On verge of losing contract after fatal dog attack, KC Pet Project blames flawed city law
Months after a pack of dogs attacked and killed a man in Kansas City, the City Council will decide whether the city should retake responsibility for animal control following what some believe was a failed four-year experiment that outsourced the job to the animal welfare group KC Pet Project.
The decision to take back animal control comes as complaints from residents about what some consider lax enforcement of the city’s animal welfare ordinances continue to mount.
But some advocates and lawyers supporting KC Pet Project argue that people’s criticisms about the organization’s handling of dangerous dogs won’t be eased if the city takes back animal control.
They say that transferring power back to the city won’t make much of a difference without first making significant changes to the ordinance that outlines how animal control enforcement should work in Kansas City, which they claim doesn’t give KC Pet Project the power to be effective at their job.
“We’re seeing a very needed evolution and professionalism in animal services that a lot of the city officials just haven’t considered,” said Ledy Vankavage, an senior legislative attorney with the Best Friend’s Animal Society, an animal sanctuary and no-kill advocacy group. “And that’s why just taking back their animal services isn’t gonna get what the City Council wants. The law needs good bones.”
Forest Decker, director of the city’s Neighborhood Services Department, said on Tuesday the city would likely take over animal control duties by October. KC Pet Project will coordinate with the city in the transition during that time and will most likely continue to run the shelter afterward even if it stops overseeing animal control.
City officials have said they’re open to discussing possible changes to animal control laws and acknowledge the current ordinances aren’t flawless.
Decker said he will suggest changes later this year.
‘They can’t do a little thing about it’
One of the first things Katie Barnett, general counsel for KC Pet Project, flagged as a problem was that the city code doesn’t include a specific ticket or citation for a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog. That means that KC Pet Project, or whoever is tasked with animal control, cannot cite a pet owner if they have reason to believe a dog is dangerous or has the potential to harm people.
Instead, officers could only cite the owner for the dog being a nuisance, which is the same citation they’d issue if a dog was barking too loudly and disturbing neighbors.
KC Pet Project can declare an animal dangerous if it has probable cause and conducts an investigation, but that involves an administrative hearing and can’t lead to citations, fines or jail time.
If in the hearing the dog is found to be dangerous, then the owner has to abide by certain restrictions like maintaining proper fencing and signage warning about the dangerous or potentially dangerous dog.
Another big thing Barnett said is missing from Kansas City’s current laws is the ability for animal control to obtain a warrant to apprehend a dangerous dog. As of now, the only circumstances that allow animal control to get a warrant and apprehend a dog are if the dog bit someone and exposed them to rabies, or if a pet owner abused or neglected the dog.
She said it leaves officers powerless — needing to wait until a situation escalates to a dog severely biting someone before they can intervene.
Animal control officers have been charged at by dogs while trying to apprehend them, she said. Even when this happens, without a warrant to enter private property, an animal control officer cannot take a dog if the owner lets them in the house or puts them behind a fence.
“Just imagine the frustration that our officers feel when they’re out there getting nearly attacked by these dangerous dogs and they can’t do a little thing about it,” Barnett said.
Ordinance ‘does not empower’ animal service officers
In her work, Vankavage helped create a model ordinance for cities on dangerous dog law, which is looked to as the standard of the International Municipal Lawyers Association.
“Just looking briefly at the Kansas City ordinance, it’s clear that the intent was good back in the day, but it does not empower their animal service officers to really protect the community,” Vankavage said.
A line needs to be added in the ordinance, she said, allowing animal control officers to take a dog out of an owner’s yard if they consider it dangerous and a threat to the public without having to wait for a warrant, leaving it to the municipal judge’s discretion to decide if their ruling stands.
Dogs ruled to be dangerous should be required to be spayed or neutered, which is normal in many cities, Vankavage said.
She recommended Kansas City add a clause defining a reckless owner and another defining a dog bite to its ordinance. Currently, there isn’t verbiage in place specific to owners who allow their dogs to roam free and charge at pedestrians. In other cities, Vankavage said, a person can be barred from owning a dog for up to five years if they receive three of these types of violations within 24 months.
She also said the city’s law should require two unrelated households to complain about a nuisance dog before an investigation.
“If you have a contractor and you don’t give them good tools to work with, you’re hamstringing them and looking at the ordinance, I really think Kansas City Pet Project did not have the tools in the ordinance to achieve a safe and humane community,” Vankavage said.
How’d KC Pet Project get here?
A city audit in 2017 faulted the then city-run animal control for issuing too many tickets to pet owners instead of working with them to help correct behavior to benefit the animals and the community.
KC Pet Project won the city contract to take over enforcement by promising to provide a better-balanced approach.
But the critics complain that too often KC Pet Project was unresponsive when people called to ask for assistance with dangerous dogs and about pets who were malnourished or mistreated.
The number of tickets issued fell dramatically after KC Pet Project took over while complaints rose. When KC Pet Project’s contract came up for renewal last spring, the city decided to put it out for bid again after getting more than 200 complaints during the previous fiscal year, according to Forest Decker, director of the city’s Neighborhood Services Department.
Among the most common concerns, he said at a council committee meeting in December, were KC Pet Project’s slow response times, calls to KC Pet Project’s animal-control line that went unanswered, lack of follow-up on complaints and insufficient enforcement of city ordinances.
The city extended KC Pet Project’s contract for a year while Decker put out a request for other proposals, but only KC Pet Project submitted a qualifying proposal which the city review panel scored 67 on a scale of 100.
Exactly one month before KC Pet Project got that failing grade, vicious dogs attacked Chris Culbertson riding a bicycle, leaving him grievously wounded. Council members then pushed to place animal control back in the hands of the city.
This story was originally published March 5, 2025 at 4:53 PM.
