Blame insurance companies and irresponsible owners, not landlords
Whenever I am cruising the web to find stories for the blog, I also read all the comments attached to the story to try and get a feel for whatever the reading public's opinion on the subject may be. It also provides me with subject matter which may be of interest to my readers.
The story on Bay County Animal Control had just that subject matter. I have, in fact, read several comments on stories over the last two weeks which voiced the same opinion. The responders felt it was all the landlords' fault there were so many homeless pets. It seems the readers felt if all the landlords would accept your pet, all the homeless pets would find homes.
I am no fan of people who give their pet away because "the landlord said no." But I would strongly disagree it is all their fault.
In order to hold a mortgage, one must have homeowner's insurance. Unfortunately, we have given the insurance companies so much power over the last several years, they can dictate to us what kinds of dogs we are allowed to own. If a landlord cannot keep insurance, he could lose his property. Working in rescue, I have been exposed to most of the dogs on the fatal seven list: Pitbulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Dobermans, Huskies/Akitas, Chows. That is only 6 so put the name of your favorite in the blank and you would probably not be wrong, depending on the insurance company. So now that is established, insurance companies can demand you get rid of a dog if you have one, cancel you at any time, refuse to re-insure you if you get one of these breeds of dog and the list continues, even when the dog in question has never done anything wrong.
You also cannot make people be responsible for their pets. I have walked in rental units where the carpet is so urine-soaked, the smell never goes away. Poop patrol is not done with any regularity. Dogs are not trained or spayed/neutered. The landlord has to do all this each and every time the premises lost a tenant.
So when you figure out a way we can regulate responsibility or gouge the insurance companies like they have done to us for years, please let me know. I would be interested in that.
The story on Bay County Animal Control had just that subject matter. I have, in fact, read several comments on stories over the last two weeks which voiced the same opinion. The responders felt it was all the landlords' fault there were so many homeless pets. It seems the readers felt if all the landlords would accept your pet, all the homeless pets would find homes.
I am no fan of people who give their pet away because "the landlord said no." But I would strongly disagree it is all their fault.
In order to hold a mortgage, one must have homeowner's insurance. Unfortunately, we have given the insurance companies so much power over the last several years, they can dictate to us what kinds of dogs we are allowed to own. If a landlord cannot keep insurance, he could lose his property. Working in rescue, I have been exposed to most of the dogs on the fatal seven list: Pitbulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, Dobermans, Huskies/Akitas, Chows. That is only 6 so put the name of your favorite in the blank and you would probably not be wrong, depending on the insurance company. So now that is established, insurance companies can demand you get rid of a dog if you have one, cancel you at any time, refuse to re-insure you if you get one of these breeds of dog and the list continues, even when the dog in question has never done anything wrong.
You also cannot make people be responsible for their pets. I have walked in rental units where the carpet is so urine-soaked, the smell never goes away. Poop patrol is not done with any regularity. Dogs are not trained or spayed/neutered. The landlord has to do all this each and every time the premises lost a tenant.
So when you figure out a way we can regulate responsibility or gouge the insurance companies like they have done to us for years, please let me know. I would be interested in that.
Comments