Rosenthal and Koretz Propose Raising Pet Limit to 5

Since the start of the recession, the rate of abandonment of dogs and cats has increased throughout the State as a result of the economy and home foreclosures. It was reported that in City shelters these factors have contributed to a 20% increase in the rate of animal impounds.

The City has undertaken efforts to reduce the rate of stray animals and increase pet adoptions. In February 2008, the City adopted a Spay and Neuter Ordinance that requires all cats and dogs in the City to be spayed or neutered after the age of four months. In addition, the City Council assists animal rescue organizations to facilitate pet adoptions through its "Adopt a Pet" Program.

However, there is one barrier that prevents animal adoptions - the City's limit on the number of animals a person may own. Currently, under the City's Municipal Code, a City resident may only own and register up to three catsand!or dogs. For a City resident to have more than three cats and!or dogs the resident must qualify as a kennel and have a kennel permit.

Clearly, this limitation is preventing stray cats and dogs from finding homes and potentially putting them at risk to be euthanized.

Raising the number of dogs and!or cats that a City resident may have from three to five would have several benefits. First, it would provide stray animals with homes and keep them from being euthanized in City shelters. Second, it could raise revenue for the City through additional animal registration fees. Therefore, appropriate steps should be taken to raise the number of dogs and/or cats that a City resident may own from three to five.

I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Attorney be requested to amend the Municipal Code to raise the number of dogs and/or cats that a City resident may own from three to five.


Anonymous said...

This good, 5 is a very reasonable number of pets to own.The new limit would assume that you have a responsible guardian that takes adequate care of these pets and is considerate of the neighbors.

Anonymous said...

Rosendahl, you mean? The councilman from CD 11?

Anonymous said...

Pet limits or no limits do not cause animal neglect, abuse or hoarding. Animal neglecters, abusers and hoarders would do those illegal things if the limit were zero or 1,000. It's like having a speed limit of 65. There will still be crazy people going 100. They know it's illegal, dangerous and bad but they do it anyway. If they raised the speed limit to 100 tomorrow, I would still only go 65 maximum because I feel that is safer. Changing the limit would not change what the rational and caring person does.

Enforcement will be the same as it is now. People can report others for animal neglect and abuse whether they have one cat or 100. There are some people who can humanely care for 20 cats. There are some people who can't even care for one cat properly.

People also can still report health hazards caused by pets such as letting cats pee and poo all over someone's backyard, dogs off leash, dangerous dogs. Setting a higher limit number will not change this.

I feel a slightly higher limit number will get rid of the harassment complaints. One person doesn't like someone else. They know they have five cats and report them for having too many cats. The person is told to get rid of two. They go to the shelter and are killed.

I'd also like to see kennel permits allowed in residential areas with restrictions. You can get a wildlife permit in a residential area. You can have a lot of coyotes, bobcats, eagles, pelicans and raccoons. Why not domestic cats and dogs? They can set that limit at 20 cats, 10 dogs with inspections. Cats must be indoor or in enclosures in the rear yard. Dogs cannot create a barking nuisance. Poop must be cleaned daily. They can charge for the new kennel permit and make more money. Then rescuers wouldn't have to hide their animals. They wouldn't have to worry about other jealous rescuers or exboyfriends turning them into animal control just to be mean.

Anonymous said...

Fewer animals would be abandoned and killed if landlords permitted pets. Why couldn't there be a condition in a lease/rental agreement that if a pet presents any problem on the premises, the renter will have to rehome the pet or move. But, at least, allow a pet on a trial basis. Young children and teenagers can be far more destructive and annoying than a lot of pets.

Anonymous said...

There should not be a number attached to the limit. It should be based on conditions not numbers.

Ed Muzika said...

San Diego allows unlimited indoor cats. I talked to their animal control down there and they do not finding hoarding a big problem compared to here where ACTF is finding hoarding with anyone having more than 3 cats.

Santa Monica has no limit on indoor cats either. They never have had much of a problem either. Ask them.

San Diego County allows 6 free roaming cats, or unlimited indoor cats. Ditto on hoarding.

Hoarding and animal neglect are in no way constrained or exacerbated by a low number pet limit.