Name:   MAJ USA RET - Subject:   MAJ Date:   7/4/2012 6:00:51 PM

No.  My wife and the Golden, “Gumdrop”, were at the power-line right-of-way on the opposite side of the road, about 100 yd northwest of the pit-bull’s house (Google Earth 32 45.390, -85 48.082). She could not see the bit-bull’s house and were indeed unaware that the dog was coming until it was upon them.

Yes.  The owner did pay half the bill.  We were ready to take him to court… had a lawyer and the complaint drawn up.  But, out of compassion for his predicament (which I will not relate here), we did not go through with it.

The owner did the right thing in voluntarily removing the dog from StillWaters.  But, voluntary does not carry the permanence associated with the SRHOA directing its permanent banishment.  As ill advised as it seems, the owner could still bring the pit-bull back.

We only wanted the SRHOA to officially ban the dog from StillWaters.  This is reasonable and prudent with respect to the danger that animal represents.

Amazingly, the SRHOA board found us severally liable for the attack.  They originally cited us for not having our dog on a leash… that is not in the covenants.  The dog, as I have earlier stated, is obedience trained.  We can even stop her… call her back… and verbally restrain her in the presence of other dogs.  This is easily demonstrated.  Residents up and down Vista Wood and Knollwood have frequently seen us do exactly that.