pet security?

"Weight limit on the dog?"

How about a chihuahua only policy?

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 5:47 PM

We limit dogs to 35 pounds when full grown. This helps somewhat minimize the potential problem of aggressive dogs. We also require evidence that the dog is healthy and current on all shots, and an additional pet deposit equal to 1/2 months rent. If it is a new tenant, we must meet the dog.

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 6:32 PM

yes, yes. Those small dogs are the worst. They have a napoleonic complex and are major barkers. They also nip at your heels if you dare look at them the wrong way. They suck. Medium-large dogs are better.

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 7:14 PM

i have a bullmastif that is about 100lbs and is the best behaved dog... granted he could probably do more damage than a small dog - but you are not guaranteed a good dog just bc it is small - i would say either add a contingency to the lease or ask for a half months rent for extra security... if they are getting a puppy things can be messy in the beginning before they are house trained.

Posted by: guest at January 11, 2008 10:38 PM

Woof!

Posted by: guest at January 12, 2008 12:11 PM

Rather than impose size or breed limits on dogs (won't work, aggressive and bad-neighbor dogs come in all shapes and sizes), meet the dog and request proof of obedience training.

People who have trained their dogs to the point that they can show off tricks and display excellent dog behavior (no jumping up, sitting to be greeted, walking calmly on a leash) in a novel environment are worth renting to. They are responsible for their dogs and understand how to work with their dogs to create a comfortable living situation, in which the dogs know what acceptable behavior is.

Posted by: guest at January 12, 2008 5:14 PM

I posted at 5:14, and sorry, I just reread your post and realized that I was talking about renting to someone who already owned a dog.

I am a big animal lover, and I will probably get hated on for saying this, but I would never let an existing, non-dog owning tenant of mine get a dog unless I could be certain somehow that this person had experience owning a dog responsibly, and I don't know how I could get that kind of certainty.

Here's why. Dogs are eightyfive times more work than you think they are going to be. So about eightyfive percent of new dog owners fail. They fail to housebreak the dog, fail to curtail bad behaviors like chewing, fail to eliminate problems like recreational barking.

Many people give up and give their dogs away, and this sucks for a lot of reasons I am not going to get into here.

Many people figure out that they have a serious program that they have to get with, and wind up being fine, responsible dog owners.

But honestly, most people don't give up their dogs and don't figure out how to live with them well either. And this is very difficult to talk about openly,can get outrageously expensive for the landlord, and is generally the root of all those problems between dog owners and landlords.

I work in a dog friendly office, so I know a lot of dogs and dog people. My boss has a two year old dog that is not potty trained and will never be. And my co-worker lives in an apartment that will need new wood floors and new molding, and she's basically just dreading moving. Both of them are in total denial about their respective situations, and feel extremely entitled to have a dog that simply doesn't understand how to live in the world with people.

I love and respect these people, but I would sooner die than rent to them!!!!!

In short, I think that the problems landlords face with dogs are very real, and I say that as someone who cares mightily about dogs. Most people should not have them. They are a pain in the ass. They can do so much damage, and are such an emotional issue that the damage might become much more of a problem than it otherwise might be.

Posted by: guest at January 12, 2008 6:23 PM

As a dog owner, I have to agree (from experience) about new dog owners. When i was in my 20s, my dog ruined 2 different apartments before finally calming down at age 5 (and I got a little more responsible about training her).

However, I never would have asked a landlord for permission (and didn't when i found her). Just for asking it seems that your tenant is the responsible-type. Having had tenants with dogs, it's the owners that you have to worry about...a bad owner will create a mean/noisey dog and vice versa.

I don't charge more security for tenants having a dog, but I do pick tenants that will worry about all of the above before it becomes a problem to the neighbors.

Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 10:35 AM

I would be interested in hearing from lawyers regarding the liability issue Critters52 mentions. That sounds unusual.

As for my own experiences, I recently rented to tenants with a large dog, they claimed it was obedience trained and ultra-sweet. My wife and I love animals and decided to let it pass. It is indeed a sweet dog, but on the first long day the tenant left it alone it broke through two doors, including the apartment's front door. No matter what the damages / deposit / payment situation is, I don't intend to rent to another dog-owner. It equals additional work for me and no extra recompense. I know this sounds harsh, but it's just not worth it.

Posted by: guest at January 14, 2008 3:44 PM

The bottom line is that it's not the dog, it's the owner.

If you can feel good about this tenant doing things like training the dog, then I would go ahead. But I would have a very serious conversation with the tenant about HOW and where she plans to train the dog, how much time she is planning on spending on training, what kind of research she's done, etc.

I would even offer something like this:

Extra $1500 security deposit when the animal comes to live in the apartment.

Totall refundable when:

1. tenant provides proof of obedience training
2. And you talk to the trainer to see how the owner did in training class.

Posted by: guest at January 15, 2008 7:34 PM