Breed Discrimination - ugh. FURIOUS.

Hey all,

I've posted here a few times (actually, the breed forum) about what kind of dog I should get (only an idea, I actually want a mixed breed from a shelter) and FINALLY realized that I really really want a German Shepherd mix. It took me forever to find a decent apartment that suited my other needs as well as allows dogs (up to 100 pounds) and I was ecstatic until I read the pet policy. There are some restricted breeds, including Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds, Chow chows, Pit bulls, and Wolf-hybrids.

Naturally, when you can't have something, you want it more. But still, I have a HUGE HUGE HUGE issue with that for many reasons. Firstly, because I want a German Shepherd. Second, because that breed seems particularly out of place. Third, anti-breed legislation for an apartment complex is ridiculous. They should screen resident's individual dogs instead of going by a pedigree. There are plenty of mean labradors and poodles, but they wouldn't even blink an eye at it because they're known as "nice dogs". I love labs, but even they have the potential to be aggressive and just because a dog is of one breed does not mean it will act its ascribed standard/OR, in my case, negative stereotype.
There are PLENTY of other breeds of dog that would be more deserving of being on the list. Akitas, perhaps? They seem like very naturally aggressive dogs to me. Perfectly fine in the arms of an experienced dog owner, but a breed that should not be taken lightly. German Shepherds are CLEARLY not bad dogs. They're used for so many things. Police work, seeing eye dogs, etc. etc. Good training is certainly a must for GSDs, but they aren't automatically aggressive. I don't think there ARE any bad dogs, but I can understand the hesitancy to allow Pit Bulls because of the profile of the typical stupid Pit Bull owner. They can be amazingly wonderful dogs in the right hands, but many people who seek out Pit Bulls want a big tough dog that can protect them and make them look cool.
One of my huge problems is the hypocrisy of the situation. They go by a photograph. Here's my case in point: two lab/german shepherd mixes. One resembles a lab, the other resembles a german shepherd. The so-called-"lab" is completely aggressive and ill-trained and generally unsuited for an apartment community, while the "german shepherd" (mix) has been trained and is as sweet and docile as they come. Which dog will be allowed? The one that resembles a lab, despite its viscious behavior. This is NOT fair!
One of their main reasons is that they don't want to make an exception once and have other residents see my German Shepherd mix and complain about wanting their own. But I have agreed to show documentation of extensive obedience classes and pay an extra monthly fee, which most people aren't willing to do.
LASTLY, my main technical issue with the policy is that it does NOT explicitly say no mixes containing any of the aforementioned restricted breeds. That's where I could get them. They want to follow policy, fine. What if my dog is clearly a mutt? They should be more specific if they don't want to be nitpicked apart by anal people like myself who are stubborn and want what they want, including the breed of dog that would be perfect for their personality.

I also brought up the fact that many people assume german shepherd when they see black and tan on a dog, and what if the dog had in fact, NO german shepherd in it. They said that if the animal shelter/source of the animal could verify there was no german shepherd (or whatever) in the breed, they would accept it. This is SO subjective and ridiculous! The subject aside, you have to agree that good laws are not practiced on a sliding scale! How does it go? "Hmm, well this dog is clearly a poodle but...wait...there's some tan on it's muzzle and paws. Looks like it might be German Shepherd to me! REJECTED." Can't I just get them to lie and say it's a Belgian Malinois?

My moot but slightly worth mentioning additional points: I will barely be there (neither will my dog...WE will be gone a lot of the time, and if we're not, we'll be INSIDE.) I am getting a PUPPY, by the time I move out (August of 2007), the dog will still be a puppy. Most aggression doesn't manifest til later.

I called the office today and they forwarded me to the landlord of my community, who was out of office for the day. I left a lengthy message and asked for him to call me back. Do you think I have much of a case? Either way, I'm getting a German Shepherd mix. I don't care what they say because I refuse to comply with stupid policy. I know it may be stubborn and immature, but I'm not going to bend to their will. It's dumb! It makes no sense! It does not verify the safety of the residents! So that's that.

Anything else I should use against them? I don't want to be difficult, but...I'm going to be difficult.

Ally

"allygat0r07" wrote in message
...

There are some restricted breeds,
including Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds, Chow chows,
Pit bulls, and Wolf-hybrids.

Naturally, when you can't have something, you want it more. But still,
I have a HUGE HUGE HUGE issue with that for many reasons. Firstly,
because I want a German Shepherd. Second, because that breed seems
particularly out of place.

For years they were overbred by backyard breeders and, as is often the case
in such scenarios, they suffered temperament and stability problems. A
human aggressive GSD is nothing to play with. My daughter was snapped at
(she was a toddler and the dog went for her face & head) by one and she
wasn't even looking at him let alone touching him. The dog was raised with
kids and wasn't being provoked at the time.

Third, anti-breed legislation for an
apartment complex is ridiculous.

Its a business insurance issue. Apartment complexes can't keep building
insurance in place without complying with the insurance company policies.
Insurance companies may outright ban breeds or mixes thereof. They may
charge higher rates for allow certain breeds on the premises. They may
combine these options banning some but allowing others at higher rates.

They should screen resident's
individual dogs instead of going by a pedigree.

Then they'd have to hire professional temperament testers after they
established one temperament test as being the best measurement tool.
Temperament tests aren't foolproof either. The GSD I talked about above
wasn't tested but he'd been raised with kids and lived with two kids under
the age of 10 years old when he decided to lunge at my little one. It was
totally out of the blue and shocked everyone. I could cite other instances
of dogs turning on people, people known to them, with seemingly no
provocation.

There are plenty of
mean labradors and poodles,
but they wouldn't even blink an eye at it
because they're known as "nice dogs".

They'd blink an eye when the dog became a problem. I hope it doesn't
happen, for the breed's sake, but Labs and Goldens will likely be on these
lists in 10 years. There's enough of them out there that are unpredictable
that its only a matter of time IMO.

I love labs, but even they have
the potential to be aggressive and just because a dog is of one breed
does not mean it will act its ascribed standard/OR, in my case,
negative stereotype.

That's true but you can't apply the "potential to be aggressive" to all
breeds but your own. Your breed is naturally protective and they have, if
nothing else, a media history of being aggressive, same as Dobermans and Pit
Bulls. I'm not saying its fair but they appear, to insurers, to be higher
risk and more costly when there's an incident.

--
Tara

"Tee" said in
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:

I hope it doesn't
happen, for the breed's sake, but Labs and Goldens will
likely be on these lists in 10 years.

I suspect that we'll be seeing lists based upon weight, not
breed. There's a city councilor here who claims that there's
absolutely no reason to have a dog over 40 pounds within city
limits. He's also on record for disliking all dogs.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

allygat0r07 wrote in
:

I called the office today and they forwarded me to the landlord of my
community, who was out of office for the day. I left a lengthy message
and asked for him to call me back. Do you think I have much of a case?
Either way, I'm getting a German Shepherd mix. I don't care what they
say because I refuse to comply with stupid policy. I know it may be
stubborn and immature, but I'm not going to bend to their will. It's
dumb! It makes no sense! It does not verify the safety of the
residents! So that's that.


Although I totally sympathize with your feelings, I don't think you
should get a dog the landlord doesn't allow -- it will just lead to all
sorts of problems and may ultimately be bad for the dog, whose welfare
you must put first. I would completely approve of continuing to
strengthen your case with the landlord and even garnering neighborly
support for your case.

My Zozie is half chow which is one of the widely restricted breeds. I
just tell people she is a mix, which is the truth, and if pressed I say
no one really knows -- which is also true, because really the SPCA only
had the word of the individual who dumped her at the shelter -- no one
verified it or anything. So if the dog is enough of a mix, no one will
know for sure what breeds were involved.

I understand you really want a GSD mix and I agree that the policy is
very unfair, but it seems to me right now you have three basic choices:
don't get a dog until you can get the landlord's policy changed; get a
non-GSD mix dog; or move to a place that allows the kind of dog you like.

I personally would probably choose the second option -- there are lots of
dogs of entirely unknown parentage in need of a good home, and I bet if
you went to the shelter you could find one with the temperament you are
seeking.

--
Catherine
& Zoe the cockerchow
& Queenie the black gold retriever
& Rosalie the calico

most breed and size restrictions are imposed and/or encouraged by insurance
companies.

"allygat0r07" wrote in message
...

Hey all,

I've posted here a few times (actually, the breed forum) about what
kind of dog I should get (only an idea, I actually want a mixed breed
from a shelter) and FINALLY realized that I really really want a German
Shepherd mix. It took me forever to find a decent apartment that suited
my other needs as well as allows dogs (up to 100 pounds) and I was
ecstatic until I read the pet policy. There are some restricted breeds,
including Rottweilers, Doberman Pinschers, German Shepherds, Chow chows,
Pit bulls, and Wolf-hybrids.

Naturally, when you can't have something, you want it more. But still,
I have a HUGE HUGE HUGE issue with that for many reasons. Firstly,
because I want a German Shepherd. Second, because that breed seems
particularly out of place. Third, anti-breed legislation for an
apartment complex is ridiculous. They should screen resident's
individual dogs instead of going by a pedigree. There are plenty of
mean labradors and poodles, but they wouldn't even blink an eye at it
because they're known as "nice dogs". I love labs, but even they have
the potential to be aggressive and just because a dog is of one breed
does not mean it will act its ascribed standard/OR, in my case,
negative stereotype.
There are PLENTY of other breeds of dog that would be more deserving of
being on the list. Akitas, perhaps? They seem like very naturally
aggressive dogs to me. Perfectly fine in the arms of an experienced dog
owner, but a breed that should not be taken lightly. German Shepherds
are CLEARLY not bad dogs. They're used for so many things. Police work,
seeing eye dogs, etc. etc. Good training is certainly a must for GSDs,
but they aren't automatically aggressive. I don't think there ARE any
bad dogs, but I can understand the hesitancy to allow Pit Bulls because
of the profile of the typical stupid Pit Bull owner. They can be
amazingly wonderful dogs in the right hands, but many people who seek
out Pit Bulls want a big tough dog that can protect them and make them
look cool.
One of my huge problems is the hypocrisy of the situation. They go by a
photograph. Here's my case in point: two lab/german shepherd mixes. One
resembles a lab, the other resembles a german shepherd. The
so-called-"lab" is completely aggressive and ill-trained and generally
unsuited for an apartment community, while the "german shepherd" (mix)
has been trained and is as sweet and docile as they come. Which dog
will be allowed? The one that resembles a lab, despite its viscious
behavior. This is NOT fair!
One of their main reasons is that they don't want to make an exception
once and have other residents see my German Shepherd mix and complain
about wanting their own. But I have agreed to show documentation of
extensive obedience classes and pay an extra monthly fee, which most
people aren't willing to do.
LASTLY, my main technical issue with the policy is that it does NOT
explicitly say no mixes containing any of the aforementioned restricted
breeds. That's where I could get them. They want to follow policy, fine.
What if my dog is clearly a mutt? They should be more specific if they
don't want to be nitpicked apart by anal people like myself who are
stubborn and want what they want, including the breed of dog that would
be perfect for their personality.

I also brought up the fact that many people assume german shepherd when
they see black and tan on a dog, and what if the dog had in fact, NO
german shepherd in it. They said that if the animal shelter/source of
the animal could verify there was no german shepherd (or whatever) in
the breed, they would accept it. This is SO subjective and ridiculous!
The subject aside, you have to agree that good laws are not practiced
on a sliding scale! How does it go? "Hmm, well this dog is clearly a
poodle but...wait...there's some tan on it's muzzle and paws. Looks
like it might be German Shepherd to me! REJECTED." Can't I just get
them to lie and say it's a Belgian Malinois?

My moot but slightly worth mentioning additional points: I will barely
be there (neither will my dog...WE will be gone a lot of the time, and
if we're not, we'll be INSIDE.) I am getting a PUPPY, by the time I
move out (August of 2007), the dog will still be a puppy. Most
aggression doesn't manifest til later.

I called the office today and they forwarded me to the landlord of my
community, who was out of office for the day. I left a lengthy message
and asked for him to call me back. Do you think I have much of a case?
Either way, I'm getting a German Shepherd mix. I don't care what they
say because I refuse to comply with stupid policy. I know it may be
stubborn and immature, but I'm not going to bend to their will. It's
dumb! It makes no sense! It does not verify the safety of the
residents! So that's that.

Anything else I should use against them? I don't want to be difficult,
but...I'm going to be difficult.

Ally


--
allygat0r07

"Rocky" wrote in message
...
"Tee" said in
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:

I hope it doesn't
happen, for the breed's sake, but Labs and Goldens will
likely be on these lists in 10 years.

I suspect that we'll be seeing lists based upon weight, not
breed. There's a city councilor here who claims that there's
absolutely no reason to have a dog over 40 pounds within city
limits. He's also on record for disliking all dogs.

Oh that sucks. I'm very used to weight limits wrt rentals but not city-wide
dwelling limits on them. I suspect that even if the OP hadn't found the
breed-specific limit they would have run into the weight limit, if not at
their own complex then at many of the others. It was often a problem with
people wanting to adopt a Boxer. Many times these seemd like great homes on
paper and via vet reference but we never got as far as the homevisit because
I always called landlords first.


--
Tara

"Rocky" wrote in message
I suspect that we'll be seeing lists based upon weight, not
breed. There's a city councilor here who claims that there's
absolutely no reason to have a dog over 40 pounds within city
limits.

The Honorable Councilor expects people with assistance dogs to live in
suburban or rural areas? Whadda maroon.

RobDar wrote:
most breed and size restrictions are imposed and/or encouraged by insurance
companies.

And according to what I've read, the insurance companies create their
lists based on statistic on claims they've had to pay - and those
claims include damage to *property*, not just bites to humans.
Thing is"damage to property" is usually claims based on injuries to
other animals. IOW, a number of those breeds are on the lists because
the insurance companies have had to pay out too many claims due to
attacks on other dogs, killing of small animal pets, and/or attacks on
livestock.
Which is why, for example, Siberian Huskies appear on some insurance
company lists; they rarely bite humans, but are notorious for having
high prey drive and going after small dogs and cats - and they're also
a breed more likely to get loose and roam if not properly supervised.

In article . com,
cimawr wrote:
Which is why, for example, Siberian Huskies appear on some insurance
company lists; they rarely bite humans, but are notorious for having
high prey drive and going after small dogs and cats

They're actually on insurance company lists because of
claims related to human dog bites and fatalities. It's
typically a breed that loves everybody but there have been
some problems with badly-bred aggressive Siberians. And
some carefully-bred aggressive Siberians, come to think of
it - a few years ago we were hearing lots of complaints
about dogs bred for the show ring who were turning out to
have aggression problems. Also, Siberians are possibly more
likely than many other breeds to react strongly to abusive
treatment - it's part of that independence thing they've
got.

But anyway, "Huskies" are #4 on the human dog bite-related
fatality list. Yes, it surprises everybody who knows the
breed.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

So far this year, homebuilding industry insiders have sold
$976 million worth of their stock.

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...

They're actually on insurance company lists because of
claims related to human dog bites and fatalities. It's
typically a breed that loves everybody but there have been
some problems with badly-bred aggressive Siberians. And
some carefully-bred aggressive Siberians, come to think of
it - a few years ago we were hearing lots of complaints
about dogs bred for the show ring who were turning out to
have aggression problems. Also, Siberians are possibly more
likely than many other breeds to react strongly to abusive
treatment - it's part of that independence thing they've
got.

But anyway, "Huskies" are #4 on the human dog bite-related
fatality list. Yes, it surprises everybody who knows the
breed.

Seems to me, from memory, that a number of those fatalities have been of
young children who wandered into areas where Huskies were *chained.*

Chaining out is bad for dogs and should be abolished IMO.

flick 100785