I can certainly see both sides of this issue.

As a pet owner, I know it is very difficult to find an apartment with pets. I think if you own a pet and are renting, you should expect, and not complain about, a deposit and slightly higher rent. I always found it a small price to pay for having pets. When I rented, I had one or two dogs, and a rabbit for a while. None were destructive at all.

However, some of my foster dogs that I have had since I have lived in my own house have been very destructive. I had one dog who peeled my wallpaper off the walls in big long strips, from about three feet up down to the floor. This was after she ATE a crate to escape - it's not like I left her unsupervised. I also had a dog that chewed one of the banisters of my 100+ year old spiral staircase almost in half. Not like I can easily replace that. I've also had dogs soil the carpet, and once I had a thirty gallon fishtank leak during the night. If I would have been renting when any of this happened, the cost to fix it would likely been more than my pet deposit - not fair to the landlord.

If I owned rental property, I don't think I would necesarily say "NO pets", but I would be VERY careful. I have seen the damage pets can do to houses. When the renters moved out of house on my block, I was talking to the owner about the house. He told me that they had left their dogs and cats in the house, with someone ONLY giving them food and water, for over a MONTH before they moved out. He had to not only, obviously, replace ALL the carpet, but all rip out the subfloor and replace it - thousands upon thousands of dollars.

A contract stating the renters are responsible is a great theory - but often they can't be found, and/or don't have the money to pay anyway.