RSPCA Qld does not support the blanket prohibiting of pets in strata schemes. It is the RSPCA Qld view that the decision to own a pet should rest with the individual as a lot owner or tenant where the pet can be reasonably accommodated and its welfare provided for and where the pet does not create a nuisance for other residents.Australia has one of the highest pet ownership rates in the world with the majority of Australian households owning at least one pet, typically a dog and/or cat in a detached dwelling. However, we have been witnessing in recent years an increase in the number of people being forced to give up their pet when they transition from detached dwellings to strata dwellings, which is increasingly the case with an ageing population where older people are unable to manage their properties. This not only creates emotional distress for the pet owner which has implications for health outcomes, it also places increasing demand on organisations such as RSPCA Qld to house, care for and re-home these pets.
There are a number of misconceptions in the community around the appropriateness of pets in strata schemes. These include:
- pets are not suited to apartment or townhouse living, especially larger dogs;
- allowing pets will create noise issues e.g. dogs will bark all the time;
- certain pets are dangerous e.g. some breeds of dog are more dangerous than others;
- the keeping of pets promotes disease and attracts pests e.g. rodents, cockroaches;
- pets are likely to foul common property areas.
The reality is that issues of noise, danger, disease promotion and fouling of common areas exist with any pet including in free-standing dwellings. Current Council by-laws, and State Animal Management and Animal Welfare laws cover these issues. In particular:
- most commonly owned pets are well suited to apartment living. Size of dog is not necessarily an issue. Larger dogs can be more suited than some smaller dogs due to their low need for stimulation e.g. greyhounds are known as “couch potatoes”. We believe each animal should be assessed on its individual characteristics and not judged on stereotypes. The potential difficulties raised in regard to measuring a dog’s size and weight are of little consequence in regard to a dog’s suitability or welfare in an apartment or townhouse. Reasonable and easily determined conditions such as not allowing a pet to roam or the requirement for muzzling whilst on common property have merit for consideration.
- most pets are not noisy e.g. cats and fish, while the majority of dogs bark infrequently. Where a dog does bark more than might be reasonably expected there are various methods to correct this behaviour that a local vet may recommend including “crating” or referral to an animal behaviour specialist.
- most common pets pose little danger, especially if they are well trained and socialised.
- with proper care and regular veterinary checks pets are no more likely to promote disease than human beings who also have the ability to pass on communicable diseases.
- well trained pets are unlikely to foul common property where they spend very little time while entering and exiting a strata scheme. Where a body corporate allows pets to be taken onto common property for extended periods of time, many schemes have existing by-laws in place in regard to keeping the common property clean. Most owners these days are conscious of picking up and disposing of pet excrement.
Thousands of dollars of owners funds are being spent on defending the right to live in pet friendly and non pet friendly buildings and it is causing division, angst and sleepless nights. Why? Don’t owners have the right to choose?
Pets within strata communities account for the most common by –law breaches. Each building has a set of by –laws that outline the regulations for your building and it is a good idea to revisit the by –laws and strengthen where applicable to your scheme.
Pet ownership can be a normal part of residential living and there shouldn’t be a problem with pets in ‘pet friendly’ accommodation. Lately there appears to be a movement promoting pets in apartments and this isn’t a bad thing as long as they are welcome. There has been hundreds of articles extolling the virtue of companion pets and the health benefits and the psychologist reports outlining all the positive AND if you read the small print, these reports are sponsored by the pet food companies because sales are in decline but what you won’t read is the menace that many dogs cause and the burden on residents who choose to live in a pet free environment. The media love a doggy stoush ie: “Ruff justice”, “Unleashed”, “Owner of unit wins right to keep dog”, “Big stink at poo parks” and the list goes on.
Owners who have given away their pets in respect of the by -law have a right to be upset at the inconsiderate actions towards residents who had given their pet away because they understood the by –laws of the building and out of respect for those by –laws did not wish to upset owners /occupiers. Quite often dogs are left on their own locked on balconies or left inside whilst the occupier is out and left residents to endure the incessant barking not to mention the animal cruelty that can have an adverse effect on a quiet amenity of neighbours and leave all sorts of surprises behind. The smell is very difficult to remove from common areas and quite often they do their business in the lift and are walked through common areas when they should be carried. How big is too big for a dog? Quite often this is not specified
There are more than 147,000 dogs in the Brisbane area and reports of animal assaults on people and other dogs has spiked in recent years, according to Brisbane City Council figures, whilst Logan City and Gold Coast reports reveal widespread attacks of their own.
Should owners be empowered to decide or an adjudicator? The word ‘unreasonable’ or ‘oppressive’ is often mentioned in the adjudication that supports the rights to keep an animal where it is not welcome. Why are owners discriminated against their peace and enjoyment? Isn’t it ‘unreasonable’ when the majority of owners in a building do not consent to animals?
Hi Lynne, the pet issue will always attract plenty of emotions on both sides of the argument. You are correct in saying that the rules should apply to all or no one. Whilst the investor owners can choose not to have tenants with pets, an owner occupier can submit the application to keep the pet since it is viewed as inequitable to ban pets without considering each application on its merits.
As mentioned previously, the current ongoing Property Law review considered the ability of body corporate to ban lawful activity (such as owning a pet – or smoking) and submits in its final recommendations the option for body corporate to pass a by-law banning the pets completely. Whilst it has not been yet put in front of parliament, we can see the QUT panel must have considered submissions asking for such by-law to be passed and be lawful. I would suggest that it is also in line with primary object of the BCCM Act. Please note that if the proposal is passed, such by-law will require vote without dissent – as opposed special resolution, required currently for changing or adopting by-laws.
Hi Peter, the currently ongoing Property Law Review in its Final Recommendations submits an option for the body corporate to adopt a by-law which allows for blanket ban of the pets in the scheme. Currently such by-law is considered inequitable as we can see from many adjudication outcomes.
QUT panel in its final recommendations considers the ability of body corporate to ban a lawful activity and recommends that in the case of pets it should be allowed to do so. If submitted before parliament in the current recommendation form, such by-law would be required to be passed by vote without dissent – as opposed to special resolution, which is required for change or adoption of new by-laws for the scheme otherwise.
All of the above points promote the rights of pet owners.
What about the rights of (perhaps 85%) of unit owners, who do not want to live next door to pets, who bought their properties in some cases to get away from pets in neighbouring houses, those owners who may be mildly allergic to for instance cat fur etc, and particularly those who simply prefer not to have dogs and cats for neighbours. Animals, particularly dogs (except one breed), DO have a distinct odour which is objectionable to some people (including me, and I have owned a dog in my house in the past).
No one is trying to force pet lovers to buy into apartment blocks which prohibit pets, so why should pet lovers force themselves into apartment blocks which prefer a no pets policy.
Some apartment blocks take pets, so if you want to keep a cat or a dog, buy in or rent one of those.