Kansas

Summary: In Hesston, Kansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess a Staffordshire bull terrier, an  American pit bull terrier, or a Rottweiler. Dogs that were registered with the city on the date of publication of this ordinance may be kept within the city limits subject to certain requirements, such as using a leash and muzzle outside, confining the dog in certain ways, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, maintaining liability insurance of $50,000, and taking identification photographs. A violation may result in a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days.

Summary: In El Dorado, Kansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with an exception for dogs registered by March 1, 1988. Such dogs may remain within the city subject to the requirements, such as keeping it on a leash or confined and the use of “Beware of Dog” signs. A violation may result in a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment up to 30 days, and/or an order to pay all costs for the dog’s care. The dog may also be ordered removed from the city or impounded.

Summary: In Dodge City, Kansas, it is illegal to own, keep, harbor, or possess a pit bull dog, with an exception for dogs registered with the city of Dodge City, whose owners obtain a permit and comply with certain standards. Such requirements include keeping the dog confined, and if outside of a pen, the use of a leash and a special collar, microchipping, "Beware of Dog" signs, and $100,000 liability insurance, and identification photographs. Violations may result in the seizure, impoundment, and/or removal of a dog from the city. A violation may incur a fine of $2,500 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

Summary: In Arkansas City, Kansas, it is unlawful to possess an American Staffordshire Terrier, a/k/a American Pit Bull Terrier or Pit Bull, or a Presa Canario, a/k/a Canary Dog. Under these ordinances, pit bulls are deemed to be vicious and may be euthanized by court order or by failure of an owner or harborer to pay impoundment fees. Additionally, a person may be fined up to $500.00 and/or may be jailed for up to 6 months for violating these ordinances. 

Summary: Syllabus by the Court In an action to enjoin the City of Overland Park from enforcing an ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs within the city, the record is examined and it is held: (1) The ordinance is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; (2) the ordinance does not violate the due process rights of plaintiffs under the United States and Kansas Constitutions; (3) the ordinance does not violate the equal protection clauses of the United States and Kansas Constitutions; and (4) the district court did not err in dismissing the plaintiffs' claim for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982).

Summary: Animals -- Cruelty to Animals -- Cockfighting -- Gamecocks Not Animals -- No Statutory Prohibition Against Cockfights -- Statute Not Vague. In an action filed pursuant to K. S. A. 60-1701 in which the state seeks a construction of K. S. A. 1972 Supp. 21-4310 (cruelty to animals) making its provisions applicable to cockfighting, the record is examined and for reasons appearing in the opinion it is held: (1) Gamecocks are not animals within the meaning or contemplation of the statute. (2) There is no clear legislative intent that gamecocks be included within the category of animals protected by the statute. (3) The statute does not apply to or prohibit the conducting of cockfights. (4) As construed, the statute is not so vague, indefinite and uncertain as to violate the requirements of due process.

Summary: A couple had agreed to a divorce settlement where they each had visitation rights with their dog; the trial court approved of the arrangement.  The wife later tried to have that section removed from the decree, but the trial court held that they did not have jurisdiction to make such a change.  The appellate court affirmed the decision, which left visitation intact

Summary: Without defendant's consent or knowledge, a state animal inspector surveyed defendant's property on two occasions. Without prior notice to or consent of defendant, the State seized all of defendant's dogs. The court stated that warrantless searches and seizures had to be limited by order, statute, or regulation as to time, place, and scope in order to comport with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Because the Act and the order failed to so limit the search, the court concluded that it was unreasonable and unlawful.

Summary: The Kansas Attorney General had advised the cockfighter that cockfighting was illegal in Kansas under the provisions of § 21-4310 (Supp. 1972). The gamecock fighter believed the Attorney General was wrong and advised a county attorney that he intended to fight gamecocks on his farm so the State then sought a declaratory judgment.  On appeal, the court found that cockfighting did not fall within the prohibition of § 21-4310 as constituting cruelty to animals, as Kansas statutes proscribing cruelty to animals had traditionally been directed toward protection of the four-legged animal, especially beasts of the field and beasts of burden. 

Summary: Veterinary costs and consequential losses are also allowed in determining damages, according this Kansas case. It should be noted that the animal at issue here was a domestic pig versus a companion animal, and the award of damages was secured by a statute that allows recovery for all damages for attacks on domestic animals by dogs.