Comments by firefly912
Page 1 of 1
Posted on May 29 at 10:41 p.m.
I grew up in the Kansas City metro area. There were "pit bull" attacks on the news EVERY NIGHT. Usually I would get up and grab a snack during this segment. Upon owning two dogs of my own and trying to be a good owner, I found myself paying more attention to these nightly reports. Instead of 7 different attacks of "pit bulls" on people or other dogs, the news channel would just keep bringing up the same one over and over again.
I lived in a very "doggish" area in Olathe. We had several dogs parks and almost every person on my street owned at least one dog. Through interactions with my neighbors and their dogs I came to realize that when it comes to banning breeds for the safety of the citizens, all breeds would have to be banned. I know poodles and schnauzers that are super high strung and will snap at anyone they are not REALLY familiar with. I know labs that are very food aggressive.
There will always be bad examples of each breed. Sometimes I think my parents schnauzer is a demon in disguise. Every breed was bred for a specific purpose, yes. But my Irish Wolfhound is not going to be chasing any wolves out of my yard and my shepherd mix won't be training to sniff drugs or something. Owners shape their dog's temperament and personality...not breeders. If any safety laws regarding dogs are being considered, why not make the dog owners responsible for the dogs instead of just blaming a while breed?
Don't we fine parents for providing alcohol for their underage kids? Don't parents have to answer for the things their children do until they become of age? Why aren't pet owners held to this level of responsibility?
Posted on January 28 at 12:01 p.m.
I've only been in Emporia for a few years (I'm a college student). But I've always rented because my parents and I decided long ago that it was probably not worth investing in a home to live in and then rent out after graduation. After the Tyson announcement and the fact that my landlord is horrible, my parents and I are discussing the purchase of a house. Yes, the housing market will get bad for a while, but there will always be college students looking for affordable housing. If house prices lower, more people could look into investing in a rental property. That would also mean having more money left over after purchase to keep the house up and help offer DECENT affordable housing to incoming students.
Emporia will not disappear. The residents of Emporia can keep that from happening.
Page 1 of 1
Posted on January 22 at 10:30 a.m.
I just want to know how many millions of dollars it would save if a state wide ban got passed. Because this article is vague on the actual amount saved. Millions could only be 2 or 3 or even 10. When compared to 200 million dollars, you're looking at 1%-5%.
Don't all the extra taxes smokers pay for the cigarettes end up covering most of this expense?
If we're trying to save money, I'm sure there are better ways.
On Statewide smoking ban?