my feeling is that if you can take care of them,meaning if you can actually give them attention to, then there should not be a limit . my best friend has 65 rabbits, 2 chinchillas , 2 guinea pigs,4 fish, a cat,a dog, a hamster and a goat.but she and her parents take care of them and givethem plenty of attention.
rggekheg - 14 years ago
i like puppies
hayley - 14 years ago
It would be nice if everyone would ADOPT TWO (either two cats or one dog and a cat) in an apartment or more (3 to 4) in a house. Even if you arent home, a safe place could be given to a cat or a mother cat and her kittens (until they could be found home for the kittens). Am not including feeding outdoor animals. I feed squirrels and wildlife (they live outside) and would be happy to help feed feral cats. If the space was available like a farm (and the animals are cared for and fed, the owner should be allowed to have a reasonable number.
I am not advocating puppy mills or hoarding situations. There the animals suffer from neglect, cages and starvation. It can get out of hand with the best of intentions. Unless you are a licensed rescue and have the food and space and time to care for animals, you have to limit permanent housing. Temporary housing is o.k.
Walter Williams - 14 years ago
A link my last comment should be http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
Walter Williams - 14 years ago
Even if your type of pet isn't a target in government currently, fight against these bad laws now, for sooner or later, your pet of choice WILL be on the chopping block!
The government is chock-full of people seeking to justify their existence with the imposition of policies that produce highly visible results to the disadvantage of a minority of the populous, whose choices are outside of the mainstream. That their policies are a draconian taking of our individual rights to property and privacy matters not at all.
If we agree to limits on any currently legal and unregulated behavior, those that set limits will return over and over with more and more restrictive limits until something that was once a personal, private and legal undertaking becomes a forbidden practice, with criminal penalties attached.
As for limits on pets, a great many limits have already been put into place. Most of these restrictions leave unaffected people, who really have no idea the true nature of the regulations, with a "warm, fuzzy" feeling that justice is being done, when this is almost never the case.
A case in point is the set of laws that ended the viable keeping of captive-bred ocelots and margays. Most people don't realize that the private keeping of those species ensured the survival of them, regardless of their fates in the wild. Due to restrictions, their population in this country has dropped from over 10,000 to less than 100, depriving law-abiding people the chance to keep these amazing species to the benefit of both cats and humans.
Currently, there are TEN TIMES more tigers in captive habitats in the US than exist in the remaining wild ecosystem habitats in Asia. The keeping of all wild animals is under increasingly vigorous assault from those that claim to be protecting the public and owners from "dangerous animals", an almost non-existent threat. If they are BANNED in this country, where will the tiger be able to survive.
The great majority of people have been indoctrinated by the radical Animal Rights groups to believe that wild cats make poor pets, and that it is acceptable if cat fanciers' rights are violated in the prohibition of a practice that harms nobody.
Back to the issue of limits on the number of pets; a purely Animal Rights organization position. It is all part of their major plans. As they succeed in their agendas, more and more laws will allow for less and less freedom when it comes to keeping ANY pets.
The radical Animal Rights organizations don't care about animals. Their answer to end suffering [defined by them as "captivity"] is nothing short of the total elimination of all captive wild and domestic animals. PETA has been eliminating up to 95% of it's shelter animals yearly in an area where other REAL shelters are placing over 80% into forever homes.
Don't believe me. PETA's records in Virginia are public. Check out www.petakillsanimals.org and also www.rexano.org and www.felineconservation.org while you are at it.
Walter Williams - 14 years ago
The trouble with any law setting a limit on the quantity of pets lies in the fact that such arbitrary limiting requires ENFORCEMENT. We have too many laws restricting our freedom already. I don't need the government to decide what kind of animals I can keep, or how many is too many. I'm a responsible pet owner who is able to decide for himself how many is too many. I can also decide whether my choice of cat is too big and while I certainly would not subject others to any danger, I should have the right to sleep under the mane of my lion, if I chose to keep one and felt safe in doing so.
Government needs to butt out of our lives on so many issues, pets being one of the most important of them.
Linda Forrest - 14 years ago
To Dottie on 12/20 - you state animals are purchased, even if from a rescue, because money changes hands, but children are adopted. How, then, do you explain the high adoption fees charged for children? Rescue groups do charge a small adoption fee -- usually tied directly into their cost to vet the animal for routine issues (spay/neuter, shots, heartworm test, microchip). My group's "profit margin" is $3.14/adopted animal and that has to cover the costs of their food while in foster care. It does not cover extra vet costs like hernia repairs, dentals, antiobiotics to treat infections, etc.
Rescue groups do not have unlimited funds, and can only continue doing rescue if they assess a fee to help reimburse them for the animal's care.
Why is a $25,000 - $35,000 adoption fee for a child NOT considered the same as a $175 adoption fee for a fully vetted dog that has a provision it must be returned to the rescue group if ever the adopter is unable or unwilling to continue to care for it.
That said, there should be no governmental limits. I can understand a landlord imposing a restriction as a condition of a lease in order to protect his property, but not a township/county/state/national limit. My next-door neighbors 2 labs make much more noise than all the beagles I foster.
David Boothman - 14 years ago
Interest how many control freaks there are. Since control freaks are known to have psychological problems more often then normal people. Lets have a poll to see if we think everyone should be tested and the freaks required to get licenses, be chipped and carry visible identification
dr. Rosset - 14 years ago
You people who voted for 3 or 4 are falling prey to the animal right s people who want to end pet ownership altogether. Both Patrick kwan and Wayne Pacelle say they need to get any pet limit laws passed so they can go back year after year and lower the number until it will be a crime to own a pet. This is what they are after and those of you who voted for pet limits are falling into their hands of no pets at all. Why should there be any limit? Next they will want to tell you who you can marry and how many children you may have that is their goal. When you give up one right the next right is not far behind.
Meg Peifer - 14 years ago
Legislation to limit anything can become a slippery slope. Any limitations will eventually become more and more strict (I believe). Politics isn't prepared to dictate the number of pets I might have and care for. Legislation and legislators do not behave logically, look at the current political storm over pending legislation as an example. Staying involved at your local level is the best way to head-off legislation to limit your rights. Attend town council meetings and go prepared to offer solutions and concrete information in a positive manner. Telling someone that you are a responsible pet owner doesn't mean nearly as much as proving that irresponsible pet owners neglect to register their pets (and pay the registration fee). Familairize yourself with the current laws on the books and ask that those laws be enforced, before new legislation is enacted. Be proactive, not reactive. Be the pet-owner that makes a positive statement, not someone who sits on their hands and howls when laws are enacted without their input.
Dottie - 14 years ago
As long as there are laws that require good care of OWNED animals, there is no need for a numbers limit. We don't limit the number of TV, cars, boats, homes, or guns a person may own, whyshould we have a numbers limit on the number of animals we can OWN? Yes, you OWN an animal, any animal that you BUY, weather from a pet store, breeder, a rescue group or your local shelter. Children are adopted, animals are purchased. How many of either you chose to have is no ones business.
Jack Hyden - 14 years ago
Our once great country is being destroyed by those who feel that if they dont like something everyone must be forced to do it their way. At this point we have so many rules governing our actions that laws are being broken constantly by those who dont even know they exist...where does it stop. not with forced health care thats for sure. and to be forced to get vet care for an animal when we wont be able to afford it for ourselves... this is crazy.
Rae White - 14 years ago
Simply put, it is the quality of care not the quantity of animals.
Limit laws force responsible pet owners to chose which beloved pet to give up.,
As a worker in animal welfare, one of the worst cases of neglect I saw was of one dog, kept chained out, dying, infested with maggots and mange. The ONE dog of a wealthy family!
The laws in place should be used for problems that arise with animals care.
And I have no respect for shelters that help pass limit laws and then cry about having to kill animals. and beg for people to adopt.
Gail Smith - 14 years ago
It's not a matter of how many animals one has but rather how many one can care for adequately. There are people who can't care for 1 & others who can care for 20. Most people know the limits of how many they can afford and care for properly. Use abuse, noise & sanitation laws to take action on those that cannot care for their animals properly or who are bad neighbors.
Also, dogs, cats, etc are property under the US Constitution (see Federal ruling in St Louis case) Cities, towns, counties that pass mandatory spay neuter laws should have to reimburse owners for the diminished value of their "property" just as they do when they forcibly take other property.
linda H - 14 years ago
I recall reading about a city (I think it was in Canada) that considered imposing a limit on the number of pets. Then they did some research and found most of the animal related problems they encountered were in households with one or two pets. Most of the households that had more pets were doing so responsibly and not causing neighborhood problems. They decided not to impose a limit.
Diana - 14 years ago
Funny that people would even consider limiting pets and not limiting children. How about if the authorities came into your house 2x a year to check that your children are being cared for properly?
D.M. - 14 years ago
It is not the number of pets that causes a problem, it is the owner of the
pet(s). An individual can have one pet and not take care of it, while another could keep 20 pets,all well fed, well groomed, well loved. We should stop addressing numbers and start addressing education of the pet owner.
Excuse me now, I have to go care for my 5 cats and pill my one dog, a "miracle" dog, stable from Osteosarcoma due to intense loving care, all my money and lots of brilliant veterinary assistance.
BK - 14 years ago
I can't believe that people are using their lifestyle and comforts as a guideline to what everyone else should be allowed to do. Sorry, different strokes for different folks. The numbers of dogs owned should not be an issue. Right now responsible breeders take back a dog they place at any time keeping that dog from goinfg to a shelter. Pet limits would be contrary to that practice. People that foster dogs until a permanent home is found would not be able to. If they have 3 dogs and the limit is 3, then one more dog goes into the shelter. Wake up folks, these pet limit ideas are counter productive and there is no basis for them.
Walt Hutchens - 14 years ago
This is a confusing poll. It could be read as "What should be the legal limit on the number of pets per household, in which case the answer is "No limit: The law should be based on the quality of the care." Or it could be taken as "What is the maximum number of pets you would feel comfortable keeping?" That number is going to be a lot less than 'no limit' for most of us.
There are a few people who are set up to provide adequate care for 100 or even more (say, cats or perhaps small dogs) in an otherwise ordinary household and who have a reason -- rescue, a breeding program, or something like that. Most of us either feel stressed by the care requirements or the cost at a much lower number. Then of course there are a few people who cannot provide good care for even one: many of these individuals know that and don't get a pet, others don't know and become problems for animal control.
Joe - 14 years ago
If I am capable of taking care of 50 animals, responsibly, then it should not be any one else's business. What next, the government telling me how many children I can have? I've heard that is a subject in Copenhagen. Not anyone's business other than me, and possibly my spouse. Limiting the number of pets you can own will limit the number of homes that are available for pets.
Anne Copeland - 14 years ago
An arbitrary number is not appropriate as one owner may have difficulty caring for one animal properly while another can care for 10 and keep them all healthy, clean and well trained. I would love to see ownership of an animal be linked to applying for an owner's license which would require the applicant to demonstrate basic knowledge and facilities to properly take care of an animal.
doglover - 14 years ago
Having a limit is not an answer to any of the "problem people". I have been to many homes that had one animal that didn't give proper care/treatment yet homes/kennels that had 10 or more where the pets' care was better than many give to their children. Having "new" laws will not prevent poor care or abuse, utilizing the current laws can. Limit laws have been and are being pushed by the animal rights activist/extremists who wish to eradicate all animal ownership.
"... we will work for the eradication of all pets." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA President and Co Founder, PETA Mission Statement
"I am not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA President and Co Founder
"We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals." Wayne Pacelle, CEO & Senior VP of Humane Society of the US
Marian - 14 years ago
If you have the resources, time, and are a responsible owner, why should there be a limit? I have five large dogs. We scoop daily, and they do not stay out barking at all hours. Meanwhile my neighbor ties his ONE dog out, leaves it out, and it barks for, literally hours. It all depends on the owner.
Gerry Rupert - 14 years ago
I cannot see how some people are hoarders of animals and they get away with it. They are not helping these animals by hoarding them, these animals don't get the love affection they need, because there are to many of them. besides that there is little control with so many animals.
Sam - 14 years ago
I'd like to point out that limiting the number of pets could be very sad for some families. Case in point: A friend of mine lives in a large house on several acres that is technically in the city but on the outskirts of town. They have nine children. The family had a family dog that was really attached to the mom. Then five of their children over time got dogs. All of theses dogs were regularly vetted, ate quality food, received individual attention, exercise, and training. They were happy well cared for animals that never disturbed anyone. Why should we limit a family like this that has the time, resources, and will to provide so many good homes to needing pooches. On the flip side I had a neighbor with only one dog; but that one dog was wild, untrained, uncared for, unhealthy, noisy, lived on a chain, and aggressive, and no one did anything to help him. The humane society and police force said unless it was starving or attacked someone they couldn't do anything about this even though it was clearly neglected. Owning pets is to subject to individual circumstances to say owning only 1 or only 5 will fix anything. Personally I have what I feel is the ideal number of pets for my life style.
Joni - 15 years ago
Society today is so quick to pass laws. Many of these laws are not based on common sense. If you own your property and you can care for your animals, what right does anyone else have to say as to the quantity? If you have 12 cats who are confined to your property, properly vaccinated per law, not abused, and are not disturbing the peace, why should someone else judge you as wrong?
I am also against mandatory spay/neuter. Let's spend our resources on education instead. Then we may not need all these laws.
debbie - 15 years ago
An OWNER should not have a limit on owned pets. Animals are not adopted, they are purchased weather from a pet shop, breeder , shelter or theguy on the WAlmart parking lot, you give them some money, they give you a pet. Our government does n't know how many pets, TVs, boats, cars or houses I can afforrd to keep responsibilily. I am also against MANDATORY spay nueter. MY vet and I know best when is the right time to S/N my pets. For some dogs 6 months is fine, while for others two years is best.
Lynne Rochet - 15 years ago
Because of the large, homeless pet population, there should be no limit if you can afford it.
There are two things that would help. If veterinarian costs, flea-tick meds and even good quality foods could be corraled, most of us would adopt more pets. The only thing keeping me from adopting another dog and cat (I have a Brittany dog and a long-hair domestic cat.), is the cost of the above necessities. I can't believe that the manufacturers of these things, and the veterinarians have to be so expensive: I thought they were animal lovers.
Also, there should be a temporary curb on breeders. There are many purebred dogs and cats at shelters that would be adopted if the breeders didn't supply the same. A one-year moratorium could make a huge difference.
As for euthanasia: why can't these poor unfortunate creatures be put down with carbon monoxide instead of the terrible ways presently in use. Carbon monoxide produces the easiest and most painless way to die. Please, someone - suggest this to the powers that be, if you have any clout.
Catherine Fiore - 15 years ago
It depends upon the location of the property, the space of the property, the abilty of the caretaker to provide financially for health and welfare of the animals and also emotionally needs of the animals.
Marilyn - 15 years ago
It's not a queation of the number of pets you have its' can you take care of them. Punish the owners that don't take care of them and leave the one's alone that do take care of there pets even if they have 5 plus.
bonnie - 15 years ago
instead of counting pets, how bout making a surprise visit to all pet owners at least 2x a year to make sure the conditions are acceptable? that way, it will provide protection for our housemates, no matter how many we have. maybe the seller or provider of the animal should be held legally responsible for the well being of the pet, as well as the caregiver. i think it will make for more thorough consideration of the new home before turning over the adoption papers.
No limit- There does not need to be a legal limit because there are already existing humane laws for pets. If someone is hoarding animals and not providing for them, that can be dealt with through the existing laws. There are plenty of people in Chicago who own multiple pets and devote the time, space and money to care for them.
Even just one dog can be a problem if it's not trained, or if it's dangerous or annoying to neighbors with barking. And what if the person happens to have 5-lb Yorkies or Chihuahuas, 5 might not be too many for them. Even 5 large dogs may be fine for a person who has the resources and time to devote.
By limiting the number of pets, it may cause less people to adopt another pet who needs a home.
mlmj - 15 years ago
YOUR QUESIOTN IS ALMOST A SURVEY FOR YOU TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY DOG CARE SALONS YOU SHOULD OPEN
I CRY - FALSE QUESTIONAIRE
Kat - 15 years ago
This poll should be something like "How many pets is the most you have had?" or "How many pets is the most you ever plan to have at one time?" Asking how many "should be allowed" makes no sense. Almost all the commenters are saying the same thing -- it depends on the circumstances. Deciding in advance, for someone else, what number is too many is just an infringement on the other person's rights. Of COURSE the animals should be well cared for, but there are already laws for that, as well as laws for animal behavior that infringes on others.
Sally - 15 years ago
I think it depends on the INDIVIDUAL... can some people handle 5 pets? 10 pets.. yes.. while others don't seem to give even one the care they need or deserve. In our town.. you can get a kennel license and have 40 yapping dogs and that's fine.. but it STILL won't cover that one cat you have in your home that doesn't disturb anyone... go figure.
evelyn orthwein - 15 years ago
Like many here, I also believe the number of pets/animals we have should soley be based on whether we able to care for them well (food, vet, shelter), will we be kind to them, and most importantly, will we take the time to give them the love and attention they all deserve?
Currently we have 4 cats, all of which we adopted from the neighborhood. However we have had up to 7. A few have come to us for their retirement years, and so have been different ages. The older ones have passed on now reducing our number this year to below 5 for the first time in a long while- we love and miss all of them. We have a small house with a yard that they love exploring and stay on our property for the most part (when they aren't sleeping all day in the house!). We have found it dificult at times to care for the number of cats that we've had, but we've always managed to do well by them. It does mean some sacrifice, but our animal companions are worth it!
Our neighborhood varies in the number of pets: some have just 1 or 2, others have several cats or dogs plus rabbits that they rescue. I would hope that noone ever came to our area to count, because most people here have been very responsible caretakers of their animals.
Stella - 15 years ago
I believe the laws on pets should revolve around the provision of care, not the number. If you can love and care for 8 then great, if one is your max then that is fine too.
It should be about responsible pet ownership not a number.
Mickey - 15 years ago
I get so tired of people trying to limit the number of animls, as if that is the problem. The problem is caring for the animals, and I belive that a person should be able to have as many animals as he/she can properly take care of. For some people that could be no animals, others may only be able to manage 1. I currently have 15 animals [dogs(6), cats(6) and horses (3)]. However, at one time I had 36 animals [dogs(12), cats(20) and horses(4)]. At that time, I could properly take care of that many. At this time, I cannot. I did not get rid of any animals, but, through natural attrition, over time my animal family has gradually reduced. How sad would it be if I was forced to get rid of most of my remaining animals because of a law stating some random number based on no factual data? And, what would happen to those animials? Most of them would end up euthanized for no reason except a bad law.
People should be able to have as many animals as they can take proper care of, depending on their finances, space and the time to play with them. Big Brother is getting too nosey. What will be the next restriction passed by the goody two shoes? For each right that is taken away from one person, it leaves the field wide open to take a right away from someone else. Perhaps Goody Two Shoes should take a long look at themselves and consider what someone else wants to take away from them. It may be a great wake up call.
Jerry - 15 years ago
If you have one or two competent people at home almost all the time, and you have the space and income, why limit it to a specific number? Our county imposes a space requirement (bare minimum 150 sq ft per dog, depending on the breed & size) and shelter, food, water, sanitary conditions, etc requirements. 150 sq ft minimum is allowed only for the smallest dogs, but is allowable for a toy breed with newborns, I believe. We have spare bedrooms, basement, den, living room, etc and plenty of land with an 8 ft fence. We can feasibly foster many dogs at a time, and we do. For many homes, two is better than one (playmates), and two is probably the best number. Some homes should never have a pet. Some homes can handle many pets and/or foster dogs.
Cori - 15 years ago
It all depends on how many people in the home can give an appropriate level of care for the number of animals living there -- and what the animals' needs are. You could have a dozen animals needing a minimal level of care, or 3 that need constant monitoring and medical attention.
As a cert. vet. tech and a trainer, I do believe there should be limits set in order to maintain order in a house and that each pet has quality time with their owners,especially since so many people tell me "I would love to have a dog/cat but I'm never home, it wouldn't be fair" I respond to them that 2 pets would be nice as companions when you are not home and being home by themselves is still better than being dead from no one owning them. I also understand that care is also quality, it is expensive and time consuming and when people have multiple pets every thing is multiple or things are ignored. Most people are good hearted when they get pets but fail to realize that they can live 15 or so years and a lot can change, new family,allergies, jobs, relocations etc. and then there are more pets left unwanted where if they only had a couple maybe they could take them with them or be able to place them themselves. I have 3 dogs,lease 2 horses and 2 human kids and work part-time and volunteer at school my time is well used and I couldn't imagine having more poop to clean up, stalls to muck, laundry to do that it would be fair to have more pets I also know I would give up so much as to not have to place any of my critters I can do without the material things but not what really matters most.
I think there is a big difference between 5-6 well maintained pets, and 50-100 cats/dogs. We have 1 dog, 2 cats & 2 rabbits, and used to have 1 hedgehog, so we usually have 5-6 pets. Is it a lot? Yes, but we keep up on it and are responsible. However, we know having 2 dogs and more than 2 rabbits would be too much for us, so we never go above those limits.
There are a lot of variables that go into play for restrictions, and I think those somehow need to be accounted for. Such as, if the home is well maintained and the animals are being taken care of. Colorado & Michigan just recently had major hoarder stories in the news, and obviously those are cases we need to avoid.
I feel that if a person has the financial means to care for more than 5 pets then go for it, as long as the pets are well taken care of~ what does it matter how many you have.?
Tracy - 15 years ago
What about people who foster animals and save them from kill shelters? Will they then be asked to relinquish these animals to be ultimately euthanized because they have too many animals? I agree with the school of thinking that if you have the time, desire and resources to provide for animals then the number should not be counted. I voted 5 or more because how much is more? Isn't that the same as limitless? Fortunately, we are blessed to have the resources and passion to care for 5 or "more" animals. Wouldn't it be a shame to deny an animal a good home because the law says you are at your limit? Like was mentioned in previous blogs, a one animal household may have a constantly barking dog and another may have "5 or more" who are well behaved and cause no problems. This question is such a gray one that it is impossible to have a right or wrong answer. Ulitmately, it is what is right for you and your family.
This is the type of legislation that drives me crazy. Why? For some people one noisy dog is too much. Some people shouldn't have one dog, others can handle many.
Once a law is passed limiting dogs who believes it will really be enforced. Is there going to be a dog counter who goes from house to house, apartment to apartment knocking on doors and saying, "May I count your dogs?"
This society should get over its inane appetite to pass inane laws that wont/cant be enforced except as retaliation. for example, we know the dog counter is a satirical device. However, I can see someone getting ticked off at their neighbor for taking a parking place on the street, and reporting that neighbor for having too many dogs.
Finally, be careful. The same mentality that things 3 or 4 or 5 dogs is too many is only 3 or 4 or 5 dogs away from thinking one is too many. See my hub http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Tell-If-Should-Obtain-Your-First-Dog
It may make you smile. If it does read my other dog hubs.
Germaine Rupert - 15 years ago
If you have a farm you can have quite a few animals, but in a household 3 small animals, depending on the size of your house and what is allowed by law. One also should have a fenced yard and have their animals spayed or neutered.
Catherine Fiore - 15 years ago
Actually, the limits should depned on the circumstances of the individual pet caretaker. If there is space, income, environment, and other resources to maintain good animal care and training, why make any limit?
Lynne Rochet - 15 years ago
I voted for 3 or 4 because, with only a cat and dog, I find it extremely hard on the budget to pay for Vet care, flea, tick and heartworm meds, yearly booster shots and sometimes, special food.
However, if anyone has the financial means, I don't believe there should be a limit. If the Vet bills and meds would be controlled and pet owners get a break, I would adopt another cat and dog from a local shelter. God knows there a lot of sad animals in need of a home so they won't be ultimately euthanized.
I think it depends on your income and lifestyle. You can have a lot of pets if you can afford them and if you live in an area where can be comfortable.
Sandie - 15 years ago
The majority of "Pet People" are resonsible enough to know their limit. There are so many homeless animals no limit should be placed on individuals with the resources and time to give. The laws regarding cruelty and neglect should be strickly enforced.
Melissa - 15 years ago
THANK YOU to the wonderful people that do Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) with stray and feral cats and kittens. If anyone is feeding even one cat, or knows anyone who is, please visit AlleyCat.Org and/or The Foundation For Homeless Cats.Org to learn more about this program.Thank you for caring! Have a great day!
softheartd - 15 years ago
If one has enough space and resources to care for more than 5 animals, more power to them. I have 2 dogs and 1 indoor cat and 3 ferel cats that I also feed that have lived in my yard and garage for the last 3 years. They are all happy and healthy.
Christine - 15 years ago
What is the point of limiting animals when there are already laws regarding noise and yards/homes that are not well-maintained? That is the problem with pets and their owners. You could have one pet that creates a nuisance because it is not given good care.
my feeling is that if you can take care of them,meaning if you can actually give them attention to, then there should not be a limit . my best friend has 65 rabbits, 2 chinchillas , 2 guinea pigs,4 fish, a cat,a dog, a hamster and a goat.but she and her parents take care of them and givethem plenty of attention.
i like puppies
It would be nice if everyone would ADOPT TWO (either two cats or one dog and a cat) in an apartment or more (3 to 4) in a house. Even if you arent home, a safe place could be given to a cat or a mother cat and her kittens (until they could be found home for the kittens). Am not including feeding outdoor animals. I feed squirrels and wildlife (they live outside) and would be happy to help feed feral cats. If the space was available like a farm (and the animals are cared for and fed, the owner should be allowed to have a reasonable number.
I am not advocating puppy mills or hoarding situations. There the animals suffer from neglect, cages and starvation. It can get out of hand with the best of intentions. Unless you are a licensed rescue and have the food and space and time to care for animals, you have to limit permanent housing. Temporary housing is o.k.
A link my last comment should be http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
Even if your type of pet isn't a target in government currently, fight against these bad laws now, for sooner or later, your pet of choice WILL be on the chopping block!
The government is chock-full of people seeking to justify their existence with the imposition of policies that produce highly visible results to the disadvantage of a minority of the populous, whose choices are outside of the mainstream. That their policies are a draconian taking of our individual rights to property and privacy matters not at all.
If we agree to limits on any currently legal and unregulated behavior, those that set limits will return over and over with more and more restrictive limits until something that was once a personal, private and legal undertaking becomes a forbidden practice, with criminal penalties attached.
As for limits on pets, a great many limits have already been put into place. Most of these restrictions leave unaffected people, who really have no idea the true nature of the regulations, with a "warm, fuzzy" feeling that justice is being done, when this is almost never the case.
A case in point is the set of laws that ended the viable keeping of captive-bred ocelots and margays. Most people don't realize that the private keeping of those species ensured the survival of them, regardless of their fates in the wild. Due to restrictions, their population in this country has dropped from over 10,000 to less than 100, depriving law-abiding people the chance to keep these amazing species to the benefit of both cats and humans.
Currently, there are TEN TIMES more tigers in captive habitats in the US than exist in the remaining wild ecosystem habitats in Asia. The keeping of all wild animals is under increasingly vigorous assault from those that claim to be protecting the public and owners from "dangerous animals", an almost non-existent threat. If they are BANNED in this country, where will the tiger be able to survive.
The great majority of people have been indoctrinated by the radical Animal Rights groups to believe that wild cats make poor pets, and that it is acceptable if cat fanciers' rights are violated in the prohibition of a practice that harms nobody.
Back to the issue of limits on the number of pets; a purely Animal Rights organization position. It is all part of their major plans. As they succeed in their agendas, more and more laws will allow for less and less freedom when it comes to keeping ANY pets.
The radical Animal Rights organizations don't care about animals. Their answer to end suffering [defined by them as "captivity"] is nothing short of the total elimination of all captive wild and domestic animals. PETA has been eliminating up to 95% of it's shelter animals yearly in an area where other REAL shelters are placing over 80% into forever homes.
Don't believe me. PETA's records in Virginia are public. Check out www.petakillsanimals.org and also www.rexano.org and www.felineconservation.org while you are at it.
The trouble with any law setting a limit on the quantity of pets lies in the fact that such arbitrary limiting requires ENFORCEMENT. We have too many laws restricting our freedom already. I don't need the government to decide what kind of animals I can keep, or how many is too many. I'm a responsible pet owner who is able to decide for himself how many is too many. I can also decide whether my choice of cat is too big and while I certainly would not subject others to any danger, I should have the right to sleep under the mane of my lion, if I chose to keep one and felt safe in doing so.
Government needs to butt out of our lives on so many issues, pets being one of the most important of them.
To Dottie on 12/20 - you state animals are purchased, even if from a rescue, because money changes hands, but children are adopted. How, then, do you explain the high adoption fees charged for children? Rescue groups do charge a small adoption fee -- usually tied directly into their cost to vet the animal for routine issues (spay/neuter, shots, heartworm test, microchip). My group's "profit margin" is $3.14/adopted animal and that has to cover the costs of their food while in foster care. It does not cover extra vet costs like hernia repairs, dentals, antiobiotics to treat infections, etc.
Rescue groups do not have unlimited funds, and can only continue doing rescue if they assess a fee to help reimburse them for the animal's care.
Why is a $25,000 - $35,000 adoption fee for a child NOT considered the same as a $175 adoption fee for a fully vetted dog that has a provision it must be returned to the rescue group if ever the adopter is unable or unwilling to continue to care for it.
That said, there should be no governmental limits. I can understand a landlord imposing a restriction as a condition of a lease in order to protect his property, but not a township/county/state/national limit. My next-door neighbors 2 labs make much more noise than all the beagles I foster.
Interest how many control freaks there are. Since control freaks are known to have psychological problems more often then normal people. Lets have a poll to see if we think everyone should be tested and the freaks required to get licenses, be chipped and carry visible identification
You people who voted for 3 or 4 are falling prey to the animal right s people who want to end pet ownership altogether. Both Patrick kwan and Wayne Pacelle say they need to get any pet limit laws passed so they can go back year after year and lower the number until it will be a crime to own a pet. This is what they are after and those of you who voted for pet limits are falling into their hands of no pets at all. Why should there be any limit? Next they will want to tell you who you can marry and how many children you may have that is their goal. When you give up one right the next right is not far behind.
Legislation to limit anything can become a slippery slope. Any limitations will eventually become more and more strict (I believe). Politics isn't prepared to dictate the number of pets I might have and care for. Legislation and legislators do not behave logically, look at the current political storm over pending legislation as an example. Staying involved at your local level is the best way to head-off legislation to limit your rights. Attend town council meetings and go prepared to offer solutions and concrete information in a positive manner. Telling someone that you are a responsible pet owner doesn't mean nearly as much as proving that irresponsible pet owners neglect to register their pets (and pay the registration fee). Familairize yourself with the current laws on the books and ask that those laws be enforced, before new legislation is enacted. Be proactive, not reactive. Be the pet-owner that makes a positive statement, not someone who sits on their hands and howls when laws are enacted without their input.
As long as there are laws that require good care of OWNED animals, there is no need for a numbers limit. We don't limit the number of TV, cars, boats, homes, or guns a person may own, whyshould we have a numbers limit on the number of animals we can OWN? Yes, you OWN an animal, any animal that you BUY, weather from a pet store, breeder, a rescue group or your local shelter. Children are adopted, animals are purchased. How many of either you chose to have is no ones business.
Our once great country is being destroyed by those who feel that if they dont like something everyone must be forced to do it their way. At this point we have so many rules governing our actions that laws are being broken constantly by those who dont even know they exist...where does it stop. not with forced health care thats for sure. and to be forced to get vet care for an animal when we wont be able to afford it for ourselves... this is crazy.
Simply put, it is the quality of care not the quantity of animals.
Limit laws force responsible pet owners to chose which beloved pet to give up.,
As a worker in animal welfare, one of the worst cases of neglect I saw was of one dog, kept chained out, dying, infested with maggots and mange. The ONE dog of a wealthy family!
The laws in place should be used for problems that arise with animals care.
And I have no respect for shelters that help pass limit laws and then cry about having to kill animals. and beg for people to adopt.
It's not a matter of how many animals one has but rather how many one can care for adequately. There are people who can't care for 1 & others who can care for 20. Most people know the limits of how many they can afford and care for properly. Use abuse, noise & sanitation laws to take action on those that cannot care for their animals properly or who are bad neighbors.
Also, dogs, cats, etc are property under the US Constitution (see Federal ruling in St Louis case) Cities, towns, counties that pass mandatory spay neuter laws should have to reimburse owners for the diminished value of their "property" just as they do when they forcibly take other property.
I recall reading about a city (I think it was in Canada) that considered imposing a limit on the number of pets. Then they did some research and found most of the animal related problems they encountered were in households with one or two pets. Most of the households that had more pets were doing so responsibly and not causing neighborhood problems. They decided not to impose a limit.
Funny that people would even consider limiting pets and not limiting children. How about if the authorities came into your house 2x a year to check that your children are being cared for properly?
It is not the number of pets that causes a problem, it is the owner of the
pet(s). An individual can have one pet and not take care of it, while another could keep 20 pets,all well fed, well groomed, well loved. We should stop addressing numbers and start addressing education of the pet owner.
Excuse me now, I have to go care for my 5 cats and pill my one dog, a "miracle" dog, stable from Osteosarcoma due to intense loving care, all my money and lots of brilliant veterinary assistance.
I can't believe that people are using their lifestyle and comforts as a guideline to what everyone else should be allowed to do. Sorry, different strokes for different folks. The numbers of dogs owned should not be an issue. Right now responsible breeders take back a dog they place at any time keeping that dog from goinfg to a shelter. Pet limits would be contrary to that practice. People that foster dogs until a permanent home is found would not be able to. If they have 3 dogs and the limit is 3, then one more dog goes into the shelter. Wake up folks, these pet limit ideas are counter productive and there is no basis for them.
This is a confusing poll. It could be read as "What should be the legal limit on the number of pets per household, in which case the answer is "No limit: The law should be based on the quality of the care." Or it could be taken as "What is the maximum number of pets you would feel comfortable keeping?" That number is going to be a lot less than 'no limit' for most of us.
There are a few people who are set up to provide adequate care for 100 or even more (say, cats or perhaps small dogs) in an otherwise ordinary household and who have a reason -- rescue, a breeding program, or something like that. Most of us either feel stressed by the care requirements or the cost at a much lower number. Then of course there are a few people who cannot provide good care for even one: many of these individuals know that and don't get a pet, others don't know and become problems for animal control.
If I am capable of taking care of 50 animals, responsibly, then it should not be any one else's business. What next, the government telling me how many children I can have? I've heard that is a subject in Copenhagen. Not anyone's business other than me, and possibly my spouse. Limiting the number of pets you can own will limit the number of homes that are available for pets.
An arbitrary number is not appropriate as one owner may have difficulty caring for one animal properly while another can care for 10 and keep them all healthy, clean and well trained. I would love to see ownership of an animal be linked to applying for an owner's license which would require the applicant to demonstrate basic knowledge and facilities to properly take care of an animal.
Having a limit is not an answer to any of the "problem people". I have been to many homes that had one animal that didn't give proper care/treatment yet homes/kennels that had 10 or more where the pets' care was better than many give to their children. Having "new" laws will not prevent poor care or abuse, utilizing the current laws can. Limit laws have been and are being pushed by the animal rights activist/extremists who wish to eradicate all animal ownership.
"... we will work for the eradication of all pets." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA President and Co Founder, PETA Mission Statement
"I am not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA President and Co Founder
"We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals." Wayne Pacelle, CEO & Senior VP of Humane Society of the US
If you have the resources, time, and are a responsible owner, why should there be a limit? I have five large dogs. We scoop daily, and they do not stay out barking at all hours. Meanwhile my neighbor ties his ONE dog out, leaves it out, and it barks for, literally hours. It all depends on the owner.
I cannot see how some people are hoarders of animals and they get away with it. They are not helping these animals by hoarding them, these animals don't get the love affection they need, because there are to many of them. besides that there is little control with so many animals.
I'd like to point out that limiting the number of pets could be very sad for some families. Case in point: A friend of mine lives in a large house on several acres that is technically in the city but on the outskirts of town. They have nine children. The family had a family dog that was really attached to the mom. Then five of their children over time got dogs. All of theses dogs were regularly vetted, ate quality food, received individual attention, exercise, and training. They were happy well cared for animals that never disturbed anyone. Why should we limit a family like this that has the time, resources, and will to provide so many good homes to needing pooches. On the flip side I had a neighbor with only one dog; but that one dog was wild, untrained, uncared for, unhealthy, noisy, lived on a chain, and aggressive, and no one did anything to help him. The humane society and police force said unless it was starving or attacked someone they couldn't do anything about this even though it was clearly neglected. Owning pets is to subject to individual circumstances to say owning only 1 or only 5 will fix anything. Personally I have what I feel is the ideal number of pets for my life style.
Society today is so quick to pass laws. Many of these laws are not based on common sense. If you own your property and you can care for your animals, what right does anyone else have to say as to the quantity? If you have 12 cats who are confined to your property, properly vaccinated per law, not abused, and are not disturbing the peace, why should someone else judge you as wrong?
I am also against mandatory spay/neuter. Let's spend our resources on education instead. Then we may not need all these laws.
An OWNER should not have a limit on owned pets. Animals are not adopted, they are purchased weather from a pet shop, breeder , shelter or theguy on the WAlmart parking lot, you give them some money, they give you a pet. Our government does n't know how many pets, TVs, boats, cars or houses I can afforrd to keep responsibilily. I am also against MANDATORY spay nueter. MY vet and I know best when is the right time to S/N my pets. For some dogs 6 months is fine, while for others two years is best.
Because of the large, homeless pet population, there should be no limit if you can afford it.
There are two things that would help. If veterinarian costs, flea-tick meds and even good quality foods could be corraled, most of us would adopt more pets. The only thing keeping me from adopting another dog and cat (I have a Brittany dog and a long-hair domestic cat.), is the cost of the above necessities. I can't believe that the manufacturers of these things, and the veterinarians have to be so expensive: I thought they were animal lovers.
Also, there should be a temporary curb on breeders. There are many purebred dogs and cats at shelters that would be adopted if the breeders didn't supply the same. A one-year moratorium could make a huge difference.
As for euthanasia: why can't these poor unfortunate creatures be put down with carbon monoxide instead of the terrible ways presently in use. Carbon monoxide produces the easiest and most painless way to die. Please, someone - suggest this to the powers that be, if you have any clout.
It depends upon the location of the property, the space of the property, the abilty of the caretaker to provide financially for health and welfare of the animals and also emotionally needs of the animals.
It's not a queation of the number of pets you have its' can you take care of them. Punish the owners that don't take care of them and leave the one's alone that do take care of there pets even if they have 5 plus.
instead of counting pets, how bout making a surprise visit to all pet owners at least 2x a year to make sure the conditions are acceptable? that way, it will provide protection for our housemates, no matter how many we have. maybe the seller or provider of the animal should be held legally responsible for the well being of the pet, as well as the caregiver. i think it will make for more thorough consideration of the new home before turning over the adoption papers.
No limit- There does not need to be a legal limit because there are already existing humane laws for pets. If someone is hoarding animals and not providing for them, that can be dealt with through the existing laws. There are plenty of people in Chicago who own multiple pets and devote the time, space and money to care for them.
Even just one dog can be a problem if it's not trained, or if it's dangerous or annoying to neighbors with barking. And what if the person happens to have 5-lb Yorkies or Chihuahuas, 5 might not be too many for them. Even 5 large dogs may be fine for a person who has the resources and time to devote.
By limiting the number of pets, it may cause less people to adopt another pet who needs a home.
YOUR QUESIOTN IS ALMOST A SURVEY FOR YOU TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY DOG CARE SALONS YOU SHOULD OPEN
I CRY - FALSE QUESTIONAIRE
This poll should be something like "How many pets is the most you have had?" or "How many pets is the most you ever plan to have at one time?" Asking how many "should be allowed" makes no sense. Almost all the commenters are saying the same thing -- it depends on the circumstances. Deciding in advance, for someone else, what number is too many is just an infringement on the other person's rights. Of COURSE the animals should be well cared for, but there are already laws for that, as well as laws for animal behavior that infringes on others.
I think it depends on the INDIVIDUAL... can some people handle 5 pets? 10 pets.. yes.. while others don't seem to give even one the care they need or deserve. In our town.. you can get a kennel license and have 40 yapping dogs and that's fine.. but it STILL won't cover that one cat you have in your home that doesn't disturb anyone... go figure.
Like many here, I also believe the number of pets/animals we have should soley be based on whether we able to care for them well (food, vet, shelter), will we be kind to them, and most importantly, will we take the time to give them the love and attention they all deserve?
Currently we have 4 cats, all of which we adopted from the neighborhood. However we have had up to 7. A few have come to us for their retirement years, and so have been different ages. The older ones have passed on now reducing our number this year to below 5 for the first time in a long while- we love and miss all of them. We have a small house with a yard that they love exploring and stay on our property for the most part (when they aren't sleeping all day in the house!). We have found it dificult at times to care for the number of cats that we've had, but we've always managed to do well by them. It does mean some sacrifice, but our animal companions are worth it!
Our neighborhood varies in the number of pets: some have just 1 or 2, others have several cats or dogs plus rabbits that they rescue. I would hope that noone ever came to our area to count, because most people here have been very responsible caretakers of their animals.
I believe the laws on pets should revolve around the provision of care, not the number. If you can love and care for 8 then great, if one is your max then that is fine too.
It should be about responsible pet ownership not a number.
I get so tired of people trying to limit the number of animls, as if that is the problem. The problem is caring for the animals, and I belive that a person should be able to have as many animals as he/she can properly take care of. For some people that could be no animals, others may only be able to manage 1. I currently have 15 animals [dogs(6), cats(6) and horses (3)]. However, at one time I had 36 animals [dogs(12), cats(20) and horses(4)]. At that time, I could properly take care of that many. At this time, I cannot. I did not get rid of any animals, but, through natural attrition, over time my animal family has gradually reduced. How sad would it be if I was forced to get rid of most of my remaining animals because of a law stating some random number based on no factual data? And, what would happen to those animials? Most of them would end up euthanized for no reason except a bad law.
People should be able to have as many animals as they can take proper care of, depending on their finances, space and the time to play with them. Big Brother is getting too nosey. What will be the next restriction passed by the goody two shoes? For each right that is taken away from one person, it leaves the field wide open to take a right away from someone else. Perhaps Goody Two Shoes should take a long look at themselves and consider what someone else wants to take away from them. It may be a great wake up call.
If you have one or two competent people at home almost all the time, and you have the space and income, why limit it to a specific number? Our county imposes a space requirement (bare minimum 150 sq ft per dog, depending on the breed & size) and shelter, food, water, sanitary conditions, etc requirements. 150 sq ft minimum is allowed only for the smallest dogs, but is allowable for a toy breed with newborns, I believe. We have spare bedrooms, basement, den, living room, etc and plenty of land with an 8 ft fence. We can feasibly foster many dogs at a time, and we do. For many homes, two is better than one (playmates), and two is probably the best number. Some homes should never have a pet. Some homes can handle many pets and/or foster dogs.
It all depends on how many people in the home can give an appropriate level of care for the number of animals living there -- and what the animals' needs are. You could have a dozen animals needing a minimal level of care, or 3 that need constant monitoring and medical attention.
As a cert. vet. tech and a trainer, I do believe there should be limits set in order to maintain order in a house and that each pet has quality time with their owners,especially since so many people tell me "I would love to have a dog/cat but I'm never home, it wouldn't be fair" I respond to them that 2 pets would be nice as companions when you are not home and being home by themselves is still better than being dead from no one owning them. I also understand that care is also quality, it is expensive and time consuming and when people have multiple pets every thing is multiple or things are ignored. Most people are good hearted when they get pets but fail to realize that they can live 15 or so years and a lot can change, new family,allergies, jobs, relocations etc. and then there are more pets left unwanted where if they only had a couple maybe they could take them with them or be able to place them themselves. I have 3 dogs,lease 2 horses and 2 human kids and work part-time and volunteer at school my time is well used and I couldn't imagine having more poop to clean up, stalls to muck, laundry to do that it would be fair to have more pets I also know I would give up so much as to not have to place any of my critters I can do without the material things but not what really matters most.
I think there is a big difference between 5-6 well maintained pets, and 50-100 cats/dogs. We have 1 dog, 2 cats & 2 rabbits, and used to have 1 hedgehog, so we usually have 5-6 pets. Is it a lot? Yes, but we keep up on it and are responsible. However, we know having 2 dogs and more than 2 rabbits would be too much for us, so we never go above those limits.
There are a lot of variables that go into play for restrictions, and I think those somehow need to be accounted for. Such as, if the home is well maintained and the animals are being taken care of. Colorado & Michigan just recently had major hoarder stories in the news, and obviously those are cases we need to avoid.
I feel that if a person has the financial means to care for more than 5 pets then go for it, as long as the pets are well taken care of~ what does it matter how many you have.?
What about people who foster animals and save them from kill shelters? Will they then be asked to relinquish these animals to be ultimately euthanized because they have too many animals? I agree with the school of thinking that if you have the time, desire and resources to provide for animals then the number should not be counted. I voted 5 or more because how much is more? Isn't that the same as limitless? Fortunately, we are blessed to have the resources and passion to care for 5 or "more" animals. Wouldn't it be a shame to deny an animal a good home because the law says you are at your limit? Like was mentioned in previous blogs, a one animal household may have a constantly barking dog and another may have "5 or more" who are well behaved and cause no problems. This question is such a gray one that it is impossible to have a right or wrong answer. Ulitmately, it is what is right for you and your family.
This is the type of legislation that drives me crazy. Why? For some people one noisy dog is too much. Some people shouldn't have one dog, others can handle many.
Once a law is passed limiting dogs who believes it will really be enforced. Is there going to be a dog counter who goes from house to house, apartment to apartment knocking on doors and saying, "May I count your dogs?"
This society should get over its inane appetite to pass inane laws that wont/cant be enforced except as retaliation. for example, we know the dog counter is a satirical device. However, I can see someone getting ticked off at their neighbor for taking a parking place on the street, and reporting that neighbor for having too many dogs.
Finally, be careful. The same mentality that things 3 or 4 or 5 dogs is too many is only 3 or 4 or 5 dogs away from thinking one is too many. See my hub http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Tell-If-Should-Obtain-Your-First-Dog
It may make you smile. If it does read my other dog hubs.
If you have a farm you can have quite a few animals, but in a household 3 small animals, depending on the size of your house and what is allowed by law. One also should have a fenced yard and have their animals spayed or neutered.
Actually, the limits should depned on the circumstances of the individual pet caretaker. If there is space, income, environment, and other resources to maintain good animal care and training, why make any limit?
I voted for 3 or 4 because, with only a cat and dog, I find it extremely hard on the budget to pay for Vet care, flea, tick and heartworm meds, yearly booster shots and sometimes, special food.
However, if anyone has the financial means, I don't believe there should be a limit. If the Vet bills and meds would be controlled and pet owners get a break, I would adopt another cat and dog from a local shelter. God knows there a lot of sad animals in need of a home so they won't be ultimately euthanized.
I think it depends on your income and lifestyle. You can have a lot of pets if you can afford them and if you live in an area where can be comfortable.
The majority of "Pet People" are resonsible enough to know their limit. There are so many homeless animals no limit should be placed on individuals with the resources and time to give. The laws regarding cruelty and neglect should be strickly enforced.
THANK YOU to the wonderful people that do Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) with stray and feral cats and kittens. If anyone is feeding even one cat, or knows anyone who is, please visit AlleyCat.Org and/or The Foundation For Homeless Cats.Org to learn more about this program.Thank you for caring! Have a great day!
If one has enough space and resources to care for more than 5 animals, more power to them. I have 2 dogs and 1 indoor cat and 3 ferel cats that I also feed that have lived in my yard and garage for the last 3 years. They are all happy and healthy.
What is the point of limiting animals when there are already laws regarding noise and yards/homes that are not well-maintained? That is the problem with pets and their owners. You could have one pet that creates a nuisance because it is not given good care.