Only 2 dogs allowed in Saint George, UT (Santa Clara, Enterprise: Home Depot, pharmacy)

[Utahooligan]

Originally Posted by norris14

I'm not sure why you had to resurrect a 15-month-old thread and insult a person and call them gross. You certainly can't know them well enough to judge them so well. Other than that, nice info!

Wow... I judged the person on the information they volunteered. I never met Adolf Hitler, or Mother Teresa, so I suppose in your world that makes me unqualified to formulate any opinions about them, either. I'll continue to resurrect old threads whenever I think I have relevant facts & opinions to share, and I'll be pleased if that annoys you.

[Utahooligan]

Originally Posted by altajoe

Actually, I'm interested in this thread. The OP says that the restriction is 2 for under .23 of an acre and 4 for property over .23 (1/4 acre). Then a follow up poster says that its 1 acre, not 1/4 acre, and provides a link. The link is dead, so does anyone know which is correct?

Joe, the best thing I can do is give you the link to St George's municipal code -- specifically chapter two, which discusses Animal Control:

Sterling Codifiers, Inc.

Section 5-2-4A6 is the only relevant section I found:

6. Number Permitted; Exception: No person or person at any one dwelling unit, as defined in the zoning ordinance of the city, shall at any one time own or license more than two (2) dogs in any combination, except as otherwise provided herein. Sole exception shall be where the person occupies a dwelling unit with exclusive location on an acre or more of land, or where the dwelling unit adjoins an open space or agricultural zone on at least one side of the property upon which it is located. In the event of an exception, as provided herein, up to four (4) dogs may be allowed at a dwelling unit but no more. The purpose of this subsection is to minimize the health and nuisance effect upon neighbors of keeping dogs, and nothing herein shall waive the requirement of full compliance with all other provisions of this chapter or the city nuisance ordinance. Because of the difficulty of keeping record of dog ownership, the issuance of a dog license by the city to more than the permitted number of dogs shall in no way waive the city's right to require compliance with the provisions of this subsection. (Ord. 12-1-1990, 12-13-1990)

[norris14]

Well, I did say you provided good info, didn't I? I just didn't think the attack was necessary. Go on doing what you do. I know I have no influence. I don't get annoyed easily, but I hope you can be pleased by life in general.

Originally Posted by Utahooligan

Wow... I judged the person on the information they volunteered. I never met Adolf Hitler, or Mother Teresa, so I suppose in your world that makes me unqualified to formulate any opinions about them, either. I'll continue to resurrect old threads whenever I think I have relevant facts & opinions to share, and I'll be pleased if that annoys you.

[altajoe]

Originally Posted by Utahooligan

Joe, the best thing I can do is give you the link to St George's municipal code -- specifically chapter two, which discusses Animal Control:

Sterling Codifiers, Inc.

Section 5-2-4A6 is the only relevant section I found:

6. Number Permitted; Exception: No person or person at any one dwelling unit, as defined in the zoning ordinance of the city, shall at any one time own or license more than two (2) dogs in any combination, except as otherwise provided herein. Sole exception shall be where the person occupies a dwelling unit with exclusive location on an acre or more of land, or where the dwelling unit adjoins an open space or agricultural zone on at least one side of the property upon which it is located. In the event of an exception, as provided herein, up to four (4) dogs may be allowed at a dwelling unit but no more. The purpose of this subsection is to minimize the health and nuisance effect upon neighbors of keeping dogs, and nothing herein shall waive the requirement of full compliance with all other provisions of this chapter or the city nuisance ordinance. Because of the difficulty of keeping record of dog ownership, the issuance of a dog license by the city to more than the permitted number of dogs shall in no way waive the city's right to require compliance with the provisions of this subsection. (Ord. 12-1-1990, 12-13-1990)

Thanks. Personally, I have found that two dogs is easier than one, but three is not easier than two. However, three years ago we jumped from two to three Bulldogs due to a rescue situation (all three were rescues) and now that we lost the oldest two weeks ago, have realized that we wouldn't have traded the experience for all the tea in China.

[karenSG]

I don't know the answer to the dogs per land space question, but I'd like to mention that our HOA limits "total pets" to two or less! I don't favor this. Remember to check your subdivision rules, no matter what the city or county says.

[Utahooligan]

Originally Posted by altajoe

Thanks. Personally, I have found that two dogs is easier than one, but three is not easier than two. However, three years ago we jumped from two to three Bulldogs due to a rescue situation (all three were rescues) and now that we lost the oldest two weeks ago, have realized that we wouldn't have traded the experience for all the tea in China.

I know what you mean. I have FIVE dogs. While I love them all & they're all well-cared for, have the run of the house, etc. the reality is that any more than two or three has a negative impact on my personal quality of life -- hard to just go on a weekend road-trip, etc. because 5 is just too many for one person to safely & properly manage outside of our home, despite me being a trainer, etc.

All but one were dogs that had major aggression issues at a shelter I volunteered at, so I individually fostered them & they made great progress, but the shelter was unwilling to risk adopting them out (despite a great track record I had) due to the original severity of their fear-aggression & as a result, either I adopted them myself, or the shelter would kill ('euthanize' wouldn't have been an appropriate term) them. So real simple decision for me & no regrets, but 5 dogs now means no more saving-lives by fostering/rehabilitating/adopting-out other needy cases, and no vacations. That sucks, but hopefully I'll get some good karma points...

ANYWAY... I'd love to hear the communities around here articulate exactly how & why they came up with the two-dog limit. I've lived in much more densely-packed cities that had a higher number limit. Sadly, it could be something as simple as some physician or vet 40 years ago giving a personal opinion that the dog limit should be two, and other local communities simply copied that.

[EBlawrence]

2 dogs is PLENTY..I can barely handle one for more than a couple days..

[Utahooligan]

Something just dawned on me...

It's highly amusing that most cities here in SW Utah have for some reason gone to the time & effort to impose a two-dog per home limit, yet the predominant religion/culture (LDS) -- which I believe would be the faith of most of the city councils that approve such ordinances -- encourages a husband & wife to have as many children as they reasonably can!

There's a dichotomy in that. The same logic they used to come up with a two-dog limit (hygiene, space, noise, etc.) could certainly be extended to apply to human children.

I hope I never get busted with my 'full-quiver" (that's apparently LDS-speak for 5 offspring) of dogs, but if I do, you'll hear about it because I'll sue the community, arguing that the ordinance should also apply to human kids in a dwelling!

[Utahooligan]

Originally Posted by EBlawrence

2 dogs is PLENTY..I can barely handle one for more than a couple days..

I'm glad that you have learned & accepted your personal limitations, EB.

*Assuming* someone knows how to get dogs trained, and provide them with calm leadership, two dogs are perfect because they provide each-other with a good portion of the companionship & stimulation that they need on a daily basis, whereas just one dog will get bored & possibly resort to improper (destructive) outputs for his or her energy -- barking, chewing on furniture, etc.

[Montana Griz]

Originally Posted by Utahooligan

Something just dawned on me...

It's highly amusing that most cities here in SW Utah have for some reason gone to the time & effort to impose a two-dog per home limit, yet the predominant religion/culture (LDS) -- which I believe would be the faith of most of the city councils that approve such ordinances -- encourages a husband & wife to have as many children as they reasonably can!

There's a dichotomy in that. The same logic they used to come up with a two-dog limit (hygiene, space, noise, etc.) could certainly be extended to apply to human children.

I hope I never get busted with my 'full-quiver" (that's apparently LDS-speak for 5 offspring) of dogs, but if I do, you'll hear about it because I'll sue the community, arguing that the ordinance should also apply to human kids in a dwelling!

.......couldn't agree more....... I'll take a neighbor with 5 dogs anytime vs one with 5 "rug-rats". And as far as "having 5 wives" as some of a certain 'religious persuasion' are rumored to have.............I'll pass on that situation......."life is way too short"