My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« The Changing Narrative | Main | Weekly Roundup - Week Ending 8/15/10 (Part 1) »

August 14, 2010



In an effort to look like they're doing something (rather than actually doing something constructive) most enforcement of these types of laws seem to go after the low-hanging fruit. I fail to see how taking away the dogs of a rescuer and precluding her from owning ANY dogs for 4 years benefits anyone.

Were there no actual cases or abuse and/or neglect going on that needed addressed?


I haven't read the reckless owner part of the Omaha ordinance, but it sounds like it's a fixed number of violations in a fixed period that results in punishment. Perhaps the systems needs to be more nuanced making each violation worth a certain point value. If you get too many points in the time period you lose your pet owning privilege. (And no, I don't think "over limit" should incur any points because I don't think there should be a limit. The "limit" should be based on the person being able to provide quality care without disturbing neighbors with odors, noise violations, etc.)


Sacramento, California has a strict limit on the nunmber of dogs one can harbor.

And harboring, according to the AC, is any animal on your property for any length of time.

e.g. You have three dogs, and a friend comes to visit with a dog and leaves it in their car in YOUR driveway, you are over the limit. And if someone reports you, AC will issue a citation.

I wish to hell that I was exaggerating, but that is from the horses mouth. It has put a crimp in foster homes for independent rescues.

The comments to this entry are closed.