DDR German Shepherds

Sal · Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 7:52 pm Post subject:

In addition to the BSL's, I have heard of one community (large subdivision) here in Washington that bans specific breeds in their covenant conditions and restrictions agreement. Shocked

I am not sure this is common as I have not heard of a community being so breed specific.

I read the actual clause and from what I can remember, the agreement specifically banned pitbulls or any "pitbull type dog" or any dog that resembles a pitbull as defined by the AKC.

There are some dogs that were "grandfathered" in because they were obtained prior to the issuance of the convenants. However, even these animals have conditions placed upon their owners. The owners must muzzle their dogs in the common and public areas of the community! Shocked

So it would be wise to not only check the local ordinances, but read the convenant before you move into that nice house or condo.
_________________
Sal

Arek Viktor Vom Banach

Sarah · Joined: 02 Mar 2008 Posts: 108 Location: Atlanta

Yeah that is pretty popular here in Atlanta. there is a HUUUUUUUUGE "gangsta" population here, and naturally, dog fighting is a big part of it. Most apartment complexes here don't allow pit bulls.

on a sidenote, I have a solution (as dreamy and unrealistic as it would be)

1. The government produces a standard at which a breeding kennel must be run
a. all dogs vaccinated and must send government proof of yearly exams
b. no more than 20 dogs on the premisis (i don't agree with these HUGE breeding kennels with like 60 GSDs in runs, even if all are exercised and trained.. it's an unnatural living situation for dogs. this would also eliminate mills)
c. all puppies are sold with limited registration unless proven breeding material by official titles and health checks
d. all dogs MUST be registered with one of the following registeries

THEN

the AKC/UKC, etc. needs to do lots of advertising on the subject, and ONLY register dogs/kennels that have passed these rules. Making it impossible to breed a dog that doesn't follow these criteria.

monkeys23 · Joined: 13 Mar 2008 Posts: 52

Sal · Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject:

Sal · Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:19 am Post subject:

Okay, my buddy sent me a pdf with the restriction. It does mention specific breeds, but what happens if you have a Cane Corso or Presa Canario or any of the others that was shown on that link that Monkeys23 added? I am certain someone would complain about these types of dogs and try to have it fall under this restriction or have it included.

Also take a look at the conditions an owner must fulfill in order to keep what is termed a "pitbull" even if it has met the the grandfather exception. Mandatory spay/neuter, confinement, muzzles, liability insurance, etc.

Policy regarding Pit Bulls
Adopted on January 25, 2002
Effective Date on March 1, 2002

For purposes of this Policy, the term “pit bull dog” means any of the following: Staffordshire Bull Terrier; American Staffordshire Terrier; American Pit Bull Terrier; any dog which has been registered at any time as a Pit Bull Terrier; any dog which has the appearance of being predominantly of the breed of dogs know as Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier. A dog shall be deemed to have the "appearance of being predominantly of the breed of dogs" named herein if the dog exhibits the physical characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or the United Kennel Club for any of these breeds.
Keeping Pit Bulls is Prohibited: No resident of Issaquah Highlands shall own or possess a pit bull dog within the boundaries of Issaquah Highlands, except as specifically permitted by the Grandfather Exception of this policy.

Grandfather Exception: Pit bull dogs residing in Issaquah Highlands as of the date of adoption of this Policy shall be permitted to remain in Issaquah Highlands if and only if the owner of the dog complies with the following requirements:

• Notice of Ownership subject to Grandfather Exemption: The Owner of a pit bull dog seeking to keep the dog in Issaquah Highlands pursuant to the Grandfather Exception shall provide the following information in writing to the Association within 30 days after adoption of this policy: the name, sex, and age of the dog. Any pit bull dog found in Issaquah Highlands which is not registered with the Association in accordance with this rule shall not be protected by the Grandfather Exception and shall be immediately and permanently removed from Issaquah Highlands.

• Prohibition on Transfer within Issaquah Highlands: No person shall sell, trade or otherwise transfer ownership or possession of a pit bull dog to another person residing within Issaquah Highlands unless the recipient resides in the same household and on the same premises as the owner of the dog.

• Spaying or Neutering: Any pit bull dog kept in Issaquah Highlands pursuant to the Grandfather Exception shall be spayed or neutered when it reaches the age of six months. Any pit bull dog which is subject to the Grandfather Exception which has not been spayed or neutered and is over the age of six months at the time of the adoption of this policy shall be spayed or neutered within 30 days after adoption of this policy. The owner of any pit bull dog in Issaquah Highlands shall provide to the Association a copy of a veterinarian’s certification of spaying or neutering in accordance with this policy.

• Leash and Muzzle Required: Except when inside an owner’s residence, inside the owner’s fenced yard – 6 foot minimum height with no gaps and under direct supervision of the owners or kept in a kennel constructed and maintained as set forth below, any pit bull dog in Issaquah Highlands shall be (1) restrained on a secure leash which complies with applicable requirements of the City of Issaquah leash law, (2) muzzled by a humane muzzle (which allows the dog to pant and drink water but sufficient to prevent the dog from biting persons or other animals), and (3) under the physical control of a person capable of controlling the dog.

• Confinement:
• Except when inside an owner’s residence or when the pit bull is inside the owner’s fenced yard – 6 foot minimum height with no gaps and under direct supervision of the owners, or on a leash and muzzle (as set forth above), any pit bull dog in Issaquah Highlands must be confined in a securely enclosed pen or kennel which (1) has secure sides and a secure top attached to the sides, (2) has a secure floor attached to the sides unless the sides are embedded in the ground to a depth of at least two feet, (3) is closed by a lock or other mechanism sufficient to prevent the dog or a child from opening the door, and which is adequately lighted and ventilated and kept in a clean and sanitary condition. Any per or kennel must comply with applicable zoning and building regulations and the rules and regulations enforced by the Issaquah Highlands Architectural Review Committee.

• No pit bull dog shall kept on a rope, chain or be leashed to an inanimate object such as a tree, stake, post or building.

• No pit bull dog shall be kept on a porch, patio or in any part of a house or structure which would allow the dog to exit the building on its own volition. No unsupervised pit bull dog shall be kept in a house or structure when the windows are open or when window or door screens are the only obstacle preventing the dog from escaping. The windows may remain open within the home while the owners are present with the pit bull dog. The owner must take reasonable precaution that the pit bull dog does not have the ability to push through any screen within the house.

• Liability Insurance: Any owner of a pit bull subject to the Grandfather Exception shall submit written proof, in the form of a letter from the owner’s insurance broker or carrier, that the owner has insurance providing liability coverage covering any injury or damage caused by the pit bull dog. Such insurance shall have minimum annual coverage limits of $250,000 per occurrence and $250,000 in the aggregate. The owner of the pit bull dog shall submit such a letter annually establishing that such coverage is being maintained continuously by the owner.

• Compliance with Governmental Regulations: All dogs in Issaquah Highlands, including pit bull dogs subject to the Grandfather Exception, shall be maintained in compliance with applicable regulations of the City of Issaquah (and King County) regarding leash laws, pet license requirements and rabies vaccinations.

• Enforcement:
The Association is not assuming responsibility for enforcement of applicable governmental regulations. Any person observing a violation of leash laws, pet licensing requirements, regulations regarding dangerous dogs as defined in RCW ch. 16.08 or other rules adopted by a government agency should contact King County Animal Control at 206-296-7387.

• In the event of a violation of this Policy regarding the restrictions on keeping pit bull dogs in Issaquah Highlands, the Board of Directors or its designee shall have the discretion to impose sanctions appropriate to the severity of the violation. The sanctions may include warning notices, fines and/or permanent expulsion of the dog from Issaquah Highlands.

• In the event that a pit bull dog subject to the Grandfather Exception bites a person or another animal or instigates a fight with another dog, the Board, in its discretion, may order that the pit bull dog be immediately and permanently removed from Issaquah Highlands.

• Enforcement shall be conducted in accordance with the following procedures:
In the event of a violation of this Policy, the owner of the pit bull dog shall be notified by the Association in writing of the violation and proposed penalty. Such notice shall be delivered by mail or by delivery to the residence of the owner.

If the owner of the pit bull dog disputes either the fact that a violation has occurred or the proposed penalty, the owner shall submit a written notice of appeal to the Association within ten calendar days of the issuance of the notice of violation. The appeal shall explain the factual basis of the appeal. If no appeal is filed, the proposed penalty shall be deemed accepted by the owner of the pit bull dog and it shall be enforced in accordance with the CCR.

If an appeal is filed, the Board of Directors or its designee shall meet to consider the appeal as soon as reasonably possible after the appeal is submitted. The Board or its designee shall consider all evidence submitted at the appeal and render a written decision, which may sustain, modify or overturn the notice of violation or proposed penalty. The decision of the Board or its designee shall be final.

NOTES: The Board of Directors reserves the power to expand, modify or repeal this Policy at any time. The Board of Directors intends to appoint an advisory committee of residents of Issaquah Highlands to consider adoption of additional and/or supplemental policies regarding the proper maintenance of dogs within Issaquah Highlands.

Nothing in this Policy shall be construed as an assumption of liability or responsibility for activities within Issaquah Highlands or as a modification of Section 7.7 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Issaquah Highlands Residential Properties, which provides, in part: THE RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION MAY, BUT SHALL NOT BE OBLIGATED TO, MAINTAIN OR SUPPORT CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES DESIGNED TO MAKE THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES SAFER THAN THEY MIGHT OTHERWISE BE. THE RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION SHALL INCLUDE WITHIN THE COMMON EXPENSES THE COSTS RELATED TO ANY SUCH ACTIVITIES THAT THE RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION INCURS. NEITHER THE RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION NOR DECLARANT SHALL IN ANY WAY BE CONSIDERED AN INSURER OR GUARANTOR OF SECURITY WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, NOR SHALL EITHER BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE BY REASON OF FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SECURITY OR INEFFECTIVENESS OF SECURITY MEASURES UNDERTAKEN.

This Declaration hereby authorizes the Board to establish rules and regulations regarding keeping pets and to establish pet-free zones, in which pets shall not be permitted either within a Unit or upon the Residential Common Area, or both, as determined in the Board's sole discretion. Pets shall be prohibited in pet-free zones unless expressly authorized by, and then subject to such conditions as the Board may
impose. The Board shall establish any pet-free zones in accordance with procedures adopted by the Board
_________________
Sal

Arek Viktor Vom Banach

monkeys23 · Joined: 13 Mar 2008 Posts: 52

I'm sure they would attempt to lump the Cane Corso and various other breeds under the same grouping.

I'd say only a very responsible owner would be able to comply appropriately with all those rules and the rules themselves will completely negate any positive educational example that a responsible owner would be able to show the other residents - simply from the muzzle restriction alone!! All things like this do is encourage the ignorance because if someone sees a dog with a muzzle they assume it must be unstable and vicious. Even if its obedience trained, excellent with kids/people, and just wants to love on everyone. I believe that just creates a cycle of ignorance that will result in worse and worse laws. If good ambassadogs were brought in to show people what they are really like they would make a very positive impression and encourage education in regards to all dogs, which stands in contrast to the hate mongering that bls laws and living ordinances/covenants like the one posted above promote by using discrimination and tools such as muzzles to show how "awful" these dogs supposedly are.

Of course on the other end of the spectrum you have the people who won't look at the realities of dog behavior and genetics and are trying to "save" everything... Even if its an animal that is completely unstable and unsuitable to carry on a well adjusted life because of its genetics. In my eyes that has its faults as well.

Spence · Joined: 09 Feb 2007 Posts: 231 Location: Mendoza, TX

Here's something from Responsible Pet Owners Alliance in San Antonio, TX. They are very active in trying to pound sense into some of these bureaucrats that fall under the spell of the activists.....

> From: Responsible Pet Owners Alliance <rpoa@texas.net>
> Date: April 28, 2008 11:42:51 AM EDT
> To: TX-RPOA@LISTSERV.TAMU.EDU
> Subject: RPOA's letter to Dallas Quality of Life Committee
> Reply-To: Responsible Pet Owners Alliance <rpoa@texas.net>
>
> TX-RPOA E-News
> From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance,
> the reasonable voice regarding animal issues in Texas.
> Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an animal welfare organization,
> not "animal rights" and, yes, there is a difference.
> Permission granted to crosspost.
>
> April 28, 2008
> FYI: RPOA's letter to Councilmember Pauline Medrano, Chairman of the Quality of Life Committee, (copied to all committee members) is below. Let's hope common sense reigns today at their noon meeting.
> Dallas Ordinance information is on our website:
> www.responsiblepetowners.org under the Action Alert button.
> ___________________________________
>
> Re: Chapter 7 Animal Ordinance Revisions
> Chairman Medrano and committee members:
>
> We speak on behalf of our membership in Dallas who oppose the animal ordinance proposals listed below. Our organization has researched animal issues for 17 years looking for successful programs that work. Subsequently we developed a statewide Pet Education, Assistance & Rescue Program in Texas. Our All-Species Rescue Program networks the entire state and is the only such program in the US. In the process, our research has also documented legislative failures in many cities.
>
> This isn't a "breeder" issue, it is a "pet" issue. The proposals will not address your animal problems and will actually exacerbate them - resulting in more animals euthanized, not less. Animal Services costs will double which would be better spent on highly publicized and subsidized pet spay/neuter programs in South Dallas. In all US cities the impounded
> animals are coming from low income neighborhoods and legislation will have no effect on these pet owners.
>
> We oppose the items listed below as currently written or amended in the future as the concept is basically flawed and proven to be a failure 15
> years ago.
>
> * Mandatory Pet Spay/Neuter, costly to enforce and ineffective.
> * Breeder Permits, costly to enforce and ineffective. No one will buy them.
> * "Competition Animal" Permit and any other permits are not acceptable.
> * Pet Limits, fewer homes for pets. (Is that what you really want?)
> * Tethering should be done humanely, not banned, as there'll be more dog attacks and possibly fatalities by large aggressive dogs that are escape artists.
> * 150' pen requirement is really a stupid requirement for a Chihuahua.
> * Higher impoundment fees and fines will mean more animals surrendered.
>
> Even though the Dallas-Fort Worth area added more residents than any other metro area between July 2006 and July 2007, the Dallas Animal Services euthanasia statistics are surprising - showing a slow improvement since 1996 when 38,786 animals were impounded. Attitudes are changing and more pets
> are voluntarily sterilized. Do you want to reverse this trend with oppressive legislation that causes resentment?
>
> You don't have puppy mills in South Dallas which is where Willie McDaniel, Dallas Animal Services, says the impounded animals are coming from. McDaniel also told us that existing free and low cost pet spay/neuter programs are not being utilized.
>
> Your proposed ordinance provisions clearly expose the national "animal rights" legislative agenda to end all use, breeding and ownership of animals in this country. If there is no breeding ultimately there'll be no pets. Unfortunately pets only average a 10 year life span and must be replaced at some point in the future. The extremists will say anything and do anything
> to get this passed in Dallas.
>
> Austin city officials refused to pass this legislation and considered it political suicide. San Antonio passed a similar ordinance requiring pet
> spay/neuter in mid-December and mpoundments have doubled for the first three months of this year. This is in spite of new Animal Care Services policy to only pick up sick and injured pets; not accept any "cats in cages," and to charge $25 to surrender a pet to ACS. Animals are being dumped at record rates with packs of dogs roaming the city, a public health
> and safety issue. San Antonio is ripe for a Rabies outbreak and city council members are swamped with complaints from residents. Do you want to go down this road?
>
> Other Failures:
> San Mateo County, CA, euthanasia rates increased by 126% and licenses declined by 35%. Do you really want to copy San Mateo County?
>
> Los Angeles City, CA, had enforcement costs rise 269%, from $6.7 million to $18 million with breeder permits and more recently passed mandatory pet sterilization. Do you really want to copy Los Angeles?
>
> King County, WA, euthanasia rates fell at a slower rate after legislation passed than before and license compliance decreased. Costly door-to-door enforcement increased animal control expenses 56.8% and revenues only 43.2%. Do you really want to copy King County?
>
> Denver, CO, is the "Anti-Pet Capital of the United States." Denver passed legislation in 1995 banning all breeding of dogs and cats and mandating sterilization for dogs and cats over the age of 6 months. Dumb Animals League (based in Denver) has reported that Denver shelters and rescuers euthanized more than 43,000 animals in 2006 in spite of their extreme legislation. Do you really want to copy Denver?
>
> Montgomery County, MD, passed this legislation 15 years ago and rescinded it
> all five years later saying it was a failure and would take five more years to get back where they were before passage. Do you have 10 years to waste?
>
> Parade Magazine's recent poll regarding mandatory spay/neuter says 91% were
> opposed to this type legislation at last count. It is safe to say that 90% of the voting population in Dallas oppose this legislation. Please remove
> these objectionable provisions.
> Sincerely,
>
> Mary Beth Duerler
> Executive Director
> Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
>
> Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
> 900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
> San Antonio, TX 78209
> Phone: (210) 822-6763
> Website: www.responsiblepetowners.org
> $15 Annual dues (January - December)
> To share information, subscribe or unsubscribe,
> e-mail rpoa@texas.net.
_________________
Spence

Jaspenhof Kennels
Blacks & Sables
DDR, WGR, BE, NL, CZ