|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
DonV
(Minnesota)
Posts:1
 |
| 06/15/2006 5:25 PM |
|
| Our association has rules that state that a homeowner can have a dog but it must weigh less than 50 lbs. Our community is less than 3 years old and the previous board did nothing to enforce rules. Now on the board, I wonder what can be done about oversized pets and unregistered pets. Do we tell people to get rid of their dog or sell? Do we just keep fining them? I would like to know how this situations has been handled by others. |
|
|
|
|
LindaJ
Posts:0
|
| 06/15/2006 10:15 PM |
|
Our association only allows one dog, under 25 pounds. Surprise, surprise, we have an owner that has a 50 pound dog! Our Board does not "police" the community, but when a homeowner sends a signed request, they take action. In a letter to the violator, the Board provided the specific CC&R and city ordinances, which homeowners already have a copy of, and explained that it is their responsibility to be aware of and in compliance of these rules. The owner has to decide what action they need to take to be in compliance (e.g., move, sell their pet, etc.) - this is really their problem, not the Board's or other homeowners that comply with the covenants.
This homeowner responded in a letter that the builder allowed him to have this dog. Unable to prove otherwise, (the Board didn't believe him, but couldn't disprove it either) he was reluctantly permitted to keep the dog. In the Board's reply letter, they again stated in detail the rules he is in violation of, and warned that he would have to remove the dog if he further violated the rules (cleaning up immediately after the dog, etc.) or if the Board received any additional complaints about the dog (barking, trespassing on private property, etc.). He was told if something happened to the dog, he could not replace it with a dog over 25 pounds. The homeowner had to agree to these terms, sign the letter and return it.
We also have a homeowner that has 2 dogs and the Board will take action upon receipt of a written complaint. Our Board members are volunteers and they work very hard. It is the responsibility of all association members to bring forth issues that affect them when it requires Board action. No complaints, requests for action or service are accepted verbally - they must be in writing and signed.
Also, check your CC&Rs for details on assessing homeowners a fine when they violate the covenants. If applicable, include this in your violation letter so it is clear what steps will be taken if there are repeated violations. (When we advise that a lien will be put on their property when a homeowner is in arrears, we usually receive payment within a few days.) Per our CC&Rs, we also suspend voting rights when a homeowner is behind in payments or have unresolved violations.
My personal feelings, I would assess homeowners an additional monthly fee if they (or renters) have a dog. Our association spends a huge amount of our budget maintaining the lawn and plantings, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know which owners have dogs. Thirty years ago I moved from a private home to a condo and had to give up my small dog. It was difficult, but I had to comply with the rules. You need to uphold your covenants and the rights of all homeowners - you are not looking to make life difficult for violators, they are the ones making your job difficult.
I hope this helps. |
|
|
|
|
GeraldT1
Posts:0
|
| 06/16/2006 6:44 AM |
|
DonV- How was this 50lb rule developed? Is it in the Covenants and Restrictions, Master Deed or provisions of your governing documents? Meaning - was this rule available in the prospectus for every owner that purchased? Or, was this 50lb rule developed through meetings? Was it ratified in open session with adequate notice to the community? I must say that I question the purpose of restricting ownership of a dog based upon weight. I do not know who the rule is supposed to benefit. What percentage of the time are these 50lb dogs outside in your association compared to the time the dog is inside? What harm could a 50lb dog cause, that a chawawa or a small "fiesty" dog couldn't? Meaning the weight restriction does not sound reasonable and does not seem to benefit the eligible mortgage holders other than someone or some event that occurred from a 50lb dog causing a problem. Wouldn't it suffice with a rule where pets must be in the care of residents of dwellings, guests, invitees, agents and others shall accompany the pet in their charge at all times, and shall keep the pet on a leash???? Wouldn't it suffice if the rules regarding pickup of pet waste were strictly enforced. My association has these rules and that owners can only have 2 cats and 2 dogs. Now, here's where enforcing these rules can severely impact the quality of life of the residents. Dogs weights can fluctuate over time depending on the breed and health of a dog. My neighbor had a sharpie that recently passed away and the dog's weight increased. What is the owner supposed to do with this dog that they cared for over 8 years? Get rid of it because of a 50lb weight rule? Please consider the impact of such stringent and unrealistic regulations. GeraldT1
Posted By DonV on 06/15/2006 5:25 PM
Our association has rules that state that a homeowner can have a dog but it must weigh less than 50 lbs. Our community is less than 3 years old and the previous board did nothing to enforce rules. Now on the board, I wonder what can be done about oversized pets and unregistered pets. Do we tell people to get rid of their dog or sell? Do we just keep fining them? I would like to know how this situations has been handled by others.
|
|
|
|
|
GeraldT1
Posts:0
|
| 06/16/2006 8:01 AM |
|
| Linda J - My response to DonV applies to your post as well. Believe me, I understand the importance of rules and respect them and adhere to them to the letter in my association. However, the problem as you have explained becomes everyone's when there is an unrealistic rule. I believe your association has one with the weight restriction aspect of your rule. An association's resale values do not benefit from heavy turnover of real estate. I believe there is a correlation to your your rule. What propective buyers are your association going to attract or turnaway with such a stringent weight restriction rule. Are you going to request that owners of dogs get them weighed before purchase? Unless there is something I am missing about the way your association is physically layed out that would limit a larger sized dog and their owner from navigating the property. Your association isn't a co-op is it? As for your last paragraph, your personal feelings regarding an owner having a dog and the fact that you'd impose a fine for it is in contrast to your governing docs which allow 1 dog. Not to mention you can't impose a fine for something that is not a rule. That's why it's important there be rules and they be well written and realistic. I don't think it's realistic you or anyone has to give up their dog to live in a place. I would not consider that a good investment. As for determining who has a dog based upon the condition of the lawn outside...be careful in forming any conclusions upon this. It is possible that other unit owners are walking there dogs on lawns and planting beds outside other owners units? It might not be the case but it is possible. Fines cannot be levied for damage that is not witnessed or very well documented. GeraldT1 |
|
|
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:2480
|
| 06/16/2006 8:43 AM |
|
personally, i would rather allow dogs all day long, and ban children.
but that's me, and i have never known a dog to vandalize a car, break a window, steal my radio, or play loud music till 3 am.
I never understood why people ban dogs, and not cats, ferrets, pigs, parrots, and children. what difference does it make to anyone if my dog weighs 51 pounds, and stays in my house and yard all day long?
|
|
|
|
|
GeraldT1
Posts:0
|
| 06/16/2006 11:02 AM |
|
| Brian B - Well put. Leash laws could be expanded. |
|
|
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:2480
|
| 06/16/2006 5:01 PM |
|
oh my, we approach utopia...
and muzzles too.. must have muzzles. |
|
|
|
|
HaroldS
(Arizona)
Posts:904
|
| 06/16/2006 7:56 PM |
|
| LOL - we're back to controlling the dogs. Harold |
|
|
|
|
LindaJ
Posts:0
|
| 06/17/2006 12:13 AM |
|
GeraldT, I don't know what your problem is, but these discussions are not here for you to climb up on your soap box and tell everyone that their rules are unrealistic. Our HOA has rules that suit our association membership. We don't want big dogs, renters, or people like you buying a home here.
Other discussions that you have submitted responses to you've acted in the same manner as you have here. I was addressing my response to DonV, who asked how similar situations have been handled by others. I told him what our association does. This is not YOUR forum, and you do not have the right to disect everyone's response and give your sarcastic opinions. If someone does not like the rules - DON'T MOVE INTO AN ASSOCIATION. BUY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WHERE YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT, within the city's ordinances.
Don't be so narrow minded to think everyone likes dogs. We have a right to live in a community that has limitations on pets. Don't get so petty about every little detail, especially when it is none of your business. I'm glad you don't live in my community. Our Board has a couple of homeowners who have argued about EVERYTHING, with EVERYBODY. We finally put them in their place and no longer hear their constant negativity. Please DO NOT make comments to my responses in the future - it is a waste of everyone's time to have your unconstructive participation in these forums. |
|
|
|
|
WilliamT
(Arizona)
Posts:489
|
| 06/17/2006 6:50 AM |
|
Linda,
I agree with Geralds's opinion that a 50 pound rule is unrealistic. I have an 8 pound Yorkie so a 50 pound rule would not affect me.
We are all here to exchange ideas and learn from others who have opinions that differ from ours. If we fail to open our minds to digest opposing opinions then we restrict our own learning experience.
Now, suppose I moved into your community and have a 2 year old, 45 pound dog that I paid $2000 for, and after two years this dog has become part of my family. I was aware of the rule, and had a statement from a Vet who verified that this dog had no expectation of being heavier than 45 pounds. That gives me a 5 pound cushion to the 50 pound rule, so I complied fully with the CC&R.
But surprise, surprise, in another year my new family member has gained 10 pounds and is now 5 pounds over the 50 pound limit, and I cannot get the weight off him no matter what I try.
Let's say that my dog happenss to be a golden lab and is one of the friendliest, lovable dogs that one has ever met. He is on leash and supervised when outside, and when I take him for walks I carry and use a pooper scooper. I do not allow him to urinate on neighbors lawns. So my dog and I are good rule abiding citizens of the community.
Now, is my friendly lovable golden lab any more objectionable or dangerous to the community at 55 pounds than he was at 45 pounds? Of course not. He just happens to have a metabolic weight problem, like many of us humans do.
If the Board took me to court, or if I took the Board to court because I felt I was being hassled by an unrealistic rule, would a jury make me get rid of my dog, or allow the Board to fine me because he had exceeded his expected maximum weight and weighs 55 pounds instead of 50? I doubt it. I expect that once a jury saw my dog, the board would immediately lose their case. And what a waste of community and personal funds that rule would have caused.
That's why, in my opinon, this 50 pound rule is unrealistic. Many boards have unrealistic rules of all types. The rules should reflect the desires and needs of the majority in the community, not the desires of a minority. Boards need to understand this and from time to time review their CC&R's to make sure the rules are up to date with the desires and needs of the community.
Directors serving on boards should not push their personal agenda, they need to put aside their personal desires and work to make sure they serve the majority of the community.
An example of outdated rules is not allowing pickup trucks. That rule today is unrealistic because a very large percentage of families have a pickup truck, and they look every bit as nice as a sedan. In the cab, they are as plush as a sedan, but they have a bed in which a family can go to the local hardware store and bring stuff home without renting a truck or paying for delivery. With so many families having a pick up truck now, the no-pickup rule is fast becoming unrealistic.
Whenever one makes a post on a public forum, s/he must expect that others will weigh in with their opinion, and a reasonable person will listen to those opinions and learn from what others are saying. One may not like the others opinion, but must respect that everyone has the right to state their opinion. By listening to the opposing opinions, a person may decide later that their own opinion was wrong to begin with, or they may decide that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
But please remember that everyone has the right to respond, and only the forum host and moderators have the authority to tell someone not to respond, and they will only do that if the responder is making a personal attack instead of stating their opinion.
Gerald did not make a personal attack. He stated an opinion.
I would respectfully suggest that you not close your mind to the opinions that others offer on any subject here. You don't have to like or accept the opinion, but with an open mind you may learn something from listening to others.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
hoatalk
Posts:538
|
| 06/17/2006 7:49 AM |
|
Posted By LindaJ on 06/17/2006 12:13 AM
GeraldT, I don't know what your problem is, but these discussions are not here for you to climb up on your soap box and tell everyone that their rules are unrealistic. Our HOA has rules that suit our association membership. We don't want big dogs, renters, or people like you buying a home here....
LindaJ: As the moderator here, I have to jump in when the tone or content goes outside our rules. I have reviewed both of GeraldT's posts and they are simply an analysis/opinion and even offer advice. Even if you disagree with him, I see nothing wrong with his posts and they reflect other posts on dogs you will find here. If you read the other posts (such as the Pit Bull topics) you will see that the dog issue is complex and opinions vary wildly.
Your post, on the other hand, is a direct attack on GeraldT and falls outside our posting rules that posts should be "positive and friendly." (see posting rules link at the top of the forum) Saying things like, "...or people like you buying a home here..." are uncalled for and are certainly not positive or friendly.
Please review the Posting Rules for future reference and help us keep these forums a positive place that people want to return to.
Thank You for Your Support,
HOATalk
|
|
HOATalk.com, A free service of Community123.com
Provider of Upscale Community Websites
CLICK HERE to get a FREE trial community website
*See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal |
|
|
LindaJ
Posts:0
|
| 06/17/2006 9:50 PM |
|
WilliamT and HOATalk: So, you consider my association's rules "unrealistic" and that I am "not posting positive content in my response". My original response to Don was very positive, realistic and examples of what our association has experienced. But, you think it's okay for GeraldT1 to sound off on constructive replies to a question initiated by another member of HOATalk? If this is the true response of HOATalk, and you think I am not being open minded when Gerald used this member's forum to voice his opinion about the way my association rules are set up, then you are changing the entire format of what this site was from the beginning. When I first joined, an HOATalk member would ask other members for their experience on a subject. A member would give their response, another member would expand on the previous members' response or provide their experiences, and so on. But never would one member take it upon themself to tell another member that they were being unrealistic and proceed to bash someone for their association's rules (muzzling dogs by BrianB; LOL we're back to controlling dogs by HaroldS). It was up to the original member to disect the opinions of others, and decide what would work for their association.
Of course, there will be various opinions, and members will not agree with everyone's rules, but shouldn't a forum like this demand respect for the individual association community's rules. Not all associations are the same, some have elderly homeowners, some are made up of primarily young families. I am 53 years old, my husband is 66. We have grandchildren and love them immensely, but I would not have built a home in an association that was oriented around young families - been there, done that. I am in a time of my life, that I prefer to live in a community that is mostly retirees. You would more than likely not build or buy a townhome in my community. And, as I stated, with your interests I would not like you to live in my community and try to change the CC&Rs to suit you. I built my home here because I wanted to live in this environment, without children everyday, and without large pets. This is the United States of America. My husband spent 33 years of his life serving in the military to protect our freedom, and we should be able to live where we want to without other people telling us that we are "unrealiatic" people.
Apparently the format of HOATalk has changed and you are allowing a lot of "side bar" talk amongst the members. This, in my humble opinion, is not constructive at all. It is not helpful to the originator of a question or other members to listen to the banter between other members that is totally not constructive to the forum. If this is the case, please let me know and I will resign my membership and you can continue to make this a very biased website. |
|
|
|
|
WilliamT
(Arizona)
Posts:489
|
| 06/18/2006 7:06 AM |
|
Posted By LindaJ on 06/17/2006 9:50 PM
Of course, there will be various opinions, and members will not agree with everyone's rules, but shouldn't a forum like this demand respect for the individual association community's rules.
Hi Linda,
I meant no disrespect to you, nor to your community rules. If my comments appeared to be disrectful then I apologize for that. Certainly your community is entitled to have whatever rules the community wishes to develop.
I was simply voicing my opinion of the rule, and pointing out the problems that I feel could result from a 50 pound weight rule. And because of those potential problems I feel that a weight based rule is unrealistic.
I'm only talking about the rule. I am not saying that you are unrealistic, or that your community is unrealistic for adopting such a rule. Your community has the right to develop any rules that are lawful, and I respect that.
What I would consider more realistic and workable is to have a rule that says, for example: "no dogs", "no cats", "no domestic animals" "no pitbulls" or only certain breeds by name that fall into a small dog category, such as "Yorkshire Terrier" "miniature poodles" or something similar.
But whatever the rule, it should be one that is precise and not one where a person who buys into the community is in compliance in the beginning, but after a period of time, by an act of God, the dog has gained weight and now they are technically in violation of a CC&R.
By an act of God, I mean that the dog, by breed, was supposed to weigh a maximum of 45 pounds, but through no fault of the dog, or the owner, and even with a strict diet the dogs metabolic system has caused a weight gain up to 55 pounds which is now a violation of the letter of the CC&R.
We purchased a Yorkie which was supposed to grow to a maximum of 6 pounds, exactly what my wife wanted. Had we moved into a community that had a rule of no dogs larger than 6 pounds, we would have been in compliance in the beginning. But our dog continued to grow, and he finally grew to 8 pounds. Our vet says that he is at the perfect weight for his bone structure. To lose 25% of his body weight to get to 6 pounds would probably starve him to death.
Had we fallen into a situation like that and were told to get rid of the dog or move, we would fight it. We would never give him. And we would not sell our home because of that. Instead, we would go to court to fight an unrealistic rule, and I believe we would win.
On a personal note, we are in our 70's and live in a community with people of all ages. There are retired people, there are people with young children, and some with college age children. We don't mind dealing with the issues that are prevelent in a community with people of all ages because it makes us feel young.
We are able to talk to and relate to our retired friends, and we are also able to socialize and relate to our 40 year old friends, and understand their way or life, which is not a lot different from ours when we were 40. It is refreshing for us.
We could never live in a retirement community, but we understand why many people like yourself would never live in a community with children, and we respect that.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
JulieS
(Georgia)
Posts:412
|
| 06/19/2006 6:29 PM |
|
Not sure if I really should jump in at this point....but here goes. Our covenants pretty much ban any 'livestock' and animals of that nature.
Personally, I do not understand the weight limit on dogs...a dog is a dog, no matter how much it weighs. They all have the same doggie habits that bother people. When there is a problem with a dog, it usually has to do with the owner (i.e., barking, using a neighbor's lawn to do it's business, biting, running loose, etc.). I agree that leash laws and the like should be the center of the rules because no matter what size dog you have, it is the owner that is responsible.
Another issue I can see is that of a service dog (i.e., dogs used by the blind, etc). How can you discriminate against that? Seems like the association would violate some type of fair housing rule.
I am a cat girl and would have a problem with the limit of two cats. I have four and they are inside 24/7. Why should that bother anyone? How does that decrease the value of the neighborhood?
When it comes to pets, it's an emotional topic. I believe in enforcing the people, and not the size of the pet. |
|
|
|
|
EdR
(Texas)
Posts:170
|
| 06/20/2006 12:55 PM |
|
I really don't care if a dog weighs 600 pounds just as long as it doesn't unload it's extra digested crap on my yard, and stays in it's own yard---I just replaced $200 worth of plants and small shrubs at the end of my sidewalk because some inconsiderate ___ who allows their dog to pee on my plants doesn't apparently thinks his dog is for my yard and not his. I have a dog in my backyard, I have a gate across my drive to keep my dog in my backyard and off other's lawns; I wish everyone would be considerate--this is not the dog's fault either. A homeowner who opens a door and lets the dog run out is responsible for it; a homeowner who walks a dog to pee on your plants instead of his own is responsible for it.
EdR |
|
|
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:2480
|
| 06/20/2006 8:29 PM |
|
agree with ed, and julie.
and to answer the question about service animals, federal law (the ADA) trumps any local laws about such animals, so no HOA could bar them.
a second tactic i have seen used to some effect is to make the claim that a service animal is not a pet. it is a working animal, and thus, doesn't fall under any rules that regulate pets. |
|
|
|
|
MistiH
(Texas)
Posts:52
|
| 06/21/2006 11:58 AM |
|
My HOA safety committee is in discussion regarding agressive breeds. We wish to ammend the CCR's to disallow Pitt Bulls, Adida's, etc. I don't know much about dogs, as I am all about my mousers.
Do any of you have bans on agressive breeds? And, what breeds do you list as agressive? |
|
Loving Life in Texas!
Misti |
|
|
hoatalk
Posts:538
|
| 06/21/2006 4:34 PM |
|
Posted By MistiH on 06/21/2006 11:58 AM
My HOA safety committee is in discussion regarding agressive breeds. We wish to ammend the CCR's to disallow Pitt Bulls, Adida's, etc. I don't know much about dogs, as I am all about my mousers.
Do any of you have bans on agressive breeds? And, what breeds do you list as agressive?
Try searching this forum for: pit bulls
You will find a great discussion on aggressive breeds.
|
|
HOATalk.com, A free service of Community123.com
Provider of Upscale Community Websites
CLICK HERE to get a FREE trial community website
*See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal |
|
|
MistiH
(Texas)
Posts:52
|
| 06/21/2006 8:08 PM |
|
I did the search, but only our last two posts pulled up. I'll keep trying using different phrases.  |
|
Loving Life in Texas!
Misti |
|
|
hoatalk
Posts:538
|
| 06/22/2006 6:22 AM |
|
| Here's the link: http://www.hoatalk.com/Forum/tabid/55/view/topic/forumid/1/postid/2909/Default.aspx |
|
HOATalk.com, A free service of Community123.com
Provider of Upscale Community Websites
CLICK HERE to get a FREE trial community website
*See legal notice below (end of page) or go to www.hoatalk.com/legal |
|
|
JulieS
(Georgia)
Posts:412
|
| 06/22/2006 9:30 AM |
|
| I have been attacked by a schnauzer three times in my life and never by any other dog, not even a pit bull. Again, I think this goes back to the owners...many dog behaviors are the result of training, lack of training, or being abused. |
|
|
|
|
MistiH
(Texas)
Posts:52
|
| 06/22/2006 8:02 PM |
|
Posted By hoatalk on 06/22/2006 6:22 AM
Here's the link: http://www.hoatalk.com/Forum/tabid/55/view/topic/forumid/1/postid/2909/Default.aspx
Thanks much.
Ok, I feel compelled to weigh in on this issue.
I agree that owners are the issue and the dogs their victims.
HOWEVER, never let an innocent person be the final victim of an irresponsible owner. A mauled child is mauled regardless of blame. We had a pitt bull jump in the face of a baby in a stroller a while back. Do you think fault really matters when someone gets hurt? Personally, I do not. Would the owner's being fined repair the baby's face? Hardly.
Fortunately, the external injuries were not grievous. Poor baby will probably be afraid of dogs until he's 99 though.
Oh, and the dog is gone. Maybe the owner should've been put down instead????  |
|
Loving Life in Texas!
Misti |
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:2480
|
| 06/23/2006 12:16 PM |
|
Do I think finding fault helps when accidents occur?
absolutely. I hate "no fault" systems. In them, both parties to an incident are eventually penalized, rather than the responsible party bearing the entire brunt of the issue.
Should the owners be put down?
I am fine with an owner being held absolutely accountable for all things that occur within his ownership. If that includes monetary liability, criminal time, then that's fine. It's part of responsible ownership. Sadly, we don't license pet owners, or require them to pass tests, etc..
The one thing I can say about the pit bull in your instance is that I would bet $10000 that there were warning signs that something could happen, and they were ignored. I bet the dog had jumped the fence before, or been seen almost scaling the fence by the owners in the past. I bet the owners knew the dog was prone to chase aggressively, and did nothing about it. Odds are, there were a hundred little signs that warned the owners that something could happen, and they ignored them all. THe attack wasn't a "surprise". Things do not "come from nowhere". tragedy comes from ignored warnings, signs people see but don't process, things that happen but are ignored. There are very few absolutely unpreventable accidents.
|
|
|
|
|
MistiH
(Texas)
Posts:52
|
| 06/24/2006 8:36 PM |
|
Posted By BrianB on 06/23/2006 12:16 PM
Do I think finding fault helps when accidents occur?
absolutely. I hate "no fault" systems. In them, both parties to an incident are eventually penalized, rather than the responsible party bearing the entire brunt of the issue.
Should the owners be put down?
I am fine with an owner being held absolutely accountable for all things that occur within his ownership. If that includes monetary liability, criminal time, then that's fine. It's part of responsible ownership. Sadly, we don't license pet owners, or require them to pass tests, etc..
The one thing I can say about the pit bull in your instance is that I would bet $10000 that there were warning signs that something could happen, and they were ignored. I bet the dog had jumped the fence before, or been seen almost scaling the fence by the owners in the past. I bet the owners knew the dog was prone to chase aggressively, and did nothing about it. Odds are, there were a hundred little signs that warned the owners that something could happen, and they ignored them all. THe attack wasn't a "surprise". Things do not "come from nowhere". tragedy comes from ignored warnings, signs people see but don't process, things that happen but are ignored. There are very few absolutely unpreventable accidents.
What you say makes sense. My point, however, is that fault doesn't undo the damage. We are more interested in taking a preventative step and believe that "No agressive breeds" would accomplish that. Oh, and no grandfathering in existing ones, either. |
|
Loving Life in Texas!
Misti |
|
|
RogerB
(Colorado)
Posts:4686
|
| 06/25/2006 9:06 AM |
|
| Mist, I think you should reconsider your stance on grandfather existing conditions. Any Rule must be reasonable to hold up. What you could say when establishing a rule to prevent certain dogs is "is no unlicensed dog shall be grandfathered". |
|
|
|
|
BradP
(Kansas)
Posts:2491
|
| 06/26/2006 9:36 AM |
|
Misti:
I would agree with Roger on the grandfathering clause. Our city actually enacted an ordinance against Pit Bulls about two years ago, but grandfathered in dogs that were already registered in the city.
|
|
|
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:2480
|
| 06/26/2006 4:20 PM |
|
Misti, if you enact a "no aggressive breeds" clause, please back yourself up with the scientific evidence to stand up in court. Define "aggressive", and define "breed" in your clause, or you leave huge loopholes to drive through (for instance, is a 1/2 bull terrier, 1/2 lab "an aggressive breed"?). Remember that most dogs aren't "pure" bred, so leave room for the "mutts". Any dog that isn't 100% pure isn't a "breed" at all, so be careful. You can ban Rottweilers as a breed, but if my Rottie has a great grandfather somewhere that was a doberman, it isn't pure, and thus, not a "breed".
Make sure your definitions are backed by fact, not anecdotal evidence or bias: for instance, what is "aggressive" in a dog breed? Most bites in the past year? Ten years? Most bites per capita (ie, lots more labs than pit bulls, so more labs bite every year than pit bulls, probably). Make sure you use good data: CDC data is better than something written up for Knight RIdder newspaper, for example. Make sure you define things so that "looks like" a dobie isn't a crime: define exactly what you mean, so there are no loopholes.
Remember that if you define aggression by breed, you won't be able to do much about that "mutt" that jumps fences, rushes to the end of his lead, slobbers and snaps and lunges at every passerby: he's not aggressive under your breed rules. Perhaps better to define aggression by behavior as well, to cover your bases.
good luck! work now will save you headaches later.
|
|
|
|
|
MistiH
(Texas)
Posts:52
|
| 06/26/2006 7:55 PM |
|
I really appreciate all the sound advise! I have copied this whole thread to take to my meeting tomorrow evening. There is so much information and diverse opinion here. Good stuff!
Pitt or any part Pitt, Akida or any part Akida, etc. does that verbage cover it?
Maybe poundage should be the determining factor. I dunno. The committee will focus it's formidable brain power and collectively decide the best route.
Grandfathering - if we don't we will have farmers and pitchforks at us! |
|
Loving Life in Texas!
Misti |
|
|
BrianB
(California)
Posts:2480
|
| 06/27/2006 8:05 AM |
|
again Misti, be careful.
If you enact something like you just said "off the cuff" in your paragraph, then I could easily have my Akita and American Staffordshire Terrier, or Pit Bull Terrier... because you just banned akida's and pitts... neither of which are a breed. |
|
|
|
|
GeraldT1
Posts:0
|
| 06/28/2006 8:38 AM |
|
Hi LindaJ,
Sorry I haven't revisited the subject of your posts and the replies to the subject until now. I am a little nervous at responding because 1) you have instructed me not to, 2) the format of hoatalk and discussion blogs invites personal opinions. However, my comments were not an attack on you, far far from it. Rather it was my opinion that your association had one unrealistic rule. I offerred my opinion and some scenarios that I felt may benefit you if for nothing else, food for thought. As WilliamT has evidenced in his reply, he described the scenario of pet weight fluctation and the impact a weight restriction may have on pets and their owners.
Sometimes the Board's best friend is the one that has a diferring opinion.
I will forgive your insults because we all may write something that was not intended or in the heat of opinion. But please revisit your comments because the tone is very harsh, and by posting and being a part of hoatalk, it is everyone's business to offer a reply.
Very best regards,
GeraldT1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
General Legal Notice: The content of forum messages are from the posting member and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by HOATalk.com. Messages posted by HOATalk or other members are for informational purposes only, are not legal or professional advice and do not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. HOATalk is not a licensed attorney, CPA, tax advisor, financial advisor or any other licensed professional. HOATalk accepts ads from sponsors but does not verify sponsor qualifications nor endorse/guarantee any sponsor's product or service.
HindmanSanchez Legal Notice: (For messages posted by HindmanSanchez) This message has been prepared by HindmanSanchez for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Members of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send us confidential information unless you speak with one of our attorneys and get authorization to send that information to us. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in our firm. Our attorneys are licensed to practice law in the state of Colorado only.
Legal Notice For Messages Posted by Sponsoring Attorneys: This message has been prepared by the sponsoring attorney for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send any sponsoring attorney confidential information unless you speak with the sponsoring attorney or an attorney from the sponsoring attorney’s firm and get authorization to send that information to them. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in the firm of the sponsoring attorney. Sponsoring attorneys that post messages here are licensed to practice law in a specific state or states as indicated in their message signature or sponsor’s profile page. (NOTE: A ‘sponsoring attorney’ is an attorney that is a HOATalk.com official sponsor and is identified as such in the posted message or on our sponsor page.)
|
|