Motherfucking idiots in my apartment building

Last night I had decided to open my windows and stuff to air out my apartment. I was sitting on the couch with my bf and my daughter when I hear this guy outside yelling for a dog. No biggie, right? Then, all of a sudden, this pit bull is right at my screen door acting like it’s about to come in. Naturally I freaked out and told the guy to get the fucking dog out of there.

So, I called maintenance and of course they didn’t find any dog. I call bullshit on that. We have a clause in our leases that states no vicious breeds are allowed in the complex. There are at least two pits in my building, and possibly three. Last summer someone had a pit on the 2nd floor and was keeping it out on her balcony and letting it shit onto the patio below it. Management got rid of her, but they’ve been oblivious to any complaints I’ve made about the dogs this summer. In fact, one of the maintenance guys tried to tell me that one of the dogs isn’t a pit. The guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

And it’s fucking disgusting to have a dog and not clean up after it. And it’s dangerous to have pit bulls off their leashes running around in the yard area at night. Kids play out there until dark, and sometimes after, and I don’t trust these dogs. I know some people will say, “Oh, pit bulls aren’t that bad, blah blah blah…” but I’m saying I think it’s bullshit that people are sneaking them in when they are explicitly banned from these apartments.

So, since I had a shitfit last night, the guy with the pit is going to know exactly who called the office on him. I just can’t wait to see what happens next. :rolleyes:

Is that really what it says? If so, that’s a terribly-written clause: there’s no agreement among animal experts over whether there’s even such a thing as a “vicious breed.” If it mentions specific breeds (American Staffordshire Terriers, for example), that’s a little better, but even then they better have some way for accounting for nonregistered bloodlines or mixes.

Personally I think it’s far better just to have a rule that dogs must be on a leash at all times when not in the owner’s apartment.

Sorry to hear about the difficulties! Have you tried calling animal control?

Daniel

It specifically says Pit Bulls, Rotweillers, Dobermans, and then it has weight restrictions as well.

I didn’t realize Pit Bulls and Rotweillers were vicious.

Anyway, said Pit-Bull owner(s) need(s) to 'fess up, leash up and clean up. And get rid of the unallowed doggie.

The clause is absolute dogshit. Granted, I’m a cat person-however:

I’ve known several people with Staffordshire Terriers, and the pups were little love-heads.

Two friends have rotties, and they think they’re 100 pound lap dogs-not a mean bone in their bodies.

A girl who lived with me had a red dobie, and a newborn litter of kittens crawled all over the pup-he loved on them.

To state that all of breed x, y, and z are vicious is akin to the ignorance of stating that all of race a is lazy, b are involved in organized crime, and c are terrorists. :rolleyes:

Not unlike people, if animals are taught to be hateful, they will be.

Actually, it’s not like that at all. While I agree that such overgeneralizations are inaccurate, they do have a strong basis in fact.

Staffordshire terriers were bred for a specific reason: they were bred to fight. If you read dogfighter literature (their magazines and such, which I’ve skimmed as part of my job), they themselves recognize this. They breed their own animals for “game”–that is, for the animals’ obsessive desire to inflict pain on other dogs, and total nonchalance about its own grievous injuries.

You can breed for these traits. Generally what you do is you find a dog that has these psychoses, breed the dog, and breed the most vicious of its offspring with one another.

Sure, not all pits are bred like this, and there’s plenty of pits whose insane ancestors are so far in the past that the psychosis doesn’t ever manifest in them. But you can’t tell the kind, genetically normal pits from the bred-to-insanity pits just by looking at them.

A policy like this apartment’s policy may not be “fair” on some level, but then many animal policies aren’t. There are plenty of dogs who can walk off-leash just fine, yet the law doesn’t make provisions for the good dogs. There are cats (mine, for example) too incompetent to hunt an ant, much less a bird; nonetheless, our local ordinance forbids my letting my cat off my property unleashed.

This is just another policy that errs on the side of caution. Note that by doing so, the apartment complex makes it much harder to sue them if a tenant’s dog attacks somebody else; I suspect this is the primary reason for their caution.

Daniel

I know that some of you care for and love your pit bulls. Maybe you keep yours on a leash, raise it right, clean up it’s shit, but I’m telling you, these people don’t.

That dog pretty much had his head through my door last night, and all three of us jumped. It could have done anything it wanted to us. I know all about the jaw strength of a pit bull, and I know how territorial they are. Who knows if he perceived us as a threat or what? He was ready to come on in.

And the one in the front is plenty cute, but when I asked the girl who lives there if he was friendly she gave me a “Eh, I guess so, as long as he can smell you and you don’t get close to him.” Yeah, real friendly. :rolleyes:

And how nice are dogs who live their whole lives on a balcony or chained to a porch? We’re not talking about responsible dog owners. We’re talking about idiots who probably have a hard time taking care of themselves, let alone a 70 lb. dog.

And regardless of how you feel about pit bulls, the rule of the lease is that they are NOT ALLOWED. I think the basis of the rule is they don’t want dogs over a certain size in the apartments. That’s just to protect their own self-interest.

Well, personally, as a former dog trainer and amateur evolutionist, I don’t buy the “breeding for psychoses” bit. But I still agree that it’s perfectly valid to ban Pit Bulls, and other “fighting” breeds, from an apartment building. These dogs are bred for physical strength, too, and can cause a lot of damage. Even a sweetheart Pit’s jaws are a lethal weapons. Should an apartment manager not get to choose whether he wants to accept that liablity? Whether they’re effectively bred for viciousness or not is not the point. They attract the type of owner who *wants * a vicious dog, so they’re statistically more likely, I would think, to have been *trained * to be vicious–or at least *not * trained *not * to be–than a yorkie or a collie. A macho shithead asshole who thinks a dog should a guard dog, and should have some balls, and who would cheer his dog on in a fight, if he’s not actually fighting him for money, is probly more likely to get a pit bull than someone who just wants a quiet and trusted companion.

Huh? Why on earth do you think this is implausible? What experience and/or evidence do you have that this wouldn’t work?

I mean, you’re totally and completely wrong, but I’m curious how you reached this wrong conclusion. I’ve both seen it happen (pit bull puppies seized from a fighter that developed bizarre murderous rage toward one another around 3 months old) and read about the breeding techniques (described earlier) and studied a bit of European history, in which royalty pretty much bred for the same thing.

Okay, I’m stretching a bit on the last point. But any dog breeder on earth knows you can breed for certain temperaments; why do you think psychotic murderous desires against other dogs would not be one of those temperaments?

Daniel

Well, not all of them are. But they aren’t bred for nice personalities like Goldens, and certain other dogs. Many dogs were bred for traits that included meanness.
Cases in point
-Bulldogs. How do you get a dog that small do take on bulls unless they are meaner than sin. Many now aren’t though.
-Rhodesian Ridgebacks. They were trained to fight lions. Still quite mean. Only experienced trainers are recommended for rhodesians.
Does this mean they all are? No, but if you look in the paper for Pits, they often have lineages that are indicated for a certain clientele. Names like Gator and the like. Detroit (I know this cause of animal cops) puts down all pits.

The four pit bulls at my former aptartment building and my sister’s rottendog would be surprised to hear they are vicious. Particularly since all five of them were completely cowed by my miniature aussie, who at the time weighed out at a whopping 13 pounds.

She’s very ill-behaved around strangers and other dogs, and I DO have to keep her on a leash around same, until she’s gotten to know them.

Lissener’s views in this regard are spelled out here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=33635&highlight=breed
(As this linked thread shows, I agree with you and disagree with him.)

And this post spells out why it’s impossible to use your individual anecdotal evidence to make any such sweeping statements.

??? Do you mean that you think rotties are bred to be mean? Becaues I’ve known two breeders, and met dozens of their dogs, I’ve met other rottendogs that weren’t bred by the two breeders I know as well, and they are the lovey doviest dogs I’ve ever met.

The only trouble with rottendogs, is the damn hair, and the errrrr…rather gaseous problems they have.

Oh, and the SLOBBER, ugh :smiley:

Wow, Random. I just read that other thread. What poppycock!

Thanks for the link.

Daniel

And by poppycock, I mean poppycock, as a tiny bit of Googling shows:

There’s the prima facie scientific evidence that geneticists recognize that dogs can be bred for behavioral traits, lissener. Time to admit you’re wrong, or respond with some cite, no matter how remote or ill-informed, backing up your view that you can’t breed for genetic traits.

Daniel

Canvas, are they bred to be mean. By some people, yes, by others, no.

From http://www.fataldogattacks.com/
A decidedly unbreed specific page, that has statistics that undercut this statment

When two breeds of dog make up 34% of the fatal attacks, well, one is lead to believe that yes, they are inherently mean dogs, or dogs that can be mean if not trained not to be (likely the case). I’ve seen severely abused goldens that wouldn’t hurt anything, and pits that are lovingly trained that are still dangerous around loud/small/quickmoving/near their food objects. So yes, they are bred to be protective, and when they are, they are a little meannatured. Nobody said there aren’t nice ones, just that there are many mean ones.

Some other links. From the Genetic Society of America

and from this nonscientific but well-documented site, Factors associated with aggression in dogs

Daniel

I think the clause is fine, as long as they don’t mention the word “vicious”, it’s too arbitrary. They can name specific breeds, and weight limits, and it will be fine. My apartment in SC allowed absolutely no dogs. It even had a clause in your lease that if you reported other people having dogs, you got a $200 reward. People didn’t try to hide them much.
“Dogs of any kind are not allowed. If a dog is found on the premises, you are required to pay $200 for every month from the beginning of your lease until the date the dog is found. You are also required to remove the dog at that time. *It doesn’t matter if the dog is a friend’s, or ran in when you opened the door, or was only there for a minute, or fell from the sky. * Dogs are forbidden”
(Italics mine).
I found it funny.

Um, that article doesn’t address the issue at all; in fact it seems to contradict, even in the paragraph you quoted: Greyhounds are herders?