Violation...????

Whether or not a lawyer is willing to help you isn't really their call, they have certain legal duties as officers of the court. If need be contact the Bar and have them direct you towards some help. Someone with some modicum of power has decided to take it on themselves to "get rid" of your dogs even though there are no laws being violated. They can't do that and you might have to get someone involved who isn't from your immediate area. People who try to pull crap like this HATE the light of day being shined on them.

 

I have been reading and re-reading this letter, and the more I read it, the more it doesn't make any sense.
First of all, there is only ONE violation listed on there....
Second, it says the CITY FEELS.....not the law says or anything along those lines.
That right there tells me that there is no law and is only going by how this particular person FEELS about the "BREAD" of dog we have

 

You haven't seen that marble rye that flies off of the shelf and aims right for your head?! It's a killer bread!!!


But, on a serious note, I agree. Find a lawyer and fight this! Without a law to back them up who the hell are they to say you can't have your animals in a CLEAN yard?

 

This letter sounds bogus. I'd research the officer who signed it.

 

I think I would first find out if this is a legitimate letter. The wording is a little strange and I can't believe an official document would call the dogs a bread of dogs.

 

Fearless, I was thinking the exact same thing as the above 2 posts. You might want to find out if this is even a legit complaint.

 

I agree with everyone else about checking with the City and find out if this is legit or not? It sounds like someone may have it out for you.

 

Since its not against the law there to have your dogs, it sounds like they are trying to scare you into getting rid of them. Call a good bulldog friendly lawyer, and go over everything. Kuddos that they all have their rabbies, trust me, the city can come to be HUGE pains in the ass when u dont have up to date rabbies...

Also, like i mentioned a while back, you really need a good privacy fence.

 

That's why it is good to be a technical reader. Pull all the bull out, and get to the point with them. Find a lawyer, and fight it. First of all they can't write, second, there seems to be nothing in the city ordinance about it. And third, I had to put up an 8 foot privacy fence around my property to keep the neighbors from complaining, and the city as well. It's different in Dallas, but, if nobody can see it, I don't think they will complain... you should be able to fight this in court and win. And the yard looks great to me.

 

lmao,, i feel sorry the city sounds to me like they are picking on you,,,,
lol,,,, get you some green spray paint and paint theyre runs and take a pic of it and ask whats all the fuss over,,,lol

 

I'm a firm believer in this method. I already quit walking my dogs through the neighborhood when light is out. When the block is quiet and dark is when I take my dogs out. My yard is privately fenced 8ft high. That's what's it's coming down to and I'm still looking for ways to make things more low key. People around here will call "code compliance" if they see you have more than one bulldog so I don't let'em even though it's not against the law. Plenty of people just wannna start sh*t but have a mediator.

my .02

 

http://www.cityoflandrum.com/government/government.php

http://www.cityoflandrum.com/government/docs/landcode.pdf

the second one is the city laws..page 6 defines junk.......page 10...1.311 altering code.......page 51 says you cant cut any flower or tree without city permission...but on chapter 10..it says you need to cut back alll trees and shrubs to let sun light into your yard..:confused: i could not find anything on dogs ..so if i were you first go to or call the city counsil and ask what needs to be cleaned..clean it ..take pictures and get a signed ok from them..show them the letter and ask them to prove that your dogs are violent..ask them how can some one who cant spell and is not a breed expert ..deem your dogs anything..ok citys want money so ask if you can get a business licence..which is less than 100 bucks.... if you ignore the letter its a misdimeiner and equals $500 fine and/or 30 days in jail..federal gov probes you..the state screws you and the city gets sloppy seconds:mad:also take a paper and get all your neighbors to sign it stating your dogs do not run loose and are not a threat.take that and your letter and stick in the face of the city counsil.

 

A fellow APBT owner, Suki, sent me an email asking my advice on this issue, so here goes.......

City ordinances typically indicate the maximum amount of dogs a person can house on their property and, sometimes, the criteria to which they may be housed. If you have exceeded the maximum of dogs, etc. then I believe there is NOTHING you can do with regard to your dogs. As with situations like this, the dogs will suffer the consequence.

1) Do you have a copy of the city ordinances? If not, get them ASAP. This will tell you if you have actually broken laws with regard to the dogs and your property. (Check online, many cities/towns have them posted online)
2) Contact an attorney, ASAP. (Assuming you haven't already done so.)
3) Find someone to house the dogs, because you do not want the city to confiscate them....and, they WILL.
4) Contact the ADOA (see link below) and see if we have a representative from our organization in your state that may be able to assist you.

BTW, your yard appears very well kept. I wish you the best of luck, thanks to the media, many are out to "get" our breed.

Nina from Muzzlechusetts
Executive Committe, American Dog Owners Association
http://adoa.org/

 

Look at these two sections of the ordinance I have posted.

1) There is NOTHING in their ordinance that speaks of dangerous and aggressive breeds, so how can they designate yours as such? Also, there is NO mention of a limit or maximum of dogs that can be housed at a residence.
---------------------------------------------------------
Dog portion of ordinance: 3.301. DEFINITIONS.
When employed in this article, the following words shall have the following specific
meanings:

DOG shall mean all members of the canine family four (4) months of age or older.

OWNER shall mean any person who has, or claims to have, a right of property in a
dog.

KEEPER shall mean any person who knowingly harbors a dog, or has it in his care or
acts as its custodian for five (5) or more consecutive days.

3.302. TAGS. INOCULATION. LICENSE REQUIRED.
a. All dogs shall be licensed and a permit and dog tag issued therefor. Permits and
tags shall be issued by the City Clerk. Both shall be valid only for the calendar year in which
issued. Both shall be stamped with the year of issuance.
b. Persons applying for a permit shall exhibit proof of a current rabies inoculation.
An annual fee, as established from time to time by Council, shall be charged for the license.
Such fee shall be as set forth in the "Schedule of Rates and Fees" as shown on Exhibit 1 of
this code.

c. The name of the owner, or person making application for a permit, his address
and the type of dog shall remain on file n the office of the City Clerk, and such information
shall be permanently affixed to the dog's collar.
3.303. PROHIBITED ACTS.

LANDRUM CITY CODE

It shall be unlawful and a violation of this article for an owner or keeper to:

1. own or keep a dog anywhere within the corporate limits without having in his
possession a current permit; and/or
2. own or keep a dog without having a dog tag containing all required information
permanently affixed to the dog's collar.
3.304. CERTAIN DOGS DECLARED A NUISANCE.
a. The howling or barking of any dog to such an extent as to interfere materially with
or affect the health, comfort, peace or quiet of the people is hereby declared a nuisance and
is prohibited. It shall also be a nuisance to permit a dog to damage or destroy flowers,
ornamental shrubs or property of others.
b. No person who harbors, keeps in possession or has custody or control or any dog
which constitutes a nuisance as defined in this section, shall fail or refuse to take action to
abate the nuisance when requested in writing to do so by the Chief of Police.

---------------------------------------
2) Terms and sentences in ordinances can be very vague and if you read (in THEIR mindset) the next part of the ordinance you can see how they will use the terms against you and term your dog houses as "junk". They are not "newly" constructed and doni't look "pretty". (in their eyes)

---------------------------------------
Junk portion of ordinance: JUNK shall mean old iron, glass, paper or other waste that may be used in some form again; second hand, OR WORN or discarded articles, clutter, SOMETHING of POOR quality or of
little meaning, worth or significance, including abandoned automobile parts or abandoned
vehicles.

JUNKYARD shall mean a yard or area used to store sometimes resalable junk.
------------------------------------------------------
As I said in my first post (which I hope appears before this one):

Contact an attorney
Get copies of the entire ordinance
Move the dogs, for now, so that they are not confiscated
Contact ADOA to see if we have a rep in your area who could assist you

Nina of Muzzlechusetts
Executive Committe, American Dog Owners Assoc
http://adoa.org/

 

Please follow Nina's advice. Get an attorney. I know it costs money. Please don't get angry with the city officials or make sarcastic comments to them, no matter how much they deserve it. Let your attorney talk to them. Don't talk one-on-one to ANYone who represents your city ...anything you say can be used against you and will be and city officials are like movie ushers IMHO, drunk with their petty power. Let your attorney talk to them.
So please don't antagonize them as they have the power to be really petty and vindictive and if they are the "right" or "wrong" sort of people, they will be(petty and vindictive) and they will hurt you and your dogs and cost you a lot of money.
Good luck and keep us posted on how things go.
As much as I would like to make fun of the people who wrote you that letter, I would be careful about expressing my feelings sarcastically in public...by this I mean on the internet. I realize I sound "over the top" paranoid, but umm...well the government is very powerful and has the resources of all the taxpayers' money. There is a reason for the expression "you can't fight city hall." Keep that in mind and please hire an attorney...
Good luck. I think, in my personal opinion, that "they" (the city) are going to harass you if you don't walk on eggshells so please be careful.

 

on top of that they will say you did not have a permit to build the dog houses..

 

I came across these late last night, had to have help directing to them. There is NOTHING ANYWHERE where it is a specific limit on dogs allowed.
There is alsoone law under the dog laws that says:
"NO DOG SHALL BE DEEMED DANGEROUS OR VICIOUS BY SPECIFIC BREED"

So we have decided to send the dogs (for now) where they come from (original breeder) and we fighting until we can't anymore.

There were more thing pointed out to me about the laws here in Landrum. They are ALL so backwards and contridicting it is rediculous....like as mentioned above, not allowed to cut trees......must cut trees...I dont really think they know their head from a hole in the ground.....Thank you for the help and advise, we ALL appreciate it so much. We will keep everyone updated as we find out new information.......thanks again

 

ARTICLE 13.​

REGULATION OF DANGEROUS ANIMALS​

SECTION 47-3-710. Definitions.

(A) As used in this article "dangerous animal" means an animal of the canine or feline family:

(1) which the owner knows or reasonably should know has a propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, cause injury, or otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animals;

(2) which:

(a) makes an unprovoked attack that causes bodily injury to a human being and the attack occurs in a place other than the place where the animal is confined as required by Section 47-3-720; or

(b) commits unprovoked acts in a place other than the place where the animal is confined as required by Section 47-3-720 and those acts cause a person to reasonably believe that the animal will attack and cause bodily injury to a human being;

(3) which is owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of fighting or which is trained for fighting.

(B) "Dangerous animal" does not include:

(1) an animal used exclusively for agricultural purposes; or

(2) an animal which attacks a person who is trespassing or who appears to be trespassing. A trespasser is a person who is not lawfully upon the premises of the owner, as set forth in Section 47-3-770(A).

(C) An animal is not a "dangerous animal" solely by virtue of its breed or species.

(D) As used in this article "owner" means a person who owns or has custody or control of the animal.

(E) As used in this article, "injury" or "bodily injury" means (1) broken bones, (2) lacerations, (3) punctures of the skin, or (4) any physical injury resulting in death

This is what was found...just for the curious!

 

SECTION 47-3-720. Dangerous animal not to go unconfined on premises; "unconfined" defined; exceptions.

No person owning or harboring or having the care or the custody of a dangerous animal may permit the animal to go unconfined on his premises. A dangerous animal is "unconfined" as used in this section if the animal is not confined securely indoors or confined in a securely enclosed fence or securely enclosed and locked pen or run area upon the person's premises. The pen or run area must be clearly marked as containing a dangerous animal and must be designed to prevent the entry of the general public, including children, and to prevent the escape or release of the animal. However, this section does not apply to an animal owned by a licensed security company and on patrol in a confined area.

SECTION 47-3-730. Dangerous animal not permitted beyond premises unless safely restrained.

No person owning or harboring or having the care of a dangerous animal may permit the animal to go beyond his premises unless the animal is safely restrained and the requirements of Section 47-3-760(E) are met.

SECTION 47-3-740. Owning or harboring animal for fighting or attacking humans or domestic animals prohibited; selling, breeding, buying or attempting to buy, or intent to do same, prohibited; exceptions.

(A) No person may own or harbor an animal for the purpose of fighting or train, torment, badger, bait, or use an animal for the purpose of causing or encouraging the animal to unprovoked attacks upon human beings or domestic animals.

(B) No person may possess with intent to sell, offer for sale, breed, or buy or attempt to buy a known dangerous animal; however, this subsection does not apply to a person who is licensed to possess and breed an animal under the classifications specified and regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act as codified in Title 7 of the United States Code.



Then you see there is also this.....which is contridicting all on its own.....
If our dogs really were dangerous.....and vicious....we still have the right to keep them contained on our property.......

 

Please keep us updated. It sucks fighting the city.