How many pets are too many? The law decides.

[Thom Little]

More and more communities in Oakland County are limiting the number of cats, dogs and exotic pets residents can have, saying having too many pets disturbs neighbors and creates possible health risks.

Supporters of pet limits say it makes sense to restrict how many creatures families can have because too many can be a nuisance for neighbors, pose health risks if animals aren't cared for or cleaned up after and are often an indicator of other problems.

Animal hoarding, for example, is a symptom of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Imposing local pet limits "opens the door to help with those other problems," said Laura Joyce, one of three animal control officers in Bloomfield Township.

But the Michigan Humane Society says animal hoarders represent a very small segment of the population. It opposes local pet limits.

Rather than restrict how many dogs and cats people can have, spokeswoman Amy Popp said the Humane Society supports better enforcement of current laws -- keeping dogs on leashes, addressing nuisances such as barking -- and worries pet limits could deter good people from becoming foster parents to animals that need homes.

"There are a lot of really great families out there that could handle the care of additional animals," Popp said.



http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060104/METRO/601040332/1003

[sui generis]

1. yes but here in Dallas

there is a three pet limit. I had three jumbo dogs living in a heated, lit and air conditioned dog house out back plus a chihuahua, a yorkie and three cats.

All were taken care of excruciatingly well (the great dane and lab lived to be 16, the border collie to 17, one of the cats to 21), and yet the City of Dallas one day added up the number of pets I had registered and tried to fine me.

If the law is to limit pets, and animal control has a vested interest in this, then they should have sent an animal control officer to assess their living condition. What the heck else would a $2000 dollar a pet fine pay for?

I fought it in court and won - but blind adherence to some stupid blanket rule is stupid.

[crispini]

3. You know what's really stupid, is that if you just didn't register them,

nobody would ever notice. I mean it's not like they CHECK.

Although I didn't know that about the limit. We have a "cat lady" in our neighborhood -- so far, so good, but that kind of ordinance may come in handy if the situation appears to be out of hand.

[soothsayer]

10. yer nazi neighbors would turn you in

[crispini]

12. LOL

Only if it got annoying. ;)

[astonamous]

2. We are limited in Salt Lake City

We can only have two dogs. I live in a condo and probably wouldn't have more than that anyway, but I also volunteer with No More Homeless Pets in Utah and being able to bring a foster home until it can find a forever home would be something I would like to do occasionally.

[napi21]

7. I do volunteer rescue here in Ga.

There's no limit to the number of pets people can own (that I know of), but to legally do rescue, I have to get a State license each year. It's $100, and a rep from the Dept. of Agriculture, Animal Control division, can come by any time to inspect our home. They usually only come by once a year though. In exchange for the $100, I am permitted to rescue a dog from any of the Ga. Animal Control shelters at no charge.

[Ready4Change]

4. Quality, not quantity.

An apartment that is ok for a Chihuahua may not be ok for a Great Dane. In either case, the owner may not be fit for ANY pets. Even one can be a nuisance (or tragedy) if the owner isn't able to treat it responsibly.

OTOH, there are some people who can care for larger numbers of pets quite competently.

A simple numbers-only system, or even "by weight" doesn't get to the gist of the matter. How well the pets are cared for is the issue, not how many.

[leftyladyfrommo]

6. In Kansas City Reistering Pets is all about money for the city

And nothing else.

The last I read on 10% of pet owners had their pets registered. They also are the best owners and they are paying for everyone else.

[jim3775]

5. A house a few blocks away from me was a "cat lady" house

She was arrested for hoarding and kidnapping neighborhood cats (she would steal cats from other people). I had no idea this was going on until the police showed up.

I watched the clean-up the night the police were called. Provincial health workers were dressed in bio-hazard gear and they were carrying big black garbage bags full of dead cats to a waiting garbage truck and they were carrying the live cats to a waiting humane society truck. The number of cats both dead and alive was about 70-100.

[pitohui]

8. yes the few spoil it for the many

because a few old women are ill and have too many cats the rest of us, who take good care of our pets, have to have our pets numbered, counted, and disposed of if some busybody decides we have too many

this hasn't been a free country for a long time and there's always someone to make excuses for the lack of freedom even in something so small has making your own choices about pet ownership

[LizW]

14. Yes, the few do spoil it

Where I live, there are no limits on pets so long as there is no cruelty or unhealthy conditions. There is a leash law for all dogs, regardless of size.

My neighbors have lots of dogs and cats and most of the neighbors are responsible owners. But just one or two people letting their dogs run loose and crap everywhere and tear up everyone's garbage can be very annoying.

[madokie]

9. My little border collie is 'livestock'

farmers around here have lots of livestock

[Strong Atheist]

11. Reasonable limits seem to me to be a

good idea. Every once in a while you hear of the person with hundreds of cats... we just had one here recently, 493 cats, many of them dead or undernourished ...

[pitohui]

13. two is a reasonable limit for some species

it is a silly limit for, say, finches

these laws have been very abusively applied to bird owners who are not at fault and should not suffer for the ills of sick old ladies who keep 400 cats

put a limit on cats, or on dogs

not on "pets"

how many fish in that goldfish bowl, sir?

nuisance laws like this are not to protect us from the occasional crazy old lady, they are to give power to those who want to harass people they don't like

whenever you want to run someone out of the neighborhood, let's be honest, if you can't get them on anything else, the first thing you do is start reporting on them over their pets, we've ALL done it or know someone who has done it to us so why pretend it's about protecting the cats who would in any case have been kindly and humanely gassed if not for the crazy lady?