About the fact that there are free people in the apartment
[Post] It is prohibited to keep animals other than small animals such as small birds and fish. About a sentence
A notice was posted at my parents' house (I am a unit owner) that violates the condominium management rules. I live with Rintaro in a separate house, so I don't think there is a problem. It can also be read as a check on me who often takes Rintaro to my parents' house. And, "I saw a dog holding a dog in an elevator" 👈 This is probably me. However, I always put it in a cage. The notation of holding is inappropriate and different from the fact. This is very unpleasant.
I can't help but feel that the whistleblower's ability to verbalize (accurately convey things) is low. Isn't it too "idle"?
In fact, I know several other residents who have small dogs.Aside from that, if there are problems (excrement, animal hair, barks, complaints from residents, etc., in common areas, corridors, etc., in condominiums where managers are resident, management associations and management companies will move to the surface a long time ago.
◼️ Concerns
In that the unit owner of this apartment is me, I am concerned that there is a possibility that it may be considered as a pet. Also, by being posted with expressions different from the facts, residents who have been indifferent until now react sensitively and cause a negative chain = unnecessary speculation, deterioration of relationships between residents and conflict. I am afraid that it will develop into a negative effect such as.
I was not very aware of this bylaw at the time of purchase and did not receive a detailed explanation.
☝️ this is an excuse...
◼️ looked into the title again 👇
In the field of veterinary medicine and small animal clinical medicine, dogs and cats are interpreted as "small animals," but legally, dogs and cats are treated as separate categories from the viewpoint of "principle of wording interpretation." It seems that "etc." of small birds and fish "etc." If placed at the end of the example enumeration, it is understood to include those of the same species as those described before it. (Principle of similarity) Therefore, it is likely that dogs are not interpreted.
Dogs are understood not to be included in "small animals such as small birds and fish," and are likely to formally violate the ban.
However, the definition of "small animal" is not clear 👈 this is the point of contention.
◼️ Judgment
In terms of legal interpretation, it is common to exclude dogs from the statute text "small animals such as small birds and fish."
In veterinary terms, dogs are classified as small animals, but it is difficult to reflect them in the operation of apartment management practice. In short, bad things are not good.
◼️ conclusion
Is it possible to identify the residents who are raising pets, and is there a problem or damage (complaint or claim) occurring? Is there a need to put it on a public bulletin board just by witnessing it (expression that does not get the whistleblower's target)?
If there is no solid evidence, I would like to remove it. (To dispel my concerns) By the way,
⭐ troublesome, so I decided to post it.
By the way, Rintaro does not bark in vain, always clean, hair does not come off with a single coat (hard to come off), of course in common areas, always manner mode when moving, consideration for the surroundings as an owner is thorough. ※ Some people may have allergies or 😡⚡ hate dogs in the first place.
◼️ finally,
Although it is said that pets are family, the reality is at the level of handling things. Variations in the owner s morals are also one of the causes. Like the reporter this time, there may be an understanding of the social background, a way of thinking that the world revolves around oneself, and a lack of it.
While human supremacy with various people remains strong,
Compared to other developed countries, Japan's awareness of the realization of a society where humans and animals coexist in harmony is significantly lower.
# pet _ breeding Terms of Management The Mansion Definition of Small Animals Symbiotic Society of Humans and Animals
同じようにマンションで「犬禁止」の掲示や注意文を見た（または自分が疑われた）とき、感情的に反論する前に“事実確認”を挟むだけで、後々の揉め方がかなり変わります。私が今回の掲示を見てから、頭の中で整理したチェック項目を書きます。 まず最初に確認したいのは「どのルールに基づく禁止なのか」です。管理規約・使用細則・飼育細則（ペット規程）・総会決議・掲示の“お願い”など、根拠の強さが違います。掲示物に「規約で小鳥・魚類以外は禁止」と書かれていても、実際の条文と文言が一致しているかは別問題なので、原文を見て該当箇所を写真で控えました。 次に「運用がどうなっているか」。規約上は犬がダメでも、長年黙認されているケースもあります。ただし黙認は“権利”にはならないので、いきなり強気に出るのは危険。私なら管理人さん（または管理会社）に、①現時点で苦情が複数出ているのか、②特定の住戸を対象にしているのか、それとも全体への注意喚起なのか、③掲示を出した経緯（理事会決定か、管理会社判断か）を淡々と聞きます。ポイントは「誰が通報したか」ではなく「管理側が何を事実として把握しているか」を確認することです。 それから“目撃情報”の扱い。掲示に「エレベーターで犬を抱き抱えていた」など曖昧な表現があると、周囲が過敏に反応して住民同士の空気が悪くなりやすいです。もし自分に心当たりがあり、事実と違う書き方をされているなら、私は「ケージに入れていた」「共用部では移動ルールを守っている」など、反論ではなく事実の訂正として伝えるのが良いと思いました。ここで相手を“暇人”扱いしてしまうと、火に油になりがちです。 具体的な自衛策としては、共用部では①必ずキャリー・ケージ、②乗降時は人がいないタイミングを選ぶ、③毛やにおい対策（服・ブランケット・消臭）、④万一の粗相に備えてシートと拭き取りを携帯、を徹底。特にアレルギーの方や犬が苦手な方がいる前提で動くと、余計な誤解が減ります。 最後に、もし「区分所有者＝あなた」名義の住戸が疑われそうなら、“飼育の実態（常時居住していない／連れて行く頻度）”を聞かれたときに答えられるように準備だけしておくと安心です。結局、マンションの犬禁止問題は“正しさ”より“運用と空気”で揉めやすいので、証拠と事実だけを積み上げて、管理組合・管理会社の正式な見解に寄せるのが一番消耗が少ないと感じました。
