Commission puts moratorium on vicious dog resolution
- Charlene Sims, Journal staff
- 18 hours ago
- 4 min read
By Charlene Sims, Journal staff
MOUND CITY – Four months after a pack of dogs allegedly attacked and killed a 13-year-old boy at the Holiday Lakes development, the LInn County Commission has made no headway in passing a resolution aimed at controlling vicious dogs outside of city limits.
They instead on Monday voted to place a moratorium on the current resolution that covers vicious dogs and exotic animals currently on the books.
There has been no indication that county officials have enforced the existing resolution for the past several years.
After discussing a proposed new resolution for dog laws in Linn County presented by Planning and Zoning Director Jennifer Cummings on Monday, May 4, and getting advice from Linn County Counselor Jacklyn Paletta, the commissioners made a motion to put a moratorium on the current vicious dog resolution.
The current resolution No. 95-24, was brought to the attention of the commission on Jan. 12, 2026, by Sheriff James Akes after the fatal attack in December 2025. The title of the resolution is “DEALING WITH VICIOUS DOGS RUNNING AT LARGE AND WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMALS IN THE COUNTY OF LINN.”
The proposed resolution that Cummings showed the commissioners was very specific about requirements for owners of vicious dogs, penalties and fines, insurance required, noise and sanitation standards.
The current resolution not only covers exotic animals but also the pit bull breed of dogs. Akes and Cummings have met with the commissioners and Paletta several times since January to work on a resolution for vicious dogs.
The discussion on Monday started when Cummings told the commissioners that some items she had in the proposed resolution, like multi-dog ownership, might not be possible but she said that she wanted to get everything in there that she had heard complaints on and then take out the things that aren’t needed.
“I did talk to the city police chief in La Cygne, and he said we could definitely work out something with them whether we rent a space or buy,” Cummings said. “They are getting ready to put in an indoor facility, so it may be possible that we could even buy one unit, stall, depending on what you want to do with this.”
Commissioner Jim Johnson asked Cummings, “Now, they would, if we chose (to do this) just on a contract type deal to take care of them for us per day?”
Cummings said they would.
Commissioner Jason Hightower said he thought that would be best.
“That’s what I’d like to see,” said Johnson.
Commission Chair Alison Hamilton, who was attending the commission meeting by teleconference, was not heard to comment on that.
Johnson said he had questions about the ordinance.
“Like the barking and the things,” he said. “I don’t know. I think we are just creating a load for you that we cannot, that we have no way of policing and enforcing the rules is what I am saying.”
Johnson continued, “I’ll let Jacklyn (Paletta) talk on this. I don’t think our resolution that we have now is even legal, right? Because it’s breed specific?”
Paletta answered, “The resolution that we have regarding dogs is specifically to a breed and the Kansas Supreme Court has held that breed specific regulations are not constitutional.
That it has to be based on behavior. So, for that reason we do need to either amend or put a moratorium enforcement on the one that we have while we continue to decide how we proceed.”
“What do you think, Jason, as far as what’s in this that we can enforce it?” asked Johnson.
Hightower said he had the same concerns.
Johnson added, “I just think there’s a lot of issues in there that we’re creating. You know, it’s 7 o’clock in the morning and the dogs are barking or midnight. How’s Jenny gonna validate that. It’s just we’re creating a lot of work for her is what I feel.”
Hightower answered, “Right, I think it’s a lot bigger problem than what it needs to be.”
Johnson asked Paletta, “What can we do on a case to case basis, Jacklyn? I mean, if it comes up, if this comes up? How do we handle it case to case and not have all this? I guess is what my question.”
Paletta answered, “I mean, to the extent that other crimes or criminal codes are being violated, citizens can call local law enforcement regarding those issues that arise. So, to the extent that someone is being injured or harmed or property is being damaged, there’s other codes that govern those types of instances. And so, obviously to the extent that someone is in danger or fearing for their life or safety or the safety of others, that you know, triggers other Kansas law.”
Johnson asked, ”So moving forward should we rescind what we have now because it’s illegal or just the moratorium. Which is the best option for us?”
Paletta answered, “Yeah, I mean I think what we have is not enforceable as written because it is simply-breed specific and that’s it. So I think there needs to be a moratorium on that otherwise a motion to rescind it.”
“I think we should make a motion to rescind the previous resolution,” said Alison Hamilton, commission chair. “I agree that I think there’s too much in the regulations even with the fines and instances. I don’t think that Jenny’s going to be able to adequately enforce these regulations. If you did a moratorium. Is James (Sheriff Akes) there today to talk about it?
“Because the last time I thought they were in, they (Cummings and Akes) were going to come back together and work on a few things. So has it changed at all? What I have printed out, it doesn’t look like it’s changed from what’s in SharePoint.”
Cummings said, “We’ve added some things to it, limiting dog ownership, how many dogs you’re allowed to if they’re not a working dog or a hunting dog. I think that was the biggest thing.”
Johnson said, “I’ll make a motion to put a moratorium on our vicious dog resolution until we work through this to see where we’re at. This is it. That’s my motion.” It was approved unanimously.