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?

[Steve Babiak]

Originally posted by @Bill Gulley:

... Anything with a mouth can bite! :) 

Watch out for that Bill Gulley character - I hear he has a mouth :)

LOL

[Account Closed]

Originally posted by @Daniel Mohnkern:

This law is absolutely asinine.  It is very poorly written and vague.  

I work as a bus driver for my W2 and have been trained that, if someone brings an animal OF ANY KIND onto your bus and, when told "no pets allowed", claims that it is a service animal, it is against the law to refuse them access AND it is against the law to ask what their disability is to determine the animals necessity.  They can literally take a dog, cat, pony, or chicken on a bus and will win a lawsuit if the driver gives any guff.    

Their magic words are "service animal".  If they say that, we reply "yes ma'am, yes sir, enjoy the ride". 

I hope the law does not pertain to me as a landlord as it does as a bus driver.  I am going to find out though.  Apparently, according to K. Marie P., I think I'm in for a disappointment.

The reason munis and bus companies and restaurants aren't asking questions is liability concerns. Landlords do have the right to confirm the medical need for a support animal. You can ask for a letter from a doctor. But it gets murky really fast and would be easy to make a mistake. You do have to make a reasonable accommodation. Saying your current insurance policy won't cover the animal is not enough of an attempt at accommodation. BTW, if your tenant is already in place they do not have to get your permission. HUD recommends that tenants inform and work with their landlord, but the tenant's right to a service animal is protected by law. You cannot ask for a pet deposit or additional pet rent.

[Steve Babiak]

Originally posted by @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.

Nicole, you did not pay close enough attention to what Will had posted. It was not about simple dog bites - it was about FATAL dig bites. The other dangerous breeds might just inflict more bites (of the non-fatal sort) than safer breeds, so that could explain why they rank as dangerous but do not rank on the fatal chart. 

As to how the "breed" is determined, from my reading of insurance policy dog breed exclusions, the insurance industry considers a dog with any significant percentage mix of the "bully breeds" as a pit bull. Lots of different bully breeds - American Staffordshire, bull terrier, etc. 

Not saying it is right or wrong - just explaining how I think they go about this. 

[Bill Gulley]

Originally posted by @Steve Babiak:

Originally posted by @Bill Gulley:

... Anything with a mouth can bite! :) 

Watch out for that Bill Gulley character - I hear he has a mouth :)

LOL

 It's the claws with stingers in the tips of his fingers to watch out for    :)

[Jeff Gebhart]

Being breed specific in banning is a big mistake.  Pit bulls, German Sheppards, and Rots all get a bad name due to their owners are bad.   I certainly can understand the concern as many bad owners train these specific dogs to be aggressive and hence these dogs are in the press much more on attacks.  However Pit Bulls (for example) were called "Nanny Dogs" due to the affectionate nature with children.  In fact these dogs are not listed in the top of natural aggressive behavior dogs.  If you think you are decreasing your liability by being breed specific you are asking for trouble.  You need to screen your tenant better.  Someone that trains their pet to be aggressive is not the type you want living in your investment.  If you allow dogs, then I would suggest you meet the dog.  We don't allow any dogs (except service dogs) in our units.  Not because I am worried about an aggressive dog but I am more worried about stepping in dog crap and the damage a dog does to the inside of the place is not worth it.  I have always owned dogs and probably always will.  We rent to 90% college kids so I am realistic in their time and abilities to properly care for a pet.  

[Nicole A.]

Here's a great short video on how to defend yourself from Pit Bull owners (like myself)! ;-)
Happy Friday!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ6HvjJisMA

[Daniel Mohnkern]

@Nicole W.  Bwahahaha, that is hilarious!

[Jacqueline Carrington]

The best answer would be to consult with your attorney. 

[Zach Ward]

so yes or no.  If my insurance will drop me due to a certain breed then wouldn’t that be considered an unreasonable request? 

[Nicole A.]

@Zach Ward If you are certain that your insurance would drop you if a tenant had a Pit Bull--even as a legitimate service dog--then I would think your hands would be tied in the situation to not allow the dog and/or not accept the applicant. However, I think your question would best be answered by calling your insurance company and asking them if they accept service dogs even if they are Pit Bulls and what paperwork the insurance would require on that dog for it to be acceptable.

Also, there are insurance companies that do not discriminate on dog breeds. State Farm is one of them.

[Zach Ward]

After talking to my insurance provider they will still cover my house but not "endorse" the animal. However, once I explained to them in detail the situation and my legal liability they did say that if I could get the renter to provide things such as documentation of who trained it along with "service animal" papers, vaccination records, and so forth that they would cover the animal. Thankfully the guy never showed but reading the federal guidelines one would think you aren't allowed to ask for such papers. Hopefully the fact that my insurance company requires it would fall under the "reasonable accommodation" part. I did read one case where they required one tenant to carry 1 million in coverage for the pet. Thank you federal government for making things so convenient :/