Etcetera

What's The Right Number Of Pets To Have?

MayorBob.

Posted to Etcetera on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:50:08 AM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

A man's home is his castle, so the saying goes. If that's true where does the state get the right to tell the lord and master how many pets he can house in his castle? That's the issue of the moment in one Wisconsin town where residents are debating a proposed ordinance limiting the number of pets a household can have.

Brookfield, Wisconsin is one of six communities in the Milwaukee area which does not currently put a cap on the number of pets you can have in your house. Most of the communities with limits have limits of two to three pets per household. But, because of one household the city is debating enacting its own limit. Some people might call Don and Jean Rhoten's actions noble. Rescuing sick and abused dogs, providing them with vet care and shelter, and finding permanent homes for them seem noble when viewed from a distance. But, if you're a neighbor of the Rhotens apparently you get tired really quick of the barking, the dogs straying off the Rhoten's property and defecating throughout the neighborhood. Things have reached the point where Brookfield city council is considering limiting household pets to a limit of four, with a further limit to no more than three of one species of animal among the four pets allowed.

The problem, which has a lot of Brookfield residents troubled at the prospect of codifying limits on pets, is that many residents already have more than four pets. And most of the complaints about the Rhotens have been about the dogs (and they have housed as many as nine dogs at a time) has been their barking. According to Karen Sparapani of the local humane society, barking is a nuisance which neighbors might experience if there's one or ten dogs living in a house. But Mary Scaffido says the dogs at Rhoten's house "bark for hours" and it's more than a nuisance. One alderman noted that, with 13,000 residences, there are likely more than the 1,192 dogs which are licensed in the town considering that a number of houses with licensed dogs are home to multiple canines. Another neighbor said having nine dogs under one roof is "unsanitary" and agrees with the move toward limits.

Should one person, who let things get out of hand like the Rhotens apparently did, mean communities should place arbitrary limits on pet ownership? Those who are active in animal rescue (or are just pet lovers) would respond, no! And some might say it's unconstitutional to be placing limits on pet ownership. Some people are taking their local government to court over this issue. Some communities with limits seem to be wavering on the numbers (and a solid majority of those polled disagree with limits altogether). Of course, stories are legion about pet lovers who do let things spiral hopelessly out of control.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by MayorBob, pets, abandoned dogs, abused dogs, pet rescue, nuisance, leash law (all tags)

This story: 26 comments (1 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

Yikes

T Slothrop.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 09:58:11 AM EST

5.00 (interesting)

Wow, this really makes me feel weird. Why? Because my situation is very similar to the one in the story - with the exception that I have never had an escape or a complaint.

My Significant Other and I have quite unintentionally found ourselves running a de facto rescue shelter. Currently we have eight dogs total, five of whom we consider "ours" and three we are fostering/hoping to adopt out. Within the past year we have had (briefly) as many as 11.

We converted our garage into a kennel facility, and installed a lockable dog door through the outside wall that opens into our back yard, which is surrounded by five foot tall chain link fencing. Inside the garage, we have individual enclosures for each dog much like what you would see at a vet's or a commercial kennel and the entire space is heated and cooled.

Are we crazy dog people? I don't think so, although every time I buy dog food or pay another vet bill I wonder. Are we being irresponsible, whatever that means in this context? Again I don't know. As I said, we've never had an escape (yet), and our immediate neighbors seem to be very understanding (probably because we do try very hard to maintain our yard and the garage/kennel to a high standard of neatness and sanitation). But still, we have eight dogs, and dogs do bark - especially in pack-like living situations.

All I can say is I don't want anyone from my local government telling me what I can and cannot do on my own property as long as I am not causing a nuisance situation for my neighbors. However in the case of this story it seems that the neighbors are being nuisanced, but I still don't think a one-size-fits-all-situations hard cap on the number of animals is the best solution.

{Insert amusing quotation here}

2

^ 1

We have two Westies and four cats.

MayorBob.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 10:24:50 AM EST

5.00 (astute)

All have been neutered (all the cats came by way of rescue operations). The cats are indoor animals strictly and our back yard is fenced so that when the Westies are out, the only thing they can do is bark at the bunnies in neighboring yards and attempt, without success, to chase down the stray bunny or squirrel who makes it into the yard. We walk the Westies on a leash and clean up after them. But, were we to live in any number of communities we would apparently be breaking the law of "thou shalt have no more than x number of animals on the premises."

Get me right, I am aware that there are some people who are lousy pet owners, who let their pets loose and couldn't give a shit if they howl till the wee hours. But that's what the current battery of leash laws and disturbing the peace laws are about. They punish those who disregard those common sense rules that say your personal habits and likes and (yes) obsessions are perfectly all right until they begin to inconvenience and negatively impact other people. I am beyond belief that a). Brookfield is thinking about enacting such a restrictive ordinance based upon one family's allegedly bad behavior, and b). the propensity for people to avoid enforcing existing rules and laws and instead adopt brainless laws such as this.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

3

^ 2

Re: We have two Westies and four cats.

gerrymander.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 12:17:07 PM EST

none

I am beyond belief that a). Brookfield is thinking about enacting such a restrictive ordinance based upon one family's allegedly bad behavior, and b). the propensity for people to avoid enforcing existing rules and laws and instead adopt brainless laws such as this.

This new legislation seems less about punishing the Rhoten's as irresponsible animal owners, and more about punishing them as irresponsible business owners. They pretty clearly are running a business, even if it's non-profit. More the point, not keeping the dogs as owners themselves means the obedience training provided (if any; the article doesn't say) would be constantly at the early stages, as older dogs get placed in homes and new ones come in.

Good intentions shouldn't be cover for failing to understand scalability problems.

24

Rule of thumb

tomc.

Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 11:34:51 PM EST

4.50 (funny, brilliant)

If you're a single woman or a widow, I think you're allowed to have one cat for every five years you have lived.

So, for example, if you're 50, you can have 10 cats.

4

I'm not bitter.

pO157.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 06:53:08 PM EST

none

I firmly believe it only becomes a problem when it infringes on the rights of others. For example, owning a large number of pets you can care for safely in the confines of your house, fine. Getting a string of unlicensed, unvaccinated pitbulls and attack rottweilers that you keep unleashed so they may try to kill passerby for like the fifth time... bad.

Goddamn crackheads.

In conclusion, respect property rights and enforce the laws already on the books.

5

^ 4

Re: I'm not bitter.

thefadd.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:36:05 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

stop making sense!

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

6

^ 5

Re: I'm not bitter.

pO157.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 07:40:54 PM EST

none

What's in it for me?

7

^ 6

Re: I'm not bitter.

thefadd.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:12:28 PM EST

none

your sanity!

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

8

^ 7

Re: I'm not bitter.

pO157.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:44:15 PM EST

none

Well, Lou can apparently recommend a good therapist. But I'd better keep my sanity. My insurance deductibles go up after the 10th therapy visit, I'm told.

9

^ 4

Re: I'm not beurre.

zyxwvutsr.

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 08:45:01 PM EST

4.50 (funny, funny)

I had a hundred pet moths. They like the light, you know.

I clapped my hands and a dozen of them died. C'est la vie.

11

^ 9

Re: I'm not beurre.

Lou.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:10:16 AM EST

none

that may be one of the funniest things I've read in a long time.  Bravo <<clapping>>  Oh yuck!

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

12

^ 11

Re: I'm not beurre.

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:33:53 AM EST

none

The funniest thing I read recently was Urkel's comment about Paul Krugman.

13

^ 12

Re: I'm not beurre.

Lou.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:00:46 AM EST

none

Yeah, I bet.  Check my earlier comments about cons being braying fratboys giving the world a wedgie.

But other than that, I agree...nothing is funnier than spuriously accusing someone of child molestation.  Comedy gold.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

14

^ 13

Re: I'm not beurrre.

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 11:39:25 AM EST

none

Yeah, that was laugh-out-loud, spit-your-coffee funny.

15

^ 14

Re: I'm not beurrre.

Lou.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:21:07 PM EST

5.00 (funny)

Yep, almost as funny as you and shumway gang raping 5th graders.  ROTFLMAO

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

16

^ 15

Re: I'm not beurrre.

zyxwvutsr.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 12:22:47 PM EST

none

Shumway and I are a gang?

19

^ 16

Re: I'm not beurrre.

JimmyHavok.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 04:03:55 PM EST

5.00 (informative)

A gang of one.

20

^ 19

Re: I'm not beurrre.

thefadd.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:54:58 PM EST

none

Don't insult Shumway that way ;-)

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

10

Deux chats, si vous plaise

skeeter1.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 06:53:16 AM EST

none

I'm down to two cats, and that seems about right.  I had three cats, and that was one too many.  Two cats are easier to take care of than one.  They entertain each other quite well.  My brother has five, and that would drive me insane.

Dogs?  My friend had two, but when the older one passed away, he decided one was just fine.  

Birds?  Another friend has four cockatiels, in a huge cage.  Only one of them (the oldest one) is particularly friendly.  Crawls up and down your arm up to your shoulder, and then shits on you.  Oh, well.

Fish?  Those aren't pets, AFAIC.  They're cat food.  

Snakes?  I knew someone with a 12' Burmese python once, who tried to eat his arm one night.

Gerbils, mice, rats, hamsters, and other rodents?  Those are for target practice.

there's only one way to find out...

17

Zero

Steve Urkel.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:46:00 PM EST

none

Americans waste over $41 billion a year on pets. But forget about the direct costs. Think of the effect on the enviroment that producing and transporting the food for all those pets. If global warming is really something we want to do something about, a good first step would be banning pets.

18

^ 17

I disagree.

MayorBob.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 02:06:09 PM EST

5.00 (funny, funny)

I think the only appropriate step to take is to ban pet owners. Take the entire selfish lot out and shoot the ... NOW WAIT JUST A GODDAMN MINUTE!

Illegitimi non carborundum.

21

^ 17

Re: Zero

T Slothrop.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 08:29:10 PM EST

none

"Waste"?

Do you really believe that, or are you just being deliberately provocative, as you often are?

{Insert amusing quotation here}

22

^ 21

Re: Zero

Steve Urkel.

Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 10:58:49 PM EST

none

I don't believe that, but then I don't lose any sleep over global warming and the starving masses in the third world, either. People who argue we need to radically change our ways to deal with those problems should be making the case against pets.

23

^ 22

Re: Zero

T Slothrop.

Wed Jul 30, 2008 at 12:43:13 PM EST

none

My universe has been restored to equilibrium, thanks.

When I saw you talking about combating global warming, I had a serious Bizarro World moment. I was half expecting Rod Serling to step out from behind a rock any second. (Yes I know I'm mixing my references.)

{Insert amusing quotation here}

25

Re: What's The Right Number Of Pets To Have?

emily.

Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:45:04 AM EST

none

Jesus promised this world will not pass away before all is fulfilled..so global warming is just a farse! Stop worring and start praying jesus returns soon..lay down the nukes and say enough is enough! We have more trouble in this world than we can handle! worry about nukes..that's the scariest part about our times. As far as the pet owners, take good care of the pets, no matter how many you have. God made us dominion over the animals. Make sure you do your very best! They have a lot to teach us and provide the love so many of us need..don't neglect your responsibility. Don't worry about how many and much as you need to worry about if you are actually taking good care of them!

26

^ 25

Re: What's The Right Number Of Pets To Have?

thefadd.

Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:17:23 PM EST

none

...so global warming is just a farse! Stop worring and start praying jesus returns soon...

But what if when Jesus comes back, the first thing he says is, "We're not going anywhere until you clean up this mess!"

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

This story: 26 comments (1 from subqueue)
Post a Comment