"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