Pit bulls

Forget writing and describing breeds. Go to a weight limit such as "not more than 30 lbs when fully grown." There are many breeds of dogs that do not exceed 30 lbs, so you are not really being that restrictive.

Just to be nasty, let's examine this subject carefully.

Do you want to punish the owner of the pit bulls because the courts do not. Bad idea.

Do you want to remove pit bulls from your neighborhood. Possible success, but remember, you will likely have to grandfather the current ones. You will prevent future ones, however.

You are looking at Pit bulls. Fine, as long as you can absolutely define the breed. WHat about a pup from a pit bull father, and a bull terrier mother? is that a pit bull? Not by AKC. But by your definitions? What about a staffordshire bull terrier? what about half breeds, mutts, etc.? Without a perfect definition of a pit bull, i could pretty much pass anything except an AKC registered Pit Bull into your association.

However, removing pit bulls will not stop a future attack. Pit bulls are only one breed of dogs that bite humans. Other frequent biters include rotweilers, cocker spaniels, poodles, collies, huskys, terriers, etc. etc.... Are you prepared to remove them? Are you prepared to defend your decision in a court? Why did you choose this breed, and not that one? what's your reasoning, your decision? is it backed by facts, or just emotions?

If you wish to ban dogs by weight, that has some possibility. However, be prepared to weigh those 28 pound dogs that put on some weight... If I have a mutt that weighs 29 pounds, does I lose my house if he eats a big meal?

Finally, no matter what you do, remember to allow assistance dogs. You will face a huge lawsuit if you try to deny a seeing eye dog or assistance lab.

All dogs will bite. The owners are irresponsible not the animal. Humans make dogs "vicious and dangerous". If you change your covenants you better make darn sure that all prospective homeowners know that you are not a dog friendly neighborhood.

Harold, I disagree with you. First of all the purpose of an HOA is usually stated as: maintain property values AND provide for the safety and quality of life of the residents. Many cities in Colorado have outlawed pit bulls. I am not against dogs; I have owned, shown, and judged many breeds. Never a pitbull, but I think it is wise to outlaw them. Following is a rule we recommend.

Household pets must be under control on a leash when not secured in the house or in a fenced yard. It is a violation for an animal to threaten or attack a person or another animal; the Owner shall be responsible for all costs if any medical treatment is required. Excrement shall be cleaned up immediately. Pets that bark or make other noises which irritate neighbors are a violation, except for brief barking of dogs as people pass by.

Harold, "Chronic meddlers", a woman was attacked while walking in our neighborhood and 3 other pit bull attacks in the Atlanta area in the past two months. The community is unsettled and people feel they can't walk their children and small animals, the Board has been inundated by Homeowner's to address the issue. If you look into the attacks the so called ample and professional resources you refer to do little either before or after the attacks. Boards by nature need to meddle.

Bruce - where in your documents does it give a board the power to "need" to meddle? The documents state exactly what we are expected to abide by and that is the document we agreed to and signed. Along the way some meddling boards in their controlling wisdom start adding and suggesting "rules" that were not a part of the original agreement. I intend to abide by the rules that I legally agreed to. I do not need a meddling board to keep adding rules that I did not agree to.
I am not a dog lover. I don't even have one. Dog attacks are not nice. But if I am ever attacked by one, I won't and wouldn't expect "mother" HOA to have prevented it. It is not an HOA function. Period. Stick to your original documents guys. They really should give you enough to do. Harold

While I am a new homeowner, our condo board just recently voted "Not to allow" dangerous breeds in the complex. We stated specifically Rot weilers, dobermans and pitbulls. We also put a weight limit for dods no bigger then 40 pounds.

My condo complex has 18 units and is self managed.

hope that helps.

Bruce C:
while i have sympathy for the woman and children attacked by pit bulls in Atlanta, I would ask: How many OTHER dog bites were there at the same time? Secondly, how many muggings, shootings, murders, sexual assaults and violent crimes were there in the same two months? I bet there were a LOT more than three. And if we discover that 50% of those crimes were comitted by humans with certain racial characteristics, can an HOA ban them too? Why not? We want to ban a breed of dogs because one of them attacked someone, why not ban a breed of humans because one of them killed someone?

Ban the behavior, not the race/breed/color.

We can discuss dangerous dogs until the sun doesn't shine but that will never solve the problem of dogs biting.
If a community wants to have a similance of control, weight restrictions are the answers.
The gentleman who states that his dog weighs a couple of pounds more than the restrictions, is off base.
The A.K.C. lists all dogs by breeds, hundreds of them. Each dog has a "Bitch and Sire" weight. That is the standards for what a dog weighs and that is what a community should use as a guide as to which dogs are allowed--not how obese a dog is.
Remember folks--big dogs can kill, little dogs just make bites.

most serial killers are white males.

most pedophiles are white males.

White males have stolen more money in the US than any other race/breed/gender (think Enron, just to start... then throw in the 80's Savings and Loan scandal, etc.).

So, is it okay if I ban white males from the association? After all, they do seem predisposed to commit these crimes. And don't argue that "your white male" hasn't done anything criminal... we all know he is perfectly capable of doing it. It's in his breeding.

All i say is ban the behavior, not the breed.

Bruce, ultimately, you are in for a fight whatever you do. That should be obvious by the replies in this forum.

IF you can get the neccesary quorum and your association adopts an ammendment to ban 'dangerous animals', it will need to be a weight restriction and not a breed restriction. There is really no other objective way to do it.

For instance, someone gets a Rottweiler/lab mix form the pound as a stray. Can you prove it's a Rottweiler? Are you willing to go to court and defend your assumption of breed? I bet the animal lover who owns them will....

But, if the weight restriction is 15 pounds, well, there you go.

The one hurdle you will have to get past is owners of dogs who exceed the weight NOW. Do they get to keep their dogs or will a shelter bus be coming by for Spot?

Bruce, With a due respect.. I don't recommend trying to ban the breed here. There are probably 12-14 other breeds that probably need to banned as well, but it's probably a lot easier to implement Wendy's idea.

I really like Wendy's idea and we're going to try it -"Owners possessing pets as described in the CC&Rs must provide the office with a certificate of insurance naming the Association and its individual members as additional insureds on an annual basis"." This serves to somewhat insulate the HOA's liability exposure and at the same time, if the owner's insurance carrier won't renew the owner's homeowners insurance due to this risk, then maybe the owner will remove the dog from the community. The insurance carrier may be obligated to issue the C.O.I., but they don't have to stay on the risk beyond the renewal date. Nice idea Wendy.

I always wonder about the two animal limit. If my dog has puppies, do i immediately destroy all but one to stay at my limit? If i have two cats and a (god forbid) chihuahua, why is that a concern of the association? How does that "affect property values", the mantra behind every rule? I mean, they animals stay in my house, never step outside, etc... how does having three cats decrease the property value of the neighborhood versus two cats?

As a board member, I can't imagine either drafting a rule like this or reviewing this for recommendation to our association's members. I would immediately think of two animals producing a litter and breaking the maximum number and the association creating a noncompliance issue.
This seems like a bandaid effect for a problem that will cause more problems down the road. Very reactionary and not well-thought out, in my mind.
I really think there needs to be a review from all angles when any type of rule making takes place, anywhere.

Hello Bruce,
Our Community by-laws stated "no pit-bulls", and with this being very vague we are ammendended our restriction to read the follow, only after months of research and contacts from AKC and according to the AKC, under the history of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, this breed began many centuries ago in England (as a derivation of the Old English Bulldog, which at that time was also linked closely to the Mastiff. They were initially used for “bull baiting” and “bear baiting” (apparently arena blood sports involving these animals)., the local spca, and According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004), the definition is “a member of any of a number of breeds of dogs developed from the Old English Bulldog. Breeds recognized as pit bulls include the American Pit Bull Terrier and the American Staffordshire Terrier, although the name is also often used to refer to other breeds of similar characteristics, such as the American Bulldog and Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and mixed breeds that include any of these breeds.”

POLICY: For purposes of enforcement of the community prohibition against the keeping of Pit Bulls, the term “Pit Bull” is hereby defined to include the following: All breeds that are perceived to be concentrative derivatives of the cross-breeding between Old English Bulldogs, and Early English Terriers. These expressly include
(1) Staffordshire Terrier; (2) Staffordshire Bull Terrier; (3) American Staffordshire Terrier; (4) American Bull Terrier; (5) American Pit Bull Terrier; (6) any mixed breed that includes any of these breeds- which, by definition, must include all Bull Terrier mixes; and (because the association does not intend to accept the obligation to do DNA testing on dogs) (7) any animal that appears (in the reasonable judgment of the board) to exhibit the physical appearance of one of these breeds or mixed breeds. The determination of the Board, as to a dog’s “Reasonable Pit Bullness”, is final, except in the case of compelling evidence to the contrary, that a dog is not of a breed that is generally in this line of descent. In that case, the Board has a duty to act in a non-capricious manner, and respond reasonably.

I Hope this information helps.
Rhonda

Your welcome.