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. )