Over the years a lot has been written about how to integrate animals into a new household. But as our lifestyles and relationships with our companion animals become more complex, new elements keep getting added to the mix. As that occurs, the likelihood of there being some one-size-fits-all recipe for handling such situations gets smaller—and it wasn’t that great to begin with. It doesn’t surprise me that some animals have more problems making these transitions any more than it surprises me that some people do. Regardless of age or species, establishing and protecting the physical and mental territory remains a top priority. And because of this, changes in that territory can be especially stressful.
Still, the more we understand the basics, the more order we can put into what otherwise could be a very chaotic event.
Keeping in mind that the fewer the variables the easier to predict what will happen, the easiest mergers involve two single people who enjoy each other’s company and want to live together, and one animal belonging to one of the two, all of whom will live together in a new home. While it might seem that the newly combined group would experience fewer variables if they moved into a home in which one of the couple already lived, that’s often not the case. Remember the old saying, “Possession is 9/10 of the law”? Existing residents still maintain the original claim to the space no matter how graciously they may welcome others into it. This makes it more difficult to make the transition from “mine” to “ours” than if everyone starts fresh in a new location.
In this ideal scenario, starting at least several months before the merger the housemates-to-be spend time with the animal together and alone. Together and alone they feed, play with, and groom the animal, as well as engage in any other species-specific activities such as walking and training. If any problems arise during this period, the couple deals with them immediately. Unless these folks are so fortunate that the actual move also can be accomplished over an extended period of time, chances are there will be a flurry of activity immediately before, during, and after the move. Any problems not resolved before then could add to the tension as well as become worse—not a good way to start a new joint venture! By the time the merger occurs using this slow and steady approach, the animal is comfortable with both people. That makes it much easier for everyone to adapt to a new environment to which no one has a pre-existing claim.
That’s a nice scenario but probably one that represents the exception rather than the rule in today’s society. Normally there are multiple, often messy variables complicating the process. As far as finding the time to do things gradually, well, that’s increasingly improbable in our society too. That being the case, let’s return to the idea that establishing and protecting the physical and mental territory is a critical priority of humans and animals and see how that comes into play in some problematic living arrangements. When this occurs, it typically boils down to the results of a cost-benefit analysis done by those involved. That is, they weight what they can gain out of this arrangement versus what they can lose.
Some of the least complicated mergers involving animals may be those that occur for purely financial reasons. Sue and Mary want to live in a nice apartment in a nice part of town that neither could afford to rent alone, but which is do-able if they live together. Because she loves the location, it’s worth it to Mary to tolerate Sue’s cat.
That seems like a pretty cut and dried win-win situation for everyone doesn’t it? It would be if Sue and Mary sit down before they sign the lease to discuss their expectations regarding the animal to determine if they’re compatible. Suppose when they do this, Mary makes it clear that it’s Sue’s responsibility to ensure that the cat does nothing to complicate the lives of Mary or her guests. This includes keeping the cat’s food and water dishes and litter boxes in some out of the way place such as Sue’s bedroom, and Sue regularly grooming the animal and vacuuming the shared areas of the apartment to control pet hair. This gets Sue’s dander up because she always feeds her cat in the kitchen of her current home, keeps the litter box in the bathroom, and got so used to cat hair on the furniture and her clothes that she doesn’t notice it. Plus her cat hates the sound of the vacuum cleaner.
For Mary whether this merger is going to work depends on the benefits of living in a nice space in a nice part of town versus the costs imposed by the cat and Sue’s relationship with the animal. The benefits may outweigh the cost if Sue agrees to her conditions. If not, Mary may decide she’s better off where she is while she looks for a different roommate. For Sue it depends on perceived benefits of living in that location versus the cost of living with someone who is ambivalent about her beloved pet at best, and who imposes changes that may negatively impact her cat and their relationship as well as require more of her time. And speaking of said cat, any instability in the physical and mental territory (which also includes the cat’s relationship with those in it), could cause the cat to mark with urine, stool, or claws as well as eat or drink too much or too little and/or develop medical problems with a stress component. Needless to say, that wouldn’t please Sue or Mary!
Regardless what either woman decides, even the most optimistic person would acknowledge that having such a discussion before signing any lease would spare all a lot of hassle.
As you might imagine, if someone is moving in with another who is already established in the home (i.e. has already claimed the territory) that can affect any merger. In this situation, established residents who take a more proprietary view of their homes may be more resistant to making changes to accommodate any newcomers. For example, if Mary is considering moving into Sue’s home, Sue may find Mary’s demands regarding where Sue’s cat should eat or eliminate more irritating than if they planned to live together in some neutral space chosen to take any animal needs into account. Similarly if Sue wants to move into Mary’s home with her cat, Mary’s concerns about protecting her furnishings from cat-related problems may strike Sue as more reasonable.
Human emotional attachments can work for or against those planning to live together in a household that will include animals belonging to one or the other. When it works for them, their emotional ties and desire to live together will cause them to engage in the aforementioned sometimes difficult discussions of animal-related expectations, negotiable and nonnegotiable points, and ways to merge the two households in a manner that will make the transition as stress-free as possible for all.
When it doesn’t work is when folks believe that their love for each other magically will resolve any animal-related issues so there’s no need to discuss them beforehand. Couples caught up in the excitement of new love may be so desirous of living together that they can’t imagine anything their or the other’s animal could do that would create problems for their relationship. If the animals are perfect, then no problems arise. If not, the animal’s imperfection may cause the couple to perceive each other differently too. Perhaps the animal’s owner will start taking any criticism of the animal personally. Or maybe the person who doesn’t own the animal will perceive the animal’s negative behavior as evidence that the owner cares more about the animal than about him or her.
Other times, the love of another never extended to that person’s pet in the first place. He or she loves the person in spite of the animal. Here again, as long as this is spelled out beforehand, the animal behaves well and doesn’t take up time the partner believes he or she is entitled to, no problems arise. In yet another variation on this theme, the original owner wants to maintain an exclusive claim to the animal and resents the partner’s desire to form her own special relationship with the pet. In these situations any honeymoon can end fairly quickly if the couple isn’t committed to staying together enough to work this out.
All of the examples so far involved mergers of single people with animals. But increasingly in our society, mergers may involve divorced folks or others who have animals from previous relationships and in some cases also kids. In such situations, the animals may spend time in two different households just like the kids. And as with kids, communication is paramount to accomplish this with the minimum amount of trauma for all involved. Sad to say, when such quality communication doesn’t exist having each person’s rights and obligations spelled out in a legal document may be the best answer.
People change and so do animals. Sometimes when a relationship with another person is falling apart, relationships with any animal(s) in the household may become important because of the comfort animals give us at such times. During the transition from being part of a couple to becoming single or moving in with someone else, the need for that nonjudgmental animal comfort may become more important than ever. Because of this, the desire and need to be with the animal may be greater than when we’re part of a stable household. Although a cut and dried 50/50 split would seem to eliminate this problem or at least distribute the burden equally, realities imposed by work schedules, distance, and the other obligations that affect our lives can negate such simple answers. Once again, quality communication before-the-fact will make these transition go more smoothly for humans and animals too.
And finally we have those who inherit animals when someone in the family dies or can no longer care for the animal for some reason. Whereas the symbolism attached to the other animals discussed may evolve over time (for good or ill), these animals may join the household already bearing a huge symbolic load. Every time Dick looks at his father’s Labrador, he thinks about how much he misses his dad. Every time Jess looks at her deceased mother’s poodle, she thinks about how much more attention her mom paid to the dog than her own kids and grandkids.
I’m sure you can add other scenarios from your own experience that I’ve missed.
So what’s the take-home message when it comes to integrating animals into new households successfully? Communicate, communicate, and communicate some more regarding all animal-related issues before the merger occurs. And while you’re at it, take the time to free-access crate-train your dogs and cats so that, wherever they wind up and regardless how stressful that physical and emotional environment may be, they’ll at least have a secure place they can call home.
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.
Over the years a lot has been written about how to integrate animals into a new household. But as our lifestyles and relationships with our companion animals become more complex, new elements keep getting added to the mix. As that occurs, the likelihood of there being some one-size-fits-all recipe for handling such situations gets smaller—and it wasn’t that great to begin with. It doesn’t surprise me that some animals have more problems making these transitions any more than it surprises me that some people do. Regardless of age or species, establishing and protecting the physical and mental territory remains a top priority. And because of this, changes in that territory can be especially stressful.
Still, the more we understand the basics, the more order we can put into what otherwise could be a very chaotic event.
Keeping in mind that the fewer the variables the easier to predict what will happen, the easiest mergers involve two single people who enjoy each other’s company and want to live together, and one animal belonging to one of the two, all of whom will live together in a new home. While it might seem that the newly combined group would experience fewer variables if they moved into a home in which one of the couple already lived, that’s often not the case. Remember the old saying, “Possession is 9/10 of the law”? Existing residents still maintain the original claim to the space no matter how graciously they may welcome others into it. This makes it more difficult to make the transition from “mine” to “ours” than if everyone starts fresh in a new location.
In this ideal scenario, starting at least several months before the merger the housemates-to-be spend time with the animal together and alone. Together and alone they feed, play with, and groom the animal, as well as engage in any other species-specific activities such as walking and training. If any problems arise during this period, the couple deals with them immediately. Unless these folks are so fortunate that the actual move also can be accomplished over an extended period of time, chances are there will be a flurry of activity immediately before, during, and after the move. Any problems not resolved before then could add to the tension as well as become worse—not a good way to start a new joint venture! By the time the merger occurs using this slow and steady approach, the animal is comfortable with both people. That makes it much easier for everyone to adapt to a new environment to which no one has a pre-existing claim.
That’s a nice scenario but probably one that represents the exception rather than the rule in today’s society. Normally there are multiple, often messy variables complicating the process. As far as finding the time to do things gradually, well, that’s increasingly improbable in our society too. That being the case, let’s return to the idea that establishing and protecting the physical and mental territory is a critical priority of humans and animals and see how that comes into play in some problematic living arrangements. When this occurs, it typically boils down to the results of a cost-benefit analysis done by those involved. That is, they weight what they can gain out of this arrangement versus what they can lose.
Some of the least complicated mergers involving animals may be those that occur for purely financial reasons. Sue and Mary want to live in a nice apartment in a nice part of town that neither could afford to rent alone, but which is do-able if they live together. Because she loves the location, it’s worth it to Mary to tolerate Sue’s cat.
That seems like a pretty cut and dried win-win situation for everyone doesn’t it? It would be if Sue and Mary sit down before they sign the lease to discuss their expectations regarding the animal to determine if they’re compatible. Suppose when they do this, Mary makes it clear that it’s Sue’s responsibility to ensure that the cat does nothing to complicate the lives of Mary or her guests. This includes keeping the cat’s food and water dishes and litter boxes in some out of the way place such as Sue’s bedroom, and Sue regularly grooming the animal and vacuuming the shared areas of the apartment to control pet hair. This gets Sue’s dander up because she always feeds her cat in the kitchen of her current home, keeps the litter box in the bathroom, and got so used to cat hair on the furniture and her clothes that she doesn’t notice it. Plus her cat hates the sound of the vacuum cleaner.
For Mary whether this merger is going to work depends on the benefits of living in a nice space in a nice part of town versus the costs imposed by the cat and Sue’s relationship with the animal. The benefits may outweigh the cost if Sue agrees to her conditions. If not, Mary may decide she’s better off where she is while she looks for a different roommate. For Sue it depends on perceived benefits of living in that location versus the cost of living with someone who is ambivalent about her beloved pet at best, and who imposes changes that may negatively impact her cat and their relationship as well as require more of her time. And speaking of said cat, any instability in the physical and mental territory (which also includes the cat’s relationship with those in it), could cause the cat to mark with urine, stool, or claws as well as eat or drink too much or too little and/or develop medical problems with a stress component. Needless to say, that wouldn’t please Sue or Mary!
Regardless what either woman decides, even the most optimistic person would acknowledge that having such a discussion before signing any lease would spare all a lot of hassle.
As you might imagine, if someone is moving in with another who is already established in the home (i.e. has already claimed the territory) that can affect any merger. In this situation, established residents who take a more proprietary view of their homes may be more resistant to making changes to accommodate any newcomers. For example, if Mary is considering moving into Sue’s home, Sue may find Mary’s demands regarding where Sue’s cat should eat or eliminate more irritating than if they planned to live together in some neutral space chosen to take any animal needs into account. Similarly if Sue wants to move into Mary’s home with her cat, Mary’s concerns about protecting her furnishings from cat-related problems may strike Sue as more reasonable.
Human emotional attachments can work for or against those planning to live together in a household that will include animals belonging to one or the other. When it works for them, their emotional ties and desire to live together will cause them to engage in the aforementioned sometimes difficult discussions of animal-related expectations, negotiable and nonnegotiable points, and ways to merge the two households in a manner that will make the transition as stress-free as possible for all.
When it doesn’t work is when folks believe that their love for each other magically will resolve any animal-related issues so there’s no need to discuss them beforehand. Couples caught up in the excitement of new love may be so desirous of living together that they can’t imagine anything their or the other’s animal could do that would create problems for their relationship. If the animals are perfect, then no problems arise. If not, the animal’s imperfection may cause the couple to perceive each other differently too. Perhaps the animal’s owner will start taking any criticism of the animal personally. Or maybe the person who doesn’t own the animal will perceive the animal’s negative behavior as evidence that the owner cares more about the animal than about him or her.
Other times, the love of another never extended to that person’s pet in the first place. He or she loves the person in spite of the animal. Here again, as long as this is spelled out beforehand, the animal behaves well and doesn’t take up time the partner believes he or she is entitled to, no problems arise. In yet another variation on this theme, the original owner wants to maintain an exclusive claim to the animal and resents the partner’s desire to form her own special relationship with the pet. In these situations any honeymoon can end fairly quickly if the couple isn’t committed to staying together enough to work this out.
All of the examples so far involved mergers of single people with animals. But increasingly in our society, mergers may involve divorced folks or others who have animals from previous relationships and in some cases also kids. In such situations, the animals may spend time in two different households just like the kids. And as with kids, communication is paramount to accomplish this with the minimum amount of trauma for all involved. Sad to say, when such quality communication doesn’t exist having each person’s rights and obligations spelled out in a legal document may be the best answer.
People change and so do animals. Sometimes when a relationship with another person is falling apart, relationships with any animal(s) in the household may become important because of the comfort animals give us at such times. During the transition from being part of a couple to becoming single or moving in with someone else, the need for that nonjudgmental animal comfort may become more important than ever. Because of this, the desire and need to be with the animal may be greater than when we’re part of a stable household. Although a cut and dried 50/50 split would seem to eliminate this problem or at least distribute the burden equally, realities imposed by work schedules, distance, and the other obligations that affect our lives can negate such simple answers. Once again, quality communication before-the-fact will make these transition go more smoothly for humans and animals too.
And finally we have those who inherit animals when someone in the family dies or can no longer care for the animal for some reason. Whereas the symbolism attached to the other animals discussed may evolve over time (for good or ill), these animals may join the household already bearing a huge symbolic load. Every time Dick looks at his father’s Labrador, he thinks about how much he misses his dad. Every time Jess looks at her deceased mother’s poodle, she thinks about how much more attention her mom paid to the dog than her own kids and grandkids.
I’m sure you can add other scenarios from your own experience that I’ve missed.
So what’s the take-home message when it comes to integrating animals into new households successfully? Communicate, communicate, and communicate some more regarding all animal-related issues before the merger occurs. And while you’re at it, take the time to free-access crate-train your dogs and cats so that, wherever they wind up and regardless how stressful that physical and emotional environment may be, they’ll at least have a secure place they can call home.
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.