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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |