[MEL] Why Do Most Apartments Refuse to Accomodate Pet Dogs?

freshofftheplane on 01/12/2018 - 15:23
Last edited 01/12/2018 - 15:55 by 1 other user

I live in Melbourne after moving here from another country about 16 months ago. I'm curious to know the reasons to why most property owners / agents refuse to accommodate for our 4-legged friends?

While I understand there is a small risk for things to break (be chewed on?) by having a dog in an apartment, I still believe the risk is minimal, especially compared to small children who we all know are prone to causing havoc. Why is no one refusing to rent out apartments to families with small children?

Walking around my suburb, I see many people walking their dog, and most of them are probably not home owners… which made me develop these two ideas:

  1. People never mention their dog when they apply for an apartment, ie- the social norm in Australia for this matter is to not tell the entire truth
  2. Landlords are two-faced when it comes to their property. They will own a dog but still refuse to rent out to another dog-owner.

Is this just a Melbourne thing?

Thoughts?

Home & Garden

Comments

          • Ghosteye on 01/12/2018 - 20:38
            +14

            @freshofftheplane: do you think a pet is a basic right? or a choice?

              • whooah1979 on 01/12/2018 - 20:53
                +10

                @freshofftheplane: Pets aren't children. Comparing the rights of an animal with a natural person is silly.

                  • Ghosteye on 01/12/2018 - 21:12
                    +22

                    @freshofftheplane: If the tenant is not in a financial position to have kids, is the onus on the landlord to have lenient rules? Or the tenant to use contraception to not have kids?

                    You want to govern someone else's property to suit your personal preferences and that's just flat out wrong, no matter what.

                    What the landlord wants to do with his/her property is none of your business, you're not entitled to anything.

                  • whooah1979 on 01/12/2018 - 21:17
                    +4

                    @freshofftheplane: The difference between a tenant with children and one that have pets is that the tenant with children is protected by the Age Discrimination Act 2004 Section 29.
                    https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00322

                    • freshofftheplane on 01/12/2018 - 21:21
                      +4

                      @whooah1979: And the intolerance towards dog owners will soon change with this new legalisation in Victoria: https://www.vic.gov.au/rentfair/pets-are-welcome.html

                      So to answer @Ghosteye, no, a landlord can't do whatever he wants with his property. and the fact I have a dog is none of his business as long as I keep his property in check.

                      • whooah1979 on 01/12/2018 - 21:25

                        @freshofftheplane: https://www.vic.gov.au/rentfair/pets-are-welcome.html

                        Tenants will have the right to keep pets, provided they obtain the landlord’s written consent first which can only be refused by order of VCAT. The onus will be on the landlord to get approval from VCAT to refuse consent to a pet,

                        The reforms will come into effect progressively, and all will have commenced by 1 July 2020.

                        • freshofftheplane on 01/12/2018 - 21:26

                          @whooah1979: Yes mate, I can read just as well as you can… I want to believe VCAT will ask for a good enough reason to deny someone from having a pet

                          • whooah1979 on 01/12/2018 - 21:40

                            @freshofftheplane: 18 months is long time politics. Things may change before the deadline.

                          • Ghosteye on 01/12/2018 - 22:04

                            @freshofftheplane: @freshofftheplane Then the landlord is going to take the property off the market for 3 months, cite 'renovations' and wait for the tenant to bugger off.

                            I do believe these are for people who have already entered an agreement with the landlord, not new tenants.

                      • Baysew on 02/12/2018 - 01:11

                        @freshofftheplane:

                        Is this just a Melbourne thing?

                        Well if it was, not anymore.

                  • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 08:32
                    -1

                    @freshofftheplane: Are you vegan?

                  • Bloo5869 on 02/12/2018 - 15:58
                    +2

                    @freshofftheplane: A child is a human.. a dog is an animal, pretty fundamental difference..

                    Any way anyone paints it, you arent going to agree unless they say 'you as a pet owner have every right someone with children has' but thats just not the case… and you have to deal with it, its not discrimination, its just you being told something you dont want to hear.. suck it up and move on..

              • Scrooge McDuck on 02/12/2018 - 01:13
                +2

                @freshofftheplane:

                Replace pet with children, what is your answer?

                Still a choice. Raising a child is a much greater responsibility than caring for a pet!

      • whooah1979 on 01/12/2018 - 20:05
        +2

        people in this business

        People in any business understand that business and emotions doesn't mix.

        Pets in Australia is legally a property. Owners are allowed to purchase, sell and when time comes have it destroyed. They may have some basic welfare rights, but at the end of the day nothing more than a property.

        • freshofftheplane on 01/12/2018 - 20:11
          -6

          Housing should not be treated as "a business"

          • whooah1979 on 01/12/2018 - 20:39
            +4

            @freshofftheplane: Owning an investment property in Australia is form of investment. It's natural for investors to want the best return from their investments.

          • dcep on 01/12/2018 - 20:45
            +1

            @freshofftheplane: unfortunately housing is a $7.6 trillion business in Australia

          • Scrooge McDuck on 02/12/2018 - 01:44
            +3

            @freshofftheplane:

            Housing should not be treated as "a business"

            Why? Because it doesn't suit you?

            If you want to have rights over a property, buy your own. If you can't afford to buy in Melbourne, move somewhere you can.

            Otherwise, suck it up. You're not entitled to rent someone else's property under your terms unless you can negotiate them yourself.

      • Thenarrator on 02/12/2018 - 12:15
        +1

        Nowadays, your rent will not generate any profit for the landlord given the amount of expenses it takes to upkeep the apartment in sydney.

      • HighAndDry on 02/12/2018 - 13:15

        Well yeah, that's why discrimination against having kids is less common that discrimination against having pets. Having kids is more of a right than having pets.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/12/2018 - 18:45
        -1

        Buy your own place - see how hard it is to do in the first place.

        Then once you have gone through the hardships of buying your own place - you will understand what it means to maintain it and keep it from damage.

        Until then - you will never understand.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 02/12/2018 - 01:52
      +1

      I can assure you many landlords don’t like kids either.

      Neither would I! They chew and eat things, and leave droppings everywhere, even when they're adults.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 09:59
      +1

      Depending on the market, applying for a rental property is like applying for a job, they want the best person, that is going to cause the least problems.

    • Gumster on 02/12/2018 - 11:58
      +1

      I actually prefer to rent to families with Kids.
      They generally ask for longer tennancies and if the kids are older heading to school most families don't want to move

  • p1 ama on 01/12/2018 - 17:40
    +5

    I live in Melbourne after moving here from another country about 16 months ago. I'm curious to know the reasons to why most property owners / agents refuse to accommodate for our 4-legged friends?

    I have some experience in this area, and I think it's generally an under-supply issue. Over the past decade or so, with increasing property prices in Melbourne, more and more people are looking to rent. For a while now, rent demand has outstripped supply and new construction hasn't been able to ease that. If you're a landlord, you generally just want to avoid any dramas. If you have a person without a dog and a person with a dog, the risk is higher for the person with a dog and you get no compensation for that.

    As an investment, which would you choose? Landlords aren't in the market to be nice to people, they're in the market to make money.

    While I understand there is a small risk for things to break (be chewed on?) by having a dog in an apartment, I still believe the risk is minimal, especially compared to small children who we all know are prone to causing havoc. Why is no one refusing to rent out apartments to families with small children?

    It's not a small risk, it's a very large risk. Our family had a dog when I was a kid, so I'm sympathetic, but he definitely scratched up walls, chewed on anything wooden, and caused enough minor damage that needed quite a bit of money to fix (repainting, sanding down and filling scratches on wooden parts…etc.).

    Your statement on small children is also wrong. I grew up around many small kids (oldest of 5 siblings) and have a child of my own. Generally they are messy and can be destructive, but they're not tearing apart your house like a dog. Also, children tend to be supervised and not left to their own devices, dogs can be (e.g. when you're going out and leave the dog at home).

    Walking around my suburb, I see many people walking their dog, and most of them are probably not home owners… which made me develop these two ideas:

    How do you know most of them are not home owners? Australia has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world.

    People never mention their dog when they apply for an apartment, ie- the social norm in Australia for this matter is to not tell the entire truth

    Some people I know do this.

    Landlords are two-faced when it comes to their property. They will own a dog but still refuse to rent out to another dog-owner.

    What do you mean by being two-faced? Landlords do not have a duty to give anybody a place to live. They are investors who are in the market to make money, similar to investors on stock markets or bond markets. If two stocks give similar returns, one with lower and one with higher risk, which would you go for?

  • SimbaGirl on 01/12/2018 - 17:49
    +5

    We've stayed in Stockholm several times in the Kungsholmen area (for a month or more at a time), which consists mainly of apartment buildings. We were staggered by the number of locals walking dogs - apartment living with pets is quite common in Sweden, so people seem to train and look after their dogs accordingly to suit that lifestyle. A number of people living in our building had dogs, yet we never heard one barking, and all the common areas and surrounding garden etc were spotless. Even more astounding was that we saw some very large dogs indeed, including Great Danes and Mastiffs!!

    • wellglued14 on 01/12/2018 - 18:31
      +4

      I've noticed this in the big cities in America too. Everyone/where is dog friendly! The number of dogs on the domestic flights there is crazy too (albeit smaller dogs).

        • p1 ama on 02/12/2018 - 00:26
          +7

          Yeah, it's a big shock coming here and seeing how intolerant people actually are when it comes to their investments.. good on ya Australia

          You're still completely missing the point. It's not about investors (landlords) being good or bad people. They have no moral responsibility either way. It's purely a market/economic point.

          In Australia, and particularly in Melbourne and Sydney, home ownership rates are extremely high and there are relatively few high-rise apartment blocks which are prime for investments. This means that there are relatively few investment properties on the market and, as a result, supply is quite limited.

          On the other hand, prices in Melbourne and Sydney have increased dramatically, meaning less people can afford properties (usually new people moving in) and hence, they are forced to rent, meaning demand is quite large. When you have large demand and small supply, the landlords have quite a lot of choice in terms of who they can lease to. They will lease to the people with the least risk (i.e. people without dogs).

          In Europe, particularly, home ownership rates are much lower than they are in Australia, there are many more high-rise apartment blocks which are prime for investments, meaning that there is relatively much more supply. This means that landlords have less choice and will have to lease to people who have dogs because there's nobody else.

          Again, I think your disdain for landlords in Australia is misplaced. This is just purely capitalism at work, the market is not tolerant or intolerant.

      • gromit on 02/12/2018 - 08:57

        Many of the airlines in the US are now cracking down on the dogs on domestic flights thing. So that is changing more towards Australian style where only service dogs are permitted.

  • nahi11 on 01/12/2018 - 17:52
    +1

    Because dog owners are usually dirty and are oblivious of their habits and smells.

  • chrisd262 on 01/12/2018 - 18:48
    +3

    Amazingly there is a huge over supply of rental accommodation in Sydney! Can't understand why?? Bet landlords will no longer
    be concerned re having a dog!

    • dcep on 01/12/2018 - 20:39

      that can't be right

      gov will open the immi floodgate to rescue sydney housing collapse

      • poohduck on 01/12/2018 - 21:09

        No. They'll only do it for big business - an oversupply of employees will mean lower wages, more part time work, no penalty rates on weekends…oh, that's right it's already happened

        • Cluster on 02/12/2018 - 12:52

          A weekend is just another normal working day like any other. In other news, the AFL has scheduled the grand final for Monday afternoon and kids go to school all day Sunday.

    • ihbh on 01/12/2018 - 21:59

      True, coming from one who would probably have agreed but ended up selling.

  • hawkeye on 01/12/2018 - 19:59
    +5

    Even Adolf Hitler let his dogs into the underground bunker before he lobbed himself. Shows what kind of people we are we dealing with here.

    • freshofftheplane on 01/12/2018 - 20:07

      Sorry what?

      • orangetrain on 02/12/2018 - 11:13
        +7

        Is your dog a Nazi? The answer may surprise you.

    • Cluster on 02/12/2018 - 12:52
      +2

      Wow, I didn't think it was possible to Godwin this thread, but here we are.

    • HighAndDry on 02/12/2018 - 13:18

      Yeah. Hitler had higher requirements for your children's genes too. OP is in good company.

  • diceman99 on 01/12/2018 - 20:55
    +5

    Because dogs can leave behind hair and poo. Which can cause place to stink and have fleas
    Good Pet owners wont this happen, but the landlord does'nt know who is a "good" and who is a "bad" pet owner
    So erring on the side of caution, the landlord will have a blanket ban of "no pets"
    However some tenants are also disgusting and smell and leave behind huge messes.
    Dogs wont clean up after themselves, most humans will clean up after themselves.

    So to sum it up
    Some humans are cleaner than dogs.

    Add to the fact a body corporate, The body corporate will commuinicate with owner, not tenant. If pets smell, cause issues in the building, its not a headache the landlord wants.

  • poohduck on 01/12/2018 - 21:24
    +1

    I think chrisd262 hit the nail on the head. If tenants were scarce and rentals were in abundance, all sorts of pets would be allowed. Supply and demand.

  • bobbified on 01/12/2018 - 21:36
    +9

    I'd say that the reason is purely business.

    Rental properties are investments. Pets carry potential risks of damage/smells to the properties.

    As an investor, you'd want to minimise any risks associated with your investment.

    It wouldn't be such a big issue if it were easy to recover the money off the tenants to replace carpets, fix walls etc. Reality of it is, it's not so simple. The carpets alone could easily cost more than the bond.

  • Diji1 on 01/12/2018 - 21:38
    +6

    No one has mentioned barking yet.

    Why would you want to deal with noise complaints from the council as a landlord?

    I'm curious to know the reasons to why

    Because Australia elected to give tax breaks to the already wealthy to supply housing rather than use social housing.

    This has led to a terrible outcome for most Australian's where they are ripped off for housing by the private sector (which is what always happens with anything in the private sector).

    And their not allowed to keep pets which causes a significant negative impact on mental health. To add to the significant mental health issues causes already by poverty and the threat of homelessness every six to 12 months as they move residences and pay exorbitant rents.

    • whooah1979 on 01/12/2018 - 21:46
      +1

      No one has mentioned barking yet.
      Why would you want to deal with noise complaints from the council as a landlord?

      That is actually a good reason to get a tenant evicted.

  • Hardlyworkin on 01/12/2018 - 23:14

    The apartment next to me is small and has a cat and medium sized dog. Damn does that place smell like wet dog, it is disgusting. Though what is more disgusting is the poor dog I see looking out the window all the time and not getting to run around like an active breed is meant to do.

    If I were a landlord I wouldn't want a poor dog locked up in a box I owned… Well perhaps a pug, those things shouldn't be allowed in public.

    • [Deactivated] on 02/12/2018 - 19:22

      What's your issue with Pugs?

  • LUTSlit on 02/12/2018 - 00:52
    +15

    OP seems a little bratty. How about you just buy your own apartment hotshot.

    • freshofftheplane on 02/12/2018 - 10:33
      +1

      I probably will, maybe even a couple, and will only rent them out to people with pets

      • whooah1979 on 02/12/2018 - 10:46
        +1

        will only rent them out to people with pets

        A landlord that does this may find themselves on the other side of a discrimination complaint.

      • HighAndDry on 02/12/2018 - 13:19
        +6

        Go for it. But until then, spare us your whining.

  • Yummy on 02/12/2018 - 03:56
    +4

    Johnny Depp, is that you?

  • RefusdClassification on 02/12/2018 - 05:50
    +2

    I read recently that there has been a massive decline in dog ownership in Australia over the past 20 years. I presume it is partly due to population aging, and partly because all the newly constructed housing is really small and has no yard to the dogs to play and poop in.

    • dearcloud on 02/12/2018 - 11:03
      +1

      Probably also due to the fact people no longer have time for pets as most couples now both work full-time.

  • Wardaddy on 02/12/2018 - 07:01
    +8

    OP, remind me never to rent a property to you. Ever.

  • shaybisc on 02/12/2018 - 07:39

    Because they are noisy and smelly. The best thing about dogs is that they aren't killing millions of native animals every day like cats.

  • aspirepranesh on 02/12/2018 - 08:39
    +3

    Reminds me of my post about 14 months before we got our puppy in Brisbane having moved from Melbourne. Long story short, apartment listing during the inspection said Pet friendly and we signed the lease and we started looking for a puppy for 3 months and finally got a breeder to give us a pup (it was a rare breed and we had to struggle to find someone to respond) and then informed the property manager about getting the pup to update the lease and we were knocked back saying that "the apartment block premises were pet friendly but individual apartments are upto the landlords". 3 of my neighbors in my floor have dogs as pets.

    So we went about trying everything in our powers to explain our situation and be reasonable, the landlord's wife agreed, but he still said no. Finally, we wrote a letter explaining why we are getting a dog, what we have planned and how our work/life situation is! and also agreed to put down a $3000 deposit to give them a peace of mind! and finally they agreed.

    To be honest, in 14 months, the dog pee'd once inside the apartment (first night we got him). Granted, (the below were communicated to the landlord before we got the puppy as our plans)
    * we have a partially open large balcony
    * we have potty trained him
    * he has access to his pee pad outside which gets replaced twice a week
    * Clean the balcony area and mop every week
    * vacuum the house twice every week
    * run natural oil diffusers around the house (which keeps the any of the dog smell away) and we have had people visit who have said that they cant believe there is a dog living in the apartment
    * has had 2 formal trainings and he very rarely barks at other dogs or people
    * socialized him with a lot of people, pets and kids when he was young (for a terrier, he is very friendly and only gets aggressive when he thinks other dogs are attacking us by jumping on us)
    * he is hypo allergenic

    I have highlighted a few here because these are all upto the pet owners and not the pet's responsibility, dogs learn a habit of what you teach and if you don't do your stuff as owners, dont expect the dogs to magically learn and do stuff for you

    We have had all of our Quarterly inspections and our landlord has been extremely happy to extend the lease with the option of us staying for a few more years if we want to! We love the place we live in and we want to make sure that we do the right thing by the owners since they have given us a lifeline. If it takes more time and effort from us, it does. No two ways about it.

    I personally think that it is the responsibility of the dog owners to be reasonable and ensure to treat the property as theirs and convey the message to the landlords and hope they are reasonable people too (with their share of worries about their apartment being damaged)

    I think a lot of property owners have had bad experiences (which is fair) due to some renters who don't take responsibility and we are planning to buy a property and if we were to ever rent it out, I certainly would consider renting it out to someone who has a dog, given they can communicate with us in a reasonable manner.

    • whooah1979 on 02/12/2018 - 09:42

      agreed to put down a $3000 deposit to give them a peace of mind!

      The rules may be different in QLD. Landlords in NSW aren't allowed to request a pet bond.

      • aspirepranesh on 02/12/2018 - 09:44

        Same here in qld. We are just paying a month and a half rent in advance everytime. But we sent them an email that they can use it for any damages if there are any, on top of our bond.

        • whooah1979 on 02/12/2018 - 09:53
          +3

          A legal pet bond may help in establishing trust between the tenants and LL. Making it unlawful penalises responsible pet owners.

          • aspirepranesh on 02/12/2018 - 09:57
            +1

            @whooah1979: True statement. I'm certainly all in for a legal pet bond.otherwise It comes off as a forcing a tenant to pay more to get the property, legally if they had taken it on top of bond. We agreed that we will pay that money as rent in advance and have a receipt for paying it. So when we vacate, we just don't pay the last 6weeks of rent. The property manager has been extremely helpful for us. And they requested if we would like to stay without increasing the rent for the next 12 months. We took it :)

  • TheBilly on 02/12/2018 - 09:27
    +6

    Feel like you are taking this way to personally. example. all car owners give their vehicle a bit of a thrash. If they lend it or rent it out they obviously dont want people to do the same. What is wrong with that.

  • donotuse on 02/12/2018 - 09:27
    +5

    Dogs retain a smell that dog owners can’t tell, but non-dog owners definitely could!

    • DiscoJango on 02/12/2018 - 09:59
      +3

      this. 100% this. its like the perfume/deodorant you wear every day. you cant smell it because you just get used to it, howevers others can

      the same applies to dogs indoors. the apartment stinks, even more so if the owner is a feral unit and doesnt take care of the animal & doesnt really care if they piss and shit everywhere

  • berger on 02/12/2018 - 10:13
    +1

    My sister in law lied about her dog in her last rental, and she’s still being chased for money from carpet damages.

    Now that sister in law lives with her mum and same dog shits and pisses everywhere in the mother in laws house

    • aspirepranesh on 02/12/2018 - 10:19
      +2

      If the dogs been doing that for a long time in multiple properties, I would have to put the blame on your sister in law unfortunately. Dogs need patience and training and dog owners want dogs, but don't want to spend time effort and money in training them properly.

      • berger on 02/12/2018 - 10:22
        +2

        It’s entirely her fault. It’s a shame she does this to every rental she’s been in.

        • aspirepranesh on 02/12/2018 - 10:36
          +3

          Unfortunately a classic case on why some landlord's don't want to rent their properties out :/

  • MtnMama001 on 02/12/2018 - 10:45
    +10

    A few key points have been missed here:
    * many Australian investors are "mum & dad" investors — regular people, not the evil Monty Burns stereotype renters like to imagine. Yes, I am one, and I worked hard and went without a lot to be able to afford it. You don't get rich from rentals, if you are lucky you will cover your expenses. It's a long term thing that only pays off decades later.
    * dogs have a smell that people living with them aren't aware of. It gets into carpets and curtains.
    * not all dogs are perfect fur children, some have accidents. Some do it repeatedly. Some chew and scratch.
    * not all owners are perfect fur parents. Some don't train their animals, some don't clean up after them.
    * many, many renters stop paying rent before the end of their tenancy, to use up the bond ('cause ol Monty Burns will take it in some nefarious trick?? ) This means that there is nothing left for cleaning and repairs. And costs roll on regardless of whether you have a tenant or not.
    * you can't tell by looking at a person if they are responsible or a grub.

    I do allow pets, but I will never forget the time a tenant abandoned the property in a disgusting state. They left their dog, which had just whelped, and mum and pups were crawling with ticks, and fleas and scabby. The bond came nowhere near covering cleaning, fumigating and repairs. I still allow pets, but it's against the advice of all family and friends.

    • freshofftheplane on 02/12/2018 - 10:56
      -2

      Thank you for considering that these people are the exception rather than the rule

      • Hardlyworkin on 02/12/2018 - 13:02

        What stats are you basing this on as being the exception? Depends which side of the tracks you live on.

        • freshofftheplane on 02/12/2018 - 13:03
          +1

          My neighbours and the general population of people and dogs in my suburb

          They left their dog, which had just whelped, and mum and pups were crawling with ticks, and fleas and scabby.

          There's no way this is the rule

  • RJK on 02/12/2018 - 10:56
    +11

    Having rent-shared with a couple who had two dogs, I can completely understand the reluctance of landlords to rent to people with pets.

    Dog owners always promise to be responsible, and they always promise to other tenants that no one else will have to look after their dogs.

    What really happened:
    1. They peed all over the floors and carpets
    2. They pooed where they wanted, with the owners ignoring their dog poo up to 6 days later
    3. They chewed up the carpet
    4. They barked and whined nearly constantly when the owners weren't home.

    The damage the dogs caused exceeded the bond. How do you recognise a good dog owner from a bad until you live with one?

  • snook on 02/12/2018 - 11:38
    +2

    I've rented to people with pets and refuse to do it anymore. This was in two different houses. Cats or dogs, they both smell. Dogs that shed smell and cat litter smells. Both houses got fleas and some people seem to be oblivious to them. These people weren't bad pet owners but both houses had fleas. Fleas take too long to get rid of and i simply won't deal with it again.

    I have 4 dogs myself and will not rent to people with dogs, or cats and I don't care because they are my houses.

    • freshofftheplane on 02/12/2018 - 11:41

      Do any of your dogs have fleas? do you treat them with anti-flea treatment?

      • snook on 02/12/2018 - 11:51

        None of my dogs have had fleas since about last Feb. We did get fleas though - from one of my rentals. I battled it for 3 months before i used Nexgard (but will never use it again).

        Like i said, it only takes one flea and that flea isn't getting the chance.

        I let a dog stay at a rental and i went there one day and it was CRAWLING with fleas. The kind you'd see on a neglect video. They'd all promised me that they were looking after the dog and yet no one noticed the plague of fleas that had turned the dog black? I was disgusted. I washed the dog in a petro-chemical and kicked the dog out. It then took me about 3 months to get rid of the fleas in that house and I won't allow another dog.

        • freshofftheplane on 02/12/2018 - 11:59

          Don't know what kind of fleas you have here, but I treat my dog regularly with anti-flea teratment (advocate/advantix) and even if one manages to stick on him, it will eventually die due to the active treatment in his flesh

          It sounds like you've never tried the right treatment + had a very negative experience with people who should have never gotten a dog in the first place

          • snook on 02/12/2018 - 12:06
            +2

            @freshofftheplane: I've had 3 different tenants with pets. Each loved their pet/s. It's up to them to look after their pet's treatment needs, not me.

            I prefer to NOT put poison on my dogs every month thanks. I prefer that they are naturally flea free.

            What do you think the long term effects of constant poison will be on your dog? That's a rhetorical question. I consider the risks are way too high.

            • freshofftheplane on 02/12/2018 - 12:09

              @snook: Based on the fact that it has been clinically tested and that most dogs I know get treated and live a long and healthy life I assume it is not poisonous.

              It's great that you think you can keep your dogs flea-free without any treatment.. this explains your past experience of having to deal with fleas!

              • snook on 02/12/2018 - 12:14

                @freshofftheplane:

                Based on the fact that it has been clinically tested and that most dogs I know get treated and live a long and healthy life I assume it is not poisonous.

                Clinically tested by who? By you? It just says that on the box and you know just as well as i do that it means NOTHING. My dogs live to at least 15 years old. A flea is a quick breeding insect that becomes immune to the chemicals in pesticide. This is why the older treatments no longer work.

                There simply isn't a large enough sample of dogs anywhere that have had continuous treatment for 15 years for anyone to make that statement that it 'is not poisonous.' Doesn't exist. Never happened.

                • freshofftheplane on 02/12/2018 - 12:19

                  @snook: The Victorian government relies on it, is it enough for you?
                  https://www2.health.vic.gov.au/public-health/environmental-h…

                  Effective flea control often relies on the well-directed application of pesticides. This should be undertaken at the same time as non-chemical treatment – such as vacuuming and garden maintenance – to ensure the environment is less suitable for the development of fleas.

                  • snook on 02/12/2018 - 12:23

                    @freshofftheplane: They rely on it or they made a suggestion? I think it's a suggestion because they are obliged to provide one.

                    What do you think the reason is that you put the stuff on the back of their necks? So they don't ingest it. Why is that? Oh, i know … because it's poison.

                    • freshofftheplane on 02/12/2018 - 12:27
                      +1

                      @snook: What a silly comment!
                      Some treatments are poisonous by mouth-intake, but are fine by other means of application such as on the skin
                      You'd see the same guidelines for human medicine that is applied directly on the skin such as creams and gels

                      • snook on 02/12/2018 - 12:31
                        +1

                        @freshofftheplane: How is that even relevant?

                        It doesn't end up all over you, does it? And i can't see you licking yourself either … but maybe you do, it's not for me to judge.

                        • freshofftheplane on 02/12/2018 - 12:33
                          -1

                          @snook: Ran out of "intellectual" things to say, have you? what are you, 12 years old?

                          • snook on 02/12/2018 - 12:46

                            @freshofftheplane: you asked the question

                            Why Do Most Apartments Refuse to Accomodate Pet Dogs?

                            but you want to argue about the answers and go on and on about my personal dislike of flea treatments that have nothing to do with why I won't rent to people with pets. When people rent, they don't care about the place like it's theirs. It's a painful truth. In Australia pets are a often a throw away item and so their care is often second rate. In Europe and North America, it's colder for more of the year and likely that fleas don't often reach plague proportions. Well they do here and I'll have no more pets. Not ever. Not even if they change the legislation.

                            I've had dogs in different scenarios all my life and then I have over 30 years experience of owning multiple small non-shedding dogs, mostly Maltese. Multiple - so 3 or 4 at a time. I invest a lot in their health, I choose not to give them poison. We have no fleas therefore no poison is required.

                            • freshofftheplane on 02/12/2018 - 12:58

                              @snook: You say fleas or flea treatment has nothing to do with you choosing to not rent to people with pets but you keep coming back to fleas which is a non-issue for most responsible pet owners who treat their dogs with the so called "poison" you refer to!

                              Therefor I choose to opt out of our useless conversation, all the best

                              • snook on 02/12/2018 - 13:40

                                @freshofftheplane: I've not had a renter with a pet that didn't leave fleas and that's why i won't rent to them. I don't care what they used, whether they used it or not. They left fleas that i got stuck with.

                                I don't use flea treatment on my dogs. They don't have fleas.

                                2 completely different things that you tied together for some unknown reason.

                              • p1 ama on 04/12/2018 - 01:29

                                @freshofftheplane:

                                You say fleas or flea treatment has nothing to do with you choosing to not rent to people with pets but you keep coming back to fleas which is a non-issue for most responsible pet owners who treat their dogs with the so called "poison" you refer to!

                                Who cares?

                                Dog = positive chance of getting fleas, No Dog = zero chance of getting fleas.

                                Dog = Higher risk. Higher risk = less preferable.

                                Be honest, you started this thread hoping to rile up support and get everyone on your side. It backfired completely because you're too self-centred and arrogant to see the bigger picture.

                                Your dogs piss and shit. Admit it. Don't try to deflect to kids, they piss and shit in a toilet or in nappies, not on the floor. Do your dogs use a toilet? I had dogs when I was a kid. It's a lot of work. Some people don't put in the work.

                                Nobody enjoys kicking your dog out of their house. It's not a moral issue. Give it up OP. Also, this is coming from someone who would gladly rent to pet owners of I was a landlord. The issue is your attitude, not your pets.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join