Expert veterinary care for every stage of your pet’s life.
Emergency: 617-522-7282
Poison Control: 888-426-4435
Bringing pets and people together—for life.
Advocate for animals, volunteer, or get help for your pet with our compassionate community services.
MSPCA Position: Support Sponsors: Senator Pavel Payano; Representatives Dave Rogers and Samantha Montaño Status: S. 1022 referred to Senate Ways and Means. H. 1559 referred to House Committee on Bills in the Third Reading.
MSPCA Position: Support Sponsor: Representative Tackey Chan Status: H. 4835 referred to the committee on House Ways and Means.
Ask your state legislators to support bills that would create more pet-inclusive housing for all families
S. 1022 and H. 1559 will accomplish several things to make pets-allowed housing more accessible:
H. 1476 will:
Notably, a 2022 representative survey of Massachusetts voters found that more than two-thirds support legislation that would achieve these goals.
Based on our survey data in Massachusetts, we’ve found the majority of people surrendering pets to animal shelters in Massachusetts are people currently looking for rental housing.
When searching for rental housing in Massachusetts, according to our research, only about 39% of rental units will accept dogs. Often these modest numbers shrink even further when looking at exclusively pet-inclusive properties, meaning properties accepting pets without breed or weight restrictions. In Massachusetts, that figure then drops to about 7%.
When housing is a barrier, the most frequently cited reasons for pet relinquishment in Massachusetts is due to a limit on the number of pets allowed and dog breed restrictions. And according to survey research, 14% of polled tenants reported that pet-friendly housing, when available, is unaffordable due to restrictions. Pet related fees are a major contributor to pet relinquishment. When fees are charged, 69% report that monthly pet rent is a barrier to housing.
The housing-shortage crisis affecting every community in Massachusetts is exacerbated for dog-owning families. Responsible Massachusetts dog owners are finding that they are not welcome in certain housing markets if they own medium or larger sized dogs, or certain breeds (or a dog that looks like one of these breeds). This discrimination is even seen in some of our publicly funded housing, making this a particularly pernicious practice. An increasing number of homeowners have been denied insurance because they own a particular breed of dog that has been chosen by the insurance company to be a high-risk breed. Insurance is denied for many breeds regardless of the lack of any past history of biting.
Dogs should be judged as the individuals they are — not based on outdated and long-ago-disproven stereotypes. If properties choose to allow dogs as family pets, they should not be able to discriminate based on size, weight, or perceived breed. The range of breeds affected by these discriminatory practices is staggering and includes popular dog breeds.
No one should have to choose between their well-behaved dog or their home; it’s that simple.
Policies that target specific dog owners based on the size, weight, or perceived breed of their pet discriminate against those who properly train and socialize their dogs. The ramifications of these policies for animal shelters are that dogs are surrendered because owners are unable to find housing and that potential adopters may be unwilling to adopt certain dogs. Lives are lost and families broken. Policies that target specific breeds discriminate against responsible dog owners who properly train and socialize their dogs.
In 2012, the legislature recognized the irrelevance of dog breed in assessing the risk posed by dogs by passing a comprehensive law that strengthened the state’s dangerous dog law while prohibiting municipalities from discriminating against dogs based on breed — because no such legislation has ever proven effective at reducing dog bites. In 2024, the legislature decided that potential foster and adoptive families for children should not be ruled out because of the type of dog they own. It is time for the same standard to be applied to housing and insurance.
There are many reasons why there is no accurate data on the number of aggressive incidents involving a specific breed. Studies show that there is often a significant discrepancy between visual assessment of breed, and actual genetic determination of the dog’s breed — even when the visual assessment is conducted by individuals who have substantial experience working with dogs. One study that asked experienced shelter staff to make a visual identification and then compared their assessment to a DNA test found that only ¼ had actually identified the “predominant ‘dog breed’”. The American Veterinary Medical Association published a document entitled, “Welfare Implications of The Role of Breed in Dog Bite Risk and Prevention,” in which the Association explains the importance of the prevalence and popularity of particular breeds in skewing statistics.
A dog’s tendency to bite is a product of at least five factors, including the dog’s genetic predisposition to be aggressive, the early socialization of the dog to people, his training for obedience or fighting, the quality of care and supervision provided by the owner, and the behavior of the victim. All of these factors interact. There are other factors that play into a dog’s tendency to bite. One study found that male dogs are 6.2 times more likely to bite than female dogs, sexually intact dogs are 2.6 times more likely to bite than neutered dogs, and chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than unchained dogs.
The experts also agree that the best predictor of a dog’s behavior comes from an evaluation of individual adult dogs — not selection based on breed.
updated 10/10/2025
