Quality or quantity?
Dog ownership has become a numbers
game with a shrinking bottom line
By Norma Bennett Woolf
Two dogs? Four dogs? Six? Eight? How many dogs are too many?
It depends on where you live.
The National Animal Interest Alliance believes that personal circumstances
and responsibility should determine how many pets reside in a household, but
a growing number of our neighbors and elected leaders think otherwise. Slowly
but steadily these lawmakers and busybodies are chipping away at our rights
to own the number and type of animals of our choice.
NAIA supports the passage and consistent enforcement of nuisance laws that
require dogs to be kept under control and quiet and pooper scooper laws that
require owners to clean up after their dogs on public property.1
Unfortunately, however, these laws are often ignored until a situation becomes
unbearable and neighbors march to city hall to get something done. If the pet
owner has five dogs that bark, a draft bill that follows the complaints might
limit people to four dogs. Then someone who has a neighbor with three outdoor
cats pipes up and demands that cats be regulated too. The next draft of the
bill limits people to four pets in any combination of dogs and cats.
Sometimes, as in Cleveland, Ohio, the local humane society gets into the fray
with claims that no one is capable of caring for more than a certain number
of pets and therefore the city should set a limit.
Sometimes, dog limits are used to grease a political squeaky wheel. Several
years ago, trustees in Union Township, Clermont County, Ohio, a fast-growing
Cincinnati bedroom community, criminalized ownership of more than five dogs
at the request of residents in a new subdivision when a private shelter proposed
to build a kennel on nine acres adjacent to a nearby commercial business strip.
The subdivision did not abut the shelter property, but the limit was passed
when the state legislature defeated a bill that would have allowed the township
to deny the organization a building permit by changing agricultural zoning laws.
When people violate limit laws, they are often forced to ‘get rid of’
the ‘excess’ pets in their homes. A Fairfield, Ohio, woman faced such
a dilemma when she was charged with harboring 27 dogs in a community that allows
only two dogs per household. The 27 dogs were all licensed; most were neutered,
and all were clean, healthy, and well-behaved. (The woman was turned in by the
local humane society when she applied for 27 dog licenses.) She found homes
for 17 dogs and challenged the city to take her to court on the remaining 10.
If no news is good news, the city may have decided to leave her alone.
Are limit laws unconstitutional?
Even when dog owners win, they can lose. A couple from Cary, North Carolina,
fought the city’s long-standing two dog limit and won; the limit was erased
from the books in 2001 after the county attorney refused to prosecute the case
on the grounds that the law was probably unconstitutional.2
However, the family is under fire from its subdivision board for violating pet
restrictions in the community covenants.
A Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court declared pet limits unconstitutional if
passed without a clear connection to community health and safety.3
The court concluded: “What is not an infringement upon public safety and
is not a nuisance cannot be made one by legislative fiat and then prohibited.
Even legitimate legislative goals cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental
personal liberty when the goals can otherwise be more reasonably achieved.”
Along with knee-jerk reactions to problems more easily solved by consistent
enforcement of nuisance laws, elected officials sometimes pass pet limits in
order to control stray dogs and stop “pet overpopulation,” place additional
restrictions on the ownership of particular breeds or mixes, or, the latest
excuse, prevent animal hoarding.
Strays and ‘pet overpopulation’: Chicago has 30,000 strays each
year, and the head of the city’s Commission on Animal Care and Control
would like a limit of perhaps five dogs per household to stem the tide. He’d
throw in a limit on the number of intact dogs, too.
Last December, Nikki Proutsos, executive director of the commission, told
the Chicago Sun Times: “I like the fact that it’s a double-edged
sword – that you actually get people to comply with a restricted number
of animals, but you also get people to be encouraged to spay or neuter their
pets. The foundation of my problem at Animal Care and Control is the overpopulation
issue, which is fostered by animals not being spayed or neutered – animals
being allowed to roam the neighborhoods unspayed, unneutered, creating litters.”4
Two Chicago aldermen said they would draft a bill limiting the number of intact
dogs per household.
“There are many problems that surround a home that has numerous animals
– waste, feces, odors, noise, potential danger,” Alderman Ginger Rugai
told the Sun Times. “In our community, we have many large lots and
people often have a large number of animals. They stray. They perhaps are out
all day long with no one home when people are at work.”
Staunton, Virginia, city council is considering a limit of four ‘grown’
dogs and cats, only two of which can be dogs. Those who currently have more
than two dogs will be allowed to keep them until they die, but those who want
to add dogs or cats must apply for permission and agree to sterilize the additional
animals. ‘Grown’ dogs and cats are those that have been weaned, so
litters of pups and kittens are verboten without a permit to keep excess animals.
Breed restrictions: Communities that restrict certain breeds often limit owners
to no more than one dog of the named breeds or mixes.
Taking advantage of the Ohio law that defines pit bulls as vicious, the cities
of Toledo and Cincinnati limit owners to one dog of the pit bull type. In these
cities and others, breeders, exhibitors, trainers, and others who enjoy these
breeds are denied the opportunity to pursue their interest no matter how well
they raise and train their dogs.
Hoarding: Most people involved with animals have heard the horror stories
about dozens or even hundreds of animals kept in cramped, filthy conditions
in a home or kennel. If the property owner is a breeder, the facility is called
a puppy mill. If the owner is not a breeder, the property owner is tagged as
a hoarder, someone who collects animals but does not have the capability of
providing them with appropriate housing and care. Some hoarders began as rescuers
of stray and unwanted animals. There is little research done on the phenomenon,
but nonetheless it has been seized upon as rationale for pet limits.
Exemptions: Some pet limits provide exemptions for rescue groups, foster homes,
and breeders if they apply for a license and pay a fee. Any dog owner who falls
outside these categories is out of luck.
Why not pet limits?
The National Animal Interest Alliance opposes pet limits because they do not
address the problem of nuisance dogs, are difficult to enforce, make scofflaws
out of responsible dog owners, provide opportunities for neighbors to escalate
squabbles, deny good homes to additional pets, and have no connection with animal
hoarding. Pet limits also tend to increase animal control problems and shelter
crowding and deaths as owners are forced to ‘get rid of’ their ‘excess’
pets by surrendering them to shelters or pounds or turning them loose on the
streets. Limits also reduce the opportunity to rescue a dog from a shelter or
other source.
There is no link between a specific number of dogs and nuisance; one dog that
barks or runs loose can cause more trouble than a dozen that are quiet and stay
at home.
Singling out owners who have a specific number of dogs merely shifts the responsibility
for causing a nuisance from the dog owner (where it belongs) to all owners of
multiple dogs and does not solve community dog problems.
- Limits punish breeders, obedience trainers and other competitors, and all
other responsible dog owners — the citizens that communities need to
keep, not drive away. Rather than being targeted, they should be asked for
advice in handling dog problems.
- Limits are difficult to enforce and have been declared unconstitutional
in some areas.
- Limits punish responsible owners whose dogs — regardless of numbers
— are reliable community citizens.
- Limits can lead to more dog deaths if residents are prohibited from providing
a home for an extra shelter dog or a stray.
- Limits and other laws that are only enforced on complaint create disrespect
for the law and provide ammunition for neighborhood feuds.
Ohio Valley Dog Owners Inc., an NAIA affiliate organization, developed this
list of alternatives to number limits5:
- Vigorous enforcement of all state animal control laws and local nuisance
laws to protect responsible dog owners and our neighbors from canine pests,
and force only the guilty parties to pay the price.
- Education sessions for responsible dog ownership that encourage obedience
training, Canine Good Citizen certification, and good pet manners.
- Passage of nuisance ordinances that protect the rights of all citizens.
- Education about responsible dog ownership and care in schools and youth
organizations. (The American Kennel Club has a free dog care program for elementary
schools that includes a video tape, teacher’s guide, and worksheets and
can be supplemented with demonstrations of obedience training, grooming, and
talks on veterinary care by local training clubs or veterinarians.)
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance, an NAIA affiliate in Texas, compiled these
alternatives with input from NAIA, AKC, and other animal welfare organizations:
- Enforcement of nuisance laws.
- Use of an arbitrator to mediate neighborhood disputes about animals.
- Use of alternative sentencing such as community service at the county animal
shelter, attendance at a class on responsible dog ownership, or participation
in a full obedience training course for those who violate nuisance ordinances.
- Periodic programs, public service announcements, or mailings about responsible
dog ownership or city sponsorship of a Canine Good Citizen Test to encourage
residents to be responsible dog owners. Increased public education efforts
are better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership.
Silence
NAIA, the American Kennel Club, and the San Francisco SPCA oppose pet limits.
Animal rights groups, however, are silent. They profess to support the welfare
of animals and use ‘pet overpopulation’ and shelter euthanasia statistics
to generate emotion and raise money, but they are usually nowhere to be found
when limits are proposed, even though these laws limit the number of good homes
available and cause pets to be killed or dumped.
Notes
- See “The record grows” in the article “Dog
limit called unconstitutional in Minnesota” on the NAIA website at www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/lmtlaw.htm#Record
- See NAIA position statements on alternatives to breed
specific legislation on the NAIA website at http://naiaonline.org/articles/archives/policy_petscomm.htm#breed
- “Cary law puts pets on equal pawing,” The News
& Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina, November 10, 2001
- “Canine overpopulation spurs call for dog limits:
With 30,000 strays a year, Chicago looks at household restrictions”;
Chicago Sun-Times; November 16, 2001
- OVDO has developed a handout to help fight pet limits.
It is available for downloading at www.canismajor.com/orgs/ovdo/numlimho.html.
What you can do
1. Be aware of local laws and pending legislation.
2. Get local veterinarians involved when limit laws are proposed. (It worked
in Ft. Thomas, Kentucky where a pet limit was derailed when a veterinarian contacted
clients to get them to the council hearing.)
3. Join a local pet owners coalition or a dog or cat club federation to monitor
legislation affecting pets and raise the profile of responsible dog ownership.
4. Join NAIA to support a national effort to turn lawmakers away from ordinances
that punish good pet owners in an effort to resolve community dog problems caused
by ignorance and irresponsibility.
For More Information
|
