# Would You Allow ALL DOG BREEDS?



## Gharrissc (May 19, 2012)

We all know up here how hard it can be to find rentals if you have certain breeds. So I wanted to know if you were a landlord would you have breed restrictions on your properties even though you know how hard it can be for responsible people of those breeds? The breeds I am referring to are mainly German Shepherds,Rotties,Pits,and other breeds that have been deemed vicious. 

Personally my husband and I were considering having rentals that specialized in helping those who are in need of housing even if they had a one of the above breeds. It was going to be based on the individual dog,not the breed. We have so much going on right now that we didn't do it,but we were certainly thinking about it.


----------



## GsdLoverr729 (Jun 20, 2010)

If I rented out properties, I would base my decision on whether or not the dog was allowed on its behavior (as well as the owner). If the dog was well behaved, or the owner was actively working with a professional trainer to fix their behavior. I may also make exceptions for rescues who are going to get the training and socialization they need.

In my mind, I naturally would want to ban small dogs. There are PLENTY of places that allow them, and I do not like them. But if the dog is well-mannered then its size doesn't matter and I would respect the owner enough for having it trained to allow them to rent the home/apartment/whatever. And without a pet deposit (I find those so ridiculous).


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

I put it depends. I would definately consider all dogs, but I'd be more inclined to ban the little yippy dogs and cats and allow the big dogs.


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

I definetely would base it on the dog rather then the breed with no exceptions. A 120 lb great dane would be treated the same as a 4 lb chihuahua 

It's only fair


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

It voted it depends because i would base it on a meeting with the dog, not the breed.


----------



## m1953 (May 7, 2012)

I agree with everyone. It's the dog not the breed. Actually it's the owner who makes the dog. Just like bad parent who don't train and discipline children, dogs are the same way. It is usually the owners fault


----------



## I_LOVE_MY_MIKKO (Oct 4, 2006)

My husband and I were just talking about this because we put an offer on what would be our first investment property. Since insurance dictates what breeds are allowed, it would depend on what insurance is cheapest and if they allow it. Insurance in Florida is tough enough to get, when we bought our house only two companies would insure us with a GSD.


----------



## chelle (Feb 1, 2009)

I would have voted for two options if I could have: yes, and it depends.

I'd have to meet the owner and the dog together and see the dog in various situations. (Hanging out in front of the property, etc.) I wouldn't base a yes or no solely on how it responded to *me*. I would want to see the dog as children played, bicycles went by, etc.... I would want to see how the owner handled the dog and the control they had. Let's face it, a ten pound dog can't pull an owner over -- a poorly behaved large dog most certainly can. I'm not a small dog fan, but it is just true. If a potential renter came to me with a large dog, it had BETTER be very well behaved to be considered. Yes, I'm giving small dogs more license there due to the above. Now, if the small dog was viscious and presented any threat of biting, that dog would get the ix-nay also.

Pretty obviously, not too many landlords want to go to that extent to do all those checks. 

I'll go against the grain and say yes, if it is my property, I would likely automatically ban certain breeds, but I *might* be willing to give them a shot *if* they could pass various tests as stated above. As a property owner, I must limit my exposure to lawsuits, etc. If certain breeds would force my insurance rates higher, I wouldn't hesitate to ban them. Simple business.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

i would check and see how having a dog effects my insurance
rate. if my insurance went up because of a certain breed
i would charge the difference back in the rental feed. i would also
make sure the dog is well trained and highly socialized before
renting the unit and that goes for any breed.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

umm, that might not be fair. i'll have to check with
the What's Fair Board. :laugh:



Shade said:


> I definetely would base it on the dog rather then the breed with no exceptions.
> 
> >>>> A 120 lb great dane would be treated the same as a 4 lb
> chihuahua <<<
> ...


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

doggiedad said:


> umm, that might not be fair. i'll have to check with
> the What's Fair Board. :laugh:


Lol  As a parent you should already have access 24/7 

I simply meant that a dog should not be judged by his size only in my opinion, there are far more important factors to consider like temperament and training


----------



## Franksmom (Oct 13, 2010)

I voted No but I should clarify it, My husband and I just talked about getting some rental property and we've decided that even though we have a zoo here at the house, and love them all, we would ban all animals at our rentals. No pets at all. 
This comes from the problems we've seen friends have at their properties, with distruction of the rental property, I know all renters are not like that, but to just make it easy and not pick and choose, and since I do not believe in banning pets by breed, we would just ban pets. (I also know people without pets can be just as distructive)


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

I don't think its so much the breed, but the owner. I've always had dogs in apartments and I never interviewed with my dog with the landlord. I gave a reference, that always comes back good because I take care of my animals and living space. I've also never paid a pet deposit or extra to have a pet. If you have more then one unit, you should make sure that dogs coming in won't have a problem with dogs that are already there. I always introduce my dogs to the new dogs after about a week and that works well.


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

what does being a parent have to do with renting an apartment
to someone with a Great Dane or a Chihuahua and treating
them the same? access 24/7 to what? what i ask you, what? 



Shade said:


> Lol  As a parent you should already have access 24/7
> 
> I simply meant that a dog should not be judged by his size only in my opinion, there are far more important factors to consider like temperament and training


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

doggiedad said:


> what does being a parent have to do with renting an apartment
> to someone with a Great Dane or a Chihuahua and treating
> them the same? access 24/7 to what? what i ask you, what?


I was just joking about the "it's only fair" comment and a parent had 24/7 access to the "what's fair" board because children are always asking that of adults. That part of the comment wasn't meant to be taken seriously, sorry for the confusion


----------



## jade_14 (Sep 21, 2011)

Hmm, I would say it would depend, I would definitely consider any size and breed, but I'd want to make sure the dog is not going to be a big problem. I know what it's like to try and find an apartment that allows dogs.
It is extremely hard to find a place for me and Casey to live in the city around here, because of his breed and size. I lived in an apartment that was the only apartment in the whole city that allowed any breed/size of dog. I had no problems and the apartment never had any problems other than the odd complaint of dogs being noisy occasionally, but for the most part all the tenants seemed to respect each other and the dogs were all handled well. There were all different breeds from pitbulls to chihuahuas. The only reason I don't live there anymore is because the rent was sooo high, as it was right downtown. 
I look regularly and very seldom do I find any apartment that allows big dogs that isn't in an area I would never want to live in. Though it all depends on the landlord, I've emailed a few over the months that have said they would allow him, but usually the price is just too high for me to afford right now. Though small dogs... NO problem! There are TONS of apartments that allow 'under 20 lbs'. It's very frustrating. The worst is when they say they allow dogs except 'aggressive breeds', and won't budge.


----------



## Gharrissc (May 19, 2012)

If my husband and I ever did do rentals we would more than likely have to have some type of standards as far as the dog's behavior goes at least. In a perfect world I would like to just say ' all dogs allowed,no matter what',but I have also seen what happens to people's properties when they don't ask more from the pet owners. 

Example; My friend and her husband have some rental houses and they let a young lady move in with her two Chocolate Labs. The woman was an EMT and worked crazy hours so she kept the dogs a spare bedroom while she sometimes was at work for 24 hours. Anyway after the woman moved out my friend was horrified to see that there were not only pee/poop stains all over the hallway and back bedroom floor,but the dogs actually chewed a hole through the bedroom wall all the way into the next room! They had to be in that room for some time to do that amount of damage.

So yeah business wise I think if you are going to allow pets,you should at least see what the behavior is like. Dog lover wise, we would probably just like to say YES! your dog is allowed,no questions asked.


----------



## marbury (Apr 3, 2012)

I've been on the 'suffering' end of the rental-with-GSDs spectrum and it's just not fair to responsible owners. My current landlord allows my four dog max and didn't care what breeds, but I paid a $350 non-refundable pet fee to get it. His reason? "Every three or four renters I have one that just destroys the place and I have to re-do it, so the pet deposits pay for the overhaul".
That hurts me because my dogs haven't done a lick of damage to my house, so I just forked over $350 for someone ELSE's bad training/animal husbandry. Grumble mumble.

But if I was renting out a property, I would require contact with a previous landlord so I could get a handle on how they had treated their last property. If they'd trashed it, no go. If they were impeccable stewards then why the heck not?! Refundable pet deposit and call it a day.


----------



## NewbieShepherdGirl (Jan 7, 2011)

I put it depends, but I'd lean more toward no pets unless someone could provide proof (references and the like) that they would make a good tenet with pets. I would definitely say no cats.


----------



## angelas (Aug 23, 2003)

I voted that I would not ban any breed but I do have to clarify (since I would like to have a few properties by the time I retire):

1) No cats, rabbits or ferrets. Frankly, they stink, or their "accessories" do.
2) Preference would be given to large breed owners over small breeds or no dogs. Apartment hunting without pets is easy, with small dogs people have a chance, with large breeds - forget about it.
3) Renters must maintain CKC membership if they own a dog.
4) Minimum amount of liability insurance must carried on the dog.


----------



## Kaiser2012 (Mar 12, 2012)

Yes, if the owners could show that their dog(s) were well behaved AND if they agreed to pay for any damage incurred beyond "normal wear and tear" upon moving out. Ie, if the dogs chewed walls, went to the bathroom on the carpet/floor where it caused damage above and beyond what steam cleaning could fix, etc.




angelas said:


> I voted that I would not ban any breed but I do have to clarify (since I would like to have a few properties by the time I retire):
> 
> 1) No cats, rabbits or ferrets. Frankly, they stink, or their "accessories" do.
> 2) Preference would be given to large breed owners over small breeds or no dogs. Apartment hunting without pets is easy, with small dogs people have a chance, with large breeds - forget about it.
> ...



Why?


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

It's really not up to the owner to be banning certain breeds. In my area there are strict restrictions on what your house has to have in order to own a bully breed or a rottweiler, and these are set by the county. The insurance companies also ban many breeds and won't give you a homeowners insurance policy if you have one living in that home. Because you're the property owner, anything that does happen on your property will somehow end up on you or your insurance company, I would try to look for an insurance policy that does allow everything, but if it doesn't then I would have to go along with whatever they told me.

The person renting the place already has some of your financial future in their hands, I wouldn't give them any more. They could tell you all they want about how great their dog is, but the moment they or the dog do something stupid (leave it in the yard unattended) you have a 6 figure law suit on your hands.


----------



## TimberGSD2 (Nov 8, 2011)

I do own rental property and allow all animals/breeds. I do require the dogs be UTD on their rabies vaccines, and require a pet deposit that is not refunded if there is any damage to the house/s. I also require they carry their own rental insurance policy that covers the animal.

I do not discriminate against breed, I will discriminate against a certain dog regardless of the breed if it is a "monster". Most of those have been small dogs by the way, one renter right now has a JRT and a HUGE newfie/lab/shep of some sort. Sweetest 120lb dog I've ever met.


----------



## Jazmeena (Feb 9, 2012)

I voted it depends - I think I would probably allow all breeds, but I would have ask for a rather large deposit in case of damage. I also think I would put something in the contract regarding annual inspections (if legal) - in order to charge for any repairs needed. At the very least, charge an extra deposit and put something in the contract that they WILL be liable for any necessary repairs due to their pet - to include damage to walls/floors; replacing carpet for excessive messing in the rental, etc.


----------



## Blitz-Degen (Jul 22, 2012)

I have actually been a landlord. It's what I did for more than 6 years before I "retired" (a.k.a. - husband told me to quit and "stay at home"). That career line can be very stressful. I've worked for one owner as a direct agent who allowed no pets at all except for fish in 10 gallon or less tank. I worked for another owner who didn't allow pets but I was able to change their minds. I advocated for no breed restrictions, and I won. But I set down rules for "problem breeds", not my wording choice, but they were very concerned about GSD, pitbulls, rotts, and Dobies. The rules were a sort of compromise with the owners and myself, though it was basically left at my discretion. We required an "interview" with the pet (dogs only), a statement from a veterinarian that was dated in the last month stating that the animal was up to date on shots and fixed (this rule was for dogs and cats), and "frequent home checks" every 6 months to ensure the animal (dogs and cats) weren't destroying the rental unit and was still generally well behaved, leashes at all times when outside, weren't allowed to be "tied out" (no room, and I personally disagree with it because too many people use it as a baby sitting service) and you had to pick up after them. If they were causing issues (and we never had any) it was grounds for a termination of lease if no other means worked. The last place I worked for didn't have breed restrictions, but they did have weight restrictions (which essentially ruled out the breeds people fear). The interview allowed me to interact with the dog(s) and see how they reacted to strangers as well as other pets, but I only had cats at the time. Pets are almost never the problem in my experience, it's almost always the renter. And it almost never has anything to do with the pet at all. The rare instances that the pets caused issues could have really been the owners fault. Destruction of the walls/doors/screens and/or ruining the carpet through urine and feces stains. IMO, the owner is more responsible for that than the animal is (generally, though not always). I genuinely hate breedism, and think people need to let go of their stereotypes when it comes to animals. That being said, I'm generally terrified of pitbulls and rottweilers. Both have a poor reputation. I've never met one that was ill tempered though, rather on the contrary they've all been sweet dogs, they just unsettle me is all. GSD is another breed that use to really make me nervous, but that's because my only encounters with them have been sans owner or directly after being rescued from a bad situation. Not the animals fault at all.


----------



## jnr (Feb 3, 2012)

*Landlords need to set and apply consistent standards*

Having real experience in this area, I have to say that folks who think that a landlord should interview and personally evaluate specific dogs either are thinking of a small, mom and pop, operation or just don't understand how rental properties have to operate in the US. 

Given all of the regulations applicable to rental housing, and in particular the anti-discimination laws, any landlord with a decent number of units simply MUST have rather objective and inflexible standards for virtually all of its policies. Any time you subjectively allow one person to do something or waive a requirement, you are opening yourself up to a claim of discrimination since you will not be able to show the objective standards that were applied if someone in a protected class is not given the same option. I am not saying that there should not be protections against discrimination, by the way. Far from it. I am simply saying that the way to address such requirements from a landlord's point of view is the consistent application of standards for all aspects of the rental relationship and a loss of personal flexibility. 

So as a landlord, I tend to allow any breed with a weight limit, full immunization and licensing, a deposit, and a monthly pet fee since the wear and tear and administrative costs are higher. I know that the weight limit is fairly meaningless and that small dogs are often less calm in apartments, but I need to deal with insurance etc. and cannot individually change the world. As a result, folks with GSDs that are below average in size and weight for he US (i.e., ones that are within the weight limits set by the FCI standards) can rent, and ones with with typical US weight GSDs can't.


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

Wouldn't one solution to the breedism problem, and the need for objective standards, be to simply require a prospective renter to provide proof of solid _basic_ obedience training? A CGC certificate, a letter from an obedience club or certified trainer, even a "graduation certificate" from reputable puppy class....any of those things would show a person is acting responsibly to ensure the dog is learning basic skills and being socialized in class situations. To me, that seems like a bar better "objective" indicator of a tenant acting responsibly with a dog than the weight of the dog.


----------



## jnr (Feb 3, 2012)

Yes, obedience training certificates would work from am objectivity point of view. The problem is that landlords let people have pets because they think that they can increase the pool of prospective renters, and requiring obedience training would exclude a large number of the client base, especially the ones with small dogs (I know, small dogs should get trained, but landlords have to deal with society as it is). 

Not a bad idea at all, but I am not sure if I would as a landlord want to take that on. As a GSD owner, that is a different matter. I think that having an untrained dog is hard to imagine. But excluding "fluffy" the toy poodle as an economic matter may not make sense. If you are doing that, you are probably better off with a no pets or no dogs rule economically speaking, since the smaller pool of renters would be offset by the folks who do not want to hear barking and the lower cost/hassle factor.


----------



## angelas (Aug 23, 2003)

Kaiser2012 said:


> Yes, if the owners could show that their dog(s) were well behaved AND if they agreed to pay for any damage incurred beyond "normal wear and tear" upon moving out. Ie, if the dogs chewed walls, went to the bathroom on the carpet/floor where it caused damage above and beyond what steam cleaning could fix, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Late on the response, but:

Because it indicates a greater than average involvement as a dog owner and hopefully a greater chance of being a good owner. It is also not one of the protected areas under the law. I can also check with the CKC and see if they have been suspended or banned as a result of disciplinary action. In that situation I would be declining them as a client.


----------



## huntergreen (Jun 28, 2012)

i would allow all breeds, but i would have an "escape" clause allowing problem dogs to be evicted.


----------



## kiya (May 3, 2010)

Great topic, now my delema:
I am a landlord and to make a long story short...my tennant just called me because she recieved my letter to "immediately remove" the dog which she claims is a pit/black lab mix from my property. When she moved in they had a pug, that was all. Then a year or so later we saw they added a poodle, fine. Last year we learned they have this large turtle ok. When my husband went there earlier this summer he saw the pit and told her he had to go. Shortly there after I expressed my concerns about my liability and said he had to go. On sunday I had to go there and the pit was still there, how do I know, I heard him scratch the door and I asked. So she let him out and he was all waggy tail acting friendly. I was mad that she ignored my request to rehome the dog and told her I didn't care he had to go.
My reasoning aside from my homeowners & personal liability is the dog supposedly belongs to her young son (15yrs? he is working at mc donalds now) she also has 2 small little girls and an infant. She works 2 jobs. Need I really say more?
So I left off the conversation with her that she has 2 weeks to provide her own rental policy including the dog and she MUST contact my trainer for evaluation & schedule a CGC. I would only trust recommendations from my trainer. I looked online and my homeowners does work with AKC and CGC is noted.
So as I bang my head against the wall and try to wash the sucker sign off my forehead. When she said her girls cried after I left I should have just said "when I was renting and I had to get rid of my dog I cried to, thats why I bought my house".
P.S. I didn't vote...yet


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

I agree with most of the other posters. I would allow any and all breeds, but I would require a certificate of passing an obedience class, UTD on all shots, and a clause stating that, if there were any problems, the rental agreement would be terminated. They would also have to have their own rental insurance to cover anything that may happen. It's not the breeds' fault, it's the fault of the owner for not properly taking care of their dog.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

As much as I love the Hooligans and the GSD breed, if I were renting a house or apartment, I'd have a NO PETS policy.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1 (Jul 31, 2012)

I have one rental property and I dont ban pets, i just check references to ensure no property destruction occurred. Not fool proof but havent had destructive pets yet.


----------



## Gharrissc (May 19, 2012)

Well did she contact the trainer or move? I think it was pretty nice of you to allow her to keep the dog as long as she contacted your trainer. I mean I am not a landlord,but have rented plenty of times and know how hard it is to not only rent,but to also rent from landlords who are constantly reminding you of the fact that you are in their house. Not saying that's what you do,but there are those types out there. From a personal stand point of knowing how hard it is to find a place that will accept pets, I want to say that I would allow all pets as long as the owners proved responsible. 

On the business side of it, I am sure allowing all dogs would cause some problems. 





kiya said:


> Great topic, now my delema:
> So I left off the conversation with her that she has 2 weeks to provide her own rental policy including the dog and she MUST contact my trainer for evaluation & schedule a CGC. I would only trust recommendations from my trainer. I looked online and my homeowners does work with AKC and CGC is noted.
> So as I bang my head against the wall and try to wash the sucker sign off my forehead. When she said her girls cried after I left I should have just said "when I was renting and I had to get rid of my dog I cried to, thats why I bought my house".
> P.S. I didn't vote...yet


----------



## EchoGSD (Mar 12, 2010)

Unfortunately, many times the choice is up to the landlord's homeowner's insurance policy, not the landlord/owner. Of course, if I (as the landlord/owner) didn't like the insurance policy I could change to another company, but here in MI there are several companies who either won't insure you at all if have certain breeds ( GSD, Rott, Pit Bull, etc), or they charge you 3-4x as much as the same policy without these dogs.


----------



## Hercules (Aug 1, 2010)

GsdLoverr729 said:


> If I rented out properties, I would base my decision on whether or not the dog was allowed on its behavior (as well as the owner). If the dog was well behaved, or the owner was actively working with a professional trainer to fix their behavior. I may also make exceptions for rescues who are going to get the training and socialization they need.
> 
> In my mind, I naturally would want to ban small dogs. There are PLENTY of places that allow them, and I do not like them. But if the dog is well-mannered then its size doesn't matter and I would respect the owner enough for having it trained to allow them to rent the home/apartment/whatever.




This pretty much sums up my thoughts. The sweetest dog I have ever met are considered bully breeds so they are banned pretty much everywhere. My last apartment did a meet and greet with Zeus to make an exception since he was on the banned list and when they saw how gentle and sweet he was they allowed him in (that's back before I finished his training to be a service dog).




GsdLoverr729 said:


> And without a pet deposit (I find those so ridiculous).


I know right? at my last apartments, I had to pay 500 per dog for the deposit AND I had to play 50 extra a month on a rent per dog. All of this on top of the 800 I had to pay for the regular deposit as well as first and last months rent JUST TO MOVE IN. Total BS


----------

