Akitas In Small Backyards

[westiemum]

Any dog can do damage ,I don't see it as an issue .Many large breeds are very lazy and a lot depends on the owners .

If your going to judge breeds then I think you need to just say no to dogs because bigger does not mean more damage

I don't think anyone is judging the breed. It was mentioned that the owners didn't appear to be dog savvy and that could be a problem.

Thats right. I'm not judging the breed. I'm saying these apparently first time owners (of any dog) and the small yard and a large breed who can be high energy may be problematic.

Edited November 21, 2016 by westiemum

[westiemum]

Not a real estate agent but I would assume anything would be covered by the usual bond. Damage is damage whether done by an adult, a child or a dog...

The problem is that somtimes the bond doesn't cover the damage done by humans or animals and it leaves the landlord considerable out of pocket.

True, in which case your landlords insurance kicks in. Still sucks though.

Anyway back to Akitas. With a shortage of pet friendly rentals I think tenants with dogs would most likely be super careful with the place, but suitability is important. I hope you find a great tenant soon, westiemum.

Thanks PK - both places rent really easily and are currently tenanted. They are inner city, lovely new spacious properties I'm proud to rent, went through hell to build and was happy to live there myself for a while myself with my westies. Someone earlier in the thread said follow your gut - and my gut is telling me these people are naive first time dog owners who don't understand dog ownership at all, let alone a breed like this. They are busy professional CBD commercial property owners with a child in early high school. They asked me 'what's that' pointing to the doggy door. If they had suggested a breed (small or large) suitable to the property and to first time dog owners then that might have been different. But I think the safest thing is to say no. Perse has seen the house and yard and she says no - and she's a sensible soul.

Edited November 21, 2016 by westiemum

[Simply Grand]

Yep, everywhere (except WA as posted) an additional "pet bond" is illegal. Bond can only total four weeks rent. Which doesn't go far if rent stops being paid and the eviction process has to be gone through, let alone if there is damage. And landlord's insurance will cover malicious damage but I think with some policies you would be hard pressed to argue the difference between malicious damage and wear and tear when it comes to pets.

THE most important thing for a land lord when it comes to claiming costs, whether pets involved or not, is an accurate and really really comprehensive entry condition report. It's worth paying a good agent for one, or doing one yourself. Literally hundreds of photos and signed off by both landlord/agent and tenant.

As a multiple pet owning tenant I wish pet bonds were legal as I'd be happy to pay, and in lieu I am happy to (and do) make any temporary modifications necessary and pay for any repairs necessary in order to have my pets not damage the owner's property.

Having said all that, in this situation I'd say no too WM. I'd also ask your agent to conduct a routine inspection and take heaps of photos ASAP so that IF they happen to get a secret dog anyway you have evidence of the current condition of the house.

Yes, I'm a total cynic, sorry. Real estate will do that to ya!

ETA - and definitely always go with your gut!

Edited November 21, 2016 by Simply Grand

[westiemum]

Yep, everywhere (except WA as posted) an additional "pet bond" is illegal. Bond can only total four weeks rent. Which doesn't go far if rent stops being paid and the eviction process has to be gone through, let alone if there is damage. And landlord's insurance will cover malicious damage but I think with some policies you would be hard pressed to argue the difference between malicious damage and wear and tear when it comes to pets.

THE most important thing for a land lord when it comes to claiming costs, whether pets involved or not, is an accurate and really really comprehensive entry condition report. It's worth paying a good agent for one, or doing one yourself. Literally hundreds of photos and signed off by both landlord/agent and tenant.

As a multiple pet owning tenant I wish pet bonds were legal as I'd be happy to pay, and in lieu I am happy to (and do) make any temporary modifications necessary and pay for any repairs necessary in order to have my pets not damage the owner's property.

Having said all that, in this situation I'd say no too WM. I'd also ask your agent to conduct a routine inspection and take heaps of photos ASAP so that IF they happen to get a secret dog anyway you have evidence of the current condition of the house.

Yes, I'm a total cynic, sorry. Real estate will do that to ya!

ETA - and definitely always go with your gut!

Thanks SG - excellent advice. Will do.

[Simply Grand]

There are some legal restrictions on when inspections can be done WM and I don't what they are for your area but definitely flag and get them to do it ASAP!

[skip]

I was a good tenant and so didn't have a problem renting in Wollongong when I moved.

Just curious because I had to agree to a pest extermination on leaving for fleas. I did this but it was funny because we never had fleas anyway.

Dogs were actually allowed inside which was good because turned out my landlord was a real estate agent who lived across the road looking down on my place.

BTW, your place, your rules and saying no is fair.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

If i was doing a yard check for a large breed, i wouldn't consider this enough space and comfortable for such a large dog.

My friends have a townhouse with a concreted courtyard at the rear, all the townhouses in their block are the same. The afternoons are absolutely roasting during the summer - you could fry an egg out there. A new neighbour put in a request to have 2 medium dogs in their courtyard, my friends are on the body corporate and asked to vote. They voted no as it was far too small and so hot throughout the summer. Even if the dogs were inside, they would have been very uncomfortable if they had to go out there for a wee in the hot weather.

[Roova]

Can you give them some criteria of what you would require to say yes like puppy kindy, obedience classes and daily appropriate enrichment for the pup\dog through the day to alleviate boredom?

It could be the chance to link them to great sites, books or obedience clubs which will foster good knowledge and good habits?

With the right information anyone can avoid separation anxiety, provide great socialisation and end up with a well behaved dog.

It may be they think I couldn't be bothered and change their mind, or they may very well jump at the opportunity and prove to be great owners?

[tdierikx]

An Akita as a first pet? Heavy coated, bored easily, and a small yard in Adelaide summer? Nope!

T.

[Starkehre]

As a breeder when I am screening prospective owners, I look at the whole picture and don't rule out any specific thing. For example, if one of my inquirers was your tenants, the red flags would not be the size of the yard or the lack of experience with the breed. Dogs left alone rarely self exercise.

What I would be wanting to see with a dog living in that environment would be at least one of the owners at home, the side gates not able to be seen through and that the dog goes off the property every day and also spends a significant amount of time inside, especially over night. If you don't want the dog to spend time inside I would definitely be saying "no". There is no way they are going to be able to spend enough time with the dog if they both work and don't allow it to come inside at least when they are home. the dog will likely end up a nuisance. The reason someone should be at home is to ensure the dog isn't getting bored and making a nuisance of itself barking and annoying the neighbours.

The most amazing owners (first timers or not) who put in loads of research and as much time as possible with their dogs could make it work. I can almost always tell from reading my questionnaire responses what kind of owner the people will make. You can "hear" their dedication If they re an average pet owner, it is unlikely they won't make it work.

For me it comes down to "dog crazy person" versus "average pet owner"

[dwynwen]

Hi All,Just want to check with the DOL brains trust that I'm not being unfair to my tenants in saying 'no' to their request for an Akita... The property is an inner city Adelaide duplex with a small well fenced backyard of just over 123 sqm (roughly 15m x 8 m) and double gates down the side.The fact they are asking for such a big dog with such a small backyard suggests to me that they aren't dog savvy and I think its grossly unfair to the dog to put him/her in such a small backyard. Not to mention if the dog goes stir crazy it'll upset the strata units next door and the tenants in the other side of the duplex.And in SA we are not allowed to ask for pet bonds (go figure).So unless the DOL Brains trust says otherwise I'm going to say 'no'.Thoughts?TIA

Firstly - your house, your rules - I'd probably say no also - too many unknowns.

A rental property is a big investment and pets are a risk you can control to a large extent.

Re yard size - We are have owned 5 akitas. City property with a yard not much bigger than the one described. (maybe 30% I suppose but still smaller than many people feel is needed for "a large dog" ).

They have all been couch potatoes who don't self exercise. More like a malamute than a husky (I have fostered both, huskies never again :-)

The one akita we had from a puppy was never destructive. One was a talented climber which is why we got her - she never escaped from our yard.

Only one has been a serious barker - long-coat bitch who is just a more highly strung sort of dog than the current boy who is very laid back.

IMO - The quoted yard size alone is not enough to disqualify an akita as a suitable dog - they can live in apartments with the right owner and exercise regime - and do in some parts of the world.

They do require a savvy owner as despite the couch potato behaviour they will remind you very quickly that they are dogs, and hunting dogs at that.

(We have had to take a couple of very prized ratty trophies from them recently)

That puppy akita was my first dog (as an adult) and my partners first dog ever - it can go bad but we had an good supportive breeder and a very well bred puppy.

[Scottsmum]

Akitas (well big dogs in general) arent exactly "renter friendly"

We had to jump through hoops to have a foxie in Sydney Rentals. Makes you wonder if they've considered that.

Akitas would absolutely be on the "one day when we own" list for me.

[persephone]

knowing the premises ..if it were mine , there would never be any dog there other than aged ones who slept most of the day , who couldn't climb stairs , and whose idea of exercise was to follow the sun patches around ;) .... any children would need references. :p he,he,he....

[westiemum]

knowing the premises ..if it were mine , there would never be any dog there other than aged ones who slept most of the day , who couldn't climb stairs , and whose idea of exercise was to follow the sun patches around ;) .... any children would need references. :p he,he,he....

You know Sarah and Andy too well!

Its interesting - when I was living there, the tenants next door had been there four or five months and didn't know I had dogs. They said they'd never heard them - not once.

Edited November 22, 2016 by westiemum

[westiemum]

Thanks everyone - brilliant posts. And I think its a good conversation to have as backyards are shrinking, demographics are changing and it seems to me that the ability of landlords to say yes to pets while still protecting their investments through adequate bonds, pet CVs, references and insurance hasn't kept up with community expectations.

Here are my takeaways:

1. Its the dog savviness of the tenants rather than yard size which is generally the determining factor - although in close quartered living, proximity of neighbours needs to be considered.

2. Yard size helps with large breeds but is not critical if you have tenants who are dog savvy, will let the dog inside and are diligent in supplying any grooming, exercise and enrichment needs of the dog

3. There are certainly breeds which are suitable for first time dog owners regardless of other factors - and an Akita is probably not one of them

4. If you are an inner city renter with pets, you are probably wise to stay with animals which aren't going to scare the pants off landlords (Not all landlords have the backup of a forum like this or are dog savvy themselves).

5. Its not unreasonable to expect tenants to make reasonable choices about suitability of pets to a rented property and its not unreasonable for a landlord to say 'no' if they consider the pet is not a suitable match to the property.

6. Its a shame that pet bonds are illegal in all states except WA (and even there they seem to me to be pretty inadequate). If landlords could charge a fair and reasonable pet bond then I have no doubt that would open up more rental opportunities to tenants with pets. In thinking this through, the easiest way to do this is to have a two option but all inclusive bond - say 4 weeks without pets and 6 weeks with pets negotiated up front.

7. While I recognise the tenants generally do the right thing (and that's my experience), the issue/risk of trashed rental properties needs dealing with in some way, shape or form outside the bond system.

Perse and my thinking is so aligned its scary! (Yes children should need references as well as pets! )

Edited November 22, 2016 by westiemum

[Panto]

As a breeder when I am screening prospective owners, I look at the whole picture and don't rule out any specific thing. For example, if one of my inquirers was your tenants, the red flags would not be the size of the yard or the lack of experience with the breed. Dogs left alone rarely self exercise.

What I would be wanting to see with a dog living in that environment would be at least one of the owners at home, the side gates not able to be seen through and that the dog goes off the property every day and also spends a significant amount of time inside, especially over night. If you don't want the dog to spend time inside I would definitely be saying "no". There is no way they are going to be able to spend enough time with the dog if they both work and don't allow it to come inside at least when they are home. the dog will likely end up a nuisance. The reason someone should be at home is to ensure the dog isn't getting bored and making a nuisance of itself barking and annoying the neighbours.

The most amazing owners (first timers or not) who put in loads of research and as much time as possible with their dogs could make it work. I can almost always tell from reading my questionnaire responses what kind of owner the people will make. You can "hear" their dedication If they re an average pet owner, it is unlikely they won't make it work.

For me it comes down to "dog crazy person" versus "average pet owner"

Thanks everyone - brilliant posts. And I think its a good conversation to have as backyards are shrinking, demographics are changing and it seems to me that the ability of landlords to say yes to pets while still protecting their investments through adequate bonds, pet CVs, references and insurance hasn't kept up with community expectations.

Here are my takeaways:

1. Its the dog savviness of the tenants rather than yard size which is generally the determining factor - although in close quartered living, proximity of neighbours needs to be considered.

2. Yard size helps with large breeds but is not critical if you have tenants who are dog savvy, will let the dog inside and are diligent in supplying any grooming, exercise and enrichment needs of the dog

3. There are certainly breeds which are suitable for first time dog owners regardless of other factors - and an Akita is probably not one of them

4. If you are an inner city renter with pets, you are probably wise to stay with animals which aren't going to scare the pants off landlords (Not all landlords have the backup of a forum like this or are dog savvy themselves).

5. Its not unreasonable to expect tenants to make reasonable choices about suitability of pets to a rented property and its not unreasonable for a landlord to say 'no' if they consider the pet is not a suitable match to the property.

6. Its a shame that pet bonds are illegal in all states except WA (and even there they seem to me to be pretty inadequate). If landlords could charge a fair and reasonable pet bond then I have no doubt that would open up more rental opportunities to tenants with pets. In thinking this through, the easiest way to do this is to have a two option but all inclusive bond - say 4 weeks without pets and 6 weeks with pets negotiated up front.

7. While I recognise the tenants generally do the right thing (and that's my experience), the issue/risk of trashed rental properties needs dealing with in some way, shape or form outside the bond system.

Perse and my thinking is so aligned its scary! (Yes children should need references as well as pets! )

Excellent posts - my takeaway is that in future for my tenants, to ask for references to dog clubs / dog experience and be able to determine how savvy they are as dog owners... "we've always had dogs" is more a red flag than a comfort.

As a renter, I moved with references from the previous agents and landlords which always got me past the first hurdle, even past the agents who for whatever reason was not fazed by the adorableness of Panto's face :laugh:

[westiemum]

As a breeder when I am screening prospective owners, I look at the whole picture and don't rule out any specific thing. For example, if one of my inquirers was your tenants, the red flags would not be the size of the yard or the lack of experience with the breed. Dogs left alone rarely self exercise.

What I would be wanting to see with a dog living in that environment would be at least one of the owners at home, the side gates not able to be seen through and that the dog goes off the property every day and also spends a significant amount of time inside, especially over night. If you don't want the dog to spend time inside I would definitely be saying "no". There is no way they are going to be able to spend enough time with the dog if they both work and don't allow it to come inside at least when they are home. the dog will likely end up a nuisance. The reason someone should be at home is to ensure the dog isn't getting bored and making a nuisance of itself barking and annoying the neighbours.

The most amazing owners (first timers or not) who put in loads of research and as much time as possible with their dogs could make it work. I can almost always tell from reading my questionnaire responses what kind of owner the people will make. You can "hear" their dedication If they re an average pet owner, it is unlikely they won't make it work.

For me it comes down to "dog crazy person" versus "average pet owner"

Actually there's a bit in here (bolded) which I missed on first reading. Starkhre would you be willing to share your questionnaire to be adapted to a questionnaire for tenants with dogs/pets? Would that work do you think?

Edited November 22, 2016 by westiemum

[persephone]

As a breeder when I am screening prospective owners, I look at the whole picture and don't rule out any specific thing. For example, if one of my inquirers was your tenants, the red flags would not be the size of the yard or the lack of experience with the breed. Dogs left alone rarely self exercise.

What I would be wanting to see with a dog living in that environment would be at least one of the owners at home, the side gates not able to be seen through and that the dog goes off the property every day and also spends a significant amount of time inside, especially over night. If you don't want the dog to spend time inside I would definitely be saying "no". There is no way they are going to be able to spend enough time with the dog if they both work and don't allow it to come inside at least when they are home. the dog will likely end up a nuisance. The reason someone should be at home is to ensure the dog isn't getting bored and making a nuisance of itself barking and annoying the neighbours.

The most amazing owners (first timers or not) who put in loads of research and as much time as possible with their dogs could make it work. I can almost always tell from reading my questionnaire responses what kind of owner the people will make. You can "hear" their dedication If they re an average pet owner, it is unlikely they won't make it work.

For me it comes down to "dog crazy person" versus "average pet owner"

Actually there's a bit in here (bolded) which I missed on first reading. Starkhre would you be willing to share your questionnaire to be adapted to a questionnaire for tenants with dogs/pets? Would that work do you think?

I remember doing up a questionnaire to assess dogs folks wanted to donate as live-in therapy dogs .

We worked hard on making non-obvious answers ..used words in certain ways so folks didn't see it as 'right answer/wrong answer' and answered truthfully - good and not so good ;)

Multiple choice can be your friend here :) Here is a very rough example ;)

Q is your dog a watch dog ?

a No , thankfully.

b Only loud barking

c Yes! No one will get in :)

d Unfortunately not .

my very very favourite answer ever ... "is your dog housetrained?" :) "oh yes! he knows to never come near the house!" Oh dear

have fun with that . W.M

[westiemum]

Gem Perse! Bit like not knowing what a doggy door was and then looking to get a dog for experienced owners! Come to think of it, as part of a questionnaire we could put in a picture of a doggy door and ask 'What's that'?

[karen15]

Panto, just because people aren't interested in dog clubs doesn't mean their dogs aren't trained. I rented for over 10yrs with a staffy. I never needed to give references, even though I easily could have got them from agent and surrounding neighbours. I was a long term tenant who only moved when properties were sold. Dog was not destructive as he got sufficient exercise and stimulation every day.

A more insightful answer may be obtained from a question such as tell me your typical day.

As a renter I never even looked at places that didn't take pets. That was first requirement. Unfortunately not all people are like that and ditch their animals on the basis of finding a place that doesn't take pets...... Why look at it in the first place if you have pets?