Over the last few weeks, I have been looking into dog-friendly hotels and although many hotels now allow dogs, there are some that have rules regarding a dog's stay that really don't make any sense to me.
First off, I don't understand why there is an extra charge for the dog to stay in the room. Some hotels charge up to $20 per dog, per night. It's not as though a dog needs an extra bed, extra bed linens or towels, uses more of the complimentary toiletries or raids the mini bar. Some hotels ask for a damage deposit before the dog even sets a paw in the room. How much damage can a dog do that humans cannot equal, if not exceed?
Dogs are not the ones partying all night long in their room, making so much noise they bother the surrounding hotel guests. They aren't smoking in bed and setting the pillows on fire, getting drunk and smashing the television and puking take-out pizza all over the beds or stuffing the toilets with tissue until they overflow. Nope, dogs don't do that.
It's true that a dog may have an "accident" in the room, but compared to what some humans are capable of, it's pretty tame.
Another hotel rule that I find odd is that dogs above a certain weight (the trend seems to be 60 pounds) are not allowed.
Why?I mean, what is it about a dog that weighs 61 pounds or more that makes it unwelcome? It makes no sense to me. Do hotels think the weight of a dog determines whether it is well-behaved or not?
If I was to speak frankly, which I tend to do, smaller dogs are the ones that tend to be less well-behaved because most people seem to think a small dog does not require training like a larger dog does.
It's not the dog, it's the owner! I understand these extra charges and fees may be an attempt to enforce responsibility, but the thing is, people who are irresponsible were that way before they got a dog. Good, responsible people don't just become irresponsible the moment they bring a dog into their life. In fact, they tend to become more responsible.
This assumed irresponsibility also seems to be pervasive when it comes to renting an apartment. Renters with dogs are asked for a larger damage deposit than non-dog owners. Sometimes their rent is higher than a person without a dog living in the same complex. Again, the assumption is that a dog owner should be charged more because of the potential for damage caused by a dog owned by an irresponsible owner.
Irresponsible behaviour is not conducive to dog ownership. Irresponsible dog owners were irresponsible before they got a dog. They will cause damage to an apartment without a dog in their lives because they are irresponsible in the first place.
To look at a potential renter with a dog and assume he or she is irresponsible and must be charged more is, in fact, discrimination. The fact is, pet owners tend to be better renters. They know how hard it is to find a good apartment with a good landlord so they tend to commit to long-term renting compared to non-dog owners. Having dogs in a rental until tends to be a crime deterrent in the complex. These apartments, just like homes with dogs, are less likely to be burglarized. This keeps insurance costs down.
Making it difficult and more expensive for renters to keep a dog or two actually places additional burdens on already overcrowded rescues and shelters. Dog owners are sometimes forced to give up their pets because affordable and decent rental units are difficult to find. If there were more rental units that allowed dogs, without all the additional expenses, it could potentially ease that burden and more dogs would be adopted by people who could provide forever homes for them because they had the security of a reliable rental home.
I really don't think that it is fair to charge a person with a dog more than a person without a dog for the same service.
We should not be discriminated against just because we choose to share our lives with dogs.
Joan Klucha has been working with dogs for more than 15 years in obedience, tracking and behavioural rehabilitation. Contact her through her website k9kinship.com.
