Property owners are missing out by not renting to families with a pet

Many people who have pets believe they’re treasured family members and they love their pets like they do others in their family. Most pet parents couldn’t imagine making a major life decision, such as a move, a job change or any other life transition without taking their furry family into consideration.

In fact, most responsible pet parents thinking about moving to a new house or apartment will only count those places that will accommodate their fur family as viable options. They will simply rule out locations that will not allow pets.

Unfortunately though, there are people who don’t necessarily feel this way. There are people who will look for a new place to live without giving the needs of their pets a second thought. If they find a new home they like that doesn’t allow pets, some folks will surrender their pet and opt for moving without their pet.

The confusion and sadness this creates in a pet who has been loyal to the family and thought he was a part of the family is incredible. Many of these pets are surrendered to municipal pounds where their future may be uncertain. They sit in scary kennels completely foreign to them and wonder what in the world happened.

While I don’t really understand how families could surrender pets and would encourage people not to do that, I also don’t quite understand why landlords won’t accept pets in their properties. Do pets really cause more damage or make more noise than a house full of kids?

I didn’t know the answer to that question so I decided to do some research. What I found was very interesting and hopefully property owners will read this and revisit their pet policies to not only attract more renters but also to be more profitable.

First of all since according to, 72 percent of renters have a pet, so restricting tenants to only non-pet parents significantly reduces the pool of possible prospects to lease a landlord’s property. The vacant property may stay vacant longer if pets are not allowed, thus costing the property owner money and putting the vacant property at risk.

Another interesting fact that impacts the landlord’s bottom line is, according to Firepaw, a nonprofit research and education foundation with a focus on pets, the renter who has a pet stays in the property twice as long as the tenant with no pet. So the landlord does not incur the cost of frequently searching for non-pet parent tenants if they rent to people who have pets.

Not only do pet parents stay in the property twice as long as non-pet renters, tenants with pets statistically do no more damage than tenants without pets. In fact the source states that only 10 percent of renters have lost their security deposit due to a pet.

Do you know property owners who do not allow pets in their facilities? Share this information with them so they can see allowing pets makes getting and keeping tenants easier than prohibiting pets. And they can select from a larger pool of prospective tenants who will stay in the location twice as long as the tenant without a pet.

Allowing pets makes everyone happy — the pet, the pet parent and the landlord. The pet has more stability in his home, the pet parent doesn’t typically have relocation challenges and the landlord saves money. What could be better?

Send questions to Visit or like his Facebook page.