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

[Hideyo Yamamoto]

I think it came from hobby breeder permit where people keep their animals in kennels and cages (originally, they did not even have a multiple permit, the law was only written for hobby breeders and then, they add the multiple permit name added to the existing hobby breeder ordinance –   As I read lots of other cases and articles written regarding the pet law ----what it is saying that – pet limit law may seem like a quick fix to the problem, but in reality, It  targets all owners, regardless of their actions or the behavior of their animals.  Limiting the number of animals an individual may own is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the irresponsible ownership.  Limit laws often force caring, responsible owners to surrender their excess animals to shelters already overcrowded, there by increasing a city’s shelter population problems and euthanasia.   In many cases, communities already have nuisance laws in place that, if nuisance law is properly enforced, there really won’t be any need for limit law – as what happened to the PA case, more number of animals per se does not mean more nuisance.  I also requested stats information from the city, regarding the type of complaints and the number of complaints – so that I can draw a conclusion whether there is any relationship between the number of animals one own and the number of complaints the city receives.   What Greg is concerned is that.. I am going to present my case before the hearing officer who is contracted by the city --- so he was not sure how he is willing to admit that the ordinance is invalid – after all he is hired by the city --- so I should primary focus on the factual information that there is no nuisance, no complaint from neighbors, and all animals are taken care of and am not violating the intent of law at all – and then address how the provision of the current ordinance does not make sense.. and then argue about the problem of the enforcement of law as you mentioned --- (trying to take away something that was already) and then mention the validity of pet limit law and conclude again with the very first point I made regarding welfare of the animals and community (not being impacted) – what do you think?       From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:02 PM To: felvtalk@felineleukemia.org Subject: Re: Hideyo's court case 19th?? - to Michelle   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