Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to let counties seek court orders to seize animals that violate local resolutions
Summary
House Bill 26-98 would authorize courts to order seizure, retention and disposal of animals when owners violate county animal-control resolutions, subject to specified findings and existing statutory enforcement processes; proponents, including Sedgwick County Commissioner Jim Howell and private citizens, described long-running dangerous-dog problems in unincorporated areas.
Lawmakers considered House Bill 26-98, which would allow courts to order the seizure, retention and—where local county resolution permits—the disposal of animals when an owner violates a county animal-control resolution.
The Revisor told the Committee on Local Government the bill describes three possible findings a court must make before ordering seizure: that the animal displayed behavior posing a substantial threat to public health, safety or welfare; that the owner is likely to subject the animal to future treatment violating the county resolution; or that the animal is prohibited by local resolution from being kept in the county. The bill defines "animal" broadly (excluding livestock) and uses a wide definition of "owner," and it would add the enforcement provisions into the general county-enforcement statute (KSA 19-101d). Changes would be effective July 1 if enacted.
Jim Howell, a Sedgwick County commissioner, said a 2010 court decision narrowed counties’ enforcement authority under KSA 19-101d and left unincorporated communities without effective remedies for dangerous or roaming dogs. "Without this change, we simply have our hands tied," Howell told the committee, saying the bill would give courts due-process options beyond fines and jail time.
Private citizens described repeated dangerous-dog incidents. George Steele Harris, who served on a county animal-advisory board, said he had long pushed for county tools to address dangerous dogs. Keith Bember recounted that his small dog was mauled on April 16, 2025, and was euthanized on April 20, 2025, by two Dobermans that had prior police reports; he said jurisdictional fragmentation limited available remedies.
Committee members asked whether the bill would prescribe breed-specific lists or sweep in farm dogs. Witnesses and the Revisor said the bill does not specify breeds; local counties would set details in resolutions if they choose. Howell emphasized the measure targets unincorporated areas and is intended to provide due process, including hearing panels and options such as adoption or rehoming rather than automatic euthanasia in every case.
Members also discussed whether cities have broader authority than counties. The Revisor explained courts have interpreted statutory enforcement authority narrowly for counties, and the bill seeks to specify particular enforcement powers counties can use.
The committee did not record a final vote during the hearing; members requested technical clarifications to be addressed during bill work.
