Editorial:
Rental clients unfairly treated
HELLO everyone, it is lovely to see some sunshine again in this down-under part of the world and to know that summer is at last here - no more muddy pawprints on the laundry tiles or wet dog splotches on the sofa!
The next few weeks will be busy ones for everyone here at K9HQ - we are shifting! As soon as this issue goes online you can just close your eyes and imagine us buzzing around like a busy nest of ants packing everything in sight.
I am not able to pass on a new address or phone number as yet, but my email address stays the same so you can keep e-mailing us any letters, pictures or articles ... business as usual.
I have noticed in my hunt for rental accommodation that perhaps as high as 99 out of 100 homes are for rent but "no dogs allowed". I am not sure if this is something that the real estate agents have taken it upon themselves to do unless otherwise instructed, or if landlords/landladies really are so against dogs on their property.
Whatever way, I would ask them not to judge dog owners by the recent media-hyped anti-dog publicity that has culminated in the Government's social engineering puppetry. Perhaps if property managers screened the dogs in much the same manner as they screen the prospective occupants they would attract a better class of client.
If the dog is registered and inoculated, if it looks healthy with a shiny coat and if the owners treat it as one of the family, then you do not have a dog that is untrained or allowed to mess the premises either inside or out. What you have is a well cared-for member of the family who would never be permitted to play on a lawn that had been fouled - any "doggy doos" noticed would be cleaned up straight away for the dog's health as well as for the family's health!
And lets face it, that is about the total of damage that can be caused by a dog.
I have also noticed that quite a few rented homes allow cats. I may be wrong but to me a cat is capable of more damage in a house than a dog... I have seen both curtains and blinds with shredded patches from cat claws, wallpaper shredded when used as a scratching post, and have gone into a house with a resident cat and smelt instantly that it was not fussy where it toileted. I know which I would prefer.
If fleas are the problem then ask any vet - most fleas in this country are cat fleas and a dog will catch them more readily from a cat than from another dog.
Well, perhaps our property people are either not bothering to think for themselves or worse still they are allowing themselves to be carried along with the rest of the soft toys in the wake of negative media publicity. One would hope for, but perhaps not expect, a better quality of recruit for property management.
Finally, I would remind people that the government has seen the stupidity of its ways as far as the fencing issue is concerned - that law will not now be passed as it was likely to have caused problems for a huge number of people and would have proved eventually unenforceable. So I will say to anyone who has contemplated giving their little companion over to the SPCA - all that new law mess is now resolved and no more worries. Remember that the microchipping laws will apply only to newly registered dogs from the introduction date - not to dogs already registered. So there are absolutely no new costs for dogs already registered. - Elezabeth
