Would You Allow ALL DOG BREEDS? - Page 3 - German Shepherd Dog Forums
View Poll Results: Would You Allow All Dog Breeds In Your Rentals
Yes 33 39.76%
No 17 20.48%
It depends 36 43.37%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 83. You may not vote on this poll

LinkBack Thread Tools
post #21 of 37 (permalink) Old 07-23-2012, 07:06 AM
Elite Member
Kaiser2012's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Outer Banks, NC
Posts: 1,236
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.

Originally Posted by angelas View Post
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.


Kaiser ~ Jan 25, 2012 (GSD)
Dakota ~ Oct 2005 (GSD/Collie)
Mya ~ Dec 2013 (GSD)
JOIN MYA AS A SDiT...We would love your support!...at:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Kaiser2012 is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #22 of 37 (permalink) Old 07-23-2012, 09:21 AM
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 5,130
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.
martemchik is offline  
post #23 of 37 (permalink) Old 07-23-2012, 09:24 AM
Elite Member
TimberGSD2's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 1,040
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.


Phinneas - Min Pin 2/4/08
Milla - Orithia Z Diehlomov 2/10/12

Kya - GSD 7/15/00-11/3/13
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

TJ - GSD 2/27/99-8/7/11
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TimberGSD2 is offline  
post #24 of 37 (permalink) Old 07-23-2012, 10:39 AM
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: sw missouri
Posts: 174
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.
Jazmeena is offline  
post #25 of 37 (permalink) Old 07-25-2012, 01:23 AM
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mojave Desert, CA
Posts: 35
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.
Blitz-Degen is offline  
post #26 of 37 (permalink) Old 08-06-2012, 08:42 AM
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 18
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.
jnr is offline  
post #27 of 37 (permalink) Old 08-06-2012, 10:02 AM
Crowned Member
Magwart's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,580
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.
Magwart is offline  
post #28 of 37 (permalink) Old 08-06-2012, 11:06 AM
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 18
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.
jnr is offline  
post #29 of 37 (permalink) Old 08-06-2012, 01:30 PM
Knighted Member
angelas's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: East Central SK
Posts: 2,144
Originally Posted by Kaiser2012 View Post
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.
angelas is offline  
post #30 of 37 (permalink) Old 08-27-2012, 09:21 AM
Crowned Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,753
i would allow all breeds, but i would have an "escape" clause allowing problem dogs to be evicted.
huntergreen is offline  
Sponsored Links

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the German Shepherd Dog Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome