Gated-community residents snarl over pit bulls | www.tennessean.com | The Tennessean: "In 2006, the old board amended the association's bylaws to prohibit pit bulls, Doberman pinschers, rottweilers, chow chows, wolf hybrids and any dogs trained to attack or fight. But a judge ruled that the amendment was invalid and restrained the board from enforcing it.
A year later the board declared that the Cains' pit bulls, Max and Isabella, were an 'annoyance and obnoxious' and prohibited them from being in Crockett Springs. Two residents, who were also board members, said they had seen the dogs 'completely out of control.' Pat Hyde said that on July 17, 2006, the dogs surrounded a landscaper after running away from Byrd Cain."
-----------
The owners found these two dogs by the side of the road a few years ago and decided they are just lovable little fur balls. Some of the neighbors don't see it that way.
This whole pit bull lover syndrome is really sick. People get these dogs for one reason: they want dogs that make them feel powerful and scare their neighbors. Then when the neighbors complain, the pit bull owners haul out the usual nonsense about how the dogs are harmless. If pit bulls could be rendered harmless by giving them Niceness Pills, the pit bull owners wouldn't want them. They would want Fila Brasilieros or Presa Canarios or some other vicious breed that was created to kill.
Every pit bull in the country should be sterilized, along with all the other breeds that were created by sociopaths to kill other animals.
2 comments:
Without addressing the issue of whether these animals should be prohibited or not, a "community association" is not the appropriate organization to be doing so. A CA is a private person under the law and should never be entitled to be a bully or to be delegated the power to enact what amounts to "criminal ordinances". Taking a position against a "community association" attempting to impose such restrictions does not make one a pit bull lover.
I see your point, and it makes sense. I would like to see local governments address this problem. But the whole point of CIDs is from a local government standpoint is to dump responsibilities on them. Animal control seems to be one of those responsibilities. The issue of who should do something is secondary if it needs to be done. The primary issue is for somebody to do it. People shouldn't have to live in fear of their neighbors' animal time bombs.
Post a Comment