Topic: I’m curious to know how many on-site industry people agree with breed restrictions

I’m curious to know how many on-site industry people agree with breed restrictions? I saw a post recently by a PM in Knoxville that her brand new A++ community has no breed restrictions on pets. If they can do it, why can’t all of us? If the pet owners are following our community pet addendums and policies (and honestly on this particular point, I think most do) and walking their pets on a leash, then there would not be problems. How frequently are we in the apartment industry seeing incident of a so called “aggressive breed” pet actually biting someone or causing a problem? I have had more biting incidents or problems from poodles and chihuahuas than any other larger or so called “aggressive breed” pets. For that matter, I have seen more incidents of cats scratching a maintenance person or pest control person, than a dog. Any animal/pet can bite if provoked. We should address the irresponsible pet owners and lease violations in these cases regardless of the pet breed.

An interesting kick off speaker at NAA two years ago was with the Humane society (I think) and one of the stats she shared is that over half a million animals a year end up in shelters directly because of the housing industry and our animal policies.

Heather Blume I believe that and how much more income would we make if we allowed them. Not only would we get leases that we otherwise lose, but we also would not have as many residents claiming their pet is an ESA or service animal and therefore they would be required to pay all fees/deposits.

Cory Evon George I think you would still have some fraud, but I agree that it would likely be less. And animals are family members. Its like asking someone to give up their kid to many people. It seriously turns people off.

Check your insurance

Dan Lukes I understand, but if one high end community can do it, surely the rest of us can. Do we all need to use that same insurance company? Okay, then let’s Do that because an insurance company should not get to dictate such things when we already have community policies and pet addendums in place to prevent problems, such as all pets must be on a leash when outside. Etc.

If we all use an insurance company that would allow all breeds, then eventually the other insurance companies will follow suit because they don’t want to lose their business.

Cory Evon George Insurance Companies (and lenders) can dictate almost whatever they want (breed restriction, repairs, signage, building upgrades and repairs) - you can choose to follow their recommendation or face the possibility of cancellation or non renewal.

Cory Evon George until some says okay, I accept your breed restriction and thanks for my lower rate, because I have a lower risk profile.

I understand about the insurance. Looking for opinions (call it a poll, if You like) from on-site employees on how we feel about these restrictions. Not an explanation of why we do it. Rules/policies change over time. How and why do they get changed? Do the on-site employees, the people on the ground, actually dealing with the issues get a say? How many insurance companies have had to pay out on a “restricted breed” animal causing a problem, where the pet owner wasn’t liable because they were following all community policies? Why doesn’t anyone challenge the insurance companies on this issue?

I managed a luxury community that had no breed restrictions or weight limits and never had any issues. We even did adoption events with the animal shelter at our dog park and they brought large breeds and typically restricted breeds.

Totally agree. I’m a responsible owner of a restricted breed. I think sometimes it is more so the insurance carrier’s rule than the community itself though. When I was looking to rent years ago I offered to carry a liability insurance policy on my dog, maybe that’s a first step some might consider. Such a large percentage of dogs in shelters are bully breeds or mixes of, perhaps lessening our restrictions can also lead to an increase of traffic. There’s lots of qualified renters our there with pound puppies!

I agree, but insurance reasons tend to be the biggest reason for breed restrictions.

Excellent point, Cory. I live in a condo community. A new neighbor moved in with her Pitt Bull, I remember thinking how an apartment would not be an option for her & her 4 yr old daughter. Her dog is much better behaved than other yipper dogs. More to the point, she is a more responsible, more conscientious pet owner. The owners of the smaller breeds think they can let their dogs loose to run up to other leashed dogs, etc. and no big deal.

yes!! And there are more problems when any pet owner lets their pet run around off leash. My mom has a boxer mix that is super sweet but he gets anxious and acts in an aggressive manner when he is on leash and any other dog runs up to him off leash. He feels trapped and vulnerable when they are free to attack him.

I have an 80lb Husky/Shepherd mix. Both breeds are on the restricted list at my company. And as an owner of this wonderfully sweet dog, I will be the first to tell you that she would be miserable in an apartment setting. She is high energy, a major chewer and can be destructive. We have a big house with fenced in yard in the country. She has room to run, dig and play. While she does enjoy regular walks, she's still learning how to be nice on a leash.

We rescued her from a shelter early this year. She's still under 2 but requires a ton of work and a firm hand. We were the 3rd family to take her in. I knew all about what I was signing up for and love her to bits. Had our living situation been different, this wouldn't have worked. It wouldn't be fair to her or to our neighbors.

It's not always about temperament, insurance or even an owner's responsibility and ability. Sometimes it's really about what's best for a dog. Maybe something to think about.

I personally do not believe in breed restrictions. The last place I worked left it up to the managers discression. Never had any issues.

It's really an insurance issue.

Agree with the insurance reason

Breed retractions are becoming thing of the past! Everyone says it’s due to insurance but if you actually talk to your insurance agent most likely it’s not really the reason

I interesting perspective for sure Cory. Also with all the Fake Service Animals 90% are aggressive breeds. 30 years ago we had "pet interviews " if they were friendly and well behaved, we let them in. Aggressive dogs were not.

I have a pit, he is great with people but awful with other dogs. While I like the “no breed restrictions” in theory...it can cause many insurance issues for the property. Also, as a pit owner, I consciously don’t live in a building because I know my dog could hurt another dog. However, not all owners are responsible.

Nichole Granquist I believe this can be an issue for any breed of dog. If always on a leash and in control of the owner, there should not be problems with dogs. If the resident is not following the rules then that is a lease
Violation and should be handled as such for
Any breed. Again, I had a jack russell mix attack another residents dog because the jack Russell wasn’t in a leash. We dealt with it as a lease violation.

Cory Evon George my dog has had issues on a leash, and he is strong (I am not) so yes, it would still be an issue for my dog. Chances are, the jack russell would not do the same damage my dog would do.

I think it's mostly an insurance policy decision. But I have said it before and will say it again...... large breed dogs need large places to play, it's simply not fair(and almost abusive) for them to be confined while the "humans" are out.....

I worked on a property and the first weekend I started I had 2 dog bite incidents, two separate dogs both were pits. I do not agree with breed restrictions I believe it’s how the dog is raised but I can see why an owner would not allow them.

This is definitely an insurance issue. Your business insurance plan puts out the aggressive breed list. If you allow a restricted breed and they bite someone or create damage to others property, your insurance company does not have to cover this. Unless it is fair housing disability issues you have set your company up for legal liabilities.

I wish we could. They always blame the insurance company but I know several communties that allow all breeds. How is it possible

I have had 3 dog bite situations in the past year. All were pit bulls or mixes there of who got in as ESAs. The bit another dog in 2 cases and a person in another. we were sued by the person bitten for accepting the agressive breed. In all cases the owner or the owners children lost control of their dog on a lease.

My property is the only one in my town with no breed restrictions and we stay occupied.

My daughters complex is A++. My daughter has a pit they have no pet restrictions but requires pet interviews.

I don't have to agree, or like it. I have a job to do, period. It is up to the owners what rules are put in place.

I don't agree with "aggressive breeds." However, every single one listed on our restricted list is a dog that also need room to run and move around. Our 750 square foot apartment is not the place for that!

Everywhere I have worked the breed restrictions were up to the insurance company that the owner/ company was insured through.

I have a pet free community! I wish they all were. So much less damage! No dog bark complaints!

We don’t have breed or weight restrictions. Residents have to have renters insurance with no pet restrictions. I checked with our insurance company prior to implementing this to make sure we were allowed.

Property Owners or their lender choose their insurance companies, and often no one on the property management side are consulted. This is true on third party deals as well as self managed as most companies are set up so that there is a checks and balances between the development/risk departments and the management department.

Insurance companies weigh risk. The #1 dog biting breed in the US has been a chi mix but they are not on the restricted list. They have smaller faces, smaller muscles, and less leverage then larger dogs with longer snouts. It’s a myth that certain breeds have locking jaws, but there is proof that when their jaw engaged in a bite, especially due to anxiety or if their pack aggression gets triggered, it can take longer with those breeds to disengage.

I completely respect your love of animals and advocating on behalf of all breeds. But this is an area where we don’t get to decide what the deal gets for financing, the pro forma budget, or when it gets sold.

If this is something in your heart to change, then I would research local advocacy groups in your area, connect with them, and then work with your local apartment association.

One person CAN change the world.

It’s definitely not an insurance or liability issue. All of the Emotional support and service animal exceptions - we have every breed anyways, we just make no money off them!
Stop restricting the breeds & make the money!

Chihuahuas are more aggressive than any restricted dog I’ve ever met

Insurance carriers often time dictate the breed restrictions. It’s not necessarily the management company.

Breed restrictions should be a thing of the past!

I am a fan of removing the breed restrictions, but I am still okay with banning chihuahuas. I’ve met 2 in my life that weren’t little jerks.

On another note, we allow larger breeds and many that competitors don’t. Our residents put timid or aggressive dogs in yellow bandanas so other pet owners and kids know to stay back.

I am against breed restrictions! Its discrimination against the breed the media deems aggressive at the time. Dogs temperament depend on how they are treated. AND the whole "for insurance purposes" bs is just that - BS! So long as there are signed rules & an animal addendum for every resident the owner of the property IS NOT liable.

Insurance clauses.

No breed or weight restrictions at my community. No problems so far and we have a lot of dogs!!!

The National SPCA can give you al the reason that breed restrictions are obsolete! The National rep spoke to us in Hampton roads and made a GREAT CASE for this. Message me and I will send you the Power Point! Also, there are many management Companies that don’t have breed or weight restrictions at all.

It always stuns me that Great Danes are on the "Bad Doggie" list! They're the most precious lap dogs ever. Plus they won't run you down to eat you cause they'd have to give up the best spot on the couch

I agree with you Beverly! Great Danes are gentle giants!

I know the breed restrictions stem from insurance requirements; owners are not willing to pay higher premiums to allow the restricted breeds that the insurance company has listed. But to your point, I also disagree with breed restrictions and AGREE that the industry could be benefiting from a change in perception of certain breeds. I volunteer and foster for a pitbull rescue and the "breed" is not aggressive, dogs are taught to be aggressive by humans or the dog is experiencing some kind of trauma that is causing the unwelcomed behavior. The behavior would need retraining and is a very possible solution for every dog. It is because humans do not understand dog behavior and what they can do for our dog friends to help them overcome their trauma.

Sometimes it doesn't matter what staff believe, it's a matter of what the insurance carrier dictates.

We have one property where all pets have interviews and if they're friendly and tame it doesn't matter which breed the dogs are.

Another property has an insurance provider who tells us which breeds we cannot have.

My Dallas consulting client dropped breed restrictions and pet rent 18 months ago and it has been very successful. Increased occupancy and zero problems.
Just remember please that you should not restrict breeds of service/support animals. And if your insurance company says no, get a new insurance company!!!

We implemented a no-breed restriction policy on our communities a couple of years ago. There have been no issues. As with any dog, aggressive behavior needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.