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

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" 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" 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. )

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. )

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" 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 :-)

"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 :-)