Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have always found it interesting that the government sets a limit on cats....but not children.
Does that make any sense?
Too many people would protest. But the day will come, sometime in the future, where the number of children (think China) will have to be regulated by the Gov. This earth can only carry so many human beings.
Limiting the number of pets is common here in FL (we're snow-birds here for the winter) in the gated communities. It prevents pet hoarding they claim. Some of the communities only allow 2 pets per household. Where we're staying there is no limit, but they, cats and dogs, are not allowed to run loose.
What a stupid law, big brother government . I swear if I did not know better I think our government wants our people to start a revolution . Big brother is already in our business enough I dont want the government telling me what I can and cannot own . God who is above mans law decides what I can and cannot have . Yes this certainly does create more turn ins and euthanasia ..
Any cats or dogs over the number are usually grandfathered in. They don't require you to have them euthanized or to find homes for them. But when the "extras" die, you can't replace them.
All the towns around here I'm aware of have restrictions on the number of animals. My old town limited them to 2, although people would have 4 dogs out in the yard and the cops would drive by all the time and say nothing (and many of these people were black so there wasn't any discriminatory enforcement on that basis). My current town limit is 5, although I'm probably one of the few people that actually has 5 animals. I don't like it either, as long as there are rules that can allow investigation into true hoarding situations.
The problem with mandatory spay/neuter is that in this economy, no locality is likely to start offering free services, and the low cost alternatives here locally do a lot of business, but there are still lots of people that don't even want to spend $40-50, even when transportation is offered for the pet. These people might be reluctant to take their cat or dog to the vet except in emergency, for fear of being caught with an intact animal. OTOH a lot of these people probably don't take their pet in except for emergencies anyway.
Some cities do have cat licensing on the books now, yes. (I think they probably do this to appease dog owners who complain that cats don't have to be licensed, but I dunno.) I don't need one where I am but I have heard of this.
I am not aware of a limit in my suburban to rural transition area, but in the nearby city of Pittsburgh they have a 5 pet limit. It's a combination limit for cats and dogs, so you can't have more than 5 of those total. They do not have a cat license requirement though.
Why would they be killed if s/n were free? The owners would be required to get the pet fixed and it wouldn't cost them anything. They could be given something like a year to comply.
How is this happening for free? Are you speaking of in the future, after we get rid of the first wave of unaltered animals? Because right now there's no way it would be free and in many places, it wouldn't even possible to offer low-cost for more than a small number of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by =^..^=
Think how many pups can be born in those three years the pet is intact - at 2 litters a year. What about cats? Also, we're discussing cats, not large breeds of dogs. When someone adopts a cat and fails to have it s/n, they are irresponsible. There is no reason to wait until the cat has already had a litter or two to get it spayed.
A person can have an unaltered animal and not allow it to breed. Unaltered is not synonymous with breeding OR a poor pet owner. There are animals that cannot be altered with health ramifications, including risk of death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by =^..^=
No one said to kill them. First, it would be free or almost free. Why would the owners have them killed? Look how many kittens will die in the future if they're not spayed.
This isn't why pets die in shelters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by =^..^=
I read that the number of cats turned into shelters where it's mandatory has dropped significantly.
It hasn't (and even if it did, euthanasia rates didn't because again...failure to s/n isn't why pets die in shelters.)
Santa Cruz, CA- Claims to have a 50% drop in shelter intake. This is an outright lie contradicted by the shelter's mandatory reporting to the state. Both intake and euthanasia have risen.
San Mateo County, CA- Euthanasia rose in parts of the state under the ordinance in the years it dropped in others
Los Angeles, CA- Euthanasia rates continue to climb after the passage of s/n- when before the passage, they were steadily dropping
And on and on. The other very predictable result is that in every city/town that passes s/n, licensing rates immediately drop off. People can't afford the fine, so they don't license their pets. In Fort Worth, this resulted in a rise in rabies cases after the passage of s/n...the law was repealed because of this (and because it simply did not work)
And when speaking of cats, mandatory s/n will never reach the majority of unaltered cats because they aren't owned...the majority of unaltered cats are ferals.
Aside from the far extremists like PETA, national advocacy groups don't support mandatory s/n, including the ASPCA, Alley Cat Alleys, and Best Friends. Veterinary groups don't support it, including The American Veterinary Medical Association and the American College of Theriogenologists (who are dedicated to studying spaying and neutering.)
How is this happening for free? Are you speaking of in the future, after we get rid of the first wave of unaltered animals? Because right now there's no way it would be free and in many places, it wouldn't even possible to offer low-cost for more than a small number of people.
A person can have an unaltered animal and not allow it to breed. Unaltered is not synonymous with breeding OR a poor pet owner. There are animals that cannot be altered with health ramifications, including risk of death.
This isn't why pets die in shelters.
It hasn't (and even if it did, euthanasia rates didn't because again...failure to s/n isn't why pets die in shelters.)
Santa Cruz, CA- Claims to have a 50% drop in shelter intake. This is an outright lie contradicted by the shelter's mandatory reporting to the state. Both intake and euthanasia have risen.
San Mateo County, CA- Euthanasia rose in parts of the state under the ordinance in the years it dropped in others
Los Angeles, CA- Euthanasia rates continue to climb after the passage of s/n- when before the passage, they were steadily dropping
And on and on. The other very predictable result is that in every city/town that passes s/n, licensing rates immediately drop off. People can't afford the fine, so they don't license their pets. In Fort Worth, this resulted in a rise in rabies cases after the passage of s/n...the law was repealed because of this (and because it simply did not work)
And when speaking of cats, mandatory s/n will never reach the majority of unaltered cats because they aren't owned...the majority of unaltered cats are ferals.
Aside from the far extremists like PETA, national advocacy groups don't support mandatory s/n, including the ASPCA, Alley Cat Alleys, and Best Friends. Veterinary groups don't support it, including The American Veterinary Medical Association and the American College of Theriogenologists (who are dedicated to studying spaying and neutering.)
Here in NYC, we Certified Trap Neuter Return Rescuers (TNR Certified) get amazing help with s/n of both ferals and friendly, even housecat, cats. I am about to take my totally tame 5 month old kitten in a carrier, not even a trap, on Jan 20, to a local ASPCA van pick up for her spay: Cost: $5! Rabies included! It costs very little for the microchip ($25), FVRCP shot ($10 or $15), etc. Same fees apply to ferals presented in traps and they of course get ear tipped.
But when you do a lot of cats, as many TNR certified rescuers do, it all adds up. Many rescuers are single people who work in modest jobs, etc. It is hard to pay for all that daily feeding of your feral cats outdoors if you are conscientious and give them even Friskies wet (not just dry) and then have to pay for all those fees, which are amazingly low.
The ASPCA does these services only due to donations to help them operate the brick and mortar spay/neuter clinic that they have for rescuers who are certified.
Imagine: It costs so much more if you even use a Friends of Animals certificate: All said and done it is over $200 for one cat, if you pay for the (necessary) "extras".
Here in NYC, we Certified Trap Neuter Return Rescuers (TNR Certified) get amazing help with s/n of both ferals and friendly, even housecat, cats. I am about to take my totally tame 5 month old kitten in a carrier, not even a trap, on Jan 20, to a local ASPCA van pick up for her spay: Cost: $5! Rabies included! It costs very little for the microchip ($25), FVRCP shot ($10 or $15), etc. Same fees apply to ferals presented in traps and they of course get ear tipped.
But when you do a lot of cats, as many TNR certified rescuers do, it all adds up. Many rescuers are single people who work in modest jobs, etc. It is hard to pay for all that daily feeding of your feral cats outdoors if you are conscientious and give them even Friskies wet (not just dry) and then have to pay for all those fees, which are amazingly low.
The ASPCA does these services only due to donations to help them operate the brick and mortar spay/neuter clinic that they have for rescuers who are certified.
Imagine: It costs so much more if you even use a Friends of Animals certificate: All said and done it is over $200 for one cat, if you pay for the (necessary) "extras".
TNR (as opposed to mandatory s/n) actually DOES make a difference. Shelters that don't have a program to deal with ferals (and either ignore them or kill them) are a major source of the 'overpopulation' problem. If you ever want to make a dent in the number of cats being born, you have to look at the ferals and tame community cats first.
You know, some posters may attack me over it, I don't really care. I have been a cat lover all of my life and I definitely still am. I don't see the problem with limiting the amount of cats a person has. When cats are not s/n, the population, even in one home can really get out of hand.
Many people love their pets, but I am quite sure not all of these people can afford to s/n them. Growing up we never had the first animal s/n. I got my first cat at about 7 years old g/t, then my brother got one close to the same time and my Lord the empire began. The empire of Blackie and Spot. Look, I didn't care. I was a little girl surrounded by kittens at all times. What was not to love? Many of them were outdoor cats.
It truly got out of hand. We moved to a different state when I was about 15 and it was out in the country. My dad had 27 cats. He was an older man, and he fed them, loved them, etc, but it was just too many.
My mom did not like cats, and she sure didn't like the presents we were always getting from them.
No offense to my c-d friends with many cats, if you can care for them, more power to ya and give them all a kiss from me! I think 4 cats is more than enough. I would love to have another cat or 2 but Kitty Katty won't allow it!
Anyone see Hoarders? Many of those people have dead cats under all that crap. Dead kittens. Dead who knows what. I think for situations like this, while extreme, the limit makes sense.
A big problem is not everyone is s/n their pets nor are they getting them the proper care.
A big problem is not everyone is s/n their pets nor are they getting them the proper care.
But setting limits on numbers doesn't prevent either of the above situations. The limit is the same whether the animals are s/n or not. There are many people who can afford proper care for more than 4 cats...and there are many people who can't afford proper care for even one.
One of our best clients at my hospital was a woman with fourteen cats. Because she had gotten most of them around the same time, the majority were growing old together and developing health conditions common to older cats.
This woman never missed a vet appointment. If a cat sneezed funny, she knew about it and took action. She had spreadsheets tracking meds, food, and litter box habits. She wasn't terribly rich either, just smart about her money and aware that treating small problems could help prevent big ones from developing. And she was absolutely dedicated to those cats.
On the flipside, I once had an owner sign over a cat named Ash after he got an abscess. She couldn't pay for treatment and couldn't keep him inside while it healed. For her, one cat was too many...not just money-wise, but dedication wise as well.
Right now, three cats would be my comfortable limit in terms of caring for them financially. For another person, two cats would be really straining things. A town setting a limit at two cats would prevent a third cat from getting a good home with me, and wouldn't save the two cats that were suffering at my neighbor's. Instead of limiting numbers, the goal should be to make sure the animals are taken care of- however many there are.
As for hoarding...it's a mental illness that is unaffected by pet limits. You can set all the laws you want, a hoarder will still hoard.
We have such laws where I live. Where it comes into play most of the time is when you take your pets into the vet for care. So again, it makes things more difficult for those who actually care for their pets while Bubba Gump who's cats never see a vet seem to never have a problem.
For example - our cities make a vet's office report in when a rabies licence is given - it's illegal here to have an unvaccinated animal and you MUST have a city licence for your pet as well. They pay a 3rd party to cross reference the rabies, with city licences and how many animals you own.
We had a client at the hospital I worked for with about 12 cats (we have a 5 pet limit dogs/cats combined) She kept them under multiple accounts and addresses (who knows maybe family?) They were VERY well cared for!!
The flaw in the system is that if you NEVER register a puppy or kitten and NEVER give them a rabies you are kind of off the hook. The vet has nothing to report because I don't think they have to report a refusal (as of yet). Where as if you STOP the licence or STOP the rabies then you're on a hit list. You also get nasty grams in the mail if you want to get a city licence but refuse a rabies vax. It's just a pain in the butt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
