Dog and Cat people: Q about city ordinances

[Peek a Boo]

Our city currently limits 4 animals [any mix of dogs/cats] per property, regardless of acreage. We are looking at ways to change this to reflect a reasonable amount of space per animal instead of an across the board limit.

 

They already have a similar type of ordinance --certain livestock must each have at least 5000sf grazing area per animal, etc.

 

There are already provisions and ordinances about animal cruelty and negligence, so I expect to be able to apply those whether someone has a single dog on ten acres or ten cats in an apartment ;)

 

I'd like to propose something that is equitable to as many citizens as possible [personal property rights/ personal liberty] but still keeps in mind responsible ownership.

 

I'm getting ready to go googling, but would appreciate any ideas y'all could provide.

 

How much room would you consider reasonable to raise a dog? [small/medium/ large]

how about a cat?

 

try to keep your answers in square footage if possible.

 

Thanks!

Edited January 17, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Tammy]

I would think they didn't use square footage limits for a reason.....Maybe if you lived in a very small space....but took your dog for plenty of walks? I don't see where that would be fair to limit based on square feet. Although....I do think having livestock does REQUIRE more space....so maybe that is why they use the square feet in that case? I do think a German Sheppard can live in a small apartment....if the owner takes them for walks every day....KWIM?

[3lilreds in NC]

Maybe you could look at number of rooms? For instance, the recommended number of litterboxes is to have one per cat plus one extra. So, for 4 cats, we should have 5 litterboxes. We only have room for 3. It's working with the cats we have, but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have this many cats in this house again. We live in about 1900 sf - so I'd say no more than 3 cats. However, if I had a basement, I'd be all set, and I don't.

[Peek a Boo]

I would think they didn't use square footage limits for a reason.....Maybe if you lived in a very small space....but took your dog for plenty of walks? I don't see where that would be fair to limit based on square feet. Although....I do think having livestock does REQUIRE more space....so maybe that is why they use the square feet in that case? I do think a German Sheppard can live in a small apartment....if the owner takes them for walks every day....KWIM?

 

 

and that's another reason I was trying to figure out how to word it. But as it stands now, you can't have more than 4 dogs, even if you had 10 fenced acres......so maybe adding an addendum for a turn-out/ exercise spot?

 

eta: also, "not enough exercise" could be a negligence issue, so we're back to looking at how many animals could be reasonably kept in how many square feet. maybe a "provided they are given sufficient opportunity for exercise" --but that would leave "sufficient" up for subjective determination, and i hate that at the gvt level... :glare:

 

** i just remembered that apartments tend to already limit this, so I'd probably focus on property owners for now.

 

and number of rooms would be ok also, but if they have a one room cabin on 3 acres and the dogs/ cats are outdoor animals? or in kennels?

 

would some sort of 'graduated' thing work?

Edited January 17, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Desert Rat]

I don't know about square footages. I would check with maybe ASPCA website for that. But our county has a fancier's permit you can apply for which allows you to have more than the allotted amount of dogs/cats. I used to work at the city run animal shelter and this is what people with more than (at the time) 3 dogs needed to get if they were ticketed for having more. Of course, we live in an urban area so having 4 dogs instead of 3 is easy to get away with so people only got fancier's permits if they were running a kennel, a breeder or got caught.

HTH :o)

[Spy Car]

I think you need to ask yourself: what's the purpose of such laws?

 

I believe, in the main, "limit" laws are in place not because there is a "magic" number of animals a person might humanely raise on their property, but because "animal cruelty" and "animal neglect" charges are hard to prove, and "limits" are easy.

 

If someone has 2 cats and 3 dogs and the animals are happy, and the neighbors are happy, who cares? Animal Control is instructed not to act except on complaint and suspicions of neglect. If there is a problem you can enforce limits.

 

Figuring out complicated square-footage requirements just seems like it would be opening your burg to head-aches. The vast majority of people have the good-sense to know how many animals they can raise responsibly. To deal with the lunk-head minority it's best to have clear cut rules (which can conveniently not be over-enforced when there isn't a "problem"). It's called "discretionary" enforcement.

 

Bob Dylan once wrote in a lyric: "to live outside the law you must be honest".

 

People with 5 dogs will just just have to make doubly sure they are well tended, so they don't get "busted".

 

That's my thought.

 

Bill

Edited January 18, 2009 by Spy Car

[Peek a Boo]

I don't know about square footages. I would check with maybe ASPCA website for that. But our county has a fancier's permit you can apply for which allows you to have more than the allotted amount of dogs/cats. I used to work at the city run animal shelter and this is what people with more than (at the time) 3 dogs needed to get if they were ticketed for having more. Of course, we live in an urban area so having 4 dogs instead of 3 is easy to get away with so people only got fancier's permits if they were running a kennel, a breeder or got caught.

HTH :o)

 

 

Thanks-- i'm trying to avoid permits and fees wherever possible; I did check the dallas city ordinances [DFW area] and they allow 6 pets, w/ up to 8 if you have over 1/2 acre. I'll probably suggest that if 6 pets on something as small as a quarter-acre lot is 'reasonable' then we should consider allowing 6 *registered* pets per quarter acre, and emphasize 'adequate care' and 'registered' --they dropped registration fees completely a couple years ago and the number of registrations increased dramatically -go figger ;)

 

I think we can also offer an exception for people fostering animals through a licensed program, and businesses will need to check the business ordinances for retailing animals. But right now we're mostly interested in clarifying *pets* :)

 

thanks everyone :D

[CactusPair]

Spy Car, I appreciate your info and thoughts.

 

I am one who has chosen, after a lot of agonising, to live outside the law.:001_smile:

 

I keep a contraband bonus dog, rescued from the shelter where she was going to put down for space/time limitations.

 

I always feel nervous I am going to "get caught".

 

Your post has put me at ease a bit.

 

Thanks.

[LaxMom]

Spy Car, I appreciate your info and thoughts.

 

I am one who has chosen, after a lot of agonising, to live outside the law.:001_smile:

 

I keep a contraband bonus dog, rescued from the shelter where she was going to put down for space/time limitations.

 

I always feel nervous I am going to "get caught".

 

Your post has put me at ease a bit.

 

Thanks.

 

Hee, hee. "Contraband bonus dog" :lol: (You are a good person, risking your clean record to save her. )

 

Peek - perhaps it would be easier to define in terms of proximity to neighbors, rather than square footage of land? It's difficult to figure what's appropriate, in terms of care, etc., in terms of land area, but limiting based on potential nuisance may be easier. I mean, it is probably more meaningful how close your house is to the crazy cat lady than how much land she owns.

[Peek a Boo]

I think you need to ask yourself: what's the purpose of such laws?

 

I believe, in the main, "limit" laws are in place not because there is a "magic" number of animals a person might humanely raise on their property, but because "animal cruelty" and "animal neglect" charges are hard to prove, and "limits" are easy.

 

If someone has 2 cats and 3 dogs and the animals are happy, and the neighbors are happy, who cares? Animal Control is instructed not to act except on complaint and suspicions of neglect. If there is a problem you can enforce limits.

 

Figuring out complicated square-footage requirements just seems like it would be opening your burg to head-aches. The vast majority of people have the good-sense to know how many animals they can raise responsibly. To deal with the lunk-head minority it's best to have clear cut rules (which can conveniently not be over-enforced when there isn't a "problem"). It's called "discretionary" enforcement.

 

 

But see, I am coming at this from the perspective of gvt exists to serve the people, not people are here to make the gvt's job easier ;)

Discretionary enforcement has led to quite a number of serious problems in this country, and I'd rather let the Real Laws be Enforced than set some artificial limit "just to make the gvt's job easier". i don't mind a few headaches -- that's part of the responsibility of seeking office or taking the position in the city ;)

 

and like you said --the vast majority already know what they can handle, and I'd prefer our city not make criminals out of honest citizens wherever we can. And for the lunkheads, well, the gvt will just have to do a darn good job proving their case before acting, and I suspect if the case is strong enough you'll have plenty of neighborhood help. :D I think 'beyond a reasonable doubt' should apply here also.

 

and here's another Q: what do y'all think about animal registration?

one of the conundrums we have now is we offer free registration for animals, but if someone 'outside the limit' requests an additional tag, they can't give it to them [because of the limit law]. On one hand I can see the benefit of the city knowing all the animals and offering a free ID tag, but on the other hand, requiring a basic tag acquired at owner's expense would serve to identify the animal too.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Peek a Boo]

Peek - perhaps it would be easier to define in terms of proximity to neighbors, rather than square footage of land? It's difficult to figure what's appropriate, in terms of care, etc., in terms of land area, but limiting based on potential nuisance may be easier. I mean, it is probably more meaningful how close your house is to the crazy cat lady than how much land she owns.

 

I dunno.... in all the various ordinances I've located so far, they've all focussed on a limit, cuz 'nuisance' is soooo subjective. Also, I am leery of creating ordinances that are based on person B's potential offense than person A's right to execise personal liberty on their personal property. like i mentiond w/ SpyCar, the nuisance/ abuse case should be well-documented....

[Peek a Boo]

Spy Car, I appreciate your info and thoughts.

 

I am one who has chosen, after a lot of agonising, to live outside the law.:001_smile:

 

I keep a contraband bonus dog, rescued from the shelter where she was going to put down for space/time limitations.

 

I always feel nervous I am going to "get caught".

 

Your post has put me at ease a bit.

 

Thanks.

 

 

This is a big reason for seeking the raising of the limit. Our city is considering opening an adoption program --they are currently a kill shelter. I'm thinking we can introduce the increased limit and new program in tandem :)

[Spy Car]

But see, I am coming at this from the perspective of gvt exists to serve the people, not people are here to make the gvt's job easier ;)

 

Yes. But in the process you have become like a Soviet Central planner, who is going to "rationalize" the dog keeping allowance by measuring square-footage, factoring in breed weight-to-footage ratios, and potentially add other factors--which if implemented--would require a massive growth in enforcement departments.

 

Your goals are admirable, but will lead you to the kind of "big government" you oppose. Think about it ;)

 

Discretionary enforcement has led to quite a number of serious problems in this country, and I'd rather let the Real Laws be Enforced than set some artificial limit "just to make the gvt's job easier". i don't mind a few headaches -- that's part of the responsibility of seeking office or taking the position in the city ;)

 

I'm sure if your towns-folk weren't prepared for some head-aches you never would have been elected :D

 

jk

 

and like you said --the vast majority already know what they can handle, and I'd prefer our city not make criminals out of honest citizens wherever we can. And for the lunkheads, well, the gvt will just have to do a darn good job proving their case before acting, and I suspect if the case is strong enough you'll have plenty of neighborhood help. :D I think 'beyond a reasonable doubt' should apply here also.

 

Then why have "limit laws" at all? Enforce "nuisance" issues (like excessive barking) and animal welfare/cruelty laws, but stay out of people business otherwise?

 

Above is a "rhetorical" question, as I think the capacity of a municipality to have "discretionary" enforcement capacity is the best of alternative scenarios.

 

and here's another Q: what do y'all think about animal registration?

one of the conundrums we have now is we offer free registration for animals, but if someone 'outside the limit' requests an additional tag, they can't give it to them [because of the limit law]. On one hand I can see the benefit of the city knowing all the animals and offering a free ID tag, but on the other hand, requiring a basic tag acquired at owner's expense would serve to identify the animal too.

 

Nothing is "free". The non-animal owners are subsidizing the "costs" of this program through their taxes :D:D:D

 

Bill

[Peek a Boo]

good try SpyCar! ;)

 

Yes. But in the process you have become like a Soviet Central planner, who is going to "rationalize" the dog keeping allowance by measuring square-footage, factoring in breed weight-to-footage ratios, and potentially add other factors--which if implemented--would require a massive growth in enforcement departments.

 

not necessarily-- if enforcement either way is via complaints, then this [increasing number of pets allowed] eliminates some of the reasons for complaints, and thus reduces a need for undue discretionary enforcement. And if the city chooses to maintain registration of animals, this keeps the level of 'contraband dogs' [:lol:] at bay......

 

Did you catch my bit about Dallas' ordinance? I'm especially pleased to see that in my forays researching this, nobody has implemented something as draconian as square footage and weight factors. My reasons for asking were expressly to determine if i would need to be prepared to address those specifically for city council. I can now tell them that taking measures that explicitly is unreasonable, compared to what similar cities have enacted.

 

 

I'm sure if your towns-folk weren't prepared for some head-aches you never would have been elected :D

 

hardy har har, lol! But I'm not an elected official. I'm on the library board [VP], have served on the Parks and Rec board [all boards are appointed], and have the ear of the mayor, a couple city councilmen, and a few key people involved in writing ordinances [including animal control]. I do keep them on their toes since I'm mighty handy w/ a cheap printer for flyers and have a passel of kids [& 4-H club] ready to do some community service. ;)

 

Then why have "limit laws" at all? Enforce "nuisance" issues (like excessive barking) and animal welfare/cruelty laws, but stay out of people business otherwise?

 

Above is a "rhetorical" question, as I think the capacity of a municipality to have "discretionary" enforcement capacity is the best of alternative scenarios.

 

I would ditch the limits if it was up to me, but since a majority of the people are supportive of limits, I'm trying to work w/in that. Hopefully in another 10 years they'll come around to my way of thinking ;)

 

and I do understand that there will always be some discretionary enforcement: my point here is to limit where they need to --or are allowed to--apply discretion.

 

Nothing is "free". The non-animal owners are subsidizing the "costs" of this program through their taxes :D

 

yup.

Just like those of us w/o kids in schools are subsidizing the school system :D I'd be willing to make it a fee-funded registration program [or ditch it altogether] just like I'd be willing to support the public schools being subsidized only by those using the system [Like many private and homeschools are].

 

...and thank YOU for keeping ME on my toes ;)

[LaxMom]

I dunno.... in all the various ordinances I've located so far, they've all focussed on a limit, cuz 'nuisance' is soooo subjective. Also, I am leery of creating ordinances that are based on person B's potential offense than person A's right to execise personal liberty on their personal property. like i mentiond w/ SpyCar, the nuisance/ abuse case should be well-documented....

I was not suggesting "nuisance" language be part of it - good grief, can you imagine the nightmare that would cause? (Well, clealy you can, but still, it would be staggering)

 

Buuuuuuut.... nuisance is pretty much the purpose for these ordinances, since abuse/neglect can be addressed no matter how many animals one person has in whatever area. And I'm sitting in my kitchen, noting that the house next door has approximately three times the square footage of yard space that we do... and would it be appropriate for them to have, say, 8 dogs when we would, theoretically be limited to 4? (Taking out the "parenting" factors, of course) Probably not, just because of the in-town setting. Know what I mean?

 

On the other hand, you really can't legislate "appropriate" any more than you can manners or good taste, so...

 

I'd hate to be the one working on this. You are a much better woman than I, Charlie Brown.

[Peek a Boo]

I was not suggesting "nuisance" language be part of it - good grief, can you imagine the nightmare that would cause? (Well, clealy you can, but still, it would be staggering)

 

Buuuuuuut.... nuisance is pretty much the purpose for these ordinances, since abuse/neglect can be addressed no matter how many animals one person has in whatever area. And I'm sitting in my kitchen, noting that the house next door has approximately three times the square footage of yard space that we do... and would it be appropriate for them to have, say, 8 dogs when we would, theoretically be limited to 4? (Taking out the "parenting" factors, of course) Probably not, just because of the in-town setting. Know what I mean?

 

On the other hand, you really can't legislate "appropriate" any more than you can manners or good taste, so...

 

I'd hate to be the one working on this. You are a much better woman than I, Charlie Brown.

 

 

kind of-- I'm not really concerned that much about potential nuisance. Being America, I'm loathe to legislate where one can and can't take offense. And so far the closest I've found in similar ordinances is amount of acreage....which by default kinda includes proximity ;)

 

The goal of this ordinance is merely to give a guideline for how many animals a person can responsibly keep in a healthy manner on their property. 20 dogs on a quarter acre would be a pretty darn tight fit, as would 30 cats in an apartment. So as far as keeping an animal reasonably healthy, yes the person w/ more space would be allowed [initially] to have more animals. But as we noted already, whether you have 1 or ten you still have to provide adequate care, regardless your space.

 

I agree you can't really legislate "appropriate" --I'm just trying to re-set the standards that are currently in place to something more reasonable for people who can and do take care of more than 4 pets. now that i'm thinking more and more about it, I would also include language for a waiver [no fees!] for someone who needs an immediate opportunity to say, foster 15 dogs that were seized from a horrible habitat.

 

I'm not the only one working on it, which is why I need to be prepared to address concerns from others ;) But i figger as long as I have an opportunity to phrase an ordinance, i better take it :D

[Spy Car]

I agree you can't really legislate "appropriate" --I'm just trying to re-set the standards that are currently in place to something more reasonable for people who can and do take care of more than 4 pets. now that i'm thinking more and more about it, I would also include language for a waiver [no fees!] for someone who needs an immediate opportunity to say, foster 15 dogs that were seized from a horrible habitat.

 

 

Why not just keep the old limit, but add a provision for a person to apply for a "conditional use" permit that could be approved on an ad hoc basis?

 

An animal services supervisor, or an advisory panel, could hear applicants and take into consideration special circumstances (temporary foster care, dog-breeding, extra-large land parcels, distance from neighbors, etc). And "reasonable" requests (perhaps with conditions) could be granted. But don't tie your hands with a lot of explicit written "rules".

 

If you just "up" everyones limit you are asking for troubles.

 

Bill

[LaxMom]

Why not just keep the old limit, but add a provision for a person to apply for a "conditional use" permit that could be approved on an ad hoc basis?

 

An animal services supervisor, or an advisory panel, could hear applicants and take into consideration special circumstances (temporary foster care, dog-breeding, extra-large land parcels, distance from neighbors, etc). And "reasonable" requests (perhaps with conditions) could be granted. But don't tie your hands with a lot of explicit written "rules".

 

If you just "up" everyones limit you are asking for troubles.

 

Bill

 

Uh-huh. I agree. I think just adding something to the existing code that provides for exemptions is probably the best way to go.

[Tracey in TX]

We have several friends with three dogs. They live on a postage stamp sized lot, of approx 6000 sq ft. They've never had problems. What about the viable option of using dog parks? Isn't the point of having them so the dogs can get out and frolic? I'm unaware of any city ordinances in our town.

[Peek a Boo]

Why not just keep the old limit, but add a provision for a person to apply for a "conditional use" permit that could be approved on an ad hoc basis?

 

An animal services supervisor, or an advisory panel, could hear applicants and take into consideration special circumstances (temporary foster care, dog-breeding, extra-large land parcels, distance from neighbors, etc). And "reasonable" requests (perhaps with conditions) could be granted. But don't tie your hands with a lot of explicit written "rules".

 

If you just "up" everyones limit you are asking for troubles.

 

Bill

 

 

but I'm all about reducing the size of gvt, and insisting that everyone who wants more than a low minimum number of dogs/cats would have to apply... --talk about eating up resources! I can see them instituting a whole new section of animal control just to handle exemptions, lol! And we'd have to have a list of 'rules' in place as policy for how to make those determinations. I think our animal control resources would be better suited to handling legitimate complaints and strays than hearing person after person apply for a waiver off a seriously low pet limit.

 

The city did something similar last year: they passed an ordinance requiring that all gas pumps be pre-pay. I was kinda pissed about that at first-- telling a company how they have to run their business??? BUt it ended up being about use of police resources: they were spending more time on calls about drive-offs. So now, they can still turn the pump on for regular customers w/o prepay if they want, but if someone drives off, they have to eat the cost or pay a $500 fine for calling out the police. The gas station owners i talked to didn't mind the ordinance-- they don't have to be the bad guy. So i came around ;)

 

People can already apply for waivers on certain rules --in buildings, codes, extensions, and livestock. My ideal is to limit how often a citizen needs to seek approval from the city: i don't think people should have to seek approval for a reasonable number of animals in the first place. Remember- i'd ditch the limits in a heartbeat if i could....

 

I've already run a proposal by a couple people about the "per quarter acre" [aka postage stamp yards] requirement. Add to that the ability to look up online immediately one's address via public records and get a quick parcel description of the lot [including acreage] and it looks like we're on the way to letting people live how they want w/ what they think they can reasonably handle.

 

I'm sure there's 'trouble" either way --we'd either be having to face problems w/ animals being dumped [check] or not adopted because people have reached their pet limit [check], or we'd have to hire more animal control people to start having hearings and consider special circumstances. I prefer to err on the side of personal liberty first. So far, we haven't had to deal w/ too many calls about abuse on property-- it's been picking up strays that has taken the most time.

 

I will run your ideas by them, just cuz I'm like that ;)

and thanks for preparing me for more discussion :D

 

I'm still on the fence about requiring city registration tho.

[Peek a Boo]

We have several friends with three dogs. They live on a postage stamp sized lot, of approx 6000 sq ft. They've never had problems. What about the viable option of using dog parks? Isn't the point of having them so the dogs can get out and frolic? I'm unaware of any city ordinances in our town.

 

 

we don't have any specific dog parks yet. We're doing good to manage the people parks we have....:glare:

 

{{and thanks! :)}}

Edited January 19, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Peek a Boo]

Uh-huh. I agree. I think just adding something to the existing code that provides for exemptions is probably the best way to go.

 

if they were adamant about NOT changing the limits, I'd agree and be coming up w/ all kinds of reasons for exemptions :)

 

But as long as they are open to completely changing the limits? I'll go that route first.