A cat forum. CatBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » CatBanter forum » Cat Newsgroups » Cats - misc
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Oak Park, IL limits number of dogs and cats per house



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 16th 04, 02:05 PM
Ted Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #22  
Old September 16th 04, 03:10 PM
Kyler Laird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #23  
Old September 16th 04, 03:10 PM
Kyler Laird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #24  
Old September 16th 04, 11:44 PM
Ashley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #25  
Old September 16th 04, 11:44 PM
Ashley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #26  
Old September 17th 04, 02:34 AM
Ted Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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. )
  #27  
Old September 17th 04, 02:34 AM
Ted Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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. )
  #28  
Old September 17th 04, 05:32 AM
Ashley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #29  
Old September 17th 04, 05:32 AM
Ashley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #30  
Old September 17th 04, 05:55 PM
Ted Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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. )
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cat predation studies Alison Cat health & behaviour 48 February 5th 04 04:17 AM
feed Nutro? Tamara Cat health & behaviour 90 November 19th 03 01:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CatBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.