Pet limit laws strike again.

This sounds like a noise issue, not a numbers issue. The dogs are barking and annoying the neighbors. 

I have no problem with some limitations since noone wants to live next to a hoarder with hundreds of dogs, but for me 5 is not a number for concern. Lots of good dog people who are not kennels have 5 dogs. I would have 5 dogs if my DH would let me.

 IMO the goverment needs to stay out of people's buisness until there is clear reason for them to look. Maybe the reason is the barking, and if it is then the issue needs to be treated as a public nuisance and the number of dogs has nothing to do with it. One dog can drive people crazy if it is barking.

dgriego

I have no problem with some limitations since noone wants to live next to a hoarder with hundreds of dogs,

  I can never understand how people think that limit laws will stop hoarders/collectors, which generally stems from a physcological problem and is addressed by animal welfare laws.

When we lived just a tiny bit further up north, the in town limit was  three dogs.  With fosters, I had more than that.  However, the little MS next door and the boxer behind us made FAR more noise than mine did.....but the lady down the street kept calling AC on mine......well, yeah, they would bark in response, but I always brought them inside immediately when they did.  Got to the point that I would take one at a time outside and stay out with them.

I now have six german shepherds.  As most of you know, we're living in the motor home in a campground.  If one barks, they all start, so we really stay on top of ANY start.  But, under normal circumstances, with a house and a yard like NORMAL people have, well, so long as I can care for them AND they aren't a nuisance, well, it's just flat no one elses business.

And I do hope that they give this poor guy a variance.

Dog_ma

This sounds like a noise issue, not a numbers issue. The dogs are barking and annoying the neighbors. 

Maybe it's a combination of both a noise issue and a numbers issue. Maybe with those 5 dogs the volume of barking maybe a lot more, plus also the quantity of barking incidents maybe a lot more.
 
Maybe his neighbours can tolerate 2 to 3 barking dogs but NOT 5 barking dogs.
Note he did mention to the media:-
"He admits they can be a little noisy sometimes. He tried only letting two or three of the dogs out in the yard at the time and one of his neighbors says the barking isn't as bad now as it has been."
 
Daily across the US there are heaps of barking complaints were they do not go to the media but remedy the situation. Keep in mind his case was looked into earlier this year by the county when neighbours complained, so he has been given time to remedy the situation and the county on thursday will be looking into giving him some zone variance till his son comes back, but he must somehow reduce that barking to where neighbours do NOT complain, and if he cannot then they will force him to cut back to the quantity of dogs he can responsibly handle, if this occurs then maybe the son could find some other relative or friend to look after the 2 dogs till he gets back.
 
Maybe some dog owners would NOT have let things get to this point with neigbours and authoraties, for on noticing all that barking they would have done things straight away to remedy the situation so that there would be NO complaints from neighbours, like limited access to the yard such as he finally did, like keeping his dogs in the backyard so that they don't see and bark at people walking past their house, like soon as the dogs start barking get off your bottom and attend to the barking, like maybe think about trying anti-barking collars, etc..
.

Getting back to my original reply....

What a sad state. A soldier concerned about his dogs. Neighbors complaining. Perhaps they could spend a day in his life.

I can't go any further, lest I completely lose it.

Grant a  %#$*&^% variance. Can the liberals concede a bit.........

DrOgreys

Getting back to my original reply....

What a sad state. A soldier concerned about his dogs. Neighbors complaining. Perhaps they could spend a day in his life.

I can't go any further, lest I completely lose it.

Grant a  %#$*&^% variance. Can the liberals concede a bit.........

I've spent many days in the life of military a person, actually for over 20 years I was in the military, where I knew that at anytime I could be posted at short notice to anywhere in the world, and who knows for how long, that is a reality for those in the military. Due to this I thought it maybe best that whilst I was in the military and for the dogs or cats sake that I not have a dog or cat, that was my choice, and into my consideration I had seen many others who over the years chose to have dogs or cats but had great difficulties in finding long term good homes whilst they were away. Good homes includes things more than just providing water food and shelter, and also includes things like the abilities to control the dogs, such as do they have the abilities that they can take my dogs for a walk without my dogs pulling on the leash, and to this news article do they have the abilities in relation to barking dogs that they can control the dogs that they do not bark excessively where neighbours will start complaining to authorities.

Since retireing from the military I have had a number of dogs, and where I have had NO problems this even in relation to barking or other behaviours, but with some of the dogs I've had I doubt that some would have the abilities to control or train those dogs appropriately. Keep in mind that some people have great difficulties in handling 1 dog, and gees there are some that have great difficulties in training their dogs not to do their toileting buisness inside the house, and even barking problems seems a common topic on email lists and forums.

The soldier's father who has 3 dogs of his own now had 5 dogs due to the military posting of the son, and where the father has had problems coping with 5 dogs barking. I feel that the county is trying their best to allow the father to keep the 5 dogs and have offered advice and even willing to have a hearing on thursday that could allow him to keep the extra dogs, keep in mind people in that county can have up to 8 dogs, and the determining factor seems to be can they responsibly care for all their dogs and this even in relation to that the neighbours do not complain about excessive barking.

The problem is, the majority of people are not equipped to handle 5 or 6 dogs. A few might be, and I know a few forum members here with lots of dogs who are great owners, but I know FAR, FAR more who have many dogs are overwhelmed and/or lazy. Because, let's face it, owning 5 dogs is a LOT different than owning one dog. Putting a limit on the number of animals is the least invasive way that the law can try to reduce people who just keep getting dogs and don't care, irresponsible breeders (i.e don't intend to breed but refuse to get dogs fixed), etc. It is a way around the mess of trying to make cases of of the circumstances of neglect, which get passed over by courts all too often.

For example, say we have a speed limit of 55 mph. Now, a minority of people may be perfectly comfortable and have great reaction time driving at 80 mph. But most people do not. So the minority, even though it may take them longer to drive to work and they *could* drive faster, unfortunately need to obey the speed limit. It’s a matter of keeping the majority safe.

Another example: I have kept reptiles for many years, and am perfectly confident I could handle owning a “hot”, or venomous, snake such as a copperhead, or a very large snake such as a Burmese python.  However, the vast majority pf people who acquire these animals are NOT suitable owners and place both themselves and everyone else in danger. So if I am in a state that forbids ownership of such animals, I need to deal with that and realize that I am the exception, and laws are made with reference to the majority.

whtsthfrequency

 

The problem is, the majority of people are not equipped to handle 5 or 6 dogs. A few might be, and I know a few forum members here with lots of dogs who are great owners, but I know FAR, FAR more who have many dogs are overwhelmed and/or lazy. Because, let's face it, owning 5 dogs is a LOT different than owning one dog. Putting a limit on the number of animals is the least invasive way that the law can try to reduce people who just keep getting dogs and don't care, irresponsible breeders (i.e don't intend to breed but refuse to get dogs fixed), etc. It is a way around the mess of trying to make cases of of the circumstances of neglect, which get passed over by courts all too often.

 I fear that we are heading for a future where it will be illegal to own more than one or two pets in most places, illegal to breed or sell them unless you are a commercial breeder or shelter and illegal to own any breed which the goverment has declared dangerous. All in the name of people claiming that it is "for the best". Very, very sad :(

Making such things illegal, "no ifs, ands, or buts", would be a step too far. But I see no reason why it would be such a horrible thing to have to obtain a license to have a large number of animals, or a license to breed, or a license to own a breed deemed dangerous. That's just my opinion, however. I would LOVE to see more ordinances requiring a license to own large breeds of snakes, for example, because too many people own these animals are not not fit to handle them. Requiring a license or educational courses could help that problem. Now, charging money in addition to licensing might also be a bit much. But it is really that horrible to ask people to get a license? I mean, you have to get a license to drive a car or a motorcycle - no one gets up in arms about that. You have to get a permit to work if you are under a certain age, etc.

 
If people should be able to do anything they want with their animals, have as many as they want, breed them whenever they want, etc., shouldn't neglect laws be subject to the same opposition? If someone has the right to own as many animals as they please without government interference, or breed as many as they want without government interference, how does the government have the right to interfere with how this person treats their animals?

AgileGSD- It's not ILLEGAL, it's required that you request permission and meet certain standards and allow for your neighbors (who are the most impacted) to weigh in.  In most areas, it's a land use issue.  If you argue that you should be allowed to do anything you want on land you own, the power plant next door to you should encounter no opposition as well, right?  Because, after all, if you own the land, do what you want!  It's about community standards and creating the right environment within that community.

BCMixs

AgileGSD- It's not ILLEGAL, it's required that you request permission and meet certain standards and allow for your neighbors (who are the most impacted) to weigh in.  In most areas, it's a land use issue.  If you argue that you should be allowed to do anything you want on land you own, the power plant next door to you should encounter no opposition as well, right?  Because, after all, if you own the land, do what you want!  It's about community standards and creating the right environment within that community.

 Limit laws failt o address the real issue which is irresponsible ownership, be it of one or multiple dogs. Not only do they fail that but they also punish reposible owners who happen to be over the limit. And yes I do believe you should be free to have has many dogs on your property as you wish, providing they are well cared for, not a noise problem and cleaned up after. Some of the things that are posted on this subject as comparisons are just ridiculous and the power plant comment is no exception.

 Has anyone seen the story about Bob Attleson? Very sad :(

http://attlesondogdefense.blogspot.com/2008/03/history-synopsis.html

 I read things like this and can only feel so sorry for this man having to go through that. They took his dogs over a limit law violation. You can post all you'd like in favor of limit laws but it comes down to this - with limit laws people who are good dog owners (and good dog people) will have their dogs taken from them and will be treated liked criminals if they violate the law. Do people who choose to keep X number of dogs deserve to be made into criminals because of it? When the new laws passed in Louisville, residents had the choice to quickly rehome their "extra" pets or become criminals. What would you choose? Could you look at your dogs and decide who has to go? But that shouldn't be a problem I guess, after all it is for the good of the community.

 As usual, two sides to every story:

http://www.littletongov.org/news/releases/2008/attlesonGuilty.asp

And as usual, you and I will never agree on topics such as these.  I'm glad I live in a county that restricts the number of dogs I and my neighbors can have.  I'm disappointed they don't apply the same limits to cats and require cats to be indoors.  I will remain in this county for many reasons, the community standards they enforce being one of those reasons.  My property values and enjoyment of my residence are greatly benefitted by those standards and the even more stringent standards of my community association that requires us to mow our lawn, not have trashcans at the curb, etc.  Without them, I'd be sandwiched between a nut with 7 rusted out vehicles and rubbish scattered everywhere and another nut who thinks 35 chickens are "pets" and I'd have a snowball's chance in he!! of selling my house or enjoying my home because of the neighbor's right to be all they want to be (hoarder, rescuer, farmer, car mechanic, etc.). 

BCMixs

And as usual, you and I will never agree on topics such as these.  I'm glad I live in a county that restricts the number of dogs I and my neighbors can have.  I'm disappointed they don't apply the same limits to cats and require cats to be indoors.  I will remain in this county for many reasons, the community standards they enforce being one of those reasons.  My property values and enjoyment of my residence are greatly benefitted by those standards and the even more stringent standards of my community association that requires us to mow our lawn, not have trashcans at the curb, etc.  Without them, I'd be sandwiched between a nut with 7 rusted out vehicles and rubbish scattered everywhere and another nut who thinks 35 chickens are "pets" and I'd have a snowball's chance in he!! of selling my house or enjoying my home because of the neighbor's right to be all they want to be (hoarder, rescuer, farmer, car mechanic, etc.). 

 Not sure what I was supposed to see that was shocking in the link you posted?

 LOL that you think pet laws and other ordinances will keep nuts from living next door to you. Good luck with that :)

 This part:

" A hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, February 27 at 10:30 a.m. in Littleton Municipal Court for arraignment on additional charges filed against Attleson regarding the condition of his residences. These include failure to remove rubbish, outdoor storage that’s not permitted; and International Property Maintenance Code violations concerning plumbing facilities, structure maintenance, and sanitation."

Not exactly what I would call keeping himself or his animals safe and healthy.  I have a better chance of being able to take action against nuts who live next door and behave in ways that affect me where there are laws and ordinances than where there are none.  I pay association fees so that my neighbors cannot park commercial vehicles on their property, so they (and I) have to mow their lawns, keep trash and debris removed and properly contained and so that certain things that would affect my life and property values can't be done without penalty.  Houses in my community are keeping pace with new construction in value and resale prices where other communities with none of these standards are not.  Like I said, community standards, set by those in the community.  He admitted to having been cited numerous times, it's not as though the "gestapo" suddenly busted down his door with no warning or opportunity for him to address and rectify the situation through the proper channels.  He chose to ignore the law and the situation until the authorities were forced to take drastic action.