Pit bulls as service dogs.....

[Brandon Hicks]

Just got a call in Indiana from a lady whose kid has a pit as a "service" dog.

Thoughts on this? Can I still discriminate against the breed as I normally do with pits, rotts and so on even if they have papers?

[Michael Simler]

There is a lot of incorrect info being spewed here in this forum. For those who would actually like to educate themselves on the law and avoid discrimination lawsuits, read what the ADA has to say about service animals.  

         http://www.ada.gov/qasrvc.htm

Also, "pit bulls" are not a breed, they are a group of breeds arbitrarily placed together. Again, for those who are interested in educating themselves and being fair and honest landlords, read this from the ASPCA, I promise it won't bite you, even though its about big scary pitbulls...

https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-po...

[Bill Gulley]

Originally posted by @Brandon Hicks:

Just got a call in Indiana from a lady whose kid has a pit as a "service" dog.

Thoughts on this? Can I still discriminate against the breed as I normally do with pits, rotts and so on even if they have papers?

 Without reading 4 pages, and in keeping with my required BP morning post, IMO,

The certification and medical requirement will trump any breed regulation or restriction, including any insurance matter as the ADA related matters are federal law. I'd contact your insurance agent, as I'm not saying they are required to cover that issue. 

It would just lead to discomfort if you acted on your own using the dog as an excuse, in reality, look for another valid reason if you don't want to do business with them.

BTW, Pits aren't bad dogs, the owners are bad owners. Pits can be very sociable when trained, I'd see the dog for myself before passing judgment. Anything with a mouth can bite! :) 

[Stone Teran]

Originally posted by @Steve Vaughan:

Prospective applicants that 'dictate' to me what I have to take pet-wise never seem to get their applications turned in completed correctly or in time before someone else submits theirs.  Really weird, right?! 

 Hahaha, that's really weird :)

[William Morgan]

I'm sorry, I don't buy the "it's all in how you train them" argument, at least not in totality. While I'm certain that training comes into play, keep in mind that "Pit Bull type" dogs have a long breeding history as fighting dogs. We can argue whether or not how precisely the "Pit Bull" breed can be determined but lets not forget their selective breeding for Bull Baiting and fighting.

"To understand the origin of the pit bull, one must go back two hundred years to a time when two dogs fighting to the death in an arena was as acceptable as two prize fighters punching each other in Las Vegas is today...

...the Bull Terrier was created "by crossing English Bulldogs with several breeds including Black and Tan Terriers, Spanish Pointers, English White Terriers, Dalmations, Greyhounds and Whippets in order to create a dog breed that would fight other dogs." (link)

Also, while acknowledging the limitations of breed identification, the Centers for Disease Control nonetheless has this to say:

"Despite these (breed identification) limitations and concerns, the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF (Dog Bite Related Fatalities) in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

Nobody knows risk more than insurance companies. They study it with far greater precision than anyone else. That they would seek to disallow coverage based on breed profiles shows IMO that certain breed profiles are predisposed inflict injury and aggression. Keep in mind, most of the time these fatalities are kids (70%).

And really, doesn't it make sense?  Does anyone think you can take a dog with some mix of a dog fighting breed and not have *at least the potential* for those traits carry over?

I inherited a tenant who used 2 "Blue" pits, around 80lbs apiece.  BTW they also made great guard dogs for his home grow operation. He, like many owners of these breeds claimed they were "friendly and have never bitten anyone, I swear".

I and all the neighbors (and their kids) were happy to see them go.

[Steve Vaughan]

This is back again?  Thanks @Stone Teran for re-resurrecting lol.  My post about the application not managing to be  complete or correct is in relation to the attitude of the applicant much more than whether they had a dog or not.  Abrasive, demanding residents are much worse than any pet I have rented to! Peace! 

[Kelly M.]

Originally posted by @William Morgan:

I'm sorry, I don't buy the "it's all in how you train them" argument, at least not in totality. While I'm certain that training comes into play, keep in mind that "Pit Bull type" dogs have a long breeding history as fighting dogs. We can argue whether or not how precisely the "Pit Bull" breed can be determined but lets not forget their selective breeding for Bull Baiting and fighting.

"To understand the origin of the pit bull, one must go back two hundred years to a time when two dogs fighting to the death in an arena was as acceptable as two prize fighters punching each other in Las Vegas is today...

...the Bull Terrier was created "by crossing English Bulldogs with several breeds including Black and Tan Terriers, Spanish Pointers, English White Terriers, Dalmations, Greyhounds and Whippets in order to create a dog breed that would fight other dogs." (link)

Also, while acknowledging the limitations of breed identification, the Centers for Disease Control nonetheless has this to say:

"Despite these (breed identification) limitations and concerns, the data indicate that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human DBRF (Dog Bite Related Fatalities) in the United States between 1997 and 1998. It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities."

Nobody knows risk more than insurance companies. They study it with far greater precision than anyone else. That they would seek to disallow coverage based on breed profiles shows IMO that certain breed profiles are predisposed inflict injury and aggression. Keep in mind, most of the time these fatalities are kids (70%).

 I am going to respond to this post. This is false an again I'd say education is a must. Insurance companies have high statistics?? How?? Was there DNA done on these dogs? Do you know that in today's world of pit bull they breed has changed and bred out human aggression? Do you know that a dog that fights In a ring with another dog is not human aggressive and any form of human aggression displayed the animal is euthanized. Yea these animals were bred for bull baiting and bear hunting. How does that play a part in human aggression?? If human aggression how does one train these dogs to fight or hunt?  They couldn't: you are correct as DNA genetics are a huge factor in a tempermant of a dog. And raising and training is only a very small part of it.  It's r studied pit bull breeds for approximately 30 years. In my next post I will give you the statistics.    Half bites that occur from other breeds are not reported.  I will give you facts from animal control. 

[Nicole A.]

@William Morgan 80lbs sounds pretty heavy for a breed of Pit Bull. Sounds like they were/are mastiff or something else. Pit Bulls are not very big dogs usually weighing from 30-55lbs or so. This builds on the point Kelly was making that there are lots of dogs mistaken for "Pit Bulls". Just sayin'! :-)

[Nicole A.]

@Steve Vaughan lol Grab the popcorn!

[William Morgan]

Insurance companies have high statistics?? How??  

I'm not sure what you mean.  Statistics I cited were taken from the Centers for Disease Control Study on Dog Bite fatalities - linked above.

Do you know that in today's world of pit bull they breed has changed and bred out human aggression?

Not according to the CDC study in 1998.  Nor this reference showing they accounted for 62.3% of Dog Bite fatalities from 2005-2014.  So no, the data does not support the assertion that there has been some kind of a concerted effort to breed out aggression.

Do you know that a dog that fights In a ring with another dog is not human aggressive and any form of human aggression displayed the animal is euthanized. 

I have not seen a credible reference for that. And, again, it's not supported by the data.

Yea these animals were bred for bull baiting and bear hunting. How does that play a part in human aggression??

They cause a disproportionate amount of human fatalities - way more than any other breed profile

[Brandon Elliott]

Having legal identification and paperwork it is against the law for you to discriminate and there are legitimate reasons why a person gets what some people think are "privileges" to be able to have a service dog regardless of the breed. The owner has to take full responsibility regardless as well and if the animal is trained correctly and well behaved then there shouldn't be any problems. If other tenants have a problem thats there situation because they dont have a legal service animal. I believe discrimination is wrong just because it's a pit. It's like saying maybe you should stop renting to black people because they all rob and seal or stop renting to white people because they're all rapists lol. It's how the dog is raised and trained; not all are bad and if it is legitimate then you have to give them a chance. It might change your outlook.

[Nicole A.]

The things about statistics is that they are always flawed. I'm not saying there are not Pit Bull attacks happening. I'm saying that the statistics are quite flawed. If bites are apparently so low in comparison with German Shepherds according to this chart, then why are German Shepherds considered a dangerous breed?

Like she asked, how was it determined that these were Pit Bulls? Why didn't they just label them by their breed name just as the rest of the dogs on this chart?..or more-likely, include them in the "mixed breed" category?

Here's a good size idea of a Pit Bull (American Stafford Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier, and Bull Staffordshire determined from DNA test). That is a 10lb regular house-cat next to her.

That cat runs her life.

[Jon Q.]

I agree with @Joel Owens

That's the best approach.  I would avoid getting involved whatsoever with this applicant.

FYI: Datsons (aka "weiner dogs") are most aggressive breed on the planet.  That said, I still don't allow pit bulls.

[Jon Q.]

[Jon Q.]

@Nicole A.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/the-3-most-aggres...

[Roy N.]

Originally posted by @Jon Q.:

I agree with @Joel Owens

That's the best approach.  I would avoid getting involved whatsoever with this applicant.

FYI: Datsons (aka "weiner dogs") are most aggressive breed on the planet.  That said, I still don't allow pit bulls.

 Jon:

Dachshund is the "weiner dog" ... 

[Nicole A.]

For every study, is another opposing study. ;-)

Below is the American Temperament Test Society's rankings and finds one of the Pit breeds (Staffordshire Bull Terrier) to be in the 90th percentile. That's pretty high (good). Although I do wonder why they tested so many more/less of some breeds than others.

http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page7/

[William Morgan]

I'm gonna withdraw my reply. I'm not out to prove anyone right or wrong. I just object to the assertion that one "needs to be educated" on Pit Bull breed profiles in order to come to an understanding that they are benign. The data is there for all to see. They, in conjunction with irresponsible owners IMO have earned their bad wrap. At least enough for me to seek any legal way to disallow them in my rentals. But to each their own..

Best

-W

[Nicole A.]

@William Morgan Yes, that is what I am suggesting. I'm not taking it extreme and claiming no Pit Bull type dogs have bitten or caused fatalities, so don't jump on me for that.

I'm saying (yet again) that many dogs are mistaken for a Pit Bull.

Like I asked regarding the pie chart you posted, if bites are apparently so low in comparison with German Shepherds, then why are German Shepherds considered a dangerous breed?

How did this study determine that these were Pit Bull type dogs? 

Why didn't they just label them by their breed name just as the rest of the dogs on this chart?

This is where the flaws, mistakes, media sensationalism, and bias come into play.

[Richard C.]

Originally posted by @Drew S.:

Another thing you could do/say is look at your insurance coverage and see if this breed is excluded, which i think it would be.  If that is the case you could be held liable if the dog attacked or killed someone on your premises.  

You need to tell them that their renters insurance must cover pit-bulls.  This is a reasonable accommodation under the ADA it is nondiscriminatory. 

 Please stop.

[Nicole A.]

I totally understand and support landlords choosing not to allow any dog that even resembles a Pit Bull in their rental. 

I'm not trying to change THAT stance.

I'm just clarifying that there are lots of skewed statistics out there. They are generally good dogs. They're happy, goofy, and smart just like any other dog.

[JD Martin]

Originally posted by @Nicole A.:

I totally understand and support landlords choosing not to allow any dog that even resembles a Pit Bull in their rental. 

I'm not trying to change THAT stance.

I'm just clarifying that there are lots of skewed statistics out there. They are generally good dogs. They're happy, goofy, and smart just like any other dog.

 I agree. Some breeds have more propensity for territorial behavior, which is generally the prerequisite for being more aggressive, but it is whether or not that behavior is encouraged that determines whether the dog will be forwardly aggressive. I had a Rottweiler and she was a sweet dog. She was definitely more territorial than my Labs, but she was the furthest thing from vicious. I have no doubt she would have torn someone apart coming through the window of the house, but she played well with kids and other dogs in public places. But she was fixed, had a good owner, was socialized, and was well-trained. 

Back to the original question, sometimes I think people are far too panicked over "what might happen". Risk management is taking reasonable steps to protect oneself. If your insurance policy excludes breeds of dogs, then it would be reasonable to exclude them from your rental. If not, and you have good insurance, I wouldn't lose 5 minutes of sleep over it if the dog (and the tenant) met my standards - that generally means if the tenant meets my standards, the dog is most likely to meet them as well, and that has played out. I have 2 units with dogs in them, one with 2 big dogs, and all of the dogs are well behaved, cared for properly, are not damaging the house in the least, and are quite pleasant to be around. But so are the tenants ;)

[Derek Lacy]

In loss there are two types of issues, frequency and severity.  I don't know one insurer that will argue the frequency of claims with a pit bull is the issue, I'm sure cocker spaniels bite more.  But I'm not sure a cocker spaniel, unless he just got lucky has ever permanantly maimed or killed someone.  But pit bulls have.  

So it's a severity issue.

[Dustan Marshall]

at our local REIA we had a "fair housing" presentation that said that if they claim it is a service dog, it is federal law that would supersede your requirements as well as any local ordinances outlawing the breed.

[John Thedford]

HUD has a circular regarding service animals. A landlord MAY deny a service animal if their insurance company prohibits it and the landlord is not able to obtain similar insurance with a different insurance carrier without financial harm. If the landlord can obtain similar coverage at the same rate and that carrier allows pit bulls then the landlord MUST obtain new coverage (if they desire coverage) rather than simply deny a tenant due to their service animal (BTW--courts have held service animals can even be a rat!). We have a speaker at out next REIA meeting on this very subject. That being said, there is no guarantee someone won't sue you even if you are 100% right. I am not sure whose bite is worse: a pit bull or some bull-dawg attorney:)

p.s.--send a PM and I will forward anyone desiring a copy the HUD circular

[Brandon Ingegneri]

Check with your insurance company to see if it will have an impact on your rates, and check with the local municipality to see if any particular breeds are restricted.  I know of one city in RI that temporarily had a ban on pit bulls residing in the city after a certain date.  As far as a service dog, I'd say see if steps one and two eliminate the dog, if not, then there is a decision to make after they produce paperwork for you.