A modestly proposed alternative to mandatory spay/neuter
By Christie Keith
February 2, 2008
As Gina blogged this morning, the city of Los Angeles decided to mandate the spaying and neutering of puppies and kittens prior to the age of four months in order to reduce pet population numbers.
Way to go, LA! Let’s do something that has never once worked to lower rates of shelter killings instead of doing the things that have worked in urban, rural, northern, southern, rich, and poor communities all over the country. Like Gina said: yet another reason I’m glad I don’t live in LA.
I was reading all the ranting about this on the various dog and pet law lists I’m on, and it struck me that the number one and number two reasons people surrender their dogs to shelters are landlord and other housing problems. For cats, housing difficulties are the first, third, and fifth most common reasons for surrender. So I’ve come up with an idea that I’d like to float, a sort of modest proposal to reduce the number of animals in shelters.
What if, instead of passing laws telling me what to do with the reproductive organs of my own dogs and cats, we passed laws telling landlords what they can do with their houses and apartment buildings, and prohibiting rental, condo, and housing association policies that ban pets?
Is it really any more of an intrusion into private property rights and individual liberties to require a building owner to allow someone to have a few cats or dogs — whose potential to damage his property, while real, is still reversible — than to require a pet owner to have surgery done on a puppy or kitten at a dangerously young age? A surgery that is most certainly not reversible, as its effects are not. Not to mention that dogs and cats are living creatures with an irreplaceable genetic heritage and buildings are, last I checked, not.
Just read the horrifying stories about pets losing their homes due to the sub-prime mortgage mess, and then tell me which will save more animals from dying in shelters, or ending up there in the first place: Some unenforceable mandatory spay/neuter law that has never once, anywhere it was implemented, achieved its stated goal, or a simple law prohibiting landlords from banning pets?
Think it won’t fly? You’re probably right. In fact, I’m pretty sure no one would even dare suggest it, although it would do far more to get animals out of shelters and send fewer of them there in the first place than any s/n law ever could. But this is America, baby, and money is all that talks.
So let me revise my proposal to something that not only has been proven to work, but costs less than the status quo and saves animal lives: implementing the policies and programs of the No-Kill Equation.
Either that, or get ready to see some incredibly pissed off landlords when I find a tenants’ rights lawyer to draft my new mandatory pet inclusion legislation.
Christie, that’s a great idea. Public housing is required to allow pets, but there are no requirements for private property owners to do the same. Some landlords will allow pets of certain species or below a certain weight, others require security deposits that are several times the monthly rent or want the tenant to have the cat declawed or dog debarked. But many property owners outright refuse to allow dogs or cats.
Let me tell you an abbreviated version of one landlord’s experience. She was actively involved in a dog rescue group. One of her tenants was encouraged to join in the group and foster some dogs. He was careless or clueless, I don’t know which, but had several large dogs in his home. After a few weeks, the landlady became concerned and stopped to check on the tenant. He had apparently used one bedroom to house the dogs when he was out. The hardwood floors were ruined from urine and feces. The dogs had chewed off the window sills and damaged the doors. In addition, there was other damage throught the home. None of this damage was covered by her insurance as animal damage is often excluded as is damage done by tenants’ willful acts.
Should tenants be responsible for damage done by their pets? Of course, but what is reasonable as deposits or other means of responsibility? Some landlords will feel violated by the smallest transgressions of a pet while others might be persuaded to accept normal wear and tear, just as with children.
How do we find a happy medium that both renting pet owners and property owners who want to rent their real property can both abide? Should this be like mandatory spay/neuter or is there another alternative to legislation?
Comment by Moira — February 2, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
When that damage is done by a tenant’s children rather than by a tenant’s pets, is the situation any different, with regards to the insurance coverage (or lack thereof)? Not asking to be adversarial - I honestly don’t know.
When I read discussions about landlords who won’t permit pets because of the damage they can do, I can almost always think of examples of comparable (cost-wise) damage done by children. So is one kind of damage treated differently than the other?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 2, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
Undergraduates vs. spraying male cats — just about an even draw on the “trash your rental house” front.
Same for undergraduates vs. untrained barking shelties in terms of “make your other tenants assemble with torches and pitchforks.”
The house we currently own was pretty well mangled by the former owners’ children — not even tenants. Spent a lot of time patching doors and walls, fixing latches, locks and hinges. Their two untrained dogs didn’t seem to leave any such legacy.
But this is what SECURITY DEPOSITS and REFERENCES were invented for.
When we tried to rent in Pittsburgh — with two clean nondestructive cats, one impeccably-trained search and rescue dog, and a list of references (landlords, supers, neighbors, animal control officer, trainers) stretching all the way back to Boston — we very nearly could not find a place to live. At all. Lazy ignoramus landlords couldn’t be bothered to check references. My husband was a few hours from telling his new employer that he wasn’t coming.
I’m seeing a number of pet giveaway ads on the local Craig’s list that cite “foreclosed, must give up.” Dunno if these are genuine or just capitalizing on a well-publicized economic trend. I assume at least some are genuine.
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 2, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
Christie - I think this IS the time to be talking about how to come up with fair legistlation/guidelines for landlords and tenants with pets.
Even the Philadlephia Inquirer is including stories on shelters being full of pets who now don’t have a home because the house is forclosed and the landlord won’t allow pets.
So, I think it’s time to really get that issue out there — and it’s the folks that know pets best that should be framing the discussion.
So, what is fair for everyone? Should insurance companies reimburse for pet damage (I’d say if they reimburse for kid damage, they should do the same for pets.)? How much of a security deposit is fair (Offhand, I’d say so much per pet and perhaps so much per weight)?
Also, let’s publicize how to keep dogs busy so that they don’t chew windowsills (chews, big raw bones, etc) and how to REALLY clean up urine stains (just bought a black light and treated with vinegar/water — old kitty stain and smell GONE! :-D)
I know lots of folks would be happy to adopt pets from shelters if their landlords would let them — and it appears that we could keep a stream of the the shelters RIGHT NOW if such rules were in place.
So, let’s get the discussion going.
Comment by Dorene — February 3, 2008 @ 11:41 am
You know, I worry about you…can’t you ever voice an opinion? *grin*
Well, good luck with funding and enforcement is what I say. That is the big problem.
I bet you could get a group together to push for that legislation and use it as leverage for media coverage to highlight the issue.
Rant on Christie, rant on!
Comment by Diana L Guerrero — February 3, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
Yep, I’m always finding that I have to BEG Christie to take a stand on the issues … not! :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 3, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
I hate to be the one to say this, but I think people who choose housing over pets, by and large, aren’t looking hard enough - or in the right places. I currently live in NYC with my two dogs, but I’ve lived all over the US (as a renter) and spent years at a time as a professional traveler living in hotels, corporate apartments, and sublets. I have always found a way to make it work - then again, I will not ever choose housing over my dogs. There’s always another place and another landlord.
I am also a landlord myself and I have always permitted pets in my properties, with varying deposits depending on the animal. I have one rental house that I actually prefer to rent to someone with a dog because it’s set up for it - doggie door and fenced yard - and I can get a premium because of that.
Comment by John Sibley — February 3, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
John, there has previously been some very good discussion on just how UN-simple it can be for someone being foreclosed upon to make a move that takes the pets into account. You can read it here:
http://www.petconnection.com/b.....g-economy/
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 4, 2008 @ 6:43 am
I’m thinking that what could be helpful is a 1-page “Landlord’s Guide to Cats” and “Landlord’s Guide to Dogs” — a simple, no more than 1 page (double-sided at most) document that could be sent out around the country to guide landlords in accepting tenants with pets.
Ideally, such a guide would be written by a real estate lawyer and dog/cat behavoirist — I’d love to see an organization like HSUS that has $$$ hire some folks to put these Guide together — it would be good publicity for the organization (as they could put their logo on the Guides), it would encourage landlords to allow pets and it would keep pet out of shelters NOW.
It’s all about what Winograd talks about — see the problem that increasing shelter admissions and do what’s necessary to have the pets leave the shelters alive and in homes.
Comment by Dorene — February 4, 2008 @ 6:52 am
Interesting problem. My brother and I own several rental properties and in general do not allow pets. Between the two of us, we own five dogs, ( all spayed or neutered )so we “think” we know what responsible pet ownership entails. We also rent mostly to our own employees so we have a good idea what the people we are dealing with are capable of with regard to taking care of a pet. We do review each pet request on an individual basis and we currently have two tenants with dogs. However, it is a constant struggle to get these people to give their pets even basic vet care let alone what I consider a quality life. In general I discourage my employees from pet ownership because more times than not, they end up leaving their pet behind or losing them to controllable diseases like heart worm or distemper. To so many people, pets are “things” to own that they happen to become attached to emotionally.
I do not support mandatory S/N, yet I encourage all my employees (and most people I meet) to give up on making extra money by breeding and to have their pets fixed.
Maybe if we neutered every human who neglected their pet, we wouldn’t have so many unwanted humans. Through control of the human population we would decrease the pet demand as well!
What me, cynical!
Richard
Comment by Richard Russell — February 5, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
Oh I agree that finding rentals that take cats and mostly dogs is hard and should have some codes so more landlords and owners allow them. My husband and me have a large unneutered male dog (an irish wolfhound)- but he has excellent care. We managed to rent a penthouse that allowed our large horse/dog after we showed the landlord how calm and trained he was. Looking at the animals in your building helps a landlord tell if the tenants care for the pets they have.
Comment by Jesse — March 18, 2008 @ 1:37 am