[mango23]

Originally Posted by tworent

I looked at my copy and I have a tenant that has a 2 mil policy for their dog and it runs him about 1800 a year

Are you under the illusion you are not possibly responsible if something happens. I can promise if something happens you will be on the list of those in the law suit along with the tenant. It doesn't matter what the tenant signs. They do go after the deepest pocket and that is usually the insurance policy but they can go after you. Suppose the guy shows you a policy that he has let lapse? Either way I would never leave myself open like that. In fact if they were say charged with some kind crime as a result of what the dog did, say as a result of their own carelessness, the insurance would probably be void. Insurance does not pay if you are charged with a crime such as you wreck your car while running from the police. Remember that case in California where the dog owners went to prison for 7 years in the death of that girl in the apartment house. Not worth it, who needs them and their dogs.

[Strel]

No one has the right to possess an inherently dangerous animal.


Do yourself and your neighbors a favor and get rid of the dog, permanently.

The "but my dog is different/I raised them better" argument has been refuted already, with tragic results.

No mutt is worth the life of a child. Think on that.

[stars99]

I agree. I don't know why people keep these breeds as pets.

Originally Posted by Strel

No one has the right to possess an inherently dangerous animal.


Do yourself and your neighbors a favor and get rid of the dog, permanently.

The "but my dog is different/I raised them better" argument has been refuted already, with tragic results.

No mutt is worth the life of a child. Think on that.

[mango23]

Originally Posted by Strel

No one has the right to possess an inherently dangerous animal.


Do yourself and your neighbors a favor and get rid of the dog, permanently.

The "but my dog is different/I raised them better" argument has been refuted already, with tragic results.

No mutt is worth the life of a child. Think on that.

Todays sun-sentinal has a story about a posable state wide ban in the wake of the most recent event.

Victoria Park dog attack: Two pit bulls euthanized after a woman is bitten and dog killed -- South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

[riveree]

Wow, there are some very harsh sentiments in the above posts.

Pitbulls have become another political football. There's always some politician there to feed the hysteria and call for a statewide ban. They're just trolling for your votes, folks.

There are 2 links in the above posts about 1 incident. From the news story, it appears a Silky Terrier was brought into the home of the 2 pitbulls. Anyone who knows dogs knows that you don't bring one dog into another dog's territory. That's just asking for trouble. Add into the equation the fact that the 2 existing dogs are a pair and are significantly larger than the introduced dog and now it's just a matter of time, it doesn't matter what the breeds involved are.

So the woman who owned the pitbulls and was dog-sitting the Silky terrier in her home was ignorant of some basic dog facts. It's too bad because the ones who suffered were the 3 dogs and the other woman who got caught in the scuffle and was bitten.

Dogs are dogs. All dogs are territorial, all dogs fall along the scale of either submissive or aggressive towards other dogs. They're canines with their own sense of right and wrong and their own instincts. There's no good reason to blow it out of proportion.

Unfortunately for the OP and others who want to rent a home for themselves and their dogs it's become nearly impossible to fly above the radar and announce the breed/type of dog you have.

Even purchasing a home can be difficult if you inform your insurer that you have a pitbull, they will simply refuse to insure you. Apparently they have a legal right to discriminate. If insurers were refusing to insure blue-eyed people, we'd all be up in arms. Since it's a type of dog bearing the weight of myth and half-truths and outright hysteria, no one cares. It's outrageous, but no one cares .

[annerk]

Originally Posted by mango23

Are you under the illusion you are not possibly responsible if something happens. I can promise if something happens you will be on the list of those in the law suit along with the tenant. It doesn't matter what the tenant signs. They do go after the deepest pocket and that is usually the insurance policy but they can go after you. Suppose the guy shows you a policy that he has let lapse? Either way I would never leave myself open like that. In fact if they were say charged with some kind crime as a result of what the dog did, say as a result of their own carelessness, the insurance would probably be void. Insurance does not pay if you are charged with a crime such as you wreck your car while running from the police. Remember that case in California where the dog owners went to prison for 7 years in the death of that girl in the apartment house. Not worth it, who needs them and their dogs.

The tenant needs to not only get the two million insurance, but also get a certificate of liability insurance (ACORD) naming the landlord as an additional insured. That way the landlord is protected for both the actual damage award and also for legal defense fees. The tenant needs to show prove that the policy is paid in full for the term of the lease.

[Lilybeans]

Pits were once one of the most popular breeds of dogs in the country. There were even known as nursemaid dogs because they were so god with children. The dog in The Little Rascals was a Pit. It is only recently they have been demonized. Not only pits, but any dog that might intimidate a criminal-Shephards, Rottys, Dobermans.

Golden Retrievers and Beagles bite people too. Goldens have a higher bite ratio than Pits, but no one is calling for banning Goldens. Springers have something called Springer Spaniel Rage syndrome, where they turn on people, yet no one is calling for banning Springers.

It really makes me wonder what people know about dogs.

[stars99]

Originally Posted by Lilybeans

Pits were once one of the most popular breeds of dogs in the country. There were even known as nursemaid dogs because they were so god with children. The dog in The Little Rascals was a Pit. It is only recently they have been demonized. Not only pits, but any dog that might intimidate a criminal-Shephards, Rottys, Dobermans.

Golden Retrievers and Beagles bite people too. Goldens have a higher bite ratio than Pits, but no one is calling for banning Goldens. Springers have something called Springer Spaniel Rage syndrome, where they turn on people, yet no one is calling for banning Springers.

It really makes me wonder what people know about dogs.

I was told by the insurance company not to rent to anyone with dogs weighing over 20 lbs to be safe, so it wasn't pitbull specific.

[annerk]

Originally Posted by OrlandoRE_Miracle

I was told by the insurance company not to rent to anyone with dogs weighing over 20 lbs to be safe, so it wasn't pitbull specific.

That's kind of stupid considering about 3/4 of the list of breeds most likely to bite are under 20 pounds. The Dachsund is the #1 breed most likely to bite followed by the Chihuaha. Among the least aggressive/least likely to bite are the greyhound, Great Dane, and mastiff, all three of which start at 70 pounds.

[stars99]

Originally Posted by annerk

That's kind of stupid considering about 3/4 of the list of breeds most likely to bite are under 20 pounds. The Dachsund is the #1 breed most likely to bite followed by the Chihuaha. Among the least aggressive/least likely to bite are the greyhound, Great Dane, and mastiff, all three of which start at 70 pounds.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, but that's what they told me. It's probably better to decide on a breed by breed basis, and require a pet deposit and the tenant to co-insure the landlord, as you mentioned earlier.