Limit laws: A necessary evil, or bad for pets?

Although I currently live in the city and have only two dogs and no cats, I’ve had many more pets in the past. And most of the time, I had more than the law allowed, which caused me enormous stress even though I lived on private, fenced acreage in the country and took excellent care of all my animals.



I lived in San Mateo County, just south of San Francisco, when they tried to enact their infamous “breeding ban” in an effort to reduce shelter euthanasias. At that time, even if you lived on fifty acres and had no neighbors, it was illegal for you to own more than two cats and two dogs. And all the while, the local humane society that held the county’s animal control contract was euthanizing adoptable dogs and cats in public places – on television, no less – to make their point that there were homeless pets in the county.



So, where was the fight to ease the limit laws, if nowhere else than in the rural half of the county? Nowhere, that’s where. Those of us who had more pets than the law allowed – including just about every rescue group or volunteer that I knew – were too afraid to draw attention to ourselves, and the people who didn’t care about their pets in the first place, allowing them to run loose and breed randomly, didn’t care about the limit law, either.



In fact, until barn cats got targeted in a “save the ferals by killing them” program, it kind of looked like that would never change.



Eventually the county created a tiered system that allowed up to ten pets, with a “fancier’s permit” in some parts of the county and without one in the more rural areas on large properties. But a thread on an email list I'm on today included a link to an article written around seven years ago by the San Francisco SPCA dealing with the effect of limit laws on animal care. Contending that "pet limit laws are unnecessary," SFSPCA writes:

Are pet limit laws necessary to address abuse, neglect, unreasonable noise, and lack of sanitation? Do pet limit laws protect the well-being of people and animals?



In our view, they do not. Whereas one individual may be able to responsibly care for and nurture several animals, another may be unable to care for even one. And if problems arise, enforcement agencies already have ample ammunition at their disposal in terms of animal welfare, health and property rights laws. In fact, unsanitary conditions, excessive noise, and interference with property are all unlawful in virtually every community—regardless of whether pets inhabit the premises or not.



[....]



Just how are pet limits determined? In one community, the limit might be two pets. In others, four, five, eight, even twenty pets might be allowed. More often than not, the number is arbitrarily chosen.



Enforcement is also arbitrary. In response to concerns about pet limit laws, some communities have admitted that these ordinances “will be enforced on a complaint basis, and pets which are maintained indoors or do not raise the ire of neighbors will not generate enforcement.” While it may sound reassuring to some, this justification leaves the door wide open for pet limit laws to be used as a weapon of retribution in neighbor disputes over concerns totally unrelated to pets.



Laws that regulate a person’s behavior inside their home should seek an appropriate balance between the public's safety and welfare and the individual's right to privacy.

But while pet limit laws are highly intrusive, there is little, if any, corresponding benefit to public safety. What good is gained from an uncompromising prohibition against more than a limited number of pets, particularly if they are confined to an owner's property and create no problems? Certainly, if neighbors are totally unaware of their presence, prohibiting pets does not in any way protect or maintain anyone's health, happiness or peace of mind. And what about multi-pet households where neighbors do not mind or even enjoy the presence of these animals? In fact, there is no benefit gained from such a prohibition—nor is there likely to be any enforcement.



Should government pass laws that are not going to be enforced? Should communities outlaw behavior that does not impact neighbors or interfere with the rights of others? Local governments have embraced the position that because responsible multi-pet households will not generate enforcement, these residents need not fear violating the law. In essence, local governments are making outlaws out of normally law-abiding citizens and telling them it is OK to break the law as long as they don’t get caught!



Passing laws that aren’t enforced or are enforced sporadically is unfair and counterproductive. Few people are likely to comply with a pet limit law that isn’t enforced. And those who voluntarily comply can probably be counted among the most responsible pet owners in the community. There is little equity or sense in enacting a law that only ends up penalizing the very people whose behavior is already exemplary. And such a view undermines our respect for the law.



Needless to say, truly irresponsible pet owners will not be affected. If the law is not enforced, they are free to ignore it. If it is selectively enforced against them, they are likely to surrender their animals, adding to the numbers of dogs and cats killed, orabandon them, adding to some of the perceived problems the law was intended to solve.

Lots more great food for thought here.

Comments

[Jennifer J]

Lane County Oregon has a private No-Kill Coalition working to reform their County Anumal Control. So far AC is resisting the change but the organization is sticking to their guns. It is interesting to note that two all breed Kennel Clubs are partners in the Coalition with animal welfare advicacy groups from the Lane County area with whom they were formerly at odds!

Here is a link to the report prepared by No-Kill Advocacy, pageg 9-11 are about the damage to animal welfare and pet adoptions that limit laws may engender



http://www.nokillcoalition.org/downloads/No%20Kill%20Report.pdf



Jen

[MaKo]

First of all, I am against any and all governmental laws that are created to regulate my private life. The number of my animals is not of any concern to any government, IMO.



OYOH, in our county is a law that is supposed to keep animals at the leash; and defecating without the permission of the property owner is also not allowed.



Unfortunately, I seem to be the only one who knows about that - dog 'owners' regularly send their critters out in an effort to introduce neighborly sharing: I have the dog, you have the crap.



I walk very early in the morning, and I am annoyed by the number of dogs at large - and some of them are *large*, and not one of them is trained.



I think I angered one neighbor at one time when she was dragged by her dog (I couldn't see any bags for dog-remnants, btw) and as soon as the dog saw me, it transformed in some sort of a Cerberus and tried to advance towards me, barking furiously and aggressively. She yelled - while trying to hold the dog back - that it is *friendly* and I shouldn't worry... geeeeee, she was miffed when I yelled back that until she gives her dog an order and I see this dog obey the order *immediately* I won't stop worrying, and neither should she....



If this behaviour of dog owners doesn't change radically, and soon, then I forsee 'dog-free' zones; 'dog-free' communities and other 'dog-free' areas - not because people don't love dogs, but because of irresponsible dog-owners.

[straybaby]

NYC's limit law is the nuisance law ;) my LL has no prob with the number of pets i have (he's even helped me trap ferals in his yard) as long as they aren't a problem. 14yrs and counting, no problems.



i was looking to move back to SF until i found out they had a limit law. moving elsewhere now! i'm over the limit already and was planning on adding a dog when i got back to the west coast. oh well . . .

[Deanna]

I've found one law to be effective in creating a harmonious community: a leash law! Even cats must be leashed where I live. (Effectively forcing their owners to creat outdoor habitats if they wish to let them outside.)



I moved from a city without leash laws where dogs were tied to doghouses in the backyards, neighbors snarked about each other, and each house with a dog was looked upon with distain by those without. (While out walking my dog, poop bag in my pocket, I was stopped by a little old lady who demanded to know if it was my dog's poop in her front yard. I told her that I was a recipient of that as well and didn't appreciate it anymore than she did and, BTW, I pick up my dog's poop.) I couldn't obedience train without being in danger of a loose dog coming at us. I walked my dogs after dark with all the other leashed dogs.



Where I live now, nearly every house has at least one dog (I have 4), and everyone smiles at each other because dogs are well-behaved, and if not, they are at least restrained. I can work my dog in the front yard (off-leash is allowed on private property) and neighbors can walk by with their leashed dogs and everyone is happy. I live with a HOA that has no restrictions -- I think there is a quiet agreement among the neighbors to keep it that way.



Limit laws are ridiculous, IMO

[Jennifer J]

Just ran through Lane Counties AC pages. NOT very pet or owner friendly. Hope the NKCC can get changes implemented. I personally have difficulty believing that out of 1710 cats, 1053 were unsavable or unadoptable.



Jen

[Jill]

Where I live people are only allowed to have 3 pets in the house. It could be:



2 cats and 1 Dog

2 dogs and 1 cat

3 dogs or three cats

[shadepuppy]

HOA's (Home-owner Associations) have been rampant in metro-Phoenix for the last 20 years, and when I house hunted in 1999, I had to check the rules (CC&Rs)at each HOA because they can have more stringent rules than the city/county in which they are located. I had two dogs and three cats (all but one was a stray I had taken off the streets), and had to turn down one HOA that I liked in most other ways -- they only allowed three animals total (the sales rep said she thought she could "get me in", though). Where I bought, the rule is the more general requirement that we not cause a "nuisance". I am totally against limit laws; I think their intention is good, but they are unneeded and cause more suffering than they fix. Health regulations and animal welfare laws already on the books are enough to allow intervention in cases where people have lost the ability to care for all their animals.

[Alasandra]

Limit laws are heartbreaking. I currently have 3 cats. There is no way I would give one of them up.



One of the cats we have had for 8 years. The 2 kittens came into our lives after the pet food recall had claimed the life of our beloved Whiskers. We got them when they were 4 weeks old after their Mother died from being poisoned. There was no way I would have separated them as they needed each other. They were barely eating food on their own, mostly we were bottle feeding them. Even now one of the kittens hates being alone. Luckily she has 4 humans and 2 other cats to be with, and can always find someone.



Currently we live in a state that doesn't have limit laws, but we may have to relocate to CA because of my husbands job. The limit laws there terrify me.

[Bonni]

I am very against pet laws regulating how many pets once can have by city or county. Some people have ONE pet and cannot take care of it, let it bark, run loose etc. while others may have five and they are well-cared for, well-trained and bother no one. Its all a matter of the owner and how responsible they are.

[Cindy]

Personally, I think limit laws are just plain anti-animal. I believe that people ought to be able to have as many pets as they can comfortably afford and are able to contain away from their neighbors.

[Sarah]

That is stupid. People should be allowed more than 3 pets as long as they can keep the house clean and smelling godd. If they can keep everything under control than their should be no problem.

[Gina Spadafori]

Noise regulations are in nearly every community in the land. Barking has nothing to do with pets and everything to do with enforcement of codes.



Barking, loud car stereos, leaf blowers on Sunday mornings -- these are NOISE problems, not PET problems.

[Jennifer]

I don't think there should be a blanket law limiting pet owners, but it would be nice if there were alternative communities where people who don't want to be jarred awake by barking every morning at 5 am can opt to live. When does one person's right to own as many animals as they want override another person's right to peace and quiet?

[H. Houlahan]

Hey Jennifer -- those "alternative communities" are called CONDO DEVELOPMENTS and you are free to move there and, along with an absence of domestic animals, enjoy being told that your door mat is 2 cm larger than permitted and no grilling on your balcony.



My FIL can't have a dog in the condo he allegedly owns, so it's very quiet there nothing disturbs him except the college kids screaming at 4 am and crashing their cars into the dumpster.