8

I cannot figure out how to word this. I'm creating a rental system and have a question with regard to pets contained within a residence. But there are different types of pets.

For example, a dog who eats everything and 'litters' the backyard is very different from a turtle in a glass box.

Is there a way to differentiate between the two? I can only think of Uncaged pets but it's not really the right way to explain it.

Improve this question
4
  • Indoor pets perhaps?
    – terdon
    Sep 1, 2013 at 15:27
  • 1
    "low-maintenance pets" maybe can capture another aspect.
    – Pam
    Sep 1, 2013 at 15:37
  • .'problem pets'
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Sep 1, 2013 at 15:58
  • 1
    How about 'contained? this should distinguish between those in cages/tanks and those running loose.
    – Mynamite
    Sep 1, 2013 at 21:02

6 Answers 6

Reset to default
2

'No encroaching pets'.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1: to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

2: to advance beyond the usual or proper limits

Both definitions apply in the context of the OP.

Improve this answer
8

Troublesome pets will not be tolerated.

Improve this answer
1
  • 2
    From " Uncaged pets" I suspect they are trying to differentiate on the basis of whether the pet is contained in a tank/cage/box rather than behaviour. I can see a lot of dog owners arguing that their Fido is no trouble at all.
    – Martin Smith
    Sep 1, 2013 at 19:52
3

You can say:

indoor pets only.

No noisy pets.

low maintenance dogs.

dogs welcome (some breeds only).

small dogs welcome.

Improve this answer
2
  • I believe "indoor pets", "noisy pets", "small dogs, etc misses the point; a pet is usually considered causing trouble if it invites complaints from other people. A pet could be uncaged but behave nicely enough that it doesn't bother anyone. Otherwise, they could be an inside pet but is continuously barking at nights. On the other extreme, it could be a tamed lion, that is usually calm and well behaved, but understandably causes a little discomfort for everyone even if caged. It may be best to keep the wording vague so home owner can accept or refuse any tenants' pet as they see fit.
    – Lie Ryan
    Sep 1, 2013 at 22:22
  • I believe it doesn't misses the point at all, he is asking about words to describe pets for a rental system and if you move a lot from place to place like I do you notice that these are the most common words describing what kind of pets are accepted, my answer was for this specific question I wasn't saying that indoor pets aren't noisy or that small dogs don't cause trouble, perhaps I forgot the "cats only", I believe that a lion misses the point because it is very unlikely to have as a pet, again these are "keywords" I see time after time on rental ads.
    – marsulld
    Sep 2, 2013 at 17:39
3

No pets that damage property or disturb other tenants.

Improve this answer
2
  • You would need to define what disturbing other tenants is to make this legally binding in a contract. Such is the way with annoyances in a rental environment. Take loud music... what may be disturbing to another tenant, may also be completely legal for the tenant being complained about, although the law states this as a 50 decibel limit where I live. Irregardless of the tenant that is complaining, the tenant that is being complained about is within their legal right if they meet the legal definition.
    – Epiphany
    Sep 2, 2013 at 10:49
  • @Epiphany: Each jurisdiction has its own law. Under the British Columbia Residential Tenancy Act, for example, it is not necessary (nor is it possible) to define (contractually or by other means) an exhaustive list of what might disturb another tenant. In the event of a dispute (i.e., a contested eviction notice), a ruling is required in light of the evidence, the strongest of which would include that of a complaint from another tenant.
    – joyofwriting
    Sep 2, 2013 at 19:04
1

House trained pets allowed (BrEng) or
Housebroken pets welcomed (AmEng)

Housebreaking

Housebreaking (US English) or House-training (British English) is the process of training a domesticated animal that lives with its human owners in a house or other residence to excrete (urinate and defecate) outdoors, or in a designated indoor area, rather than inside the house

You could add an aditional clause specifying that pets must defecate within the rented premises/home. You wouldn't want the term, house trained, to be a license for pet owners to use the back garden (backyard) as toilet grounds.

Improve this answer
0

No dogs, cats or exotic pets allowed. All other pets by written approval only.

Improve this answer
7
  • Dogs, cats, and exotic pets can all be problematic, and segregating by species does not address the OP question. A monkey is an exotic pet, but that doesn't mean it won't end up throwing it's feces against the wall, which many monkeys are known to do. Sorry, but I have to knock you a point on this.
    – Epiphany
    Sep 2, 2013 at 6:51
  • 1
    @Epiphany - A monkey is an exotic pet and therefore would not be allowed. The OP's question is somewhat ambiguous but my reading is that they do want to segregate by species. (banning those species that are potentially troublesome whilst allowing inoffensive ones like hamsters)
    – Martin Smith
    Sep 2, 2013 at 7:26
  • @Martin Smith. Word to describe pets that can be uncomfortable to live with? was the OP. Animals of the same species can be both troublesome and/or not troublesome to live with. This is determined by the individual animal only, and not the animals species. So how can you justify reading in a separation by species based upon the OP?
    – Epiphany
    Sep 2, 2013 at 8:23
  • @Epiphany - Because the phrase that they initially came up with "Uncaged pets". I assume this describes the concept accurately (pets only allowed if kept confined rather than free in the property) but they aren't particularly happy with the phrasing. From a practical POV as well if you advertise for tenants you would much more likely prohibit entire species. No dogs and cats rather than enter into some sort of discussion about the personality of the individual animals.
    – Martin Smith
    Sep 2, 2013 at 8:50
  • @Martin Smith. Once again, that was not the original OP. So in your definition, a blind man with a seeing-eye dog would not be allowed, even though he obviously would have a highly trained dog that would by far never be a problem with the neighbors... correct?
    – Epiphany
    Sep 2, 2013 at 10:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.