Should rental bonds be based on pet ownership?

The Canberra Times on 25.10.20 reported that:

“A woman who sought to keep a cavoodle puppy in a small inner-city apartment has had her application knocked back by a tribunal, which found the puppy would cause unreasonable damage.
The ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal found in favour of the apartment’s lessor, who successfully argued the young, untrained dog would unreasonably damage the apartment by urinating on the carpet and damaging the furniture”, see
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6982728/renter-cannot-keep-untrained-cavoodle-in-braddon-apartment-tribunal-finds/

A sound decision in the context I believe.

Given the new pro-pet climate in NSW courts and no doubt in time elsewhere, surely it’s now time to offer landlords a carrot and not a stick by creating two tiers of rental bonds: the current 4 weeks’ tier (NSW) to stay for those tenants without a pet and introducing say 8 weeks’ tier for tenants with pet(s). After all, house trained or not, a pet may damage the landlord’s property and may impact on a neighbour’s right to quiet enjoyment, for which the landlord may have to answer.

After all, if the (NSW) bond remains the same for a tenant with a pet or without a pet, that is parked at 4 weeks’ rent, why would a landlord run a higher risk (for no more reward) by signing up a pet owner?