Save Wilbur! Family fights to keep their pet!

[hollyclyff]

I went through the facebook posts and they say they aren't arguing about the restriction on livestock - they are arguing that Wilbur is NOT livestock, but a pet, which they are apparently allowed to have. They say he is taxed by the state of Texas as a pet, not livestock, so therefore should be allowed per the covenants. I think the covenants should have been more specific and defined "livestock". I live in a subdivision with an HOA and have horses and chickens. The only animals we are not allowed to have are dangerous wild animals like lions, tigers, alligators, etc (which are already against county law anyway).... and swine. So Wilbur clearly would not be allowed in my neighborhood since he is definitely classified as swine, but livestock vs pet is not so clear. But my neighborhood is pretty lenient with the covenants and I would bet a potbelly pig kept in the house wouldn't be evicted here.

 

[twentynine]

In respect to the last responder-- you can't have it both ways!

And I am not talking about the pig/pet owners, I am talking about us here.

You let a dog attack some one's pet chicken and all of a sudden that pet becomes livestock/poultry empowering the owner of said chicken with the ability to protect his "livestock" by any means..

Next thing you know the city shows up and says no livestock/poultry, wham bam, said chicken becomes a family pet.

I have read threads where some one has claimed poultry, then pet and finally handicap assitance animal all for the same chickens.

 

[hollyclyff]

But I think their point is that the state defines potbellied pigs (in particular) as pets, so therefore they believe their HOA should consider them pets. As opposed to large breed pigs raised for meat which are considered by the state to be livestock whether someone keeps them as pets or not. Some city ordinances which do not otherwise allow pigs, make exceptions for potbellied pigs because they are always (almost always?) kept as pets in this country. I don't see where they are trying to have it both ways. They consider him a pet. The state calls him a pet. They pay taxes on him as a pet. It's the HOA that's calling him livestock.

For example here is a copy of the Durham NC city code.

"Agricultural Uses: Land used as pasture or in the commercial production of crops, horticultural products, fish hatcheries or aquaculture. Also for the purposes of this Ordinance, the keeping of livestock for commercial or noncommercial purposes is defined as an agricultural use. Livestock includes but is not limited to poultry and hoofed animals such as cattle, horses, goats, sheep and swine; however, swine commonly referred to as Miniature, Vietnamese or Oriental Pot-Bellied pigs (sus scroda vittatus) shall not be considered livestock if the animals are no more than 18 inches in height and the owner has proof of registry with the International Potbellied Pig Registry (IPPR). No more than two such Potbellied Pigs may be kept at any household to qualify for this definition."

So the city of Durham specifically says they are NOT livestock.

If the HOA defines swine in general as livestock, then the owners don't have a very good case to make, but if there is no definition of livestock in the covenants, then I do think they have every reason to believe that the state definition should stand.

 

[twentynine]

I am not familiar with Texas law

Nor am I familiar with this specific HOA bylaws

Nor can I believe that they pay Texas state tax on a pet pig

Texas Texas Texas --- Houston Texas that is -- not north Carolina or Durham north Carolina

And believe me if you want, a HOA can pass a bylaw that specifies what color you can paint your house, make you keep your garage door closed, not allow you to park a boat or RV in your yard, tell you when to mow the lawn, what type of mail box, do you think they would say no livestock and not mean pigs of any breed? And that counts for Houston Texas or Durham north Carolina.

Even in NC a HOA can pass a bylaw that make certain activities unacceptable even if it isn't against state law. For instance it is not against any state's law that I know of, to leave your garage door open, but many HOA bylaws expressly forbid it. It is not against state law to park a boat/motor/trailer on my property, but once again a HOA can forbid it by bylaw.

And do you guys in NC really pay taxes on a "pet pig"

 

[hollyclyff]

We don't pay state taxes on any pets in NC. I don't know Texas law or their HOA covenants either, I'm just going by what they've said. My only point is that I believe they may have a case IF their state defines a potbellied pig as a pet and IF their HOA failed to define the term "livestock". That's all. They MAY have a case based on that. And that MAY be the reason they didn't think the pig would be a problem - because they thought it was classified as a pet. And the only reason I posted about Durham was because I used to live there and was familiar with the law there. It was simply an example of a municipality defining a potbellied pig specifically as not livestock. I wasn't trying to say that because Durham says they're pets, then it applies in Texas. That would be pretty silly. It was an example, but it is not the only one, to show that potbellied pigs are NOT universally considered livestock like, say, cattle. Of course the HOA can enact rules that are stronger than the state or county or city laws, but if theirs didn't already define livestock, then these people may be able to fight the HOA if they want. Of course if it did define livestock and that definition includes swine, then they are probably SOL and should have known better. I wouldn't try to have a potbellied pig in my neighborhood (if I wanted one) because the covenants say "no swine", even though cows, chickens, sheep, horses, etc are all specifically allowed (our lots are 4 -10 acres in size). Although like I said before, our HOA is very laid back and I doubt it would be enforced - nothing else is. Especially since there are no provisions in our covenants for fines, etc.

 

[twentynine]

Ms Holly

I understand your point of view. The difference in definitions, livestock-pig-swine-pet.

The point I am standing by is-

The owners of wilbur the pig didn't think, now they have placed themselves and the HOA, in a very bad spot. Would it not have been smarter to check these things out before wilbur became their dear pet?

The media, the family are trying to depect the HOA as some sort of nazi organization (and that may be the case), but I believe responsibility lies with the owners of wilbur. If the HOA is giving them a chance to have a petition signed, as I am sure the bylaws allow, then in my point of view they (the HOA) are attempting to work with the family. It is the family who did not fully explore the responsibility of pig ownership prior to pig ownership that I believe is where the problem started.

 

[LindsayB]

I'm not really sure if they are going to be to keep their pet now. I was looking on thier facebook page earlier and they posted the email addresses of the HOA members...Now everyone who is a 'friend' on wilbur's facebook is sending the HOA emails. Thats not very professional if you ask me, I think they're going about this the wrong way now.