Since everyone here is a responsible breeder/owner and knows what they are talking about..... I have been asked to find out how many dogs are required to maintain a show/work/dual purpose kennel?

For example would 15 dogs in a small breed be considered the average number to maintain a line/lines and to give the person owning the dogs one or more quality dogs for the show ring. Would you expect a larger breed to have the same number of dogs? more or less?

What would be a maximum and minimum number you would keep to maintain your lines and have something to show or for that matter work?

Who has asked you ?

Interesting as know people who have large numbers of dogs but some very small numbers but it depends on what criteria success and maintenance is based on ?

No way could I manage 15 dogs at once, my maximum so far has been 9 and 4 of them were pups I had bred before they went to their new homes. It is not just having the room but time to groom and exercise, the cost of vet fees and good quality food.

I used to think that breeders who rehomed their retired dogs were awful till it was explained to me that better they went to a new home as one of 2 dogs than become one of 30 dogs because the breeder couldn't bear to part with them.

It may take several litters before you find a pup that has show potential, you may be lucky and have a bitch that produces good quality pups with different studs, no one knows till they try.

Just wrote a detailed reply and leaned on the keyboard and deleted it.

I certainly hope to keep within 6 as my maximum (breed with average lifespan of 13 years or so), even though I have branched into two female lines from my 9 year old girl, now owning her two daughters of 5 1/2 and 4, and their daughters of 18 months and 11 weeks.

I am one of those who thus far has always kept all my dogs for their lifespans.

My oldest is 13 and I don't plan to keep another pup for around 2 1/2 years, though will breed from the older youngster to prove her first.  I am now into my 7th generation, sicne 1992. 

My 13, 9 and 4 year olds are champions, and I have bred dogs that have done well for others or been used in others breeding programs to produce well.

The most successful, and long standing kennel in my breed rarely kept more than 6 - 8 dogs.  A kennel keeping more than that these days would be considered large in my breed.

In the early days there were large kennels as in most breeds, largely kept by landed gentry, or others of means, and those who had staff to care for them.

Do wonder who would want to know such a thing and why they would think there is a definitive answer to the question.

Surely it would depend on breed, your foundation stock and your circumstances.

Someone who was lucky with their first bitch and with their first litter would be like Brainless and limit their numbers to between 3 and 6.

On the other hand if you have kennels and staff you may wish to  start a separate line from the original or move into a second breed.

If we knew why the question then perhaps a more helpful answer could be given.

Ah I see I forgot to put that in, (rushing out to go shopping, and did not read my original post in full). I am currently trying to help a housing association who are working with the RSPCA and are looking at tenants dogs. One of the problems they have in implementing their rules is that they do not know how many dogs a show breeder or working dog breeder needs to maintain a line. If the RSPCA had their way the association would simply slap a blanket ban on dogs regardless of whether they are pets or show dogs or working dogs. So they have asked me to try to find some idea of numbers of dogs breeders keep to maintain a line. They really do not want to put on a complete ban, but as part of the new standards landlords are expected to work within they need guidelines for themselves and for tenants.

For my own dogs I primarily work them I keep four maximum, one pup, one due to come into full time working, one coming up to retirement and one retired. I do not re-home my old dogs, I have always been able to maintain my line by breeding every 3 or 4 years and keeping a dog or a bitch. They did mention they had a tenant who claimed that they needed to have 15 + dogs (kept in a 3 bed home) in order to maintain their lines. I know several people who have show and working dogs who keep more than I do and as requested I was trying to find out if there is a optimum number you would keep.

As I said earlier as you are responsible folk here I thought you might have some ideas about a minimum and maximum nuber of dogs to keep a line going.

Sorry I can't help with your research but I am green with envy at how many dogs you all have! :)

> As I said earlier as you are responsible folk here I thought you might have some ideas about a minimum and maximum nuber of dogs to keep a line going.

I don't show or breed, but have often wondered about the same thing myself, especially as I have rented in the past and in the future may be a HA tenant. Many landlords and HA's have a strict limit on one or two dogs maximum, meaning that to maintain a show/work line would not be possible in most cases.

Starting with one bitch, I would guess the maximum age for a first litter would be about 4 years old... If a bitch was kept from that litter then that bitch would also need to be bred from at 4, max. That's three dogs if one was kept from the second bitch as well, with the original bitch still only 8 years old. For some breeds that's old age - for many it's just middle age, so if the third dog was bred from at 4, that takes it up to 4 dogs with the eldest 12 years old. With some breeds that regularly reach the age of 16 or above you would be at 6 dogs by the time the original bitch passed away (barring accidents of course).

The only way round this (aside from rehoming older dogs) would be not to keep any from the first litters, simply to stretch out the time, and hope that there would be something to keep in a later litter.

Or to keep males only, and hope that someone will want to use your youngest boy at stud when the oldest one is in his dotage.

For my own dogs I primarily work them I keep four maximum, one pup, one due to come into full time working, one coming up to retirement and one retired. I do not re-home my old dogs, I have always been able to maintain my line by breeding every 3 or 4 years and keeping a dog or a bitch.

You'd have to be extremely lucky every time to get an entire litter sold. That is never the same from breed to breed. In both my breeds it is common to have a lot of dogs and indeed people with 20-30 plus isn't all that unusual. My main breed isn't easy to sell. If I had been able to sell all puppies I WANTED to sell, and just keep one pup per litter, I'd have 6 dogs less than I now have. And what about if you have to take an adult back? It's not always possible to find a home for an adult. I have 2 here that's come back to me. So I don't think it's possible to say everyone could stick to a small number as circumstances changes everything.

> And what about if you have to take an adult back? It's not always possible to find a home for an adult. I have 2 here that's come back to me. So I don't think it's possible to say everyone could stick to a small number as circumstances changes everything.

Good point! I am hoping that when they see the comments they will be able to make up their minds on how they will allow tenants to keep dogs. I am very much on the side of the breeders..... not the RSPCA and their 'utopia' of no pets being allowed to be kept by HA tenants, or anyone who is a responsible breeder who wants to keep their lines.

I keep four Med/lg in a one bedroom bungalow with no problem and would not have a problem with up to 10 but I do have a lot of garden.

If someone is a show/working person then the number they need would be difficult to assess as it depends on if they keep their old dogs and what age they live to, how often the bitches are bred and how many are returned but I will stick my neck out and say it would not be unreasonable to ask that in the situation when the neighbours are close that no more than 10 be kept. Sounds restrictive I suppose but you do have to consider others and I assume that the tenancy would restrict the running of a business.

Would say that if someone has over the number decided when the rule comes in they should be given a large number of years to reduce this number there can be nothing sadder than being told to get rid of a beloved dog, on the other had it is tragic to find a situation where the person is unable to care for the number they have. Not sure set rules really work as everyone and every breed is different but if rules there have to be 10 would seem reasonable.

Now wait to be told why I am wrong and that in itself will prove the point that it is almost impossible to say in general what is reasonable.

I don´t feel able or inclined to comment on numbers of adults required, but would like to make the point that if some sort of HA rule is made limiting the total number of dogs a breeder can have, that this number excludes one litter of puppies (up to say, 3-4 months old?) at any given time.  If young puppies were counted as "dogs" in the total headcount, just about everyone would be excluded.

The problem when things are put in writing (ie tenancy agreements) is that they are so rigid so provision has to be made for litters.

Hope I´ve explained myself OK.

Oh yes litters would have to be excluded.  If that counted I once had 5 adults and 13 pups here, plus a returned adult before rehoming.

>I will stick my neck out and say it would not be unreasonable to ask that in the situation when the neighbours are close that no more than 10 be kept.

Not in any way having a go at you Nova, but lordy. 10 dogs, in someone's else's house in (presumably, as HA) a built up area. I'm surprised that you're cautious in suggesting that restriction. It seems very high to me.

I guess that is a knee jerk reaction, and I have no doubt there are some people who do it well so am not tarring all with the same brush - but I would imagine a lot of people keeping that number of dogs in an estate type area would make their neighbours' lives a misery, to be honest. On that basis, I am amazed that a housing association wouldn't want the number to be an awful lot lower, to restrict complaints and make their own job easier.

M.

Well was assuming this is a serious show/working owner whose dogs will/should not be disturbing the neighbours and the owner will be making sure they clean up and run a good establishment. Even if you have one bitch and breed a litter the neighbours can't help but know as litter of pups are noisy and require to be taken outside but on the other hand so are a couple of children and I don't suppose a HA limits the number of children if they are kept in order so no more should the number of dogs or cats be. If you keep whatever you fancy breeding be it Kids, dogs or cats to yourself and your property I do not think the neighbours should have reason to complain about the number as it should make little difference.

>So they have asked me to try to find some idea of numbers of dogs breeders keep to maintain a line

IMO If you are living in a HA house you adhere to their rules. If they want to say no more than 2 dogs which is an acceptable amount it should be adhered to. Just because you say you have to have so many to "continue a line" doesn't mean you can dictate to the HA who own the house.

It is a privilege to own a dog, not a right same goes with breeding.

I sort of agree with you Tillyandangel

I would think it needs to be settled by how much room/land etc the house has. I think we are all agreed that most HA homes are within estates and many have just smallish town sized gardens. The house belongs to someone else and to think you can house 15 large breed dogs would be  pushing the limits of good housekeeping in my mind. I keep three most of the time as a max and occasionally 4 plus the very odd litter who are in transit (So to speak). I have my own house with a larger than average garden.
Some people are very good housekeepers and can run more still maintaining quiet and cleanlyness others could not keep one dog in hygenic conditions and are a constant pain in the niegbours sides.
Other things they need to look at are how many people live in the house and help with the dogs? One person living alone with over ten larger breeds would struggle to keep them fit and healthy in such a small area so need to have a rigorous excercise plan maybe walking 3 -4 at a time for two walks a day would use up a good 4 hours a day at a minimum, not to mention the ability to keep bitches and dogs seperated when neccesary and have a tight hold on fighting.
My personal opinion is that more than 5 is getting to many. Though there is a difference between 5 small toy breeds and 5 Great danes ! but taking a med sized breed like a Lab then 5 in one average house is enough. I can see no reason why you cannot maintain a bloodline with 5 and to be honest if you need to keep a lot more to keep more than one line going then you need to get your own house. I can happily keep my line active with 3 or 4 overlapping. Granted my breed are not long lived so another breed may push you into 5 at times.
However the houses belong to someone else and if they say 2 then that is what needs to be adheared to.
Aileen

> I sort of agree with you Tillyandangel

Me too ! Given how much it costs to keep a dog (wthout the extra costs of showing or breeding), I'm surprised that someone who has to rent a house could afford to keep 10 dogs.

I have to question how if someone can afford to keep a large number of dogs in tip top condition and also breed if they are relying on help from the council/ha with their ret as most people are on reduced rent in these places because they don't have a lot of money... So personally I think a strict limit should be applied esp if they are on limited rent or have benefits paying for it... This may upset some people but animals cost and you have to wonder if they can afford many dogs, shows etc ten maybe they should be paying full rent like I do as many others... I work very very hard and struggle to attend shows these days and I only have me and 2 dogs!!

You would be surprised as don't think the criteria is as strict as we would perhaps expect it to be.

We have had ten new affordable houses put up in our village and it does make me laugh as the one tenant turns up in his brand new Subaru impress WRX and then the couple who have their ironing delivered by a ironing service !

How the other half live ! It does make me so cross as know of some very deserving cases who haven't got a sniff at one.

> as don't think the criteria is as strict as we would perhaps expect it to be

No - I'm sure it's not :( People have such different priorities - we've always made sure we can put a roof over our head, feed ourselves and provide a good education etc for our children. Cars/holidays etc always came last, as did going out/socialising. Now the children have left home and OH is an OAP we can spend on what we wish, but we're still careful with our money and two dogs seems reasonable despite having the time/money/house/garden to have loads :) :) :) As a non-breeder I can see Barbara/Aileen's arguements to be perfectly reasonable, but I still think that 2 dogs is more than enough in a rented house.

but are you saying that only owner occupiers should be allowed to have a dog showing/working breeding hobby?

There are people who never aspire to home ownership, (My grandfather kept a large a racing pigeon loft in an LA property, earned good money as a bricklayer but never wanted to own), especially in these times with employment being so tenuous.  I don't think poverty was ever a category for renting LA/HA housing, ti just has become that way due to the shortage of accommodation, meaning everyone who can do otherwise does so.

We do seem to lack a real private long term rental sector, it's either social Housing, or rather  temporary private rentals.

In other countries there is a much lower rate of owner occupation and a lot of housing is built and maintained for renting commercially, and to all intents and purposes these are peoples homes for as long as they pay the rent.

Anyway I think you would have to say 6 permanent residents needed to keep a line going for a medium size breed that lives 13 years on average, as many in this category will live several years longer.

I live as an owner occupier on a former LA estate, probably about 2/3rds private to 1/3rd LA (based on the number of new front doors the council were putting in a few years ago), so why should I have different rights than my LA neighbour

> They really do not want to put on a complete ban, but as part of the new standards landlords are expected to work within they need guidelines for themselves and for tenants.

Do the new standards require them to meet all their tenants wants?  I think it is bonkers if they are considering it a tenants right to even breed dogs let alone have a sizable kennel of them.
Surely it should be entirely based on the suitability of the premises and most of all, I would have thought, the impact on their neighbours who are most likely also their tenants and also have a right to a comfortable existance surely.

Well said Stooge.

Slippery slope if councils start to be able to put limits like this on rented accommodation, what is to stop them doing the same for the privately owned neighbours?

As you say it does depend on teh accomodatio, but an average family home with garden can quite happily accomodate half a dozen medium size dogs, or a dozen toy ones, but maybe only three or four giant ones, and the occasional litter bred on a hobby basis.

> Slippery slope if councils start to be able to put limits like this on rented accommodation

But the councils OWN the property on behalf of the population. They have a duty to look after it :)

> but are you saying that only owner occupiers should be allowed to have a dog showing/working breeding hobby

No - but it is the right of the owner of a property to say what can and can't go on in that property. It is very common in the private renting sector for landlords not to allow any dogs. Local authority/social housing is also subsidised by you and me and any damage done to that property is repaired at our expense. Although there are some good tenants around who respect their home and keep it in a proper state, there are many who do not - whether it damage done by their dogs or by themselves.

I also take the view that a house is primarily for humans and the keeping of animals in the house shouldn't majorly impact on that :) Of course, each to their own - but not in someone else's house :)

but are you saying that only owner occupiers should be allowed to have a dog showing/working breeding hobby?


Personally I would never even consider breeding anything bigger than rabbits if I did not own the house -it's just not safe enough as you never know when you may have to leave. When I met my husband he was renting but he said straight away when we moved in together we'd have to buy due to my animals. And I didn't even breed dogs then.

> but not in someone else's house :-)

This illustrates our attitude to rented accommodation, we view it as someone else's home, that we are a guest in, where in other countries it is viewed as that persons home, to enjoy in all reasonable ways, so if it is reasonable for the owner occupier neighbour to have 6 dogs, then the same should apply to the person renting THEIR home.

There are of course sanctions for tenants if they cause damage, or for that matter anyone (renter or Owner Occupier) if they cause nuisance.

I see the danger that if they apply these limits to rental properties they will start to apply such limits on EVERYONE living in residential areas.

If you think I am being pessimistic you only need to look at USA and Australia where there are limits in many places. 

The breeders whose dog I used in the USA had to move house, as their local Authority decided to impose a 4 dog limit in the area they lived in.  This was an area big enough for them to have kennels, so not postage stamp gardens. 

They are in constant worry that their current Authority might do the same. 

They own around 15 - 20 dogs as they keep their oldies (who seem to regularly make 14 and 15 years in a kennel environment) and usually one or two from each litter and often run on youngsters too.

All their youngsters stay in the house until around 9 months of age so they are civilised and then they join the big dogs in the kennels and dog runs/paddocks.

They did mention they had a tenant who claimed that they needed to have 15 + dogs (kept in a 3 bed home) in order to maintain their lines

If the breed is so numerically small and there are very few reputable breeders perhaps that would be a fair comment, or if the breeder is working towards the welfare of a breed breeding in pluses or out health problems that would cover such a statement, but my cynical self would guesstimate it is not a breed or programme under such need and most of us will bring our pups owners and others in our breed etc into breeding programmes like this if warranted and we did not have our own private residence and land to do so.

IMO it is completely out of order to bring that many dogs into a home if on a housing estate in a Council or HA house and I can understand the RSPCA's stance as let's be honest it is enticing BYB's and Puppy farmer types to take full advantage as they have for years.

They absolutely need to crack down on this, we know that Show and Working breeders are the minority group of all breeders so it will not be harming these groups by much,  although, I guess some genuine breeders may be in this category however,  I think HA and Council homes could be brought down to 2 dogs IMHO unless they have proof of their showing or working hobbies as it would stop all this puppy farm types.

Would they consider a special clause for genuine cases, if show working hobbies can be shown? Although even so I feel 4 dogs would have to be enough, it is like any hobby or job if your in the wrong place you can't do it, and environment and other people have to be taken into consideration if renting a HA home and these are usually family environments not wanting dog noise and puppy collections going on blocking up residents parking etc.

As much as I love dogs I would hate to be next door to someone with 15 especially if on an estate, where houses are close together, in fact it would be like a living hell wouldn't it?

Not if the dogs are calm and well managed - I have 9 here now but 99% of the time you'd never know they were here, and every time a friend calls me he comments on how quiet it is and asks if I'm actually at home!

The only time they make themselves known is when I let them into the garden without managing it (then they barge out, run the length and bark but if I do it right, they make no sound at all), and when I have visitors and they all bark (and I'm working on that).  They can play noisily sometimes but it's only ever 2 or 3 dogs max making any noise - which you could get in a household with just 2 or 3 dogs!

Council/HA properties which are given now should really be for those who need it and can't afford private rentals.. If you can't afford private rentals then really you have to question how anyone can afford lots of dogs and the up keep... Priorities should be a roof over a humans head and the bills which go with it... As someone said owning a pet is not a right!! I'm in private rented and it was a struggle to find somewhere which would allow 2 dogs full stop... I struggle with finances at times and I really begrudge those who have a lot of their rent paid for because of what ever reason to then be able to afford lots of dogs and showing!! The fuel costs and entry fees amount to crazy amounts as we all know so where does their money come from? Hundreds of pounds which to me point that actually they could afford private rental and as such those homes go to people who really do deserve them!!!
The LA should be strict and regardless of size as we all can describe size in various ways... Max of what 2-3 animals full stop!!! Well that's what I feel... If paying full rent in a LA home then in all honestly makes no difference really as private rentals are very similar in their approach..

> so if it is reasonable for the owner occupier neighbour to have 6 dogs, then the same should apply to the person renting THEIR home.

No - it's not at all the same thing. There are many people who don't like dogs. They have the right to say that they don't want them in their house ?? If I rented out MY house, I would probably say no cats AND dogs. MY dogs are OK in MY house - but I wouldn't want other people's dogs in there.

The breeders whose dog I used in the USA had to move house, as their local Authority decided to impose a 4 dog limit in the area they lived in.  This was an area big enough for them to have kennels, so not postage stamp gardens.

I agree, apart from inner cities homes in the USA are huge compared to ours with gardens most would die for, so for some authorities to impose the limit it makes you wonder why? I know good people always get caught up in things like this, but there must be a problem with dog noise, complaints, overbreeding, stray dogs, rescue overload just like here too no matter how much room there is.

As much as it is unfair to those who are reputable and care greatly for their dogs, unfortunately there are more and more people who don't and abuse the domestic dog, these limits are put in place because they obviously are needed, I'm learning over the years that I and we are not the majority of dog owners, the problems others cause rebound to affect us all.

If people serious about their breed live in areas where restrictions would happen like in a HA home there are other avenues that can be taken, by bringing in others in the breed, shared ownership the list goes on, it doesn't need to affect the serious but it will cut down on a lot of those who abuse the dog. :-)

> Local authority/social housing is also subsidised by you and me and any damage done to that property is repaired at our expense. Although there are some good tenants around who respect their home and keep it in a proper state, there are many who do not - whether it damage done by their dogs or by themselves.

Hi Daisy,

I raised this point and they told me that any damage done to a HA property has to be paid for by the tenant, all other work required on these properties is funded through the rents they charge.

I was told they can see that if the property is in a town then it is difficult for them to allow too many dogs, but the HA in question has a huge rural area where there are lots of properties, where tenants have in the past been allowed to keep all manner of animals. They are trying to tighten things up and did wonder how many dogs or for that matter cats would be needed to maintain a line. Some of their properties they only allow cats as the RSPCA have said it does not matter if a cat cannot go outside and has to stay indoors all it's life.

Ok the promise of paying for damages and it happening is probably very risky

Is this Berks or oxon ?

> They have the right to say that they don't want them in their house ??

but a housing association or local authority are not a person, but an organisation where personal biases cannot apply.

The property is not their personal property being loaned out temporarily to someone, but is built and maintained for the purpose of being a home (and all that entails) for the person who rents it.

We could equally say an owner occupier does not really own their home until the mortgage is paid and if the organisation lending the money on mortgage don't like dogs they could choose to not allow them.

Also as for restrictions being applied because Thea re needed, we all know the anti dog/breeder/animal PETA activists have their fingers in all sorts of pies, initially making it seem it is for the general good.

How long before someone tries to tell us that all dogs and cats over 4 months old have to be neutered by law, and onerous license fees applied to entire ones who would only be allowed one litter.  This was the statute defeated by only a narrow margin in California.

> Ok the promise of paying for damages and it happening is probably very risky

Agreed - the type of tenants who allow damage to happen are probably the type who won't pay :(

> if the organisation lending the money on mortgage don't like dogs they coudl choose to not allow them.

They could do but not really necessary. It is more likely that someone who is investing their money in a property will take better care of it.

Again the strange attitude to renting, which does not seem to apply in other countries, certainly social housing anywhere has it's element of uncaring tenants, but in Germany for example most homes are very well cared for by proud renting owners whose view is that when they put in new kitchens and bathrooms they re investing in their homes. 

When they repair their fences, landscape their gardens, it is for their own benefit.

They have a long term view on their rented home.

Many have said to me they cannot believe the poor standard of housing here in UK that people are prepared to buy to own, and how poor the actual decor etc, as many people buying can barely afford to pay for it let alone have it nice.

In Germany most people seem to change their furniture and decor very regularly as they are not investing so much for their income purely in bricks and mortar, but will buy nice furniture, cars etc.

> and did wonder how many dogs or for that matter cats would be needed to maintain a line.

I can't believe they are spending tax payers money even researching this. 
They should just settle down to a short meeting looking at any records they have on what numbers of pets have resulted in damage and/or neighbours complaints and set the limit accordingly.

Sorry folks detracting but shocked!!!

How long before someone tries to tell us that all dogs and cats over 4 months old have to be neutered by law, and onerous license fees applied to entire ones who would only be allowed one litter.  This was the statute defeated by only a narrow margin in California.

Wow! Scary, and it was only defeated by a small margin, where were the dog geneticists and the AKC? You could have one litter from 50 bitches and only one of those litters may be any good from healthy and compatable lines etc, the rest could continue to destroy a breed. Whoever came up with that clanger should be ashamed of themselves.

Allowing people with no dog knowledge to make laws is dangerous...................... maybe we should be worried.

> Again the strange attitude to renting

It's not strange - just different. Also different expectations of people renting. I expect that it is because we have such a high proportion of owner/occupiers that renters want similar standards. A lot of people now expect a house that is freshly decorated and with modern kitchens/bathroom. When a landlord takes back a house they have to spend a fortune getting the house back into that condition so to attract a new tenant. If British people were prepared to do what the Germans do, then things would be different - but they're not because they're not German :) :) :)

We straying from the question folks.

The HA have asked the question but these rules are being pushed by the RSPCA for all landlords including private landlords as they are working with the two governing associations for landlords with a view to implementing the two dogs only per property and they must be spayed or neutered and micro-chipped rule. As an incentive they have on offer a series of awards which any landlord can gain to prove they are a good and responsible landlord.

Hence the HA are trying to find out from responsible breeders ho many dogs they would consider a hobby breeder who shows or works their dogs might want to own. They are not asking for the rights or wrongs of such a situation.

> Agreed - the type of tenants who allow damage to happen are probably the type who won't pay :-(

The process I am told is they are billed then taken to court if the money is not immediately forthcoming, all court costs are paid by the tenants.

> I can't believe they are spending tax payers money even researching this. 

They are not paying anyone to find this information out. They asked me if I would try to find out and I am NOT being paid for doing so! I said I would ask around on the dog forums to get an idea. So unless any of you here are being paid by the HA in question and are not owning up to it.... then as far as I can tell nobody is being paid.

> Hence the HA are trying to find out from responsible breeders ho many dogs they would consider a hobby breeder who shows or works their dogs might want to own.

They might want to own 56.
I really don't understand this Polly. You make it sound as thought this is something the RSPCA is foisting on them and they are somehow resisting.  Well, if they don't want to restrict their tenants how can the RSPCA make them?  But, quite honestly, I think they should be restricting their tenants to the needs of their neighbours and the appropriateness of the accomodation rather than what they might want.

"As much as I love dogs I would hate to be next door to someone with 15 especially if on an estate, where houses are close together, in fact it would be like a living hell wouldn't it? "

I had 9 collies on a council estate - the largest one in Europe - six years ago as well as taking in home boarders and we never had any neighbour problems. The boarders were road walked whilst my dogs went out in the van twice a day to be exercised and none were allowed to bark unnecessarily. I tried very hard to keep a low profile as being a dog owner you can be an easy target for some people. The house I owned was ex local authority and we lived in what would probably be called a socially deprived area but the attitude was live and let live. I always let neighbours know if heard any noise/had any complaints to let me know immediately as I didn't want to upset anyone. I think they appreciated that as there was never any problems.

I do think it is different though if you are in rented property as I would never want to take the chance that I could be homeless with my dogs, knowing that very few landlords allow dogs let alone multiple numbers. It also seems to me that people in social housing might be hard pressed to afford more than a couple of dogs, otherwise why do they need help in the first place?

I would have no objections renting a property to dog owners, in fact I would actively welcome it. But then we are in the process of applying to have holiday accommodation geared towards dog owners on our own land so I'm very much in their camp lol. 

"As much as I love dogs I would hate to be next door to someone with 15 especially if on an estate, where houses are close together, in fact it would be like a living hell wouldn't it? "

I had 9 collies on a council estate - the largest one in Europe - six years ago as well as taking in home boarders and we never had any neighbour problems. The boarders were road walked whilst my dogs went out in the van twice a day to be exercised and none were allowed to bark unnecessarily. I tried very hard to keep a low profile as being a dog owner you can be an easy target for some people. The house I owned was ex local authority and we lived in what would probably be called a socially deprived area but the attitude was live and let live. I always let neighbours know if they heard any noise/had any complaints to let me know immediately as I didn't want to upset anyone. I think they appreciated that as there was never any problems.

I do think it is different though if you are in rented property as I would never want to take the chance that I could be homeless with my dogs, knowing that very few landlords allow dogs let alone multiple numbers. It also seems to me that people in social housing might be hard pressed to afford more than a couple of dogs, otherwise why do they need help in the first place?

I would have no objections renting a property to dog owners, in fact I would actively welcome it. But then we are in the process of applying to have holiday accommodation geared towards dog owners on our own land so I'm very much in their camp lol. 

> They are not paying anyone to find this information out.

I don't mean literally.  They are using their time which is a resource we pay for.