Word to describe pets that can be uncomfortable to live with?
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.
single-word-requests differences
edited Sep 1 '13 at 16:00
terdon
17.1k1266111
asked Sep 1 '13 at 15:25
ShaneShane
1411
add a comment |
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.
single-word-requests differences
edited Sep 1 '13 at 16:00
terdon
17.1k1266111
asked Sep 1 '13 at 15:25
ShaneShane
1411
Indoor pets perhaps?
– terdon
Sep 1 '13 at 15:27
1
"low-maintenance pets" maybe can capture another aspect.
– Pam
Sep 1 '13 at 15:37
.'problem pets'
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 1 '13 at 15:58
1
How about 'contained? this should distinguish between those in cages/tanks and those running loose.
– Mynamite
Sep 1 '13 at 21:02
add a comment |
8
8
8
3
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.
single-word-requests differences
edited Sep 1 '13 at 16:00
terdon
17.1k1266111
asked Sep 1 '13 at 15:25
ShaneShane
1411
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.
single-word-requests differences
single-word-requests differences
edited Sep 1 '13 at 16:00
terdon
17.1k1266111
asked Sep 1 '13 at 15:25
ShaneShane
1411
edited Sep 1 '13 at 16:00
terdon
17.1k1266111
asked Sep 1 '13 at 15:25
ShaneShane
1411
edited Sep 1 '13 at 16:00
terdon
17.1k1266111
edited Sep 1 '13 at 16:00
terdon
17.1k1266111
edited Sep 1 '13 at 16:00
terdon
17.1k1266111
17.1k1266111
asked Sep 1 '13 at 15:25
ShaneShane
1411
asked Sep 1 '13 at 15:25
ShaneShane
1411
asked Sep 1 '13 at 15:25
ShaneShane
1411
1411
Indoor pets perhaps?
– terdon
Sep 1 '13 at 15:27
1
"low-maintenance pets" maybe can capture another aspect.
– Pam
Sep 1 '13 at 15:37
.'problem pets'
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 1 '13 at 15:58
1
How about 'contained? this should distinguish between those in cages/tanks and those running loose.
– Mynamite
Sep 1 '13 at 21:02
add a comment |
Indoor pets perhaps?
– terdon
Sep 1 '13 at 15:27
1
"low-maintenance pets" maybe can capture another aspect.
– Pam
Sep 1 '13 at 15:37
.'problem pets'
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 1 '13 at 15:58
1
How about 'contained? this should distinguish between those in cages/tanks and those running loose.
– Mynamite
Sep 1 '13 at 21:02
Indoor pets perhaps?
– terdon
Sep 1 '13 at 15:27
Indoor pets perhaps?
– terdon
Sep 1 '13 at 15:27
1
1
"low-maintenance pets" maybe can capture another aspect.
– Pam
Sep 1 '13 at 15:37
"low-maintenance pets" maybe can capture another aspect.
– Pam
Sep 1 '13 at 15:37
.'problem pets'
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 1 '13 at 15:58
.'problem pets'
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 1 '13 at 15:58
1
1
How about 'contained? this should distinguish between those in cages/tanks and those running loose.
– Mynamite
Sep 1 '13 at 21:02
How about 'contained? this should distinguish between those in cages/tanks and those running loose.
– Mynamite
Sep 1 '13 at 21:02
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
8
Troublesome pets will not be tolerated.
answered Sep 1 '13 at 18:41
Benyamin HamidekhooBenyamin Hamidekhoo
4,919133463
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 '13 at 19:52
add a comment |
3
You can say:
indoor pets only.
No noisy pets.
low maintenance dogs.
dogs welcome (some breeds only).
small dogs welcome.
edited Sep 1 '13 at 17:10
terdon
17.1k1266111
answered Sep 1 '13 at 16:46
marsulldmarsulld
411
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 '13 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 '13 at 17:39
add a comment |
3
No pets that damage property or disturb other tenants.
answered Sep 1 '13 at 23:52
joyofwritingjoyofwriting
312
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 '13 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 '13 at 19:04
add a comment |
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.
answered Sep 2 '13 at 5:59
EpiphanyEpiphany
22416
add a comment |
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.
answered Sep 7 '13 at 18:37
Mari-Lou AMari-Lou A
62.6k55221460
add a comment |
0
No dogs, cats or exotic pets allowed. All other pets by written approval only.
answered Sep 2 '13 at 6:36
LilLil
171
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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 at 10:42
|
show 2 more comments
-1
I feel that all animals should be free. We shouldn't hold them back from life just because we want something to look at, or play with. Fish shoould be fish and live in the ocean. Dogs should be dogs and get to be free and they should be able to roll around in the dirt whenever they want. Thoes are just some animals, there are plenty more to think about too.
answered 10 hours ago
NiyaNiya
61
New contributor
Niya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Welcome to English Language & Usage! We welcome your opinion, but your post does not provide an answer to the question at hand. Please take a moment to read the tour to see how this site works; it's not a discussion forum.
– Glorfindel
9 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f124818%2fword-to-describe-pets-that-can-be-uncomfortable-to-live-with%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
8
Troublesome pets will not be tolerated.
answered Sep 1 '13 at 18:41
Benyamin HamidekhooBenyamin Hamidekhoo
4,919133463
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 '13 at 19:52
add a comment |
8
Troublesome pets will not be tolerated.
answered Sep 1 '13 at 18:41
Benyamin HamidekhooBenyamin Hamidekhoo
4,919133463
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 '13 at 19:52
add a comment |
8
8
8
Troublesome pets will not be tolerated.
answered Sep 1 '13 at 18:41
Benyamin HamidekhooBenyamin Hamidekhoo
4,919133463
Troublesome pets will not be tolerated.
answered Sep 1 '13 at 18:41
Benyamin HamidekhooBenyamin Hamidekhoo
4,919133463
answered Sep 1 '13 at 18:41
Benyamin HamidekhooBenyamin Hamidekhoo
4,919133463
answered Sep 1 '13 at 18:41
Benyamin HamidekhooBenyamin Hamidekhoo
4,919133463
answered Sep 1 '13 at 18:41
Benyamin HamidekhooBenyamin Hamidekhoo
4,919133463
4,919133463
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 '13 at 19:52
add a comment |
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 '13 at 19:52
2
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 '13 at 19:52
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 '13 at 19:52
add a comment |
3
You can say:
indoor pets only.
No noisy pets.
low maintenance dogs.
dogs welcome (some breeds only).
small dogs welcome.
edited Sep 1 '13 at 17:10
terdon
17.1k1266111
answered Sep 1 '13 at 16:46
marsulldmarsulld
411
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 '13 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 '13 at 17:39
add a comment |
3
You can say:
indoor pets only.
No noisy pets.
low maintenance dogs.
dogs welcome (some breeds only).
small dogs welcome.
edited Sep 1 '13 at 17:10
terdon
17.1k1266111
answered Sep 1 '13 at 16:46
marsulldmarsulld
411
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 '13 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 '13 at 17:39
add a comment |
3
3
3
You can say:
indoor pets only.
No noisy pets.
low maintenance dogs.
dogs welcome (some breeds only).
small dogs welcome.
edited Sep 1 '13 at 17:10
terdon
17.1k1266111
answered Sep 1 '13 at 16:46
marsulldmarsulld
411
You can say:
indoor pets only.
No noisy pets.
low maintenance dogs.
dogs welcome (some breeds only).
small dogs welcome.
edited Sep 1 '13 at 17:10
terdon
17.1k1266111
answered Sep 1 '13 at 16:46
marsulldmarsulld
411
edited Sep 1 '13 at 17:10
terdon
17.1k1266111
edited Sep 1 '13 at 17:10
terdon
17.1k1266111
edited Sep 1 '13 at 17:10
terdon
17.1k1266111
17.1k1266111
answered Sep 1 '13 at 16:46
marsulldmarsulld
411
answered Sep 1 '13 at 16:46
marsulldmarsulld
411
answered Sep 1 '13 at 16:46
marsulldmarsulld
411
411
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 '13 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 '13 at 17:39
add a comment |
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 '13 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 '13 at 17:39
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 '13 at 22:22
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 '13 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 '13 at 17:39
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 '13 at 17:39
add a comment |
3
No pets that damage property or disturb other tenants.
answered Sep 1 '13 at 23:52
joyofwritingjoyofwriting
312
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 '13 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 '13 at 19:04
add a comment |
3
No pets that damage property or disturb other tenants.
answered Sep 1 '13 at 23:52
joyofwritingjoyofwriting
312
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 '13 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 '13 at 19:04
add a comment |
3
3
3
No pets that damage property or disturb other tenants.
answered Sep 1 '13 at 23:52
joyofwritingjoyofwriting
312
No pets that damage property or disturb other tenants.
answered Sep 1 '13 at 23:52
joyofwritingjoyofwriting
312
answered Sep 1 '13 at 23:52
joyofwritingjoyofwriting
312
answered Sep 1 '13 at 23:52
joyofwritingjoyofwriting
312
answered Sep 1 '13 at 23:52
joyofwritingjoyofwriting
312
312
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 '13 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 '13 at 19:04
add a comment |
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 '13 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 '13 at 19:04
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 '13 at 10:49
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 '13 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 '13 at 19:04
@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 '13 at 19:04
add a comment |
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.
answered Sep 2 '13 at 5:59
EpiphanyEpiphany
22416
add a comment |
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.
answered Sep 2 '13 at 5:59
EpiphanyEpiphany
22416
add a comment |
2
2
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.
answered Sep 2 '13 at 5:59
EpiphanyEpiphany
22416
'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.
answered Sep 2 '13 at 5:59
EpiphanyEpiphany
22416
answered Sep 2 '13 at 5:59
EpiphanyEpiphany
22416
answered Sep 2 '13 at 5:59
EpiphanyEpiphany
22416
answered Sep 2 '13 at 5:59
EpiphanyEpiphany
22416
22416
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
answered Sep 7 '13 at 18:37
Mari-Lou AMari-Lou A
62.6k55221460
add a comment |
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.
answered Sep 7 '13 at 18:37
Mari-Lou AMari-Lou A
62.6k55221460
add a comment |
1
1
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.
answered Sep 7 '13 at 18:37
Mari-Lou AMari-Lou A
62.6k55221460
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.
answered Sep 7 '13 at 18:37
Mari-Lou AMari-Lou A
62.6k55221460
answered Sep 7 '13 at 18:37
Mari-Lou AMari-Lou A
62.6k55221460
answered Sep 7 '13 at 18:37
Mari-Lou AMari-Lou A
62.6k55221460
answered Sep 7 '13 at 18:37
Mari-Lou AMari-Lou A
62.6k55221460
62.6k55221460
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
No dogs, cats or exotic pets allowed. All other pets by written approval only.
answered Sep 2 '13 at 6:36
LilLil
171
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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 at 10:42
|
show 2 more comments
0
No dogs, cats or exotic pets allowed. All other pets by written approval only.
answered Sep 2 '13 at 6:36
LilLil
171
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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 at 10:42
|
show 2 more comments
0
0
0
No dogs, cats or exotic pets allowed. All other pets by written approval only.
answered Sep 2 '13 at 6:36
LilLil
171
No dogs, cats or exotic pets allowed. All other pets by written approval only.
answered Sep 2 '13 at 6:36
LilLil
171
answered Sep 2 '13 at 6:36
LilLil
171
answered Sep 2 '13 at 6:36
LilLil
171
answered Sep 2 '13 at 6:36
LilLil
171
171
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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 at 10:42
|
show 2 more comments
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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 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 '13 at 10:42
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 '13 at 6:51
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 '13 at 6:51
1
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 '13 at 7:26
@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 '13 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 '13 at 8:23
@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 '13 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 '13 at 8:50
@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 '13 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 '13 at 10:42
@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 '13 at 10:42
|
show 2 more comments
-1
I feel that all animals should be free. We shouldn't hold them back from life just because we want something to look at, or play with. Fish shoould be fish and live in the ocean. Dogs should be dogs and get to be free and they should be able to roll around in the dirt whenever they want. Thoes are just some animals, there are plenty more to think about too.
answered 10 hours ago
NiyaNiya
61
New contributor
Niya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Welcome to English Language & Usage! We welcome your opinion, but your post does not provide an answer to the question at hand. Please take a moment to read the tour to see how this site works; it's not a discussion forum.
– Glorfindel
9 hours ago
add a comment |
-1
I feel that all animals should be free. We shouldn't hold them back from life just because we want something to look at, or play with. Fish shoould be fish and live in the ocean. Dogs should be dogs and get to be free and they should be able to roll around in the dirt whenever they want. Thoes are just some animals, there are plenty more to think about too.
answered 10 hours ago
NiyaNiya
61
New contributor
Niya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Welcome to English Language & Usage! We welcome your opinion, but your post does not provide an answer to the question at hand. Please take a moment to read the tour to see how this site works; it's not a discussion forum.
– Glorfindel
9 hours ago
add a comment |
-1
-1
-1
I feel that all animals should be free. We shouldn't hold them back from life just because we want something to look at, or play with. Fish shoould be fish and live in the ocean. Dogs should be dogs and get to be free and they should be able to roll around in the dirt whenever they want. Thoes are just some animals, there are plenty more to think about too.
answered 10 hours ago
NiyaNiya
61
New contributor
Niya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I feel that all animals should be free. We shouldn't hold them back from life just because we want something to look at, or play with. Fish shoould be fish and live in the ocean. Dogs should be dogs and get to be free and they should be able to roll around in the dirt whenever they want. Thoes are just some animals, there are plenty more to think about too.
answered 10 hours ago
NiyaNiya
61
New contributor
Niya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 10 hours ago
NiyaNiya
61
New contributor
Niya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 10 hours ago
NiyaNiya
61
answered 10 hours ago
NiyaNiya
61
61
New contributor
Niya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Niya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Niya is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Welcome to English Language & Usage! We welcome your opinion, but your post does not provide an answer to the question at hand. Please take a moment to read the tour to see how this site works; it's not a discussion forum.
– Glorfindel
9 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Welcome to English Language & Usage! We welcome your opinion, but your post does not provide an answer to the question at hand. Please take a moment to read the tour to see how this site works; it's not a discussion forum.
– Glorfindel
9 hours ago
1
1
Welcome to English Language & Usage! We welcome your opinion, but your post does not provide an answer to the question at hand. Please take a moment to read the tour to see how this site works; it's not a discussion forum.
– Glorfindel
9 hours ago
Welcome to English Language & Usage! We welcome your opinion, but your post does not provide an answer to the question at hand. Please take a moment to read the tour to see how this site works; it's not a discussion forum.
– Glorfindel
9 hours ago
add a comment |
draft saved
draft discarded
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
draft saved
draft discarded
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f124818%2fword-to-describe-pets-that-can-be-uncomfortable-to-live-with%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Indoor pets perhaps?
– terdon
Sep 1 '13 at 15:27
1
"low-maintenance pets" maybe can capture another aspect.
– Pam
Sep 1 '13 at 15:37
.'problem pets'
– Edwin Ashworth
Sep 1 '13 at 15:58
1
How about 'contained? this should distinguish between those in cages/tanks and those running loose.
– Mynamite
Sep 1 '13 at 21:02