What is behind the "weight limit" restriction on dogs in hotels or rentals?
July 13, 2009 3:57 PM
What is behind the "weight limit" restriction on dogs in hotels or rentals? I understand what it means I just can't logically figure out why this is necessary.
I have a non-shedding dog that is over 15 pounds and I cannot for the life of me think of a logical reason why there is a need to restrict a dog being allowed on the basis of weight. If anything I would think non-shedding would be more of an advantage than size. Can anyone explain this to me?
I have a non-shedding dog that is over 15 pounds and I cannot for the life of me think of a logical reason why there is a need to restrict a dog being allowed on the basis of weight. If anything I would think non-shedding would be more of an advantage than size. Can anyone explain this to me?
In general, bigger dogs do more damage (to floors, walls, furnishings, etc) than smaller dogs.
posted by jlkr at 4:01 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by jlkr at 4:01 PM on July 13, 2009
Big dogs can scratch floors and doorframes and windowframes more severely, chew through wallboard, destroy furniture, pee gallons, thunder across the floor with a lot more force than a toy breed, and more fearsomely intimidate other tenants or guests. Little dogs don't make as much of a dent or mess.
posted by Lou Stuells at 4:02 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by Lou Stuells at 4:02 PM on July 13, 2009
I think the logic is that larger dogs have, theoretically, more potential to cause damage. If they weigh a lot, the greater pressure on their claws can cause more damage to flooring and carpets from walking on them. At least, that's the general idea according to this column, and it's what I've always assumed to be the case.
As the owner of a 70-lb dog, I disagree, obviously.
posted by booknerd at 4:03 PM on July 13, 2009
As the owner of a 70-lb dog, I disagree, obviously.
posted by booknerd at 4:03 PM on July 13, 2009
Yeah, it means toy dogs and lap dogs OK, gigantic rottweilers or weimaraner are not OK.
posted by GuyZero at 4:03 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by GuyZero at 4:03 PM on July 13, 2009
I don't buy the damage aspect as small dogs can chew just as much and often bark more....as far as scaring people, I would say that might be breed dependent...but thank you for the suggestion.
posted by livinginmonrovia at 4:03 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by livinginmonrovia at 4:03 PM on July 13, 2009
Big dogs pee and poo more than small dogs.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:03 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:03 PM on July 13, 2009
Also, a young dog is much more likely to chew than an older dog.
posted by livinginmonrovia at 4:05 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by livinginmonrovia at 4:05 PM on July 13, 2009
They don't want big dogs, but they need a way to enforce it without making you weigh your dog. So they set the limit fairly low, so that anything that's not small is automatically banned.
posted by smackfu at 4:06 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by smackfu at 4:06 PM on July 13, 2009
Blazecock....I would assume the dog would have to be housetrained in addition to not being left unattended, no matter the size.
posted by livinginmonrovia at 4:06 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by livinginmonrovia at 4:06 PM on July 13, 2009
The only thing that makes sense to me is that somehow people saw this on airline restrictions and thought it was the "thing to do" rather than think logically about it.
posted by livinginmonrovia at 4:09 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by livinginmonrovia at 4:09 PM on July 13, 2009
I think that they are trying to make it easy for themselves. Rather than play the "but my dog is different" game with every potential renter, they just decide on some criteria and make a rule and that's that. It doesn't have to be logical - they are just picking a trait (weight) that in most cases will give them the desired result (less fuss/damage/complaints/noise). It sucks, but they aren't trying to be logical - they're trying to make it simple.
posted by gyusan at 4:14 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by gyusan at 4:14 PM on July 13, 2009
It's arbitrary but like all rules and regulations they had to draw the line somewhere. The way I see it, for places that allow cats, not allowing a dog that was smaller than a cat seemed a little ridiculous. So they had to find a way to allow cat-sized dogs but basically have a no dogs policy. So, I see it more as basically a "no dogs except for one certain type of dog" not a "arbitrary guideline on dogs, some of which are okay and some of which aren't"
In short, this draws a line that is enforceable and itself not arbitrary. You can put a dog on a scale and see if it's within the guidelines. If you move in, you know if your dog will be okay in advance or not in advance. This way you don't have to get into individual arguments with people about how noisy their dog is, how much poop the dog creates, how much damage the dog did, etc. There is one small subset of dogs that are okay and the rest are not.
Speaking as someone who works in a job that involves the enforcement of some arbitrary-seeming rules, often in large situations it's more important to have a rule that can be easily explained and fairly enforced rather than having the underlying division between okay and not-okay be 100% fair. I know this is annoying as hell for some people and I do sympathize but for people whose main job is not -- as in the case you're pointing to -- pet enforcement, this allows them one easy-to-state-and-understand guideline and people can decide what they want to do about that. In a hotel with four rooms, people could look at your dog, talk to you, do some assessment, etc. In a larger operation, broader guidelines often need to apply to stand in for that sort of personal interaction. It's logical, it's just logical in a different way than the way you're thinking through this.
posted by jessamyn at 4:16 PM on July 13, 2009
In short, this draws a line that is enforceable and itself not arbitrary. You can put a dog on a scale and see if it's within the guidelines. If you move in, you know if your dog will be okay in advance or not in advance. This way you don't have to get into individual arguments with people about how noisy their dog is, how much poop the dog creates, how much damage the dog did, etc. There is one small subset of dogs that are okay and the rest are not.
Speaking as someone who works in a job that involves the enforcement of some arbitrary-seeming rules, often in large situations it's more important to have a rule that can be easily explained and fairly enforced rather than having the underlying division between okay and not-okay be 100% fair. I know this is annoying as hell for some people and I do sympathize but for people whose main job is not -- as in the case you're pointing to -- pet enforcement, this allows them one easy-to-state-and-understand guideline and people can decide what they want to do about that. In a hotel with four rooms, people could look at your dog, talk to you, do some assessment, etc. In a larger operation, broader guidelines often need to apply to stand in for that sort of personal interaction. It's logical, it's just logical in a different way than the way you're thinking through this.
posted by jessamyn at 4:16 PM on July 13, 2009
Man, you're preaching to the choir here... the people in this thread are not defending the policy, but it does seem to be the general consensus that "big dogs do more damage" is the rationale, whether you consider it "logical" or not, for barring larger pets in hotels and rentals.
If you are in a particular situation with a particular landlord, you might be able to work out something by emphasizing how friendly, well-behaved, and house trained your larger dog is, so give it a go. I would assume most hotels would be less negotiable since it would be harder to get money out of you if you were wrong, but you can always try I guess.
posted by rkent at 4:18 PM on July 13, 2009
If you are in a particular situation with a particular landlord, you might be able to work out something by emphasizing how friendly, well-behaved, and house trained your larger dog is, so give it a go. I would assume most hotels would be less negotiable since it would be harder to get money out of you if you were wrong, but you can always try I guess.
posted by rkent at 4:18 PM on July 13, 2009
I think that the perception of big dogs = more potential destruction (whether true or not) is probably the main reason, and it's probably also insurance-related. When we got our homeowners policy, there were some questions about dogs. Certain breeds are deemed "higher risk" and presumably result in a higher premium. If I were renting out a property and didn't want to deal with the headaches of constantly tweaking my insurance policy to accommodate the occasional rottweiler moving in or out, a blanket weight limit would be one way to go about it.
posted by usonian at 4:23 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by usonian at 4:23 PM on July 13, 2009
Usonian, your answer reminds me of the time a friend who managed a woman's clothing store at to set a blanket policy that everyone had to wear closed-toed shoes after one employee with "gnarley" toes spoiled it for everyone. We live in a society that treats the spoilers with so much caution that takes away more freedom for everyone else.
Where dogs are concerned I think it would make sense for people to have renewable certification training that would allow any kind of dog that had passed the certification to be allowed. This would punish bad behavior rather than a potentially wonderful dog that happened to be larger.
posted by livinginmonrovia at 4:32 PM on July 13, 2009
Where dogs are concerned I think it would make sense for people to have renewable certification training that would allow any kind of dog that had passed the certification to be allowed. This would punish bad behavior rather than a potentially wonderful dog that happened to be larger.
posted by livinginmonrovia at 4:32 PM on July 13, 2009
The issue is as gyusan says, it's an arbitrary line that has to be drawn and 15 pounds is the limit they've selected. Yes, there's the full range of behaviours across small and large dogs, but in the absence of a full psych evaluation on each pet, the weight limit is used.
posted by arcticseal at 4:56 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by arcticseal at 4:56 PM on July 13, 2009
As above, plus people who are anxious around dogs may put dogs into "puntable" and "not puntable" categories. 15 lbs is probably the distinction.
posted by acoutu at 5:37 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by acoutu at 5:37 PM on July 13, 2009
In my experience, nearly all pet-friendly motels have allowed me to bring my big dog. They may publish a weight limit on their web site, but they never mention it when I call.
I suspect the weight limit gives them an out -- if they need it. If they see a big dog and think it's too scary or loud, they can refuse to admit it.
When traveling with my dog, I always look for motels with exterior doors. Much easier to bring doggie in and out, and you have less chance of encountering someone who doesn't like dogs.
posted by valannc at 5:50 PM on July 13, 2009
I suspect the weight limit gives them an out -- if they need it. If they see a big dog and think it's too scary or loud, they can refuse to admit it.
When traveling with my dog, I always look for motels with exterior doors. Much easier to bring doggie in and out, and you have less chance of encountering someone who doesn't like dogs.
posted by valannc at 5:50 PM on July 13, 2009
I can throw in my two cents here as somebody involved with the training of the management and staff of 25+ hotels a year. To put it bluntly, if every hotel could get away with not allowing ANY pets at all, they would. But, it causes too many problems, especially at hotels geared towards long-term stays. Generally speaking, it upsets guests enough that it's not a possibility. Usually, the pet policy is left up to the individual property instead of being set by the entire chain of hotels.
As gyusan said, the logic behind the weight-limit is making it easier on the hotel. They don't care about dogs causing more or less damage than other dogs, because if the dog causes damage, the guest will be paying for it anyway. The reasoning behind the weight limit is that it allows the hotel to not allow certain types of dogs. In most cases, the types of dogs that are known for being unfriendly or attacking somebody are over the weight limit. Although this may be an unfair generalization for the entire breed of dog, it's not worth the added liability of a possibility that a guest may be bit by another guest's dog.
So, this limit is put into place, it's posted, and whether or not it's enforced is up to the hotel. I've seen some hotels enforce it all the time, and some hotels not enforce it ever, and some hotels pick and choose when they want to. Personally, I think that last choice is just asking for trouble. Anyway, hope that helped a bit.
posted by ComeUndone at 5:51 PM on July 13, 2009
As gyusan said, the logic behind the weight-limit is making it easier on the hotel. They don't care about dogs causing more or less damage than other dogs, because if the dog causes damage, the guest will be paying for it anyway. The reasoning behind the weight limit is that it allows the hotel to not allow certain types of dogs. In most cases, the types of dogs that are known for being unfriendly or attacking somebody are over the weight limit. Although this may be an unfair generalization for the entire breed of dog, it's not worth the added liability of a possibility that a guest may be bit by another guest's dog.
So, this limit is put into place, it's posted, and whether or not it's enforced is up to the hotel. I've seen some hotels enforce it all the time, and some hotels not enforce it ever, and some hotels pick and choose when they want to. Personally, I think that last choice is just asking for trouble. Anyway, hope that helped a bit.
posted by ComeUndone at 5:51 PM on July 13, 2009
Yeah, on preview, what valannc said.
posted by ComeUndone at 5:51 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by ComeUndone at 5:51 PM on July 13, 2009
A dog that is below 15 pounds is less likely to do severe damage to the neighbor kid when it goes on a rampage and is less likely to result in a huge lawsuit against the landlord for allowing a dangerous beast to reside at the property. If it then sheds hair on the mangled child, that's just adding insult to injury.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 10:01 PM on July 13, 2009
posted by ActingTheGoat at 10:01 PM on July 13, 2009
Good thing I stayed up late chatting with an actuary friend of mine. Someone already mentioned these ideas in the thread, this is only confirmation by someone who works with the numbers:
Big dogs and small dogs can potentially do the same damage to property, which in any case is small beans compared to personal injury is another issue. Tiny dogs may bite more often, but they cause tiny injuries, a 15 pound dog can cause real wounds, a 50 pound dog can maim or disfigure. Over that weight, all bets are off. The risk of a dog messing someone up real bad in your property is not worth the trouble.
posted by dirty lies at 1:50 AM on July 14, 2009
Big dogs and small dogs can potentially do the same damage to property, which in any case is small beans compared to personal injury is another issue. Tiny dogs may bite more often, but they cause tiny injuries, a 15 pound dog can cause real wounds, a 50 pound dog can maim or disfigure. Over that weight, all bets are off. The risk of a dog messing someone up real bad in your property is not worth the trouble.
posted by dirty lies at 1:50 AM on July 14, 2009
I feel you. My 8-lb Chihuahua will shred the small portion of your ankle she might be able to reach, whereas my 45-lb mutt will run away from you, hide behind me and pretend you can't see him. And the bigger (younger) dog is far more housetraining-reliable than the little old vixen Chi. But people think Lulu is cute and harmless, even when she's baring teeth and determined to attack, and think Mav is a killer even when he's tiptoeing around with a big, dumb smile.
I suspect to some degree that insurance rates may have something to do with it - both for injury (bites, attacks) and for property damage. A hotel wants to be able to advertise itself as "Pet Friendly," and can probably get away with that if they allow some animals but not all. At the same time, insurance companies probably impose a higher premium for all the so-called "dangerous" breeds. Since an average employee may not be trustable to know all the dog breeds or identify a pit bull on sight, size is an easy target. That way, they don't have to get in debates with people like me, whose dog is a mutt from the SPCA that the folks there put on paper as a "Beagle mix," who looks an awful lot like a pit bull mix to my untrained eyes, and may or may not be a "dangerous breed" under an insurance policy that the customer-facing hotel employee will never have seen and not be qualified to interpret.
posted by bunnycup at 6:34 AM on July 14, 2009
I suspect to some degree that insurance rates may have something to do with it - both for injury (bites, attacks) and for property damage. A hotel wants to be able to advertise itself as "Pet Friendly," and can probably get away with that if they allow some animals but not all. At the same time, insurance companies probably impose a higher premium for all the so-called "dangerous" breeds. Since an average employee may not be trustable to know all the dog breeds or identify a pit bull on sight, size is an easy target. That way, they don't have to get in debates with people like me, whose dog is a mutt from the SPCA that the folks there put on paper as a "Beagle mix," who looks an awful lot like a pit bull mix to my untrained eyes, and may or may not be a "dangerous breed" under an insurance policy that the customer-facing hotel employee will never have seen and not be qualified to interpret.
posted by bunnycup at 6:34 AM on July 14, 2009
At the same time, insurance companies probably impose a higher premium for all the so-called "dangerous" breeds.
Let me add, that in addition to the possibility of a higher premium, they may deny coverage for them alltogether.
posted by bunnycup at 6:36 AM on July 14, 2009
Let me add, that in addition to the possibility of a higher premium, they may deny coverage for them alltogether.
posted by bunnycup at 6:36 AM on July 14, 2009
. . . reminds me of the time a friend who managed a woman's clothing store at to set a blanket policy that everyone had to wear closed-toed shoes after one employee with "gnarley" toes spoiled it for everyone. We live in a society that treats the spoilers with so much caution that takes away more freedom for everyone else.
Where dogs are concerned I think it would make sense for people to have renewable certification training that would allow any kind of dog that had passed the certification to be allowed. This would punish bad behavior rather than a potentially wonderful dog that happened to be larger.
I'm with you. If I had a business, I would have a strictly enforced arbitrary policy of "Good dogs allowed." If your dog is good it can stay, if your dog is bad it must leave.
-
posted by General Tonic at 8:04 AM on July 14, 2009
Where dogs are concerned I think it would make sense for people to have renewable certification training that would allow any kind of dog that had passed the certification to be allowed. This would punish bad behavior rather than a potentially wonderful dog that happened to be larger.
I'm with you. If I had a business, I would have a strictly enforced arbitrary policy of "Good dogs allowed." If your dog is good it can stay, if your dog is bad it must leave.
-
posted by General Tonic at 8:04 AM on July 14, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by theichibun at 4:00 PM on July 13, 2009