Bond Could Ensure More Dogs Get To Live Another Day

[Panto]

http://smh.domain.com.au/home-renting-tips/bond-could-ensure-more-dogs-get-to-live-another-day-20120507-1y8g6.html

Bond could ensure more dogs get to live another day

Nicole Hasham

May 5, 2012 Sad tail ... one of the many dogs at the RSPCA's Sydney shelter in Yagoona in need of a good home. A new policy could cut down on the number of dogs put down. Photo: Peter Rae

Pet registration fees would rise and tenants could pay a "pet bond" to keep cats and dogs at rental properties under a policy shake-up to be considered by the state government.

The changes, designed to slash the number of dogs and cats destroyed at pounds each year, would also streamline pet registration and microchipping and crack down on "puppy farmers" who breed dogs in overcrowded conditions.

More than 70,000 dogs and 86,000 cats have been put down in NSW pounds in the past five years, representing one-third of dogs and almost 70 per cent of cats taken in.

A companion animals taskforce chaired by the Charlestown MP, Andrew Cornwell, a veterinarian, has recommended measures to stamp out poor pet breeding and selling practices, and increase microchipping, desexing and registration of pets.

It found that "pet-unfriendly" rental properties and strata homes drive up dumping rates and severely inhibit animal adoption from pounds and shelters.

"In terms of renters, we think there is scope to create some sort of 'pet bond' [on top of] a standard property bond," said Mr Cornwell.

"Some body corporates can also make pet ownership extremely difficult. There are many pets that make for a terrific companion animal in a strata environment, and there is no reason why you can't have greater flexibility."

The taskforce recommended an increase in cat and dog registration fees to fund animal management programs.

The existing "two-step" microchipping and registration process would be merged into one, updating registration details would be made easier, and rebates would be available to those who promptly desex their pets.

Breeding guidelines would be enforceable and breeding licences would be mandatory to assist a crackdown on "puppy farmers" and irresponsible operators. Dog and cat advertisements would also be required to display a breeder number, enabling animals to be traced.

"By having registration and enforceable guidelines, it sets very clear boundaries as to what is acceptable," Mr Cornwell said.

"At the moment [the guidelines] are open to interpretation and it makes prosecution difficult."

Minimum qualification standards would apply to pet shop staff, breeders and pound workers.

The taskforce comprised animal welfare experts, vets, council officials and breeders. A discussion paper will be released for public comment on Monday.

The RSPCA NSW chief executive, Steve Coleman, a taskforce member, said thousands of negligent backyard breeders were the biggest contributors to producing unwanted animals.

"It won't take long for one or two of those types of suppliers to be prosecuted … it will all become too hard for them and knock them out of the supply chain," he said.

The president of the Australian Association of Pet Dog Breeders, Kate Schoeffel, questioned whether mandatory licensing would capture all operators.

"There are so many people with a dog in their backyard that might want to breed, that trying to licence every single person is a challenge," she said.

A Tenants NSW senior policy officer, Chris Martin, praised moves to allow more renters to keep pets.

[Christina]

I am getting so fed up of all these proposals for useless new laws aimed at dog breeders, responsible pet owners & now they are being aimed at property owners too.

Why are the general public not being educated to the fact that

You get an animal, you are responsible for it.

It is your responsibility to choose it, research its breeder, health & history, house it, feed it, train it, see to its health, keep it safe, stop it bothering other people, get help with any behaviour problems or learn to live with them.

People would not breed if there was no demand, its the I want it now, its cute, I fancy it & its disposable attitude that is the problem.

It is not a breeders fault, the licence fee paying pet owners, the governments fault or a body corporate or property owners that people dump their pets in pounds.

For some there is no other option, as in death, severe illness etc but most do not need to be there.

When a person works hard, buys a home & pays for it if they want to rent it out it should be their choice to whom they rent. It is their property.

Everyone seems to get blamed for this problem except the people who put the dog & cats in there in the first place.

[minimax]

On the other hand, there are heaps of rental properties out there that DO allow pets, it just takes extra time and effort to find them. If tennants can't be bothered to put in this extra effort to find one that allows their pet, and would rather dump it, I doubt they would be the type of people who would be willing to pay extra in order to keep their pet.

As usual, another time wasting law aimed at the wrong thing. So many better things they could be focusing on!

How are the changes meant to cut down puppy farmers? As if puppy farmers are going to register their pets and allow themselves be open to getting "caught".

Argh. I don't know what the right thing to do it though, so maybe I should just say "at least they are trying something?"

[WreckitWhippet]

They lost me at the RSPCA and the puppy farmer

[bluedeer]

I am getting so fed up of all these proposals for useless new laws aimed at dog breeders, responsible pet owners & now they are being aimed at property owners too.

Why are the general public not being educated to the fact that

You get an animal, you are responsible for it.

It is your responsibility to choose it, research its breeder, health & history, house it, feed it, train it, see to its health, keep it safe, stop it bothering other people, get help with any behaviour problems or learn to live with them.

People would not breed if there was no demand, its the I want it now, its cute, I fancy it & its disposable attitude that is the problem.

It is not a breeders fault, the licence fee paying pet owners, the governments fault or a body corporate or property owners that people dump their pets in pounds.

For some there is no other option, as in death, severe illness etc but most do not need to be there.

When a person works hard, buys a home & pays for it if they want to rent it out it should be their choice to whom they rent. It is their property.

Everyone seems to get blamed for this problem except the people who put the dog & cats in there in the first place.

I agree with you Christina on this point. Every time dumped dogs are a topic in the media, the dumpers are made out to be victims and are treated as if they are innocent children. The message going out to the public is "if you dump your dog it's not your fault".

At least this time, for once the RSPCA has laid the blame on the right group (byb) who produce these dogs. Speak to a few animal rangers from different councils and they will tell you the same story of how the vast majority of dumped dogs that the owners dont collect have no chips. This tells me that these dogs did not come from the ethical ANKC breeders, or even pet shops or "registered breeding facilities" that all chip their dogs because they are the only ones being checked, but from the thousands of little backyarders. My little rant is not to praise the pet shops or commercial breeders but to highlight that if the powers that be want to fix the problem of dumped dogs they have to start where the real beginning of the horrible cycle is and that is the bybers.

[mantis]

On the other hand, there are heaps of rental properties out there that DO allow pets, it just takes extra time and effort to find them. If tennants can't be bothered to put in this extra effort to find one that allows their pet, and would rather dump it, I doubt they would be the type of people who would be willing to pay extra in order to keep their pet.

As usual, another time wasting law aimed at the wrong thing. So many better things they could be focusing on!

How are the changes meant to cut down puppy farmers? As if puppy farmers are going to register their pets and allow themselves be open to getting "caught".

Argh. I don't know what the right thing to do it though, so maybe I should just say "at least they are trying something?"

There aren't heaps of properties anymore, hell, a lot of rentals don't even rent to people with kids.

I had big problems finding rentals, even though I offered to pay a huge pet bond, I had to rent real dumps, which most people wouldn't want to live in, while paying top dollar for the rent.

[gillbear]

On the other hand, there are heaps of rental properties out there that DO allow pets, it just takes extra time and effort to find them. If tennants can't be bothered to put in this extra effort to find one that allows their pet, and would rather dump it, I doubt they would be the type of people who would be willing to pay extra in order to keep their pet.

As usual, another time wasting law aimed at the wrong thing. So many better things they could be focusing on!

How are the changes meant to cut down puppy farmers? As if puppy farmers are going to register their pets and allow themselves be open to getting "caught".

Argh. I don't know what the right thing to do it though, so maybe I should just say "at least they are trying something?"

There aren't heaps of properties anymore, hell, a lot of rentals don't even rent to people with kids.

I had big problems finding rentals, even though I offered to pay a huge pet bond, I had to rent real dumps, which most people wouldn't want to live in, while paying top dollar for the rent.

I must say that I was shocked last year at how hard it was to find a rental that would take pets. It was a horrible experience that took 4 months, even though I didnt care what the place was like as long as I could have my dogs. I dont know what I would have done if I had only a short period to move. It gave me a real wake-up call and I now have sympathy for the many genuine caring owners who are being forced to give up their animals.

[minimax]

There aren't heaps of properties anymore, hell, a lot of rentals don't even rent to people with kids.

I had big problems finding rentals, even though I offered to pay a huge pet bond, I had to rent real dumps, which most people wouldn't want to live in, while paying top dollar for the rent.

It does mean making sacrifices, but there are properties. I'm moving into a lovely house next week - we "won" the house over a couple with a toddler as well. The owners weren't too keen on the idea of a dog or a toddler, but in the end decided pet owners were usually more considerate of their environment as parents were a bit "aww isn't that cute, mary drew on the walls" about their precious child lol

So yeh. I guess it depends on where you look, but I went directly to agents and said I'm looking for pet friendly rentals and they had bucketloads of them, they just don't advertise as pet friendly.

[Dame Aussie]

There aren't heaps of properties anymore, hell, a lot of rentals don't even rent to people with kids.

I had big problems finding rentals, even though I offered to pay a huge pet bond, I had to rent real dumps, which most people wouldn't want to live in, while paying top dollar for the rent.

It does mean making sacrifices, but there are properties. I'm moving into a lovely house next week - we "won" the house over a couple with a toddler as well. The owners weren't too keen on the idea of a dog or a toddler, but in the end decided pet owners were usually more considerate of their environment as parents were a bit "aww isn't that cute, mary drew on the walls" about their precious child lol

So yeh. I guess it depends on where you look, but I went directly to agents and said I'm looking for pet friendly rentals and they had bucketloads of them, they just don't advertise as pet friendly.

That was certainly not the case when we were renting only a year ago.

I don't know if it deopends on the area but we did the same, went to see every real estate in the area, told them our requirements and I think we got about 3 properties that allowed dogs. Also, a couple of those only allowed small dogs, which left us out.

[Aetherglow]

When I was looking for a rental for my OH recently we came across many places that were no pets, and at least one that was specifically no dogs but cats ok. We were advised by more than one agent to not mention a dog on our application and negotiate if we got the call-back. I know of a person who was refused permission to have a pet turtle in a tank, and was sprung a surprise inspection a couple of days after she asked just in case she was asking permission for a turtle that was already there. How much harm can a turtle do, for goodness' sake?! I also know of people who have rented their property out through an agency and the agency's policy was no pets even though the owners were ok with it. I even know at least three sets of people who have owned their own places in properties with a body corporate which disallowed dogs in two cases and any pets at all in one, even though they were owning not renting. It's not as easy as all that! I like the idea of a pet bond.

[minimax]

I like the idea of a pet bond.

But when you move into a premises you pay a bond to cover any damages. It doesn't matter if the damages are caused by a person, a pet, a kid, a ghost, or whatever, the bond is paid for that reason. A pet bond is just double dipping on the money they can take from you, in my opinion.

If they want to charge a pet bond, they should be decreasing the "real" bond and calling a part of that the pet bond, not adding another fee on top.

[Panto]

It's possibly a case of article written badly to portray the new legislation proposition.

I know the damage humans can do to a property can far exceed the cost of bond (which really could just be used to pay the excess on an insurance claim...), but if the humans were fine, then a pet bond can possibly mean that if they didn't flea bomb upon exiting the property, or left the property with a lot of dog hair or faeces in the backyard etc, it could pay for the cleaner. Things like that.

I don't read it to say that landlords would be forced to allow pets or forced to take the pet bond, but perhaps making it legal? If it means more pets in more rental properties because that is the deal that that particular landlord and tenant are happy with, then I don't see an issue with that. Just something else that falls into the 'each to their own' category. Noone is forced to offer, accept, or sign the bond or agreement.

I'm not sure how I feel about taking 'extra'. At the moment my investment property has 4 kids and a dog with the regular bond. Doesnt faze me - I have insurance, and they pay their rent, agent does most of the other work, I'm happy. I doubt the 'extra' would be any more than a week's rent.

[Greytmate]

I would be happy to see landlords having no right to refuse tenants doing whatever they like as long as it is legal and doesn't disturb neighbours, including owning pets.

We are happy to have pets in the property we rent out. It is an investment that is as likely to be damaged by children as anything else, and we don't have any right to refuse them living there.

If the property is damaged, it will be dealt with using the bond and insurance. What difference does it make to me if that damage is caused by child, dog or turtle? The main thing is that we have tenants that care about the place. They were chosen because of their references. Why should we try to restrict their lifestyle?

[StaceyB]

In WA a pet bond is standard. I have always paid it and it's a normal part of the standard lease agreement, just doesnt get filled out if you don't have a pet. I have found that the area you look at is a big factor for how many pet friendly rentals there are too. I live in a low socio-economic area and it's probably about a 50/50 chance of getting somewhere pet friendly.

I do hate the whole pets or kids arguement though, the most damage thats been caused to my current house is a few big chips in the walls from the vacuum cleaner banging into the corners/door frames. Yes, my dog digs the odd hole in the yard and yes, my 2 yr old has drawn on the walls a few times. And both are told off each time it happens and we clean it up. If the tennant is responsible and actually cares about the place they live pets and children wont be a problem. An irresponsible tennant is going to cause damage regardless of what 'dependants' they have.

[RiverStar-Aura]

A pet bond could be hard to enforce because even if it's instated, landlords still have the right to decline pets if they choose.

I love your rental style Greytmate -- you probably even find that your renters are some of the nicest, most considerate to your property as they're aware of what damages could potentially happen.

[korbin13]

When we had our rental property we allowed pets. Never had a problem with anyone in the five years of owning it. The only renters we had a problem with was a couple who broke the lease and skipped overseas but wasn't overly worried about that.

You can get landlords insurance that allows for malicious damage these days. We never viewed our rental property as our own personal home, it was an investment. And the only way to make the investment pay was to have people renting it and I believe that it was never empty as we allowed pets.

[twodoggies2001]

I like the idea of a pet bond.

But when you move into a premises you pay a bond to cover any damages. It doesn't matter if the damages are caused by a person, a pet, a kid, a ghost, or whatever, the bond is paid for that reason. A pet bond is just double dipping on the money they can take from you, in my opinion.

If they want to charge a pet bond, they should be decreasing the "real" bond and calling a part of that the pet bond, not adding another fee on top.

The bond is not just to cover damage to the property. What about unpaid rent? One month's rent doesn't go too far if the property is indeed damaged and today's tradies rates means the owner will most likely be out of pocket big time. These days, the letting agents are asking 6 weeks bond for any prospective renters. I have no objection to renting to pet owners (albeit our properties are townhouses, with a minimum of open space,) as long as the property is returned to me on vacating as it was presented on their arrival. It's only fair. I have no objection to charging an extra pet bond. The landlord doesn't get to keep it, is there for very good reason, and if the everything is as it was at the beginning of the tenancy, then the tenant gets it all back.

[Silvawilow]

I like the idea of a pet bond.

But when you move into a premises you pay a bond to cover any damages. It doesn't matter if the damages are caused by a person, a pet, a kid, a ghost, or whatever, the bond is paid for that reason. A pet bond is just double dipping on the money they can take from you, in my opinion.

As a LL I too love the idea of a "pet bond"!

If a tenant damages a property, is behind in rent and damage is done by an animal then it's unlikely bond will even go close to covering the loss incurred by the Landlord :-(

[Panto]

landlord insurance can cover unpaid rent and damages - I think it's a fairly standard cover to take that out.

bond is usually enough to pay the excess on a claim.

[twodoggies2001]

landlord insurance can cover unpaid rent and damages - I think it's a fairly standard cover to take that out.

bond is usually enough to pay the excess on a claim.

All depends on the quality and integrity of your tenants. Let's face it, when the agent asks for references given most likely by friends and associates of the prospective, you can bet your bottom dollar there won't be a bad one amongst them. It's a risk that the landlord takes and saying that, most tenants are fair and decent, but all it takes is a bad one and that puts a spanner in the works and I'm not talking about fair wear and tear either.