Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? - to Michelle

[Lernermichelle]

If they all have limits and they are a fixed number, I probably would not bring them up at all.   As to your argument, I think you are right about focusing on the 10% issue. It is really random.  Where does it come from? Are they suggesting that people who have dogs are supposed to confine them to 10% of the house and are wrong to let them live in the whole house? On what basis could they say that? And if they say no, they are assuming people allow animals the run of the  house and that is ok, then there is obviously no basis for limiting the number based on an assumption they are only using 10% of the house.   Basically they are saying that if someone has a 9,000 square foot house they can have more than twice as many animals even if they keep all the animals in only 900 square feet of the house, whereas you are giving them 4,000 square feet-- they are saying that someone who owns a bigger house, just by virtue of owning the bigger house, is allowed to keep more animals than you even if they give them less space.  There is no rational basis to this regarding the health or welfare of the animals or the neighbors.   The one danger I can think of with this argument is that most towns have ordinances limiting the number of large animals, like horses, based on acreage-- e.g. you must have 1 acre per horse-- rather than on the amount of space actually given to the animals-- e.g. the person might keep the horse in a 10 foot by 20 foot paddock.  I actually think those ordinances are stupid too, and it should have to do with the space you can actually give the animal versus what you own, but a judge may think about those ordinances and not want to call their validity into question.   Michelle   In a message dated 12/13/2005 1:51:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thank you, Michelle for you input.  One of my vets is going to do a live testimony, so I think he can testify the below (space needs for different species) on my behalf. I will also look it up about the ordinance form other cities – I know they all have a limit.. but they don’t calculate the way Alb does I remember looking into it – other cities even outside of NM, they all seem to tend to pick a number (3 or 4, or 5 or whatever they decide to pick) as a limit where there was no explanation as to why the number was picked as a limit, which I guess is also a bad thing…At least Alb tried to come up with a formula, if it was a good formula, it would have made a sense.. but it does not.   Michelle, what would you think of my argument on this? – Well the city only allows a 10% of the total property space as a place where animals can live – and within the space, each animal (up to 30lb) requires 75 sq – So will not the bottom line be as long as an animal is allocated for 75 sq, does it matter to the city if they live throughout the entire living space or not as long as I am ok with it?  I am having a hard time to understand their 10% logic --- I have a total of 4,000 – and I am claiming for 20 cats --- so theoretically, each animal is allowed for 200 sq --- which is much larger than the space they request… if I don’t mind personally as the property owner having cats through the entire living space, why does it matter if they take 10% of space or 100% of space.. the only thing I can think of is a “density” issue.. but again – why would they care if they all kept indoor and each animals has a lot of space.. I hope I am making sense.. any input on this issue is appreciated, Michelle