I will only sit for the pets that belong to the THS members. The other pet owners that are leaving their pets there ,as non THS members, don’t have reviews or profiles. I will only be getting one review and would not be able to review each pet owner separately if necessary. I’m a little surprised that THS doesn’t want all the pets to belong to members.
5 Likes
I’m surprised THS is not requiring all the pets to belong to THS members since it doesn’t allow sitters to share a membership with someone else be at two locations at the same time.
4 Likes
Absolutely, there was a nice looking Dorset sit on here the other day but it was parents and daughter and a combo of both their animals. The pics were the parents house but the sit would be at the daughter’s house. General consensus was - please come back once you have the right pics and are you sure you shouldn’t have two memberships? - it would have been all very confusing, who is the decision maker and what are the many “what ifs?” in this scenario. Would be a no from us for other people’s pets in any form. Just buy your own membership, cheap not to do so! #anotherbonkersthsdecision
7 Likes
I’ll be taking screenshots of confirmed sit listings from now on, just in case extra pets - belonging to other people - are added prior to commencement of the sit.
3 Likes
Good point.
But if you read the “new” information, the situation you described is not that. What you describe is a bait and switch where the listed home is not where the petsitters will actually stay. That’s clearly against the rules and should involve another listing. THS already tells hosts with two homes to have two separate listings – although many manage with one and change the location and photos.
If someone followed the guidelines described it would be an additional disclosed pet and all the usual information about that pet – including that the pet doesn’t live there full time and how that pet gets along with the other pets, and the sitter would certainly be able to see that before they even applied. And the “decision maker” would clearly be the person listed.
No it wasn’t bait and switch @Marion , it was new HOs asking if they could have a combined sit with two sets of pets from both parents and grown kids. (The pics bit was incidental as there was renovation work going on etc). What it did make me think was that those two family members could now combine a listing (when they chose which house it would be at), which still seems bonkers to me. Sorry if I didn’t explain the thinking clearly. #stillseemslikemadness
The only part of my comment you responded to that seems to fit your description above is
When I later said
I was referencing the fact that my final comment was not intended seriously. My use of the term “light-hearted” was an attempt to lighten the tone and diffuse an exchange between the 2 of us that from my point of view seemed to have the potential to become a little “prickly” if it were to continue. I couldn’t quite understand why my comments were being singled out, and not those of other people expressing similar opinions.
I completely failed to ease the apparent tension between us, but now I’ve read this latest response carefully, I think I realise why. Did you interpret my comment as some sort of hostility towards hosts? That certainly wasn’t my intention, and could not be further from the truth. I completely agree that there are unscrupulous sitters as well as hosts. I apologise if I have offended you, I certainly didn’t mean to.
I have had the good fortune to only encounter lovely hosts on our housesits. I think host participation in the forum is really important - you are outnumbered here on the forum, which can’t be easy at times, and we sitters need more opportunities to understand hosts opinions and experience. I am also a big believer in supporting new hosts to start out on their THS journey.
I guess I am also an advocate of supporting newer or less experienced sitters. I do think this update does have the potential to become complicated or messy for sitters, even in some cases where the guidelines are adhered to.
1 Like
Gratitude @Happypets for bringing this interesting topic to the forefront of community awareness!
I personally have a maximum 2 pet policy, as it allows me to give them the specialized care and attention that I am known to offer. Once, a pet parent planned to take their dog and leave the cat in my care, but when their plans changed, I was still willing since both pets lived together. I simply requested the dog’s details be added to the profile, and thankfully the pawrent included the doggos info to the welcome guide without prompting.
If pets aren’t from the same home, I’d need a clear understanding of their relationship before moving forward. I approach all my sits with a willingness and intention of ease. If a sit does not feel in alignment with my intention and willingness then I will not move forward. I am selective and particular about the experiences I want to have on these sits and it is why I am so incredibly diligent in my vetting process.
Out of the 36 sits I have completed, there was only one experience that I would not repeat and it is because my vetting process wasn’t as developed when I first joined THS. I learned! And now I have a through interview checklist that I can rely on to discover if an experience aligned with my wants and willingness. 
1 Like
Sorry. There is no tension between us. I just have a different viewpoint on the announcement/clarification about having guest pets belonging to family members you are traveling with. I read the linked information. I am not seeing it the same way that you are. I have tried to explain why. I both sit and host btw. I’ve already given my viewpoint but just to clarify:
- I don’t think the statement represents a new policy
- I think the statement clarifies something that happens and explains the limits and best practices for it.
- I think the statement and clarification could be helpful for both sitters and hosts.
I don’t think there is any evidence that this is some kind of “new” policy or that there is a marketting push in advertising or anywhere else to get people to buddy up and store all their pets in one home.
No problem. Differing viewpoints make the forum all the richer!
Interestingly @Cuttlefish, that particular listing for August next year has been showing 3 applicants for weeks now and no decision by owner has been made! Listing is a bit of a combination of their home and requirements and the daughter’s. New photos to be added in December once daughter’s renovations are completed. Obviously some sitters aren’t concerned about this or haven’t thought it right through or have moved on but not withdrawn their application.
1 Like
The agent I communicated with on ‘help’ stated there had recently been an update on this. There are previous threads which cite THS policy for 3rd party pets, here is a recent one:
It’s interesting to note that THS make the following definition:
‘“Pet Parent” means pet parent members who create an approved listing of their Home on our Platform. A Pet Parent must be the person who has legally acquired the pet, through purchase, adoption, or a legal transfer of ownership and can provide evidence to support this if required. The term Pet Parent is interchangeable with the term Owner. Each Pet may only have one Pet Parent under this Plan (or where there is more than one Pet Parent listed for a Pet, the aggregate benefit that we may at our discretion provide under this Plan will not be more than it would be if only one Pet Parent was listed).’
1 Like
I’m as surprised as ‘Happypets’. When browsing one time I found a sit opportunity where the HO often vacationed with their neighbour who also had a dog. The dogs were apparently great buddies and so the neighbours each got a sitter and introduced the sitters to each other so that the dogs and the sitters could hang out together while the respective HO’s enjoyed their holiday together. What a nice arrangement! So much better than the ‘pet club’ option…
5 Likes