Dog friendly places - small dog only - WHY?

meilani

I consider it a privilege and not a right to bring my dogs.

Exactly, you said it better than I did.

 it is a type of discrimination.  even though the hotel/motel/B&B/rental house/etc may be privately owned, it is still discrimination. there are laws that prohibit other types of discrimination, but nothing i know of that prevents dog discrimination.

that is one of the reasons we havent been on a vacation in several years. even the places that would allow 3 large dogs, we couldnt afford the rental fee and the added dog fees on top of that.  

I honestly believe that in most cases it is about not being educated.  Sorry guys, but I disagree with this whole thing some of you are saying regarding increase damage in a large dog. I have only not had a dog for a total of 5 years of my life.  That makes 30 years worth of experiences living with dogs and the majority of those dogs were smaller breeds (35 pounds and under) and every single one of those dogs was FAR MORE destructive than any of the large dogs I have ever owned.

 “Big” doesn’t mean more destructive, more loud, more cost for the owners, more risk.. none of it.  In fact, IME, the small dogs we have owned have always been more loud and destructive than the large we have owned. Your experiences may be different than mine, but I can only speak from what I personally know.

 I totally feel you on this issue as the place where my parents live is a great high rise condo complex and they have a 40 pound limit.  The dogs and I go visit my parents at least a few times a month and every single time I go, I get some snotty residents there asking me if I live there concerned by how big my dogs are.  Not “hi how are you? … wow are those retired racers?.... beautiful dogs you have….” Or any other of the regular comments we get daily.  It ticks me off that people get so caught up on size and somehow they think that when a dog reaches 41 pounds, all training and discipline goes out the door.  It really is lack of education and understanding on most people’s parts.  It is going to be a problem for me as some day when I inherit my parents place, I wont ever be able to live there and the location is wonderful and ideal for us… but the 40 pound limit is a deal breaker.

Every single one of us on this board of dog lovers “should” understand that it is all dependent on the dog and the owner… PERIOD.  JMHO

I find it interesting that the people defending small dog-only policies have small dogs.   Big dogs really aren't all that much trouble. Can they do more damage per minute? Yes. Are they potentially scarier looking? Yes.

But what kind of dogs are the champions of hard to housebreak? Small dogs. I'd bet that small dogs pee in hotels FAR more than big dogs destroy. And, on average, the type of person bothering to travel with their big dog is a dedicated owner. Small dogs are frequently fashion accessories, which suggests owners who aren't always as responsible. (Note: I am speaking of general populations, and NOT implying small dogs owners here are not responsible. If you're posting at a dog board, you're likely a dog freak. In a good way!)

The idea of big dogs scare people. You can get away with not training small dogs, but not so much with big dogs. People pick up their badly behaved small dogs, but get dragged around by badly behaved big dogs. There is a perception that small dogs are easier and safer. I see this in parents all the time - everyone talks about getting a small dog when they have small kids. And I'm thinking "yikes!"

I think it is silly and not at all logical to allow small dogs and not big dogs, unless physical space is the issue. Ie, Bugsy wouldn't fit under an airplane seat.

The comparisons between dogs and humans are not totally misplaced. The rules regarding obese persons is a hot topic. Should a very large person have to pay for more than one seat on an airplane, etc. There are people passionately arguing on both sides.

I wouldn't mind paying a higher deposit for a bigger dog, if an establishment were worried about the furniture being eaten. I wouldn't mind the requirement that any dog left alone on a room/house would have to be crated. But it is a shame so many places automatically exclude big dogs without thought.

jjsmom06

I honestly believe that in most cases it is about not being educated. 

jjsmom06

Every single one of us on this board of dog lovers “should” understand that it is all dependent on the dog and the owner… PERIOD.  JMHO

kpwlee

One place we stayed last year stated that in 10 years of running a dog friendly B&B the only problems they had were with small dogs. They stated barking and house training as the problems.

This has been my experience too.  Over my life we have probably owned 14+ dogs and all but 6 were small.  The smaller ones had more issues with house training (likely due to their smaller bladders) and they were always far more barky than the large breeds. We had to work a lot harder at training with them but in the end they were all VERY good dogs with time, effort and training.    

kpwlee

I personally didn't expect people (albeit all small dog owners) on this forum to think that discriminating by weight was AOK. 

But I totally get your beef on this topic and why you feel strongly about it.. as do I.

I don't think any kind of 'discrimination' is good. And by discrimination I mean the first sentence in the wikipedia definition:

"In general, discrimination is the discernment of qualities and recognition of the differences between things."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

And I'm speaking as an owner of medium-large dogs, about 60 lbs. They aren't scary, but they don't fit into a handbag either.

My opinion is that if a hotel is going to allow dogs then they should allow all of them, otherwise don't allow any. If you start saying that there are differences, you open yourself up to arguments over whether 19 lbs is ok and 21 is not, or even breed-specific, which is dicey using only appearances.

Somehow I don't think that the weight restriction has to do with the possible amount of damage. My experience is that there are many people who don't know all that much about dogs who substitute "pick up the dog" for training. This tactic doesn't work for large dogs. Actually I think it's a lousy tactic for small dogs, but over and over I see small dog owners who do it. But I think there is a general perception that small dogs are easier to control and therefore less dangerous. But frankly I would not want to have to put up with any aggressive or annoying dog at a hotel, large or small.

Dog_ma

And, on average, the type of person bothering to travel with their big dog is a dedicated owner.

Dog_ma

Ie, Bugsy wouldn't fit under an airplane seat.

Dog_ma

The comparisons between dogs and humans are not totally misplaced. The rules regarding obese persons is a hot topic. Should a very large person have to pay for more than one seat on an airplane, etc. There are people passionately arguing on both sides.

kpwlee

KrissimKlaw again I will iterate we just disagree - if a hotel allows dogs it is discriminating (by definition) when it sets weight limits.   Just as if it allows people but than says but not if over 300lbs or not with blue eyes or whatever. If it allows dogs it is not discriminating when it excludes ferrets, snakes, etc. they are not dogs.  That is using pure logic. 

Why is that not discriminating?  According to your definition it should be since you aren't allowing other pet animals but you are allowing pet dogs.  Why is my ferret, snake, pig, anymore of a bad hotel guest then your dog?  Why shouldn't I be able to take my pets with me on a vacation simply because they aren't as common as dogs and people aren't educated on them?  Do they somehow not deserve to have an awesome time with the family because they aren't canines?  By your reasoning, if a hotel can't make accommodation's for all pets than it isn't right to do it for just dogs because that is discrimination.

But wait your a big dog owner so I can't expect you to be able to debate this matter without taking sides, just like you automatically think anyone with a small dog's opinion is clearly tainted when they don't agree with you.

You want to know what I find discriminating, the fact that I can't fly with my praying mantises in an airplane.  They can fit in the palm of my hand, are mute, clean, have no odor an human could detect, never found a person sneezing do to allergies at their presence, and they could easily be contained and fit under a seat.  Yet, because they are insects (no matter in the U.S.A they are considered beneficial) they are not allowed on planes no and ifs or buts.  Still I would never complain that other animals shouldn't be allowed because they aren't.

zircon

I don't think any kind of 'discrimination' is good. And by discrimination I mean the first sentence in the wikipedia definition:

"In general, discrimination is the discernment of qualities and recognition of the differences between things."

By that definition discrimination is merely acknowledging the difference between things.  By saying that is bad does that mean you would let dog aggressive dogs go to the dog park and do as they wish because prohibiting them is discriminating against them?  Not all discrimination is inherently bad.

zircon

My opinion is that if a hotel is going to allow dogs then they should allow all of them, otherwise don't allow any. If you start saying that there are differences, you open yourself up to arguments over whether 19 lbs is ok and 21 is not, or even breed-specific, which is dicey using only appearances.

Personally, I think the whole weight restrictions are silly.  If a hotel is going to go through all the extra effort of insuring and doing the extra cleaning and care for dogs, they might as well just allow all sizes.  I would be far more interested in insisting that all dogs are properly crated when not supervised.  That being said, I am proud to live in a country where hotel owners have a right to decide what they will and won't allow as far as animals in their establishments.  I might not agree with them, just like I might not agree with what someone is preaching on the side of the street, but it is still their right.

Krissim Klaw

zircon

I don't think any kind of 'discrimination' is good. And by discrimination I mean the first sentence in the wikipedia definition:

"In general, discrimination is the discernment of qualities and recognition of the differences between things."

 

By that definition discrimination is merely acknowledging the difference between things.  By saying that is bad does that mean you would let dog aggressive dogs go to the dog park and do as they wish because prohibiting them is discriminating against them?  Not all discrimination is inherently bad.

Excuse me? The topic was hotels and B&B's allowing dogs of a certain size, not allowing aggressive dogs to go to dog parks and "do as they wish." It would appear that my point was not clear enough so I'll restate it plainly. Using something simple to recognize, namely SIZE, might give someone a false sense of security, because there is no causal relationship with behavior.  

zircon

My opinion is that if a hotel is going to allow dogs then they should allow all of them, otherwise don't allow any. If you start saying that there are differences, you open yourself up to arguments over whether 19 lbs is ok and 21 is not, or even breed-specific, which is dicey using only appearances.

I think this is what I find most laughable when it comes to the argument is the fact people feel so entitled that if they can't have something than no one else should either.  So you would rather hotels ban dogs all together than allow some.  Even if there are restrictions, at least some people can have the joy of bringing their dogs with them.  Seems rather selfish to me to take away from others to even the playing field in this situation.

Personally, I think the whole weight restrictions are silly.  If a hotel is going to go through all the extra effort of insuring and doing the extra cleaning and care for dogs, they might as well just allow all sizes.  I would be far more interested in insisting that all dogs are properly crated when not supervised.  That being said, I am proud to live in a country where hotel owners have a right to decide what they will and won't allow as far as animals in their establishments.  I might not agree with them, just like I might not agree with what someone is preaching on the side of the street, but it is still their right.

I'm missing something. Why am I getting called "selfish" and my statements laughable when I argue against a weight restriction because of their arbitrariness, but it's ok for someone else to say that weight restrictions are "silly." This has nothing to do with a sense of "entitlement." No one is "entitled" to anything. I went on a vacation last fall and stayed at a dog friendly place with my two medium-large dogs and had a blast. My dogs even entertained some kids in the lobby (they are both Therapy Dogs) and everyone was happy. The hotel got their extra $50 / day for the two dogs and we had a nice time. I don't insist bringing my dogs everywhere, but I do make sure that they leave a good impression.

Well the fact of the matter is that, whether we like it or not, a lot of people are not comfortable around or are fearful of large dogs.  As an owner or manager of any type of establishment it is your responsibility to make your paying customers feel comfortable and secure on your grounds in whatever manner you see fit.  Sure, I suppose they could prohibit all dogs, but why should all dog owners lose out and if dogs were causing lots of damage and problems they would have changed the rule a long time ago.  As much as I love animals of all sizes, shapes and species, I dont' expect others to feel the same way nor do I feel that it is my right for them to be welcomed everywhere.   Additionally, and I don't care what anyone says about this, large dogs have the potential to do more damage not only to propery but to people if they were to bite or attack another renter.  All it takes is one incident and one lawsuit and that rule will get changed awful quickly.

 And no, it's not just because I have small dogs that I feel this way, is that the only reason that someone could possibly disagree on this issue?  Maybe the better way  to look at it is that owners of large dogs are the only ones who think their dogs should be allowed in hotels without question (just like only smokers have a problem with smoking bans).  Sorry I know some will disagree but I always try to look at things from the point of view of the other party in the situation and not make everything all about me and my convenience.  A lot of people have a fear (irrational in MY opinion) of snakes.  My four foot snake cannot damage property nor cause serious injury to anyone yet I don't think he'd be welcome in many public places.  Therefore,he stays at home.  I suppose I can feel that people should just stop their ignorance and 'get educated' but I don't and I certainly don't complain about it.  

zircon

I'm missing something. Why am I getting called "selfish" and my statements laughable when I argue against a weight restriction because of their arbitrariness, but it's ok for someone else to say that weight restrictions are "silly." This has nothing to do with a sense of "entitlement." No one is "entitled" to anything. I went on a vacation last fall and stayed at a dog friendly place with my two medium-large dogs and had a blast. My dogs even entertained some kids in the lobby (they are both Therapy Dogs) and everyone was happy. The hotel got their extra $50 / day for the two dogs and we had a nice time. I don't insist bringing my dogs everywhere, but I do make sure that they leave a good impression.

 

As for my statement of saying I thought weight restrictions where silly, I was just acknowledging that I also agree that weight shouldn't be the basis for what dogs are allowed.  The difference in my thoughts however is unlike a lot of people who seem to be responding I still believe a hotel should have the right to make up rules in that manner if that is how they want to run their business.

jenns

Well the fact of the matter is that, whether we like it or not, a lot of people are not comfortable around or are fearful of large dogs.

Jenn, the exact same thing can be said about small dogs, ALL dogs for that matter. I personally am way more comfortable with large dogs than with small dogs. Why? Exposure, I guess. I haven't been around a lot of small dogs, and the ones I have, I've found hard to read. I look at a big dog and can usually tell whether it's comfortable, scared, happy, etc., but I don't know small dogs well enough. Plus all the small dogs I've known are yappy obnoxious little things. I've seen a lot more small dogs bite people than large dogs. They also, in my experience, are way more likely to pee or poop on the floor. So if I were opening a motel, should I ban small dogs? "Dogs over 40 pounds ONLY. NO EXCEPTIONS!" No, because that's ridiculous. Small dogs are not inherently more dangerous, they don't automatically bark more, they don't necessarily bite more, and they certainly don't all poop and pee on the floor.

Whattayaknow...

Well now I understand better what you are saying. I don't think it has anything to do with being "selfish." There are plenty of hotels that have weight restrictions of 70 lbs so it does not affect me personally in most cases. I just don't think that it is fair. And I would feel the same way if I had a toy breed.

My opinion is that weight restrictions are arbitrary because I don't see where to you draw the line: 10 lb dog ok, but 15 lb dog not ok? 45 lb dog ok, but 55 lb dog not ok? *In my opinion* it just isn't a reasonable way to decide which dogs should be allowed to stay in a hotel and which ones shouldn't. I do not happen to buy the argument that big dogs cause more damage. That is about like saying small dogs are more likely to bark and disturb the other guests. It's all arbitrary from where I am sitting.

I agree that a hotel / B&B owner should be able to decide how they want to. Heck they could use a lot of different criteria. I knew one who disliked snowmobilers because they always got all the towels totally greasy wiping off their snowmobiles, so if she had told me she was not going to allow people to bring snowmobiles anymore I would have understood. So if there are hotel owners who have weight restrictions (as many do), it is certainly their right to do it, but I don't have to agree with it or like it. A forum is for expressing opinions, right?

Krissim Klaw

Why is my ferret, snake, pig, anymore of a bad hotel guest then your dog?

Krissim Klaw

Personally, I think the whole weight restrictions are silly.  If a hotel is going to go through all the extra effort of insuring and doing the extra cleaning and care for dogs, they might as well just allow all sizes.

that was the whole point of this thread