Laws to save shelter animals: Ur doing it wrong

Seems everyone's gone legislation-happy lately. No-Kill advocates are trying new legislative approaches to force animal control agencies and shelters to implement policies that reduce killing. Laws are being proposed all over the country to eliminate puppy mills -- some sincerely, others more to regulate, license, and restrict every kind of breeder.



Mandatory spay/neuter, restrictions on breeding, outlawing exotic pets, differential licensing, taxes, fees, mandated care... even a new law here in California to let people who adopt shelter animals deduct the adoption fee from their taxes. It seems when it comes to animals, there's just nothing people like more than passing a law.



So I'm going to throw my devotion to personal freedom out the window and suggest a legal reform that I think will get dogs and cats out of shelters, make fostering and rescuing animals easier, and free up animal control resources to focus on things that actually make animals' lives better. Sure, it infringes on some people's personal property rights, but all these laws do that.



Here's my idea: Start writing laws that give landlords a tax break for allowing pets and a tax penalty for prohibiting them. Outlaw condo and housing development regulations against pets. Abolish arbitrary limit laws (which is most of them).



I can't count the number of people I know who would have a cat if their landlord would let them -- this, while the majority of pets dying for lack of a home in American shelters are cats. How many of us might have one more pet if limit laws didn't make them outlaws? How many might be fostering or doing rescue if those limit laws, landlord restrictions, or condo/community regulations weren't hanging over our heads?



If we're going to pass laws, why not those?



I'll tell you why. Because in this country, inanimate property rights trump animals who breathe and feel and bleed and die of bone cancer from medically inappropriate pediatric spay/neuter every time.



Nonetheless, this is one time I have to say: There ought to be a law.

Comments

[Gina Spadafori]

But as you said, that means selling the idea that renters should be able to have a pet or three to groups who are narrowing their criteria of who can be an adequate pet keeper seemingly all the time.



Comment by JenniferJ — May 21, 2009



On the way to no pets at all, of course. First they came for the reputable breeders ... renters ... next? Just an "easy" way to liberate these domestic animals from the "abuse" of being well cared for and well loved.

[Gina Spadafori]

I think there is a subtle, sub-conscious and pervasive bigotry towards renters as being people "not good enough" to own a home. Since being a home-owner has been mostly available to the middle-class and up since WWII (with notable exceptions in high-priced areas), the thinking is that renters are lower-class. When buying my current home, an acquaintance even commented on the fact there there was an apartment complex at the end of the street, and that the presence of renters (gasp!) would hurt my property value.



It has only been BY LAW that renters have been granted the right to co-habitate without benefit of marriage (over the religious objections of the landlord), rent without regard to race, creed or color and rent with children.



The pet issue is a little tougher to crack, I think, because in many subtle ways shelters, rescue groups and reputable breeders ALSO discriminate against renters, considering them less stable and therefore less worthy of adopting a pet. Who will advocate for pet-owners against property rights if not animal-advocacy groups? (And yes, some already do and have for years. For example, the Denver Dumb Friends League has a program to encourage pet-accepting rentals.)



This speaks to the "people are bad until proven otherwise" attitude so pervasive in the traditional sheltering community. We need to embrace the no-kill movement's idea that people will usually do the right thing -- and are more likely to if you help them.



Right now in Sacramento, it's easy to rent with a small pet. The property owners are desperate and there are lots of vacant properties. The often outrageous pet deposits are another barrier, though, and they're still in place.



Maybe a good program for a national advocacy group to develop would be a fund that guarantees the deposit without actually putting the money down? Kind of a pet-destructiveness insurance that renters could pay?

[H. Houlahan]

Dammit Christie, you beat me to the blog. I have something very similar sitting in draft at the moment.



I've recently had the pleasure of dealing with property managers, as my Mom is relocating to the small town near our farm, and was looking for an affordable apartment for herself and her two cats.



The reflexive, and inflexible, anti-pet "policies" haven't improved since the last time Ken and I sought a rental, 1993.



And it's always the smarmy "It's not that we don't like animals ..." intro to the FU portion of the flip-off.



So how did Mom find a rental?



To my surprise, there is HUD senior housing in our tiny town.



And senior housing that falls under HUD has to allow people to keep their pets.



End of discussion.



There is a law. Just not for everybody.

[straybaby]

As a multi pet renter, it's the pet limit AND weight rules that cause me a problem. My cats are too plentiful and my 47lb dog is too big. Luckily, more rural living looks to make my pet "issues" less of a problem and I can chose to live more rural with the work I do.

[Eucritta]

First they came for the reputable breeders … renters … next?



'Next' is already occurring through the use, expansion, and abuse of pet limits. At least, when I'm at my most paranoid, I do find it odd that whenever the issue arises we hear a great deal about hoarders, but next to nothing about rescuers ... who are also selectively ignored when it comes to enforcement, as, often, are people who quietly keep illegal species. I think, any time it becomes routine for a law or rule to be selectively enforced, it's really bad news.

[Mary Mary]

Hey, if we are throwing out ideas for new laws, I have one.



How about we force pet stores to enact a two-day "cooling off" period? Idea is, I wander into a pet store, fall in love with a puppy, but have to go home for two days before I can take home said puppy (or kitten or baby bunny).



And while I am here ... what is with all these people at "my" shelter returning animals (ok, rabbits) and the reason given is "no time?"



This is after 4-8 weeks after adopting the rabbits. Did their lives suddenly devolve into chaos? Did they think caring for an animal would take 15 minutes a week?



I'm sure it's worse with dogs. I just don't get it.



Back on topic ... you can't legislate brains, huh? Or forethought?

[Phyllis DeGioia]

Mary, the idea is that small dogs will do less damage (wrong).



Christie: you rock.

[Susan Fox]

When we decided to find a temporary rental while building a house, I wondered if we'd be able to find anything that would take four cats and a 75lb. dog that we would be willing to live in. Amazingly, we did. A standard 3/2 tract house in a nice neighborhood. Did the job for the 18 mo. we were there.



I really don't get the liability thing either. Is it some kind of landlord urban belief tale?



Some of the worst horror stories I've heard about rental property destruction were perpetrated by well-off professional people. Stuff way beyond what even the most determined dog or cat could accomplish.



Up here behind the Redwood Curtain, indoor grow operations in rental houses are incredibly damaging to the structure due to the plumbing and electrical "modifications" that are made to keep the plants happy. Sometimes it seems easier for people to get into and stay in a house they're growing dope in than for a regular working person to find an apartment that will take a dog. Go figure.

[Mary Mary]

Susan, you write,

"Many years ago a friend was whining about how he and his wife’s life had been turned upside down by the arrival of the new baby. So I asked him if he’d somehow thought that life would just go on as before except now there’d be a kid. And he replied, would you believe, that yes he did think it would be that way. *eye roll*



Oh please. I remember, at age 28, while taking care of my friend's baby for the weekend, scraping smashed peas from the carpet beneath her high chair and, in that moment, knowing that I never wanted that job 24/7. If more people babysat (and petsat) maybe there would be fewer numbskull baby/animal caregivers?



I am trying to develop something, anything, for the shelter to help prospective adopters calculate the time they will need for the rabbit.



Plus guidance for ways to ease the work of it. All animals take time each day, but there are some ways to make things a lot harder on yourself (poor systems).



It took me years to figure out to store a big bin of litter IN the bedroom, near the rabbits' litter box, rather than keep all 60 pounds of it two floors away, in the basement.



D'oh!

[Susan Fox]

Did their lives suddenly devolve into chaos? Did they think caring for an animal would take 15 minutes a week? Mary Mary



Many years ago a friend was whining about how he and his wife's life had been turned upside down by the arrival of the new baby. So I asked him if he'd somehow thought that life would just go on as before except now there'd be a kid. And he replied, would you believe, that yes he did think it would be that way. *eye roll*



Maybe that's the kind of "didn't really think it through" attitude that you're dealing with. Nothing in our lives will change except now there's a rabbit/dog/cat. Surprise.

[Gina Spadafori]

I plan to have pets AND grow marijuana when I move to Arcata. :)



And Mary Mary ... I love the cooling off period idea.



With this litter I'm raising, the people have been on my co-owner's waiting list for a very, very long time. It sure shows a degree of committment that makes me happy that the puppies who are going to new homes (one is staying) are in just as good a hands as mine own, at least!

[H. Houlahan]

I plan to have pets AND grow marijuana when I move to Arcata. :)



Comment by Gina Spadafori



The real solution to young retriever energy surplus.



Duuuude ... where's my ball?



Remember, no brownies for dogs. Giggle while telling them that chocolate is bad for 'em.



Since we moved here, I am astonished at the number of apparently totally square acquaintances who inquire whether we will be putting in that most profitable of cash crops.



Ummm ... all else aside, did you notice that, although we are tucked back away from the road very nicely, and it's quite private, that one can actually see the police station from the front porch?



I like the two-day waiting period for both sales and adoptions. Most rescues have some version thereof as it is, but some shelters do not.



If shelters did it, it would have to be in the context of progressive pro-adoption policies and a no-kill commitment -- not just another barrier to keep the wrong sorts from adopting.

[H. Houlahan]

There's a discussion of landlord liability here:



http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/landlord.htm



What jumped out at me was the liability for bites in common areas, such as hallways and foyers.



Look at it from the standpoint of a tenant who has complained to the landlord about another tenant's vicious dog. Landlord does nothing, or is ineffective, and the complainant eventually does get bitten. (Or perhaps killed by two Presas being kept by a pair of wingnut lawyers for a white supremacist convict.)



If you were the bitten tenant, would you expect to sue and collect from the landlord? Hell yes.



But the same would be true if the hazard was the other tenant's mentally disturbed child, or habit of setting fire to the mattress while smoking, or whatever other dangerous thing he gets up to in the building.

[Mary Mary]

I've done a lot of dog-sitting and it didn't turn me off of dogs one bit ... but it showed me I can not have one. My life is WAY too unstructured.

[Gina Spadafori]

I dunno ... I really liked, "Duuuuuude, where's my ball?"



:)

[straybaby]

Mary, yes the tenant can get renter's insurance and it is cheap. I actually think it should be on the owner to be responsible. People can complain to a LL about a dog, but there are generally steps that need to be taken. In NYC, we have protection and a LL can't force you to get rid of your pet or move. They have to prove the dog is a problem. Be it barking or aggression etc. My LL lives in the building, so he knows my pets aren't a problem, and I'm sure it saved me a lot of grief from the wicked woman who lived below me. She would complain if I vacuumed during the day on the weekend and did make comments about my dog to me. One time she saw me with her and said "you've still got that noisy dog?!". If my dog was so noisy, how did she not know the dog was still living above her? For the record, the others in the building, including ones sharing walls with me never believe I have a dog until they see her. She has impeccable apt manners. :)

[Mary Mary]

"One time she saw me with her and said “you’ve still got that noisy dog?!”. If my dog was so noisy, how did she not know the dog was still living above her?"



Lol!

[Mary Mary]

The liability law is scary.



Couldn't the landlord (or the tenant) take out an umbrella insurance policy to protect against this? If I remember correctly, they are not very expensive.

[Gina Spadafori]

The insurance issue is HUGE, of course, and the industry's lobby (as we've seen lately) is hard to beat.



Animal-lovers and advocacy groups just aren't going to get anywhere with an industry that doesn't much care if people die because they don't have access to health care, or that was able to screw heaven-knows how many homeowners after Katrina by saying the damage was from water, not hurricane.

[Kim Thornton]

"If more people babysat (and petsat) maybe there would be fewer numbskull baby/animal caregivers?" So true, Mary Mary. For a long time, my standard answer to people who asked why we didn't have kids was "I used to babysit." My mother says she's sorry she let me do it.

[Ark Lady]

Nice...let's all take over and rewrite all the laws!



I encourage pet resumes to help with some of those reluctant landlords but there are always poorly behaved tenants who don't care since it isn't their place.



Good idea about the two day waiting period--kinda like guns--you should wait.



LOL



And Gina, just an FYI you don't have to grow MJ in Arcata just wander into different parts of the forest and pick it!







Nice job Christie like the way your mind works.

[Eucritta]

Well, I dunno. I did a lot of cat-sitting as a child, after all, and it never turned me off cats. No, not even the one who insisted on giving birth in my lap.

[JenniferJ]

OK, new sales pitch for Mendo-Humbolt rentals "Pick Pets over Plants!"

[JenniferJ]

My mother still thinks the neighbors were growing A LOT of tomatoes behind their house last year.....



Just a wee bit over the medical limit methinks!

[Eucritta]

It’s not just landlords’ minds you need to change.



True. And I wonder, how involved are insurance companies in community breed bans?

[Lis]

The liability law is scary.



Couldn’t the landlord (or the tenant) take out an umbrella insurance policy to protect against this? If I remember correctly, they are not very expensive.



I am a small landlord (one unit, the other unit in the duplex I own), and the insurance I have, they don't care what kind or how many dogs I have or allow to live on the property, as long as they are twenty pounds or under. And no, I can't just get different insurance, because my house is a duplex (two units side by side) rather than a two-family (two units, one on top of the other), and here, many insurance companies won't cover duplexes. No, I don't know why, and yes, I do know it's different in other states. But it's not within my power to change their rules, and I have to have insurance.



I had one prospective tenant, who would have had a Siberian staying with her three to four days a week. I'd have given my right arm to have her as my tenant rather than the woman I did get, but I'd have lost my insurance, and on top of all the obvious problems with having no house insurance, I'd also have been in violation of the terms of my mortgage. Which is to say, I'd have lost the house because of a dog who was incredibly sweet and gentle, and whom I firmly believe had no behavior problems.



It's not just landlords' minds you need to change.

[Anne T]

As the owner of a sheltie who once ate a bunch of cleaned stems and twigs, I definitely agree 'pick pets over plants'. Okay, I was young and stupid at the time ( on a lot of counts) leaving the leavings with her reach and she was about 6- 7 months old. However, she lived another 13 and 1/2 years.

What I'd like to see is some sort of reasonable intelligence/common sense test for all potential pet adopters/prospective parents/landlords/ACOs/Shelter operators/breeders. We bitch about placing pets in suitable homes, screen the bejeesus out of every applicant, and then bitch about the stupid humans who now own those very same pets. Siriusly, we can't have it both ways!

We have to start trusting somewhere until there is a fail safe method to remove the Darwinian failures from the gene pool, that is, before they become fruitful and/or acquire pets. We need to start thinking outside the box about adoptions and housing restrictions and be less arbitrary in our decision making.

[Mary Mary]

I know some apartment complexes that allow dogs -- but only small dogs.



Anyone know why? Is it the small poop factor?



Maybe it's the liability thing. I have been around a bazillion dogs, but the only time I've been bitten was when a small dog (maybe 20 pounds) attacked me in the leg, from behind, 100 percent unprovoked. I was only eight years old. Good thing I already loved dogs by then.

[JenniferJ]

I've a friend who pulls from shelters pretty regularly for breed rescue. She has been told face to face by her county AC director not to worry about being a few over the limit since she's rescue. The guy would probably freak if he knew she also breeds.



Not always the case though. I know a woman in Lake (worst kill rate per capita in the state, MSN is working for us!) County who was turned in by her neighbor for being one rescue over the limit. Now to keep her own dogs and be able to foster rescues or take back a dog if needed, she's had to get a variance. It took two years and five grand and AC finds all sorts of reasons to just "drop by".



Our rescue does adopt to renters, happily. We do ask that they provide the landlord's contact info both as a reference and also to be sure pets are allowed.



Just after the fatal dog mauling in San Francisco, we had a dog sent back to rescue because the landlord, stopping by to check on a neighboring property, saw the dog barking through the fence and freaked about liability. The owners were devastated but not in a position to move for about four months. I hear from people who are renting frequently that they cannot have a pet because of the landlords concerns about liability.



I am utterly unfamiliar with what a landlords legal liability would be in the case of a tenant's dog causing injury. Never occurred to me to worry over it when we were renting out the house. Does anyone know? If THAT could be addressed in a law, we might open up many more rentals to pets.

[Gina Spadafori]

Jennifer ... just playing devil's advocate. Don't PEOPLE cause a lot of damage? People without pets, that is? Children? College students?



I guess what I'm saying is that any renter can trash the joint. I think a landlord shouldn't consider pet-owners in a different category. It's good renter/bad renter ... in all varieties.



Small case in point: Friend of mine who owns a nice duplex rented to a quiet, pet-free retired kindergarten teacher. The lady seemed the ideal tenant, until she moved. She had never reported a leak/loose seal/something in the bathroom, so it was never fixed over a matter of years. The result: A bathroom that had to be gutted for rot.



A lot more damage than replacing clawed window coverings, in other words.



Not picking on you personally, by the way. :)

[JenniferJ]

Back when we had a townhome for rent, we were very pet friendly.



We were also careful to select tenants who seemed to have their wits about them when it came to pets.



One young couple asked for our opinion, they were trying to decide between a beagle puppy or a one year old rescue pug. As they had fairly busy schedules (not enough home time to tire out a beagle puppy, if that's actually possible), we suggested that they were more likely to get their deposit back if they went the pug route.



Now on the other hand, my brother is representing a landlord who is being sued for the 2500.00 deposit he is withholding due to the extreme damage that a tenant two dogs did to a home. ALL the carpet AND a large area of hardwood were saturated with years of urine, to the point of dry rot setting in. Way more than 2500.00 in damage but apparently he just wanted the folks out. There's really no case but it is taking up time and money and certainly ruining a dog friendly landlords opinion of many pet owners. According to my brother, the man is not really that bent out of shape over the damage itself, he's owned rentals long enough to know that non pet people can trash a place well enough without four-legged help, it's the dumb-ass law suit making him ready to hang out the Pets UN-welcome sign.



So maybe something in the theoretical law about disputes over

damage or deposit returns being arbitrated. Or an inspection being decided upon AHEAD of time by a designated third party who'll have the final word put into the rental agreement?

[JenniferJ]

Of course people can trash a home. That's why I stated that this gentleman is not particularly upset about the fact that damage was done, but rather about being sued for keeping, reasonably, the deposit. that's the last sentence in paragraph two.



Pets are just one more thing that could be a problem and they are one of the few things a landlord CAN in most cases discriminate against legally.



So I think that this IS a perfect place for animal-rights advocacy groups to put money in the the places their often very loud mouths are and make renting to families or individuals with pets more palatable to landlords and widely available to renters. But as you said, that means selling the idea that renters should be able to have a pet or three to groups who are narrowing their criteria of who can be an adequate pet keeper seemingly all the time.

[Gina Spadafori]

I baby-sat a lot, too. Babies, even, because I was thought to be the "responsible type." I see a trend ...

[EmilyS]

"And I wonder, how involved are insurance companies in community breed bans?"



Insurance companies are a HUGE part of the problem, not just with rentals. Many dog facilities, such as daycare or doggie camp, won't take "those" breeds because of insurance. Many people can't find rentals because their insurance won't insure anyone with "those" breeds.



Many shelters won't adopt out "those" breeds because of (supposed) liability (meaning, I assume, that they can't get insurance).



All of which contributes to the notion that "those" breeds are bad, which creates the atmosphere for BSL

[Colorado Transplant]

Maybe there would be less vacancies in apartment buildings if pets were allowed--just a thought. There seems to be a higher than usual vacancy rate in some towns now.

[Susan Fox]

I think there's something to be learned, also, from pet-friendly lodging. In our experience, upon check-in, you are handed or otherwise informed of the "rules of the road" and what the consequences will be if there is a problem.



No desk person I've ever asked has said that they have had problems with dogs staying with them.



In fact, when we stayed at the fairly posh Harbor Court Inn in San Francisco, they allowed as how a lot of their best guests were the ones that brought their dogs and none had ever been a problem. We're talking serious wall to wall carpeting and very nice rooms, albeit a little small. Niki LOVED the place and made quite a show of prancing through the lobby.



Now, I realize that evicting a tenant is quite different than a hotel/motel customer who will only stay for a few night. But people who travel with their pets seem to collectively know that their actions for good or ill can ripple out and affect many other people.



Wouldn't you think that landlords could figure out the same thing? Or do the current laws just make it too much of a hassle to try?

[Alex]

I couldn't agree more. In the UK, the charity I work for, Dogs Trust (Gina has one of our mugs! Joy!), has just launched the Lets with Pets campaign to help give people advice on talking landlords round and, crucially, encourage landlords and letting agents (who can sometimes be the stumbling block for an initially willing landlord) to have a pet-friendly policy.



It's www.letswithpets.org.uk if you need ideas for finding a receptive rental. It's been well-received by renters, as you might expect, but winning the landlords round, even in a time of financial straits, is of ourse the tricky bit.



We see dogs handed back to us because people have lost their homes, have to rent, and as an added, painful indignity, have to hand back treasured members of their family because they can't find a place to live with them. It's distressing for all involved. I've moved house myself because a neighbour ratted out on my cat (my landlord didn't care but had to accept our notice to move because the building managers said no pets). I had the luxury of time to find a place that would accept my boy (now boys), but so many don't.

[Colorado Transplant]

I see it as sheer discrimination--and it has been going on for many years.



Where I live some undergraduates rent houses and then trash them--just for sport. Some of the non-student young people do the same. I do not think any animal would do a tenth of the damage I have heard about as regards to some renters.



There ought to be a law stating people with pets should not be barred from rentals!

[Rob]

It isn't just rental properties. Towns, neighborhoods have limit laws also. I own an 875 square foot house. It is considered "too small" for my four cats. The town animal control officer says my cats are well-cared for and she won't confiscate them. So I pay an annual fine to have them.