PDA

View Full Version : Oak Park, IL limits number of dogs and cats per house


Steve Dufour
September 15th 04, 05:21 AM
Illinois village going to the dogs



Oak Park, IL, Sep. 14 (UPI) -- The Village Board of Oak Park, Ill.,
has increased the number of dogs that can live in a single-family
residence from two to three.

The town's two-dog per house limit had not changed since it was
enacted in 1904. A woman who owns three dogs challenged the law after
she was given the choice of getting rid of one animal or moving out of
town.

Irate neighbors mounted a petition drive to get the board to
reconsider the two-dog limit.

"I'm happy that I stuck with it. It was pretty painful, so I'm glad
that maybe other people who might want three dogs can avoid that pain
now," Bailey told the Chicago Tribune.

Village Board members did not change the one-dog per household limit
in multifamily residences with four or more units. The two-dog limit
remains per household in two and three flat apartment buildings.

Residents of a single-family home can have four cats, while apartment
dwellers are limited to two felines.

Kyler Laird
September 15th 04, 03:10 PM
(Steve Dufour) writes:

>Oak Park, IL, Sep. 14 (UPI) -- The Village Board of Oak Park, Ill.,
>has increased the number of dogs that can live in a single-family
>residence from two to three.

I've searched a couple times for any logic for such limitations and
have found none. Anyone have ideas? I do not see a direct
correlation between some arbitrary number of dogs (or cats) and all
single-family residences in terms of problems for the community.

Are there similar restrictions for children anywhere?

--kyler

Kyler Laird
September 15th 04, 03:10 PM
(Steve Dufour) writes:

>Oak Park, IL, Sep. 14 (UPI) -- The Village Board of Oak Park, Ill.,
>has increased the number of dogs that can live in a single-family
>residence from two to three.

I've searched a couple times for any logic for such limitations and
have found none. Anyone have ideas? I do not see a direct
correlation between some arbitrary number of dogs (or cats) and all
single-family residences in terms of problems for the community.

Are there similar restrictions for children anywhere?

--kyler

Steve Dufour
September 15th 04, 07:29 PM
> >Oak Park, IL, Sep. 14 (UPI) -- The Village Board of Oak Park, Ill.,
> >has increased the number of dogs that can live in a single-family
> >residence from two to three.
>
> I've searched a couple times for any logic for such limitations and
> have found none. Anyone have ideas? I do not see a direct
> correlation between some arbitrary number of dogs (or cats) and all
> single-family residences in terms of problems for the community.

I think there could be health and safety issues if there were too many
dogs or cats in one house. But I think 2 or 3 is way too low. Maybe
8 or 9 might be a more reasonable limit.

>
> Are there similar restrictions for children anywhere?

China.

>
> --kyler

Steve Dufour
September 15th 04, 07:29 PM
> >Oak Park, IL, Sep. 14 (UPI) -- The Village Board of Oak Park, Ill.,
> >has increased the number of dogs that can live in a single-family
> >residence from two to three.
>
> I've searched a couple times for any logic for such limitations and
> have found none. Anyone have ideas? I do not see a direct
> correlation between some arbitrary number of dogs (or cats) and all
> single-family residences in terms of problems for the community.

I think there could be health and safety issues if there were too many
dogs or cats in one house. But I think 2 or 3 is way too low. Maybe
8 or 9 might be a more reasonable limit.

>
> Are there similar restrictions for children anywhere?

China.

>
> --kyler

Ashley
September 15th 04, 09:28 PM
"Steve Dufour" > wrote in message
om...


> I think there could be health and safety issues if there were too many
> dogs or cats in one house. But I think 2 or 3 is way too low. Maybe
> 8 or 9 might be a more reasonable limit.


Whatever happened to individual choice and responsibility? Talk about Big
Brother!

Ashley
September 15th 04, 09:28 PM
"Steve Dufour" > wrote in message
om...


> I think there could be health and safety issues if there were too many
> dogs or cats in one house. But I think 2 or 3 is way too low. Maybe
> 8 or 9 might be a more reasonable limit.


Whatever happened to individual choice and responsibility? Talk about Big
Brother!

Kyler Laird
September 16th 04, 12:10 AM
(Steve Dufour) writes:

>I think there could be health and safety issues if there were too many
>dogs or cats in one house. But I think 2 or 3 is way too low. Maybe
>8 or 9 might be a more reasonable limit.

I can think of some homes where more than 10 could be easily handled.
I can certainly come up with some residences with more floor space
and land than a group of five apartments (which could, according to
these limits, hold 2 to 3 dogs each for a total of 10 to 15).

>> Are there similar restrictions for children anywhere?

>China.

I just attended a presentation on this a few days ago. There isn't
a hard limit such as the ones for number of dogs. Sure, in some
areas life will become very difficult if you go over one child per
couple but it's not prohibited. Similarly, I'd be happy to pay for
increased services used (if we got any) for having more than some
arbitrary number of dogs. (We're one of the few who pays our local
dog tax anyway.)

--kyler

Kyler Laird
September 16th 04, 12:10 AM
(Steve Dufour) writes:

>I think there could be health and safety issues if there were too many
>dogs or cats in one house. But I think 2 or 3 is way too low. Maybe
>8 or 9 might be a more reasonable limit.

I can think of some homes where more than 10 could be easily handled.
I can certainly come up with some residences with more floor space
and land than a group of five apartments (which could, according to
these limits, hold 2 to 3 dogs each for a total of 10 to 15).

>> Are there similar restrictions for children anywhere?

>China.

I just attended a presentation on this a few days ago. There isn't
a hard limit such as the ones for number of dogs. Sure, in some
areas life will become very difficult if you go over one child per
couple but it's not prohibited. Similarly, I'd be happy to pay for
increased services used (if we got any) for having more than some
arbitrary number of dogs. (We're one of the few who pays our local
dog tax anyway.)

--kyler

Ted Davis
September 16th 04, 03:01 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:10:55 GMT, Kyler Laird >
wrote:

(Steve Dufour) writes:
>
>>Oak Park, IL, Sep. 14 (UPI) -- The Village Board of Oak Park, Ill.,
>>has increased the number of dogs that can live in a single-family
>>residence from two to three.
>
>I've searched a couple times for any logic for such limitations and
>have found none. Anyone have ideas? I do not see a direct
>correlation between some arbitrary number of dogs (or cats) and all
>single-family residences in terms of problems for the community.

It's easy to see the reasoning in 1904: dogs (and cats) mostly ran
loose; rabies was common, if not rampant, and even if the Pasteur
vaccine was available, it was dangerous (up to 14% lethality); attacks
by dogs on humans, especially children were frequent occurrences; and
of course, dogs mess in other people's yards, stink, and bark - all of
these considerations are directly proportional to the number of dogs
and their density. Cats weren't neutered and we all know that a large
population of intact adult cats is not something you want to live next
door to.

In more modern times, some of those objections have been mitigated,
but dog noise, attacks, and messes - even where leash laws exist and
are observed - are still problems, as are intact cats. Then there are
animal hoarders who often stink up an entire neighborhood with the
odors from their houses/apartments and often are not really very good
to/for the animals because they simply can't cope.
>
>Are there similar restrictions for children anywhere?

China tried a one child policy, but enforcement proved impossible and
actually raised the rate of infanticide and child abandonment (of
female babies).


--
T.E.D. )

Ted Davis
September 16th 04, 03:01 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:10:55 GMT, Kyler Laird >
wrote:

(Steve Dufour) writes:
>
>>Oak Park, IL, Sep. 14 (UPI) -- The Village Board of Oak Park, Ill.,
>>has increased the number of dogs that can live in a single-family
>>residence from two to three.
>
>I've searched a couple times for any logic for such limitations and
>have found none. Anyone have ideas? I do not see a direct
>correlation between some arbitrary number of dogs (or cats) and all
>single-family residences in terms of problems for the community.

It's easy to see the reasoning in 1904: dogs (and cats) mostly ran
loose; rabies was common, if not rampant, and even if the Pasteur
vaccine was available, it was dangerous (up to 14% lethality); attacks
by dogs on humans, especially children were frequent occurrences; and
of course, dogs mess in other people's yards, stink, and bark - all of
these considerations are directly proportional to the number of dogs
and their density. Cats weren't neutered and we all know that a large
population of intact adult cats is not something you want to live next
door to.

In more modern times, some of those objections have been mitigated,
but dog noise, attacks, and messes - even where leash laws exist and
are observed - are still problems, as are intact cats. Then there are
animal hoarders who often stink up an entire neighborhood with the
odors from their houses/apartments and often are not really very good
to/for the animals because they simply can't cope.
>
>Are there similar restrictions for children anywhere?

China tried a one child policy, but enforcement proved impossible and
actually raised the rate of infanticide and child abandonment (of
female babies).


--
T.E.D. )

Kalyahna
September 16th 04, 03:07 AM
"Steve Dufour" > wrote in message
om...
> > I've searched a couple times for any logic for such limitations and
> > have found none. Anyone have ideas? I do not see a direct
> > correlation between some arbitrary number of dogs (or cats) and all
> > single-family residences in terms of problems for the community.
>
> I think there could be health and safety issues if there were too many
> dogs or cats in one house. But I think 2 or 3 is way too low. Maybe
> 8 or 9 might be a more reasonable limit.

Frankly, it depends on the owners of the animals, and the size of the house.
Some people can afford and can handle everything that comes with four dogs
and seven cats and five kids. Others can only handle a single small dog.

The limits are usually (as I understand it) intended to avoid hoarding or
collectors and the health risk that presents to both people and animals
involved. I think my hometown has limits... something like two dogs, two
cats. My sister and her husband applied for a permit of some sort to have an
exception made for them - they pay the necessary fees, and at least the
first time, a visit was paid to the home to be sure all the animals (and the
home itself) were in good condition. Hell, I live in an apartment complex
that allows only two cats per lease - they're supposed to be declawed, but I
behave myself and I talk to the manager when things come up, and so I have
three cats, none of them declawed, and I still foster feral kittens.

Kalyahna
September 16th 04, 03:07 AM
"Steve Dufour" > wrote in message
om...
> > I've searched a couple times for any logic for such limitations and
> > have found none. Anyone have ideas? I do not see a direct
> > correlation between some arbitrary number of dogs (or cats) and all
> > single-family residences in terms of problems for the community.
>
> I think there could be health and safety issues if there were too many
> dogs or cats in one house. But I think 2 or 3 is way too low. Maybe
> 8 or 9 might be a more reasonable limit.

Frankly, it depends on the owners of the animals, and the size of the house.
Some people can afford and can handle everything that comes with four dogs
and seven cats and five kids. Others can only handle a single small dog.

The limits are usually (as I understand it) intended to avoid hoarding or
collectors and the health risk that presents to both people and animals
involved. I think my hometown has limits... something like two dogs, two
cats. My sister and her husband applied for a permit of some sort to have an
exception made for them - they pay the necessary fees, and at least the
first time, a visit was paid to the home to be sure all the animals (and the
home itself) were in good condition. Hell, I live in an apartment complex
that allows only two cats per lease - they're supposed to be declawed, but I
behave myself and I talk to the manager when things come up, and so I have
three cats, none of them declawed, and I still foster feral kittens.

Kyler Laird
September 16th 04, 05:10 AM
Ted Davis > writes:

>In more modern times, some of those objections have been mitigated,
>but dog noise, attacks, and messes - even where leash laws exist and
>are observed - are still problems, as are intact cats.

But they're not necessarily proportional to the number of dogs per
household. It's very rare that my three are outside and barking
but there are some single dogs that do that all the time. Our
three also don't leave "messes" around the neighborhood (or even
in the yard for long), but other single dogs do.

Oh...and the only time I've been attacked in the neighborhood is
by a single dog.

--kyler

Kyler Laird
September 16th 04, 05:10 AM
Ted Davis > writes:

>In more modern times, some of those objections have been mitigated,
>but dog noise, attacks, and messes - even where leash laws exist and
>are observed - are still problems, as are intact cats.

But they're not necessarily proportional to the number of dogs per
household. It's very rare that my three are outside and barking
but there are some single dogs that do that all the time. Our
three also don't leave "messes" around the neighborhood (or even
in the yard for long), but other single dogs do.

Oh...and the only time I've been attacked in the neighborhood is
by a single dog.

--kyler

Ashley
September 16th 04, 06:58 AM
"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...


> In more modern times, some of those objections have been mitigated,
> but dog noise, attacks, and messes - even where leash laws exist and
> are observed - are still problems, as are intact cats. Then there are
> animal hoarders who often stink up an entire neighborhood with the
> odors from their houses/apartments and often are not really very good
> to/for the animals because they simply can't cope.

Which can easily be dealt with by general health and safety regulations /
bylaws - no need at all to specifically limit the number of animals that can
be held.

Ashley
September 16th 04, 06:58 AM
"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...


> In more modern times, some of those objections have been mitigated,
> but dog noise, attacks, and messes - even where leash laws exist and
> are observed - are still problems, as are intact cats. Then there are
> animal hoarders who often stink up an entire neighborhood with the
> odors from their houses/apartments and often are not really very good
> to/for the animals because they simply can't cope.

Which can easily be dealt with by general health and safety regulations /
bylaws - no need at all to specifically limit the number of animals that can
be held.

Günni (Gunnar Lode)
September 16th 04, 12:02 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:28:15 +1200 Ashley > wrote:

>
> Whatever happened to individual choice and responsibility? Talk about Big
> Brother!
>
>

Nope. Forget Big brother! Talk about an overstrained juciary system an
about old-fashioned laws that should be abolished...

--
eMail: Gunnar Unterstrich Lode at web de

Günni (Gunnar Lode)
September 16th 04, 12:02 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 08:28:15 +1200 Ashley > wrote:

>
> Whatever happened to individual choice and responsibility? Talk about Big
> Brother!
>
>

Nope. Forget Big brother! Talk about an overstrained juciary system an
about old-fashioned laws that should be abolished...

--
eMail: Gunnar Unterstrich Lode at web de

Ted Davis
September 16th 04, 02:05 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:58:56 +1200, "Ashley"
> wrote:

>
>"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> In more modern times, some of those objections have been mitigated,
>> but dog noise, attacks, and messes - even where leash laws exist and
>> are observed - are still problems, as are intact cats. Then there are
>> animal hoarders who often stink up an entire neighborhood with the
>> odors from their houses/apartments and often are not really very good
>> to/for the animals because they simply can't cope.
>
>Which can easily be dealt with by general health and safety regulations /
>bylaws - no need at all to specifically limit the number of animals that can
>be held.
>

All of which eventually translate into minimum area/volume per animal
or per unit weight of animal - it is a lot easier to make assumptions
about the average floor space per dwelling unit of each type and the
average size of cats and dogs than it is to define the underlying
factors in ways that make enforcement practical. Numerical limits
make for more enforacble laws.

In any case, the laws are passed in the first place not to
inconvenience responsible and caring dog owners and cat keepers, they
are passed to deal with the irresponsible and careless - there just
isn't any reasonable way to distinguish the two classes and numerical
limits help to limit the damage the bad ones can get away with.

In an ideal world, the number of pets you were allowed to keep would
be determied by your ability to keep them well and happy, and harmless
to others. We don't live there - we live in a world where, for
entirely too many people, the standard is how much harm to people,
property, and animals they can get away with.


T.E.D. )
SPAM filter: Messages to this address *must* contain "T.E.D."
somewhere in the body or they will be automatically rejected.

Ted Davis
September 16th 04, 02:05 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:58:56 +1200, "Ashley"
> wrote:

>
>"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> In more modern times, some of those objections have been mitigated,
>> but dog noise, attacks, and messes - even where leash laws exist and
>> are observed - are still problems, as are intact cats. Then there are
>> animal hoarders who often stink up an entire neighborhood with the
>> odors from their houses/apartments and often are not really very good
>> to/for the animals because they simply can't cope.
>
>Which can easily be dealt with by general health and safety regulations /
>bylaws - no need at all to specifically limit the number of animals that can
>be held.
>

All of which eventually translate into minimum area/volume per animal
or per unit weight of animal - it is a lot easier to make assumptions
about the average floor space per dwelling unit of each type and the
average size of cats and dogs than it is to define the underlying
factors in ways that make enforcement practical. Numerical limits
make for more enforacble laws.

In any case, the laws are passed in the first place not to
inconvenience responsible and caring dog owners and cat keepers, they
are passed to deal with the irresponsible and careless - there just
isn't any reasonable way to distinguish the two classes and numerical
limits help to limit the damage the bad ones can get away with.

In an ideal world, the number of pets you were allowed to keep would
be determied by your ability to keep them well and happy, and harmless
to others. We don't live there - we live in a world where, for
entirely too many people, the standard is how much harm to people,
property, and animals they can get away with.


T.E.D. )
SPAM filter: Messages to this address *must* contain "T.E.D."
somewhere in the body or they will be automatically rejected.

Kyler Laird
September 16th 04, 03:10 PM
Ted Davis > writes:

>>Which can easily be dealt with by general health and safety regulations /
>>bylaws - no need at all to specifically limit the number of animals that can
>>be held.

>All of which eventually translate into minimum area/volume per animal
>or per unit weight of animal - it is a lot easier to make assumptions
>about the average floor space per dwelling unit of each type and the
>average size of cats and dogs than it is to define the underlying
>factors in ways that make enforcement practical.

Oh, sure. It's *easier*, but it's also ridiculous. At our Delta Society
testing last weekend we tested a three(?) pound Chihuahua and a couple
dogs that were about 100 pounds. I haven't seen any dog-number-limit
laws which differentiate between a 600 square foot apartment and a 4000
square foot home.

So by making these assumptions you describe, we're talking orders of
magnitude of difference for living area/volume of X animals.

>Numerical limits
>make for more enforacble laws.

Sure, but they also have no use for identifying a problem. If you just
like having laws to harrass people, that's fine. It falls apart if we
pretend that they're something else.

>In any case, the laws are passed in the first place not to
>inconvenience responsible and caring dog owners and cat keepers, they
>are passed to deal with the irresponsible and careless - there just
>isn't any reasonable way to distinguish the two classes and numerical
>limits help to limit the damage the bad ones can get away with.

Applying this logic to other parts of our lives could get very
interesting.

--kyler

Kyler Laird
September 16th 04, 03:10 PM
Ted Davis > writes:

>>Which can easily be dealt with by general health and safety regulations /
>>bylaws - no need at all to specifically limit the number of animals that can
>>be held.

>All of which eventually translate into minimum area/volume per animal
>or per unit weight of animal - it is a lot easier to make assumptions
>about the average floor space per dwelling unit of each type and the
>average size of cats and dogs than it is to define the underlying
>factors in ways that make enforcement practical.

Oh, sure. It's *easier*, but it's also ridiculous. At our Delta Society
testing last weekend we tested a three(?) pound Chihuahua and a couple
dogs that were about 100 pounds. I haven't seen any dog-number-limit
laws which differentiate between a 600 square foot apartment and a 4000
square foot home.

So by making these assumptions you describe, we're talking orders of
magnitude of difference for living area/volume of X animals.

>Numerical limits
>make for more enforacble laws.

Sure, but they also have no use for identifying a problem. If you just
like having laws to harrass people, that's fine. It falls apart if we
pretend that they're something else.

>In any case, the laws are passed in the first place not to
>inconvenience responsible and caring dog owners and cat keepers, they
>are passed to deal with the irresponsible and careless - there just
>isn't any reasonable way to distinguish the two classes and numerical
>limits help to limit the damage the bad ones can get away with.

Applying this logic to other parts of our lives could get very
interesting.

--kyler

Ashley
September 16th 04, 11:44 PM
"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...


> All of which eventually translate into minimum area/volume per animal
> or per unit weight of animal - it is a lot easier to make assumptions
> about the average floor space per dwelling unit of each type and the
> average size of cats and dogs than it is to define the underlying
> factors in ways that make enforcement practical. Numerical limits
> make for more enforacble laws.
>

And are unnecessary.


> In any case, the laws are passed in the first place not to
> inconvenience responsible and caring dog owners and cat keepers, they
> are passed to deal with the irresponsible and careless - there just
> isn't any reasonable way to distinguish the two classes and numerical
> limits help to limit the damage the bad ones can get away with.
>

But in the meantime, such a law stops a perfectly adequate pet owner, with a
perfectly adequate house, from having 3 cats instead of 2. It is, quite
frankly, control freak stuff.


> In an ideal world, the number of pets you were allowed to keep would
> be determied by your ability to keep them well and happy, and harmless
> to others. We don't live there - we live in a world where, for
> entirely too many people, the standard is how much harm to people,
> property, and animals they can get away with.

Actually, the number of people and cats causing problems is much less than
the number of people and cats not causing problems, but to control the
former you're advocating laws which restrain the later, for no good purpose.

Ashley
September 16th 04, 11:44 PM
"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...


> All of which eventually translate into minimum area/volume per animal
> or per unit weight of animal - it is a lot easier to make assumptions
> about the average floor space per dwelling unit of each type and the
> average size of cats and dogs than it is to define the underlying
> factors in ways that make enforcement practical. Numerical limits
> make for more enforacble laws.
>

And are unnecessary.


> In any case, the laws are passed in the first place not to
> inconvenience responsible and caring dog owners and cat keepers, they
> are passed to deal with the irresponsible and careless - there just
> isn't any reasonable way to distinguish the two classes and numerical
> limits help to limit the damage the bad ones can get away with.
>

But in the meantime, such a law stops a perfectly adequate pet owner, with a
perfectly adequate house, from having 3 cats instead of 2. It is, quite
frankly, control freak stuff.


> In an ideal world, the number of pets you were allowed to keep would
> be determied by your ability to keep them well and happy, and harmless
> to others. We don't live there - we live in a world where, for
> entirely too many people, the standard is how much harm to people,
> property, and animals they can get away with.

Actually, the number of people and cats causing problems is much less than
the number of people and cats not causing problems, but to control the
former you're advocating laws which restrain the later, for no good purpose.

Ted Davis
September 17th 04, 02:34 AM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:44:32 +1200, "Ashley"
> wrote:

>
>"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> All of which eventually translate into minimum area/volume per animal
>> or per unit weight of animal - it is a lot easier to make assumptions
>> about the average floor space per dwelling unit of each type and the
>> average size of cats and dogs than it is to define the underlying
>> factors in ways that make enforcement practical. Numerical limits
>> make for more enforacble laws.
>>
>
>And are unnecessary.
>
The reality is that these laws are seldom enforced, but they do
provide a handle for the police to deal with the few that cause
problems and for neighbors to bring civil actions: a clear violation
of law makes a nuisance action pretty much open and shut. Of course,
there are few people who would call the police or bring suit unless
the animals were actually causing problems - in fact, if the animals
are not calling attention to themselves, the neighbors likely do not
even know how many are there. While in theory, anyone with more than
the allowed number of animals, is subject to prosecution or suit, the
reality is that only the problem ones are at all likely to be.

>
>> In any case, the laws are passed in the first place not to
>> inconvenience responsible and caring dog owners and cat keepers, they
>> are passed to deal with the irresponsible and careless - there just
>> isn't any reasonable way to distinguish the two classes and numerical
>> limits help to limit the damage the bad ones can get away with.
>>
>
>But in the meantime, such a law stops a perfectly adequate pet owner, with a
>perfectly adequate house, from having 3 cats instead of 2. It is, quite
>frankly, control freak stuff.

In reality, they don't stop very many people - the laws aren't carved
on stone tablets in the public square, they are mostly unknown except
to specialists and neighbors who have been annoyed into action.
>
>
>> In an ideal world, the number of pets you were allowed to keep would
>> be determied by your ability to keep them well and happy, and harmless
>> to others. We don't live there - we live in a world where, for
>> entirely too many people, the standard is how much harm to people,
>> property, and animals they can get away with.
>
>Actually, the number of people and cats causing problems is much less than
>the number of people and cats not causing problems, but to control the
>former you're advocating laws which restrain the later, for no good purpose.
>

I'm not advocating anything: when I write on hot topics, I write very
carefully. If I were to advocate anything, it would be to live where
your pets cause no one any offence. I have eleven cats, and until
recently, two outdoor dogs - my nearest neighbor is about 500 feet
away. I kept my dogs in a radio fence containment area - they were
the only controlled dogs in the immediate vicinity. My cats run free,
but seldom leave the property (6.27 acres) except to go into the woods
out back. I live ten miles out in the country so that my animals will
not bother anyone, regardless of how many I have. I would not inflict
that many cats on my neighbors in a city apartment because they
*would* be a nuisance.


--
T.E.D. )

Ted Davis
September 17th 04, 02:34 AM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:44:32 +1200, "Ashley"
> wrote:

>
>"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> All of which eventually translate into minimum area/volume per animal
>> or per unit weight of animal - it is a lot easier to make assumptions
>> about the average floor space per dwelling unit of each type and the
>> average size of cats and dogs than it is to define the underlying
>> factors in ways that make enforcement practical. Numerical limits
>> make for more enforacble laws.
>>
>
>And are unnecessary.
>
The reality is that these laws are seldom enforced, but they do
provide a handle for the police to deal with the few that cause
problems and for neighbors to bring civil actions: a clear violation
of law makes a nuisance action pretty much open and shut. Of course,
there are few people who would call the police or bring suit unless
the animals were actually causing problems - in fact, if the animals
are not calling attention to themselves, the neighbors likely do not
even know how many are there. While in theory, anyone with more than
the allowed number of animals, is subject to prosecution or suit, the
reality is that only the problem ones are at all likely to be.

>
>> In any case, the laws are passed in the first place not to
>> inconvenience responsible and caring dog owners and cat keepers, they
>> are passed to deal with the irresponsible and careless - there just
>> isn't any reasonable way to distinguish the two classes and numerical
>> limits help to limit the damage the bad ones can get away with.
>>
>
>But in the meantime, such a law stops a perfectly adequate pet owner, with a
>perfectly adequate house, from having 3 cats instead of 2. It is, quite
>frankly, control freak stuff.

In reality, they don't stop very many people - the laws aren't carved
on stone tablets in the public square, they are mostly unknown except
to specialists and neighbors who have been annoyed into action.
>
>
>> In an ideal world, the number of pets you were allowed to keep would
>> be determied by your ability to keep them well and happy, and harmless
>> to others. We don't live there - we live in a world where, for
>> entirely too many people, the standard is how much harm to people,
>> property, and animals they can get away with.
>
>Actually, the number of people and cats causing problems is much less than
>the number of people and cats not causing problems, but to control the
>former you're advocating laws which restrain the later, for no good purpose.
>

I'm not advocating anything: when I write on hot topics, I write very
carefully. If I were to advocate anything, it would be to live where
your pets cause no one any offence. I have eleven cats, and until
recently, two outdoor dogs - my nearest neighbor is about 500 feet
away. I kept my dogs in a radio fence containment area - they were
the only controlled dogs in the immediate vicinity. My cats run free,
but seldom leave the property (6.27 acres) except to go into the woods
out back. I live ten miles out in the country so that my animals will
not bother anyone, regardless of how many I have. I would not inflict
that many cats on my neighbors in a city apartment because they
*would* be a nuisance.


--
T.E.D. )

Ashley
September 17th 04, 05:32 AM
"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...

> The reality is that these laws are seldom enforced, but they do
> provide a handle for the police to deal with the few that cause
> problems and for neighbors to bring civil actions: a clear violation
> of law makes a nuisance action pretty much open and shut. Of course,
> there are few people who would call the police or bring suit unless
> the animals were actually causing problems - in fact, if the animals
> are not calling attention to themselves, the neighbors likely do not
> even know how many are there. While in theory, anyone with more than
> the allowed number of animals, is subject to prosecution or suit, the
> reality is that only the problem ones are at all likely to be.
>

But there still remains the very strong possibility that a perfectly
adequate pet owner, who's just not getting on with an obstreperous
neighbour, finds themselves reported and on the wrong side of the law, even
though their pets are doing no one any harm. I'm firmly of the belief that
laws should prohibit only that which is harmful - having four cats is, of
itself, not harmful. Creating an insanitary, or excessively noisy
environment is. So laws should target the insanitary conditions or a noise -
whatever causes them - not the animals.


>
> I'm not advocating anything: when I write on hot topics, I write very
> carefully. If I were to advocate anything, it would be to live where
> your pets cause no one any offence.


I did choose to live somewhere where my cats cause no offence. But I can't
control the feelings of people who may move next door to me. For instance, I
found out recently that one neighbour actually doesn't like my cats walking
across her yard - she tolerates it, but she'd rather it didn't happen. She
moved in a year after I moved here - that's something I can't control. (She
was, however, quite obviously pleased when I said I had no problem with her
spraying my cats with water from a squeeze bottle whenever she saw them on
her section as a way of training them to avoid it.)

I have eleven cats, and until
> recently, two outdoor dogs - my nearest neighbor is about 500 feet
> away. I kept my dogs in a radio fence containment area - they were
> the only controlled dogs in the immediate vicinity. My cats run free,
> but seldom leave the property (6.27 acres) except to go into the woods
> out back. I live ten miles out in the country so that my animals will
> not bother anyone, regardless of how many I have.


Sounds glorious.

I would not inflict
> that many cats on my neighbors in a city apartment because they
> *would* be a nuisance.

One small point - this thread title speaks of houses, not apartments. I have
been commenting specifically on houses - it's up to the bodies corporate of
apartment complexes to make up their own rules regarding pet ownership, and
fair enough. But I strongly believe that local authorities should not be
placing arbitrary limits on numbers of animals per household, because they
are entirely arbitrary and don't actually deal with the issues of harm.

I actually found a really interesting website on this subject yesterday, as
I was surfing. I haven't read it all (it's a book), but have read signficant
parts of the cat section. It deals with municipal pet management in
Australia and is, quite frankly fascinating reading for those who are
interested in finding out the real issues (for instance, I was fascinated to
read what is said about cats killing native wildlife in urban environments -
one of the main rationales for control in Australia, and one that is being
increasingly voiced here in NZ).

If you're interested, take a read at http://www.petnet.com.au/dcue/TOC.htm

Ashley
September 17th 04, 05:32 AM
"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...

> The reality is that these laws are seldom enforced, but they do
> provide a handle for the police to deal with the few that cause
> problems and for neighbors to bring civil actions: a clear violation
> of law makes a nuisance action pretty much open and shut. Of course,
> there are few people who would call the police or bring suit unless
> the animals were actually causing problems - in fact, if the animals
> are not calling attention to themselves, the neighbors likely do not
> even know how many are there. While in theory, anyone with more than
> the allowed number of animals, is subject to prosecution or suit, the
> reality is that only the problem ones are at all likely to be.
>

But there still remains the very strong possibility that a perfectly
adequate pet owner, who's just not getting on with an obstreperous
neighbour, finds themselves reported and on the wrong side of the law, even
though their pets are doing no one any harm. I'm firmly of the belief that
laws should prohibit only that which is harmful - having four cats is, of
itself, not harmful. Creating an insanitary, or excessively noisy
environment is. So laws should target the insanitary conditions or a noise -
whatever causes them - not the animals.


>
> I'm not advocating anything: when I write on hot topics, I write very
> carefully. If I were to advocate anything, it would be to live where
> your pets cause no one any offence.


I did choose to live somewhere where my cats cause no offence. But I can't
control the feelings of people who may move next door to me. For instance, I
found out recently that one neighbour actually doesn't like my cats walking
across her yard - she tolerates it, but she'd rather it didn't happen. She
moved in a year after I moved here - that's something I can't control. (She
was, however, quite obviously pleased when I said I had no problem with her
spraying my cats with water from a squeeze bottle whenever she saw them on
her section as a way of training them to avoid it.)

I have eleven cats, and until
> recently, two outdoor dogs - my nearest neighbor is about 500 feet
> away. I kept my dogs in a radio fence containment area - they were
> the only controlled dogs in the immediate vicinity. My cats run free,
> but seldom leave the property (6.27 acres) except to go into the woods
> out back. I live ten miles out in the country so that my animals will
> not bother anyone, regardless of how many I have.


Sounds glorious.

I would not inflict
> that many cats on my neighbors in a city apartment because they
> *would* be a nuisance.

One small point - this thread title speaks of houses, not apartments. I have
been commenting specifically on houses - it's up to the bodies corporate of
apartment complexes to make up their own rules regarding pet ownership, and
fair enough. But I strongly believe that local authorities should not be
placing arbitrary limits on numbers of animals per household, because they
are entirely arbitrary and don't actually deal with the issues of harm.

I actually found a really interesting website on this subject yesterday, as
I was surfing. I haven't read it all (it's a book), but have read signficant
parts of the cat section. It deals with municipal pet management in
Australia and is, quite frankly fascinating reading for those who are
interested in finding out the real issues (for instance, I was fascinated to
read what is said about cats killing native wildlife in urban environments -
one of the main rationales for control in Australia, and one that is being
increasingly voiced here in NZ).

If you're interested, take a read at http://www.petnet.com.au/dcue/TOC.htm

Ted Davis
September 17th 04, 05:55 PM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:32:18 +1200, "Ashley"
> wrote:

>
>"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
>> The reality is that these laws are seldom enforced, but they do
>> provide a handle for the police to deal with the few that cause
>> problems and for neighbors to bring civil actions: a clear violation
>> of law makes a nuisance action pretty much open and shut. Of course,
>> there are few people who would call the police or bring suit unless
>> the animals were actually causing problems - in fact, if the animals
>> are not calling attention to themselves, the neighbors likely do not
>> even know how many are there. While in theory, anyone with more than
>> the allowed number of animals, is subject to prosecution or suit, the
>> reality is that only the problem ones are at all likely to be.
>>
>
>But there still remains the very strong possibility that a perfectly
>adequate pet owner, who's just not getting on with an obstreperous
>neighbour, finds themselves reported and on the wrong side of the law, even
>though their pets are doing no one any harm. I'm firmly of the belief that
>laws should prohibit only that which is harmful - having four cats is, of
>itself, not harmful. Creating an insanitary, or excessively noisy
>environment is. So laws should target the insanitary conditions or a noise -
>whatever causes them - not the animals.
>
Define each of those terms in such a way that it is clear *exactly*
what is to be prohibited. Laws have to be that precise - at least in
those legal systems of the 'rule of law' type. If there is any wiggle
room, lawyers will exploit it and the law will fail in its intent. If
the forbidden conditions are not precisely defined in clear and simple
ways that the average person (neighbor or policeman) can recognize
unambiguously and without invasion of anyone's privacy - at least to
the degree required to obtain a warrant for more invasive examination
- enforcement would become a matter of opinion. Do you want *your*
pet's conditions judged by the neighbors, police, and courts on the
basis of personal opinion? Or would you prefer a clear standard of
comparison that doesn't require expensive expert examination. When
laws are made, the practicality and cost of enforcing them has to - or
should - be considered (though often isn't, but that's pure politics).

>
>>
>> I'm not advocating anything: when I write on hot topics, I write very
>> carefully. If I were to advocate anything, it would be to live where
>> your pets cause no one any offence.
>
>
>I did choose to live somewhere where my cats cause no offence. But I can't
>control the feelings of people who may move next door to me. For instance, I
>found out recently that one neighbour actually doesn't like my cats walking
>across her yard - she tolerates it, but she'd rather it didn't happen. She
>moved in a year after I moved here - that's something I can't control. (She
>was, however, quite obviously pleased when I said I had no problem with her
>spraying my cats with water from a squeeze bottle whenever she saw them on
>her section as a way of training them to avoid it.)
>
> I have eleven cats, and until
>> recently, two outdoor dogs - my nearest neighbor is about 500 feet
>> away. I kept my dogs in a radio fence containment area - they were
>> the only controlled dogs in the immediate vicinity. My cats run free,
>> but seldom leave the property (6.27 acres) except to go into the woods
>> out back. I live ten miles out in the country so that my animals will
>> not bother anyone, regardless of how many I have.
>
>
>Sounds glorious.
>
> I would not inflict
>> that many cats on my neighbors in a city apartment because they
>> *would* be a nuisance.
>
>One small point - this thread title speaks of houses, not apartments. I have
>been commenting specifically on houses - it's up to the bodies corporate of
>apartment complexes to make up their own rules regarding pet ownership, and
>fair enough. But I strongly believe that local authorities should not be
>placing arbitrary limits on numbers of animals per household, because they
>are entirely arbitrary and don't actually deal with the issues of harm.

You need to reread the original article: 'flats' and 'apartments' are
dialect variants for the same thing.
"Village Board members did not change the one-dog per household limit
in multifamily residences with four or more units. The two-dog limit
remains per household in two and three flat apartment buildings."
>
>I actually found a really interesting website on this subject yesterday, as
>I was surfing. I haven't read it all (it's a book), but have read signficant
>parts of the cat section. It deals with municipal pet management in
>Australia and is, quite frankly fascinating reading for those who are
>interested in finding out the real issues (for instance, I was fascinated to
>read what is said about cats killing native wildlife in urban environments -
>one of the main rationales for control in Australia, and one that is being
>increasingly voiced here in NZ).

Here in rural Missouri (USA), there is some concern over that, but
much more over wildlife killing pets (mostly coyotes) and spreading
rabies. And of course, dog packs being general nuisances as well as
specific threats. Feral cats don't seem to be much of a problem
outside cities.

--
T.E.D. )

Ted Davis
September 17th 04, 05:55 PM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 16:32:18 +1200, "Ashley"
> wrote:

>
>"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
>> The reality is that these laws are seldom enforced, but they do
>> provide a handle for the police to deal with the few that cause
>> problems and for neighbors to bring civil actions: a clear violation
>> of law makes a nuisance action pretty much open and shut. Of course,
>> there are few people who would call the police or bring suit unless
>> the animals were actually causing problems - in fact, if the animals
>> are not calling attention to themselves, the neighbors likely do not
>> even know how many are there. While in theory, anyone with more than
>> the allowed number of animals, is subject to prosecution or suit, the
>> reality is that only the problem ones are at all likely to be.
>>
>
>But there still remains the very strong possibility that a perfectly
>adequate pet owner, who's just not getting on with an obstreperous
>neighbour, finds themselves reported and on the wrong side of the law, even
>though their pets are doing no one any harm. I'm firmly of the belief that
>laws should prohibit only that which is harmful - having four cats is, of
>itself, not harmful. Creating an insanitary, or excessively noisy
>environment is. So laws should target the insanitary conditions or a noise -
>whatever causes them - not the animals.
>
Define each of those terms in such a way that it is clear *exactly*
what is to be prohibited. Laws have to be that precise - at least in
those legal systems of the 'rule of law' type. If there is any wiggle
room, lawyers will exploit it and the law will fail in its intent. If
the forbidden conditions are not precisely defined in clear and simple
ways that the average person (neighbor or policeman) can recognize
unambiguously and without invasion of anyone's privacy - at least to
the degree required to obtain a warrant for more invasive examination
- enforcement would become a matter of opinion. Do you want *your*
pet's conditions judged by the neighbors, police, and courts on the
basis of personal opinion? Or would you prefer a clear standard of
comparison that doesn't require expensive expert examination. When
laws are made, the practicality and cost of enforcing them has to - or
should - be considered (though often isn't, but that's pure politics).

>
>>
>> I'm not advocating anything: when I write on hot topics, I write very
>> carefully. If I were to advocate anything, it would be to live where
>> your pets cause no one any offence.
>
>
>I did choose to live somewhere where my cats cause no offence. But I can't
>control the feelings of people who may move next door to me. For instance, I
>found out recently that one neighbour actually doesn't like my cats walking
>across her yard - she tolerates it, but she'd rather it didn't happen. She
>moved in a year after I moved here - that's something I can't control. (She
>was, however, quite obviously pleased when I said I had no problem with her
>spraying my cats with water from a squeeze bottle whenever she saw them on
>her section as a way of training them to avoid it.)
>
> I have eleven cats, and until
>> recently, two outdoor dogs - my nearest neighbor is about 500 feet
>> away. I kept my dogs in a radio fence containment area - they were
>> the only controlled dogs in the immediate vicinity. My cats run free,
>> but seldom leave the property (6.27 acres) except to go into the woods
>> out back. I live ten miles out in the country so that my animals will
>> not bother anyone, regardless of how many I have.
>
>
>Sounds glorious.
>
> I would not inflict
>> that many cats on my neighbors in a city apartment because they
>> *would* be a nuisance.
>
>One small point - this thread title speaks of houses, not apartments. I have
>been commenting specifically on houses - it's up to the bodies corporate of
>apartment complexes to make up their own rules regarding pet ownership, and
>fair enough. But I strongly believe that local authorities should not be
>placing arbitrary limits on numbers of animals per household, because they
>are entirely arbitrary and don't actually deal with the issues of harm.

You need to reread the original article: 'flats' and 'apartments' are
dialect variants for the same thing.
"Village Board members did not change the one-dog per household limit
in multifamily residences with four or more units. The two-dog limit
remains per household in two and three flat apartment buildings."
>
>I actually found a really interesting website on this subject yesterday, as
>I was surfing. I haven't read it all (it's a book), but have read signficant
>parts of the cat section. It deals with municipal pet management in
>Australia and is, quite frankly fascinating reading for those who are
>interested in finding out the real issues (for instance, I was fascinated to
>read what is said about cats killing native wildlife in urban environments -
>one of the main rationales for control in Australia, and one that is being
>increasingly voiced here in NZ).

Here in rural Missouri (USA), there is some concern over that, but
much more over wildlife killing pets (mostly coyotes) and spreading
rabies. And of course, dog packs being general nuisances as well as
specific threats. Feral cats don't seem to be much of a problem
outside cities.

--
T.E.D. )

Ashley
September 17th 04, 08:39 PM
"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...


> Define each of those terms in such a way that it is clear *exactly*
> what is to be prohibited. Laws have to be that precise - at least in
> those legal systems of the 'rule of law' type. If there is any wiggle
> room, lawyers will exploit it and the law will fail in its intent. If
> the forbidden conditions are not precisely defined in clear and simple
> ways that the average person (neighbor or policeman) can recognize
> unambiguously and without invasion of anyone's privacy - at least to
> the degree required to obtain a warrant for more invasive examination
> - enforcement would become a matter of opinion. Do you want *your*
> pet's conditions judged by the neighbors, police, and courts on the
> basis of personal opinion?

I would most definitely prefer to have the sanitary condition of my house
determined by the courts, obviously considering the evidence of a qualified
health inspector, than have the number of cats I am allowed limited on an
arbitrary basis. That's a no-brainer.



> Here in rural Missouri (USA), there is some concern over that, but
> much more over wildlife killing pets (mostly coyotes) and spreading
> rabies.

Wildlife killing pets is not, IMO, that local authorities need to concern
themselves over. It is the pet owners' responsibility, and their decision on
how to manage the risk. Rabies is an understandable concern (not present in
NZ), but surely it could be adequately managed by a registration and
compulsory vaccination regime.

One of the states in Australia has adopted the position, for instance, that
pet cats are free to roam, however they must be identified (microchip, I
think) and any entire cat over the age of 5 months found roaming will deemed
to be a stray and can be euthanised immediately. That firmly and squarely
puts the responsibility back on the cat owner to be responsible and either
keep their cats enclosed if they wish to breed from them, or desex them. I
see no reason why immunisation status couldn't be recorded on the microchip
information and unimmunised cats be deemed to now be strays. Again, that
puts the responsibility back on the owner - and manages the actual risk,
not a perceived one - without placing unnecessary blanket restrictions on
all pet owners.

And of course, dog packs being general nuisances as well as
> specific threats. Feral cats don't seem to be much of a problem
> outside cities.
>
> --
> T.E.D. )

Ashley
September 17th 04, 08:39 PM
"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...


> Define each of those terms in such a way that it is clear *exactly*
> what is to be prohibited. Laws have to be that precise - at least in
> those legal systems of the 'rule of law' type. If there is any wiggle
> room, lawyers will exploit it and the law will fail in its intent. If
> the forbidden conditions are not precisely defined in clear and simple
> ways that the average person (neighbor or policeman) can recognize
> unambiguously and without invasion of anyone's privacy - at least to
> the degree required to obtain a warrant for more invasive examination
> - enforcement would become a matter of opinion. Do you want *your*
> pet's conditions judged by the neighbors, police, and courts on the
> basis of personal opinion?

I would most definitely prefer to have the sanitary condition of my house
determined by the courts, obviously considering the evidence of a qualified
health inspector, than have the number of cats I am allowed limited on an
arbitrary basis. That's a no-brainer.



> Here in rural Missouri (USA), there is some concern over that, but
> much more over wildlife killing pets (mostly coyotes) and spreading
> rabies.

Wildlife killing pets is not, IMO, that local authorities need to concern
themselves over. It is the pet owners' responsibility, and their decision on
how to manage the risk. Rabies is an understandable concern (not present in
NZ), but surely it could be adequately managed by a registration and
compulsory vaccination regime.

One of the states in Australia has adopted the position, for instance, that
pet cats are free to roam, however they must be identified (microchip, I
think) and any entire cat over the age of 5 months found roaming will deemed
to be a stray and can be euthanised immediately. That firmly and squarely
puts the responsibility back on the cat owner to be responsible and either
keep their cats enclosed if they wish to breed from them, or desex them. I
see no reason why immunisation status couldn't be recorded on the microchip
information and unimmunised cats be deemed to now be strays. Again, that
puts the responsibility back on the owner - and manages the actual risk,
not a perceived one - without placing unnecessary blanket restrictions on
all pet owners.

And of course, dog packs being general nuisances as well as
> specific threats. Feral cats don't seem to be much of a problem
> outside cities.
>
> --
> T.E.D. )

Ted Davis
September 18th 04, 02:13 AM
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:39:38 +1200, "Ashley"
> wrote:

>
>"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> Define each of those terms in such a way that it is clear *exactly*
>> what is to be prohibited. Laws have to be that precise - at least in
>> those legal systems of the 'rule of law' type. If there is any wiggle
>> room, lawyers will exploit it and the law will fail in its intent. If
>> the forbidden conditions are not precisely defined in clear and simple
>> ways that the average person (neighbor or policeman) can recognize
>> unambiguously and without invasion of anyone's privacy - at least to
>> the degree required to obtain a warrant for more invasive examination
>> - enforcement would become a matter of opinion. Do you want *your*
>> pet's conditions judged by the neighbors, police, and courts on the
>> basis of personal opinion?
>
>I would most definitely prefer to have the sanitary condition of my house
>determined by the courts, obviously considering the evidence of a qualified
>health inspector, than have the number of cats I am allowed limited on an
>arbitrary basis. That's a no-brainer.

Even if the complaining neighbor and judge both hate cats and think
*any* litter box is unsanitary? Under the 'opinion' plan environments
you could easily find yourself restricted to no cats at all while
somebody else with different neighbors might well not be called down
on a dozen cats in filthy conditions. If there are no cut-off
standards, people with unfriendly neighbors would surely suffer
frequent complaints that the authorities would have to act on until
they either gave up their animals or moved.
>
>
>
>> Here in rural Missouri (USA), there is some concern over that, but
>> much more over wildlife killing pets (mostly coyotes) and spreading
>> rabies.
>
>Wildlife killing pets is not, IMO, that local authorities need to concern
>themselves over. It is the pet owners' responsibility, and their decision on
>how to manage the risk. Rabies is an understandable concern (not present in
>NZ), but surely it could be adequately managed by a registration and
>compulsory vaccination regime.

Compulsory vaccination of wild raccoons? Registration of rural cats
is nonsense: farmers wouldn't stand for it and rural cats often aren't
actually owned so much as they just live somewhere (the farmer often
doesn't even know how many he's feeding). Pets could be registered,
but it's really difficult to prove that any given rural cat is a pet
rather than a semiferal barn cat.
>
>One of the states in Australia has adopted the position, for instance, that
>pet cats are free to roam, however they must be identified (microchip, I
>think) and any entire cat over the age of 5 months found roaming will deemed
>to be a stray and can be euthanised immediately. That firmly and squarely
>puts the responsibility back on the cat owner to be responsible and either
>keep their cats enclosed if they wish to breed from them, or desex them. I
>see no reason why immunisation status couldn't be recorded on the microchip
>information and unimmunised cats be deemed to now be strays. Again, that
>puts the responsibility back on the owner - and manages the actual risk,
>not a perceived one - without placing unnecessary blanket restrictions on
>all pet owners.

I'm afraid that rural people around here are far too independent
minded and anti-big government for such an idea even to be proposed.
Trap, neuter, release programs are preferred where funding can be
found.


--
T.E.D. )

Ted Davis
September 18th 04, 02:13 AM
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:39:38 +1200, "Ashley"
> wrote:

>
>"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> Define each of those terms in such a way that it is clear *exactly*
>> what is to be prohibited. Laws have to be that precise - at least in
>> those legal systems of the 'rule of law' type. If there is any wiggle
>> room, lawyers will exploit it and the law will fail in its intent. If
>> the forbidden conditions are not precisely defined in clear and simple
>> ways that the average person (neighbor or policeman) can recognize
>> unambiguously and without invasion of anyone's privacy - at least to
>> the degree required to obtain a warrant for more invasive examination
>> - enforcement would become a matter of opinion. Do you want *your*
>> pet's conditions judged by the neighbors, police, and courts on the
>> basis of personal opinion?
>
>I would most definitely prefer to have the sanitary condition of my house
>determined by the courts, obviously considering the evidence of a qualified
>health inspector, than have the number of cats I am allowed limited on an
>arbitrary basis. That's a no-brainer.

Even if the complaining neighbor and judge both hate cats and think
*any* litter box is unsanitary? Under the 'opinion' plan environments
you could easily find yourself restricted to no cats at all while
somebody else with different neighbors might well not be called down
on a dozen cats in filthy conditions. If there are no cut-off
standards, people with unfriendly neighbors would surely suffer
frequent complaints that the authorities would have to act on until
they either gave up their animals or moved.
>
>
>
>> Here in rural Missouri (USA), there is some concern over that, but
>> much more over wildlife killing pets (mostly coyotes) and spreading
>> rabies.
>
>Wildlife killing pets is not, IMO, that local authorities need to concern
>themselves over. It is the pet owners' responsibility, and their decision on
>how to manage the risk. Rabies is an understandable concern (not present in
>NZ), but surely it could be adequately managed by a registration and
>compulsory vaccination regime.

Compulsory vaccination of wild raccoons? Registration of rural cats
is nonsense: farmers wouldn't stand for it and rural cats often aren't
actually owned so much as they just live somewhere (the farmer often
doesn't even know how many he's feeding). Pets could be registered,
but it's really difficult to prove that any given rural cat is a pet
rather than a semiferal barn cat.
>
>One of the states in Australia has adopted the position, for instance, that
>pet cats are free to roam, however they must be identified (microchip, I
>think) and any entire cat over the age of 5 months found roaming will deemed
>to be a stray and can be euthanised immediately. That firmly and squarely
>puts the responsibility back on the cat owner to be responsible and either
>keep their cats enclosed if they wish to breed from them, or desex them. I
>see no reason why immunisation status couldn't be recorded on the microchip
>information and unimmunised cats be deemed to now be strays. Again, that
>puts the responsibility back on the owner - and manages the actual risk,
>not a perceived one - without placing unnecessary blanket restrictions on
>all pet owners.

I'm afraid that rural people around here are far too independent
minded and anti-big government for such an idea even to be proposed.
Trap, neuter, release programs are preferred where funding can be
found.


--
T.E.D. )

Ashley
September 18th 04, 09:03 AM
"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:39:38 +1200, "Ashley"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>> Define each of those terms in such a way that it is clear *exactly*
>>> what is to be prohibited. Laws have to be that precise - at least in
>>> those legal systems of the 'rule of law' type. If there is any wiggle
>>> room, lawyers will exploit it and the law will fail in its intent. If
>>> the forbidden conditions are not precisely defined in clear and simple
>>> ways that the average person (neighbor or policeman) can recognize
>>> unambiguously and without invasion of anyone's privacy - at least to
>>> the degree required to obtain a warrant for more invasive examination
>>> - enforcement would become a matter of opinion. Do you want *your*
>>> pet's conditions judged by the neighbors, police, and courts on the
>>> basis of personal opinion?
>>
>>I would most definitely prefer to have the sanitary condition of my house
>>determined by the courts, obviously considering the evidence of a
>>qualified
>>health inspector, than have the number of cats I am allowed limited on an
>>arbitrary basis. That's a no-brainer.
>
> Even if the complaining neighbor and judge both hate cats and think
> *any* litter box is unsanitary?

I don't know what your judges are like over there, but that one wouldn't
stack up in our courts. We actually require evidence of an insanitary
environment over here here :-)



> Compulsory vaccination of wild raccoons?

Ah, no. They're going to have rabies anyway. Your argument was about pets
aiding in the spread of rabies. If they're vaccinated, they're not going to
spread it.

Registration of rural cats
> is nonsense: farmers wouldn't stand for it and rural cats often aren't
> actually owned so much as they just live somewhere (the farmer often
> doesn't even know how many he's feeding). Pets could be registered,
> but it's really difficult to prove that any given rural cat is a pet
> rather than a semiferal barn cat.

Do the rural areas you speak of have limits on the number of cats per
household? If not, then this debate isn't about them.



> I'm afraid that rural people around here are far too independent
> minded and anti-big government for such an idea even to be proposed.
> Trap, neuter, release programs are preferred where funding can be
> found.

As far as I'm concerned, we haven't been debating rural areas - we've been
debating municipalities where the number of cats either is being limited, or
limits are proposed. Besides which, you can guarantee that those who are too
independent minded to agree to compulsory registration are certainly going
to be too independent minded to agree to a limit on the number of cats they
can own. I say this as a New Zealander, and therefore speak with some
authority on the subject of independent-mindedness :-)

Ashley
September 18th 04, 09:03 AM
"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 07:39:38 +1200, "Ashley"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ted Davis" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>> Define each of those terms in such a way that it is clear *exactly*
>>> what is to be prohibited. Laws have to be that precise - at least in
>>> those legal systems of the 'rule of law' type. If there is any wiggle
>>> room, lawyers will exploit it and the law will fail in its intent. If
>>> the forbidden conditions are not precisely defined in clear and simple
>>> ways that the average person (neighbor or policeman) can recognize
>>> unambiguously and without invasion of anyone's privacy - at least to
>>> the degree required to obtain a warrant for more invasive examination
>>> - enforcement would become a matter of opinion. Do you want *your*
>>> pet's conditions judged by the neighbors, police, and courts on the
>>> basis of personal opinion?
>>
>>I would most definitely prefer to have the sanitary condition of my house
>>determined by the courts, obviously considering the evidence of a
>>qualified
>>health inspector, than have the number of cats I am allowed limited on an
>>arbitrary basis. That's a no-brainer.
>
> Even if the complaining neighbor and judge both hate cats and think
> *any* litter box is unsanitary?

I don't know what your judges are like over there, but that one wouldn't
stack up in our courts. We actually require evidence of an insanitary
environment over here here :-)



> Compulsory vaccination of wild raccoons?

Ah, no. They're going to have rabies anyway. Your argument was about pets
aiding in the spread of rabies. If they're vaccinated, they're not going to
spread it.

Registration of rural cats
> is nonsense: farmers wouldn't stand for it and rural cats often aren't
> actually owned so much as they just live somewhere (the farmer often
> doesn't even know how many he's feeding). Pets could be registered,
> but it's really difficult to prove that any given rural cat is a pet
> rather than a semiferal barn cat.

Do the rural areas you speak of have limits on the number of cats per
household? If not, then this debate isn't about them.



> I'm afraid that rural people around here are far too independent
> minded and anti-big government for such an idea even to be proposed.
> Trap, neuter, release programs are preferred where funding can be
> found.

As far as I'm concerned, we haven't been debating rural areas - we've been
debating municipalities where the number of cats either is being limited, or
limits are proposed. Besides which, you can guarantee that those who are too
independent minded to agree to compulsory registration are certainly going
to be too independent minded to agree to a limit on the number of cats they
can own. I say this as a New Zealander, and therefore speak with some
authority on the subject of independent-mindedness :-)