Lack of Pet-Friendly Rentals in Montreal Leads to Wave of Surrendered Pets

​www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-spca-moving-day-2022-1.6509097

In the past 3 months, Montreal's SPCA took in over 600 animals, surrendered as a result of Quebec's Moving Day and a lack of rentals that allow pets. The SPCA stated that this was the highest amount of pets taken in since before the pandemic, signaling a worrying lack of availability that's forcing pet-owners to choose between their loving pets or a roof over their heads. This lack of availability is putting pet owners in a difficult position and causing an influx of surrenders that puts pressure on the SPCA to care for such a large amount of animals.

It's estimated that 52% of Quebecers have a pet but only a reported 4% of rentals currently allow pets and according to the Quebec Landlord Association, that's not going to change. 

"Clawed floors, nibbled threads, carpets that serve as litter ... [This is] the reality of some dwellings whose tenants do not take care of their animals,"
Statement from the Quebec Landlord Association

The association claims it is sensitive to the many requests from pet-owners and landlords should be able to ask for a security deposit to cover potential damage but in most cases, they find the potential risks too great. This lack of availability in rentals that allow pets will force more pets to be surrendered, further putting pressure on the SPCA to staff accordingly to care for such a large amount of animals. It also means that these animals are going to have a much more difficult time being adopted out because there's no where to live that allows them. It's unacceptable.

No pet clauses are so abhorrent and unfairly target pet-owners who are often responsible and ready to put down a deposit to cover any potential issues that could arise. What I think is most frustrating about these clauses is that a lot of what they're worried about from animals could also be applied to young children. Children can be destructive, scratching hardwood floors, colouring on walls, breaking cabinet / cupboard doors / handles, and yet there's no security deposit to cover their possible destruction. It's ridiculous not to recognize the potential for damage that a child can cause versus a pet and not to accept that banning pets while allowing children puts landlords in the exact same position without the safety net of a security deposit.

Banning pets is lazy when all it takes is a clause in the lease that protects landlords and property. I'm certain that in almost every case, tenants would happily pay a deposit to keep their beloved pets versus surrendering them to a shelter in order to keep a roof over their heads. It's despicable that landlords would rather see families ripped apart as opposed to taking the necessary steps to properly protect their rentals. It's lazy and it's aiding in overcrowded shelters that will struggle to adopt out animals in a rental market that doesn't accept fur babies. There must be more done to prevent over crowded shelters & innocent animals being torn away from their families.

HAPPY VEG