| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 4813.1 | Another foolish and useless law!! | DELNI::JMCDONOUGH | | Mon Jul 29 1991 13:55 | 34 |
| GOOD!! I personally believe that these "only 3" or "only 2"
ordnances are usually imposed by idiotic bureaucrats with pusilanimous
personalities who are afraid to address the REAL issues regarding pet
ownership. If they'd spend some time on issues such as "Responsible Pet
Ownership" and prevention of abuse instead of counting cats and dogs
that people own, maybe some progress could be made.
I have many cases who came from so-called "homes" that would have
passed this ignorant sort of ordnance, but the animals were severely
neglected and/or abused byt these so-called "law abiding" citizens.
I don't condone the situations where older people have 3 nd 4 hundred
cats and/or dogs and are unable to care properly for the, but I firmly
believe that it is up to the people who are able and willing to care
properly for animals as to how many they are willing to give homes to.
Putting numbers on this sort of thing may alleviate the consciences of
the bureaucrats who impose such stupid laws, but it solves nothing. I
for one APPLAUD the pet owners who fiercely cried "FOUL!!!" in this
particular case.
I have 11 dogs....a Mass State law states that over 7 dogs requires
me to have a "kennel license". However, the towns are allowed to set
rules WAIVING the kennel license requirement if a person is not raising
and/or selling animals. I'm doing neither, and all of my animals that
require licenses have them, so I save about $200.00 per year due to
some intelligent town management. Yet some cities restrict owners to 2
dogs, and do little or nothing to control the 65% of owners who don't
even bother to get licenses or they let their animals become
neighborhood maurauding nuisances.
But I guess they don't attract the most "intelligent" people to
government, unfortunately!!
John Mc
|
| 4813.2 | | CECV03::GASKELL | | Mon Jul 29 1991 17:37 | 14 |
| Small!!!!!! bowl of food?
Mine have never settled for "small" anything.
Don't ask for love?
I have scars to prove that mine ask for attention in the shape of love
all the time.
Hope people remember who made this stupid regulation and decline to
vote for them come next election. Under the "three" rule I would have
been trouble most of my life--I would go to jail (or probably leave the
state) rather than give up one of my kitties.
|
| 4813.3 | | USDEV1::NDC | Putiput Scottish Folds DTN:297-2313 | Tue Jul 30 1991 09:27 | 6 |
| re: .1 & .2
Amen and Amen!
|
| 4813.4 | | TENAYA::KOLLING | Karen/Sweetie/Holly/Little Bit Ca. | Tue Jul 30 1991 14:06 | 3 |
| Palo Alto, where I live has a 3 cat max ordinance. Really totally
dumb. I'm not voting for anyone on the city council who voted for it.
|
| 4813.5 | | WILLEE::MERRITT | | Wed Aug 07 1991 14:04 | 29 |
| I do not believe in the cat max ordinance as long as the owners
are responsible and can bear the expense of the cats. I too
would have been thrown out of town a long time ago.
A sad story that our shelter got involved in as to do with an
70 year old cat lover that had approximatley 40 cats at her house.
There is now a court order to get rid of the cats...but I truly
see there point. Priscilla walked in this house and the smell
of pee was unbelievable....the rugs were soaked and squished
when you walked. (there wasn't even a litter box in sight)
The cats were not fixed....and that's how there ended up being 40.
Can you just imagine how many there would be by next year. Well
the cats are beautiful cats (mostly long-haired) but are all
very very skinny.
This lady loves her cats...and cries everytime one is taking
away. Even though I do feel bad for her......we cannot
let this continue for the cats sake. The lady does not
have enough money for food, litter....never mind the
vet expense.
The shelter is taking in about 4-5 cats a week. Each cat is
taken to the vet for a full check up, tests, and is being
fixed. The real sick ones are being put to sleep. Hopefully
we will find these cats a new loving home and give them
the life they deserve. The life at the shelter...has to
be better then the life they led!
Sandy
|
| 4813.6 | Unbelievable! | MODEL::CROSS | | Wed Aug 07 1991 14:35 | 11 |
| Wow, Sandy, that woman sounds incredibly strange. I know she loves her
cat, but how could she stand the filth of her home with 40 whole males
and females using her rugs and floors as their litter box? It defies
explanation!
It's too bad that this had to happen. It's too bad she can't be taught
good hygiene so that her cats could have a good home with her. All the
trauma of separation could probably have been spared had she been
taught how to care for these animals properly.
Nancy
|
| 4813.7 | | COASTL::NDC | Putiput Scottish Folds DTN:297-2313 | Thu Aug 08 1991 09:17 | 3 |
| re: .5 - Priscilla made a comment to me the other day about an $800
vet bill. No doubt she could use some donations to help with this
project.
|
| 4813.8 | | WILLEE::MERRITT | | Thu Aug 08 1991 09:39 | 11 |
| NDC...you are absolutely right...donations would help alot! I
believe the $800 vet bill is for those cats only...because the
entire vet bill is much much more then that.
Sad story....again I do not agree with the Max law...but I believe
it was probably was put in place to stop people like this cat lover.
Can you just imagine...with 40 whole cats...how many she would have
had by next year. Unbelievable!
Sandy
|