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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. ) |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"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. ) |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"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. ) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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. ) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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. ) |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"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 :-) |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"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 :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cat predation studies | Alison | Cat health & behaviour | 48 | February 5th 04 03:17 AM |
feed Nutro? | Tamara | Cat health & behaviour | 90 | November 19th 03 12:57 AM |