22, § 2, 5-21-2003)

Posted by dml (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sec. 6-24. Hydrophobia:

If at any time hydrophobia shall be reported or suspected to be in the city or vicinity, the chief of police shall have the right and power to compel the muzzling of all dogs during a period to be fixed by him in a notice published in the official paper; and it shall be unlawful to disobey such notice. (Ord. 87-3, § 1, 1-21-1987)

Sec. 6-25. Dog Or Cat Bites And Quarantines:

Whenever a dog or cat has bitten a person, the person bitten shall immediately notify a police officer or animal control officer. Whenever a dog or cat, while off its owner's premises, has seriously injured or killed a domestic animal without provocation, a police officer or animal control officer shall be immediately notified. All such incidents shall be reported to the health officer who shall order the dog or cat quarantined and impounded for a period of not less than ten (10) days either at the city animal shelter or at a commercial animal hospital and until such time as the health officer finds that such dog or cat shows no evidence of having rabies. If it is determined that such dog or cat is suffering from rabies, it shall be forthwith euthanized; otherwise, it shall be released from quarantine. The fee for keeping a quarantined dog or cat at the city animal shelter shall be ten dollars ($10.00) per day or part thereof, plus any other applicable animal shelter fees. (Ord. 87-3, § 1, 1-21-1987; Ord. 03-22, § 3, 5-21-2003; Ord. 06-39, § 3, 12-20-2006)

Posted by dml (anonymous) on June 23, 2008 at 9:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sec. 6-26. Unauthorized Restraint On Premises Of Another:

No dog or cat shall be confined or restrained by the owner or harborer thereof in or upon any premises without the express consent of the owner or party in control or possession thereof. (Ord. 87-3, § 1, 1-21-1987)

Sec. 6-27. Animal Violations Bureau:

In addition to, or in lieu of, impounding an animal found at large, any police officer or other person charged with enforcing the provisions of this article may issue to the known owner or harborer of such dog or cat a notice of ordinance violation. Such notice shall impose upon the owner or harborer a penalty in the form of a fine which may, at the discretion of the owner or harborer, be paid to a bureau designated by the municipal judge in full satisfaction of the assessed penalty. Such bureau shall be designated the "animal violations bureau" and it shall operate under the same rules established by ordinance for the traffic violations bureau. (Ord. 87-3, § 1, 1-21-1987)

Sec. 6-28. Remittance Of Taxes And Fees:

The chief of police shall remit all taxes, fees and costs collected under the provisions of this article and shall account therefor to the city clerk at least once monthly. (Ord. 87-3, § 1, 1-21-1987)

Sec. 6-29. Proper Confinement Of Cats And Dogs In Heat Required:

The owner of any female cat or dog shall, during the period that such animal is in heat, keep it securely confined and enclosed within a building provided that such animal may be allowed out of such confinement for temporary periods of time for toilet purposes. (Ord. 87-3, § 1, 1-21-1987)

Posted by b_k (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 7:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

IT has never done any good to call animal control 3 years ago my husband and a dog was involved in an accident on a motorcycle that involved our nieghbors boxer.GETTING animal control out was hard they didn't really seem interested till we told them the police had been called.But we have a nieghbor to the south of us that has an nasty little dog that runs loose non stop with their children animal control was called a few weeks ago this dog had gotten into another nieghbors yard and was running with thier dog in the fence animal controll was called the dog scurried out and went home animal controll went and had a talk with our nieghbors. that was it. the dog is constantly running loose and he is very small a dog bite is a dog bite whether it be a pitbull or a tiny little ankle biter.HIT THE POCKETBOOKS OF THE OWNWERS AND THIS WOULD STOP BE CONSISTANT EMPORIA COMMISSIONERS IT WILL WORK.In 10 years that I have lived here I have owned 2 dogs our older male has gotten out 5 times each time i looked for him I callled animal control and once I had to pay to get him out. I did so without complaint I was wrong but I also had his pen strenghtened and tryed to make it less likely he would get loose. In our nieghborhood owners think its okay to let their dogs run loose its not... for the safety of your community and for the safety of your dog.IF SOMEONE WOULD ENFORCE THE LAWS EMPORIA HAS.ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS DONT GET PAIDED TO MAKE FRIENDS THEY GET PAIDED TO DO A JOB make them do it Emporia!!

Posted by KUtriSIS (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I tell you what I love animals, don't get me wrong on that, but if I was actually threatened by a loose dog because it was vicious I am going to take any means possible to protect myself and anyone else that may be around, human and animal. I know from experience that there are not many animal control officers and I understand the circumstances but when, say, oh how about the other week when I called about a vicious dog who was attacking my fence, getting under it and going after my dogs the response I got was "animal control is not on duty right now". Alright, that's fine. THERE IS A VICIOUS DOG ATTACKING SEND THE FREGGIN' POLICE OUT BECAUSE I KNOW THEY ARE NOT ALL OFF DUTY. That is what is bull and when I told the lady this was the 3rd time this same thing had happened and if she didn't get some one out there to get this dog I would take care of it myself. To this I got her response of "no ma'am, don't do that. You should file a formal complaint TOMORROW". Tomorrow? After the fact that some one elses child or pet has been killed because of it? Oh and not to mention the fact that when I did file a formal complaint THE OFFICER NEVER TOOK CARE OF IT!

Don't tell me there is no one on duty to take care of a vicious dog. I know better. If it's not animal control send a police officer. QUIT BEING LAZY WITH YOUR JOB AND PROTECT THE COMMUNITY LIKE YOUR SUPPOSE TO.

Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can tell you what happens if you take care of vicious dog yourself. YOU get in trouble with the law AND the prissy animal shelter people. Years ago someone we know lived in Lincoln Village. A neighbor had a big dog, Rottweiler I think, that would run loose and jump at our friend's car door as he tried to get out. He tried several times to get the neighbor to restrain his dog but he was afraid of his own dog! The police would do nothing. One day our friend heard screams outside. He found the dog had backed a little girl against a tree and was crouched to attack her. Our friend got his gun and shot the dog dead. The police came out and gave him a ticket for shooting in the city limits. Only after he showed them his marksman certificate and showed them the angle of the shot etc did they back down some. He paid the ticket and said it was worth not seeing a kid mauled or killed. The NEXT day a person from the shelter came out to rip him a new one for shooting the dog!!! He replied it was the dog or the kid, which would they choose? I mean, I love animals but a vicious dog should be put down before it hurts someone.

Posted by KUtriSIS (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

madpoet >>>>> I am completely 100% an animal lover, believe me i'll still cry over watching Bambi. But like I said earlier, if it is absolutely necessary I will take care of the problem myself. I probably would not have shot the animal dead if it was not attacking but maybe fired a warning shot, maybe not who knows until your in that situation personally. No matter how much a person loves animals there is a reasonable line that must be drawn to protect the public. A vicious dog does not get better, get on parole and never kill again. That blood is always there. So the shelter can come rip me a new one all they want to but when a vicious dog is picked up off the street and sent to the shelter, What happens to that animal? I would like to think that here is just like any other place because of the places I have lived I have never heard of a vicious animal just being released back into the streets to do it again. I would like to see what these people that ripped your friend a new one would want done if an animal was acting this way to them. Sure maybe they would try to talk to it but if it doesn't calm down and it starts tearing into the bone on their arm something tells me they aren't going to say "no don't shoot the dog, just let it kill me".

Posted by AlexJohnston (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would be in favor of paying a few cents more here and there in taxes if it meant that we had a few more animal control officers and a larger staff for our animal shelter. I think this would go along way to improving the life of all animals in Emporia as well as ensuring the saftey of our citizens. As for the response of animal control there have been a few times that I have called to report dogs at large and have been told that no AC officer was available, but when they are available my reports have always been responded to quickly. Our AC officers do the best with what they have. We need to get them more support. And for all owners out there who have friendly escape artists please make sure that you tag them with information so that amateur animal rescue people such as myself can get them back to you quickly and safely.

Posted by Iloveemporia (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would love to ride along with the AC officers for one day to see how much money they are milking from the city of emporia. I bet they are just chillin in the a/c sucking up all the cold air and maybe jump in the truck and run a few personal errands on company gas???????

Posted by acricket (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm from Emporia and years ago they had a ride along program , see if they still have it on the books. Don't see why you can't ride along with them anymore. Check it out I think it would be nice to just see how their day is like on a day today bases.

Posted by flexj66801 (anonymous) on June 24, 2008 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

AlexJohnston, I am happy to know there is some sanity left around here.

Iloveemporia, I'm not sure about riding with the ACs but you can volunteer at the shelter & could see first hand what they do. I'm sure they could use an extra hand with some of their duties or maybe just another person "chillen"!

Posted by stevenlk (anonymous) on June 27, 2008 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

these guys do work, ther is only about two of them and they arent just doing it for emporia they go outside city limits. They are doing their jobs, but there is only so much you can do at one time. Emporia is small but they dont just catch loose dogs wondering around minding their own business. Hince the "animal" in animal control.

Posted by create (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sec. 6-26. Unauthorized Restraint On Premises Of Another:

No dog or cat shall be confined or restrained by the owner or harborer thereof in or upon any premises without the express consent of the owner or party in control or possession thereof. (Ord. 87-3, § 1, 1-21-1987)

In view of the above, why does Animal Control offer to leave a small animal trap to catch loose cats?

Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on June 28, 2008 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

a cat trap with an open can of food was left outside last winter, during the coldest month of the year. it was in a spot where a cat inside the cage would not be protected from the cold wind. this would have been inhumane if a cat had been trapped during the night, when cats wander the most, and was left there until whenever an a/c person checked on it. no cats went after the frozen food in the trap, but still are more humane ways to treat animals

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on June 29, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You can quote or pass all the laws you want but if there isn't anybody to enforce them nothing is gonna happen. The laws are intended to gain voluntary compliance. They are also interpreted by the court. Anybody checked with the prosecutor to find out what they will or will not do. It's easy to second guess the animal control officers but I wonder how many have really checked into what can and can't be done? Why don't you all volunteer to be dog or cat foster homes through the Buck Fund? or contribute the $50 to $100 for each animal to be "fixed?" Don't tell me about taxes. I pay them and don't have any animals but still deal with them. Why not increase the animal licensing fee to about $100 per year and then increase the number of spay and neuter availability at the animal shelter?Why not require each owner to install a microchip in their pet to allow animal control officers to be able to identify them easily? This could be easily accomplished by having the vets in town do this during the required vaccination of animals as I know all of you who have pets meet the existing requirements right?

If you want to have the right of pet ownership then pay as you go. and while we are on the topic of animals. I'd sure like to see the animal control people cite those of you who walk your dogs and let them deposit feces and urine in other people's yards without cleaning up. If there isn't an ordinance prohibiting that I would advocate for one. I for one am tired of cleaning up after those of you who walk your pets and don't clean up after them. I believe there is a dog park provided for this type of purpose. Additionally, those of you who allow your cats to roam should be held responsible for the damage they cause to car finishes and the yard waste they create. Also, they often are out killing birds which I find objectionable.

Just an observation. If the animal control folks are going to follow the exact letter of the law, I guess we better have do all of it equally to all of you then.

Posted by sunshine (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 1:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is so disturbing to me....why are so many people having problems with animals, taking the steps to ensure public safety, and not getting any response from the officials? I am also disturbed at the fact that the police dispatcher hung up without ensuring the safety of the animal. If an animal is running around a neighborhood dragging a chain behind it, there is a danger that the animal will get hurt or kill itself. I realize that there seems to be no funding to have more animal control for this town, but what about volunteering. I have a son who loves animals, would like to volunteer at an animal shelter, even doing such jobs as cleaning cages and scooping poop. He wanted to do this a few years ago when he was about 11, so I called and asked about him volunteering and was told that he could not without a parent with him during his volunteer time, and the hours were not workable for me or any other parent working a M-F 8-5 job. He has to be 16 to volunteer without a parent with him. I felt this would have been a good opportunity for him to contribute and to run with something that he loved and was considering as a part of a future career (working with animals). So my point is that people were able to volunteer no matter what age, in even a small capacity....and then maybe the animal control people would be able to do the other part of their job more effectively.

Posted by justthefacts (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Please get the whole store here before you jump to some conclusion based on no facts. There are legal restrictions and liability issues for allowing children to work in certain work environments. If it takes more to cover the supervision or alter work schedules of other employees then it probably isn't worth all the good intentions. I read in the paper today that the police department tried to explain the process and what their limitations are. It's the reality apparently in today's existing financial environment. You may want to check out that article posted today. Despite the naysayers, I appreciate their efforts to communicate and to tell it the way it is. It provides the opportunity for constructive community discussion and change if the majority of the community so desires. I think it's important to remember that I seriously doubt that the majority of the community speaks in this forum.

I think that it is grossly unfair that a few people are representing their views as thought they are the common experience. I suspect if that were the case, then enough outcry would be heard that change would take place. In ight of this fact, I would strongly suggest constructive suggestions on how to improve the existing situation without increased funding and loss of services in other public safety venues. Could the code enforcement people also assist with animal control? Could fire department personnel respond to calls? I'm wondering if there are other options out there.

Posted by jennienbj (anonymous) on June 30, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think it is crazy that the police or animal control can't help out more. I am an owner of two pitbulls. I love my dogs. Me female was getting out of the pen for like 2 weeks straight, she could get a good enough head start and clear a 6 foot fence. Now my pen is almost 8 ft tall. I took care of the problem myself, my dog got into trouble and no one had ever complained about my dog. There are so many dogs loose. But my ? to those of you who say will just say that the dog is viscious and attacking, and then the cops show up ready to kill the dog. You know how many times we have dogs come up to us when we are walking our dogs? I don't freak out and call the cops. Normally if you do not react the dog will not bother you. I think we should just start chaining the dogs and cats that are at large to a tree in the yard and when animal control finally comes out and you get a ticket for animal cruelty because the animals had been tied to a tree, then you tell them to give a ticket to the owner of the dog or cat. It is crap that nothing gets done. My neighbors dog gets out all of the time and roams the neighborhood and then goes back home. It never bothers anyone but it drives me nuts that their dog will go to the bathroom in my yard and she does not even care. I have even seen them walk the dogs and let them go poo in everyone elses yard so she does not have to clean her yard. It is disgusting, that dog goes in my yard, I will take her all the dog poo from my dogpen.