L.A. considers increasing the maximum number of dogs and cats that can be owned by residents

We've heard from a number of L.A. animal lovers that they'd love to take in another dog or cat, but they're already at their legal pet limit -- three. A proposal introduced over the summer by City Council members Bill Rosendahl and Paul Koretz would change that. In their motion (PDF), Rosendahl and Koretz argue in favor of raising the legal limit from three dogs and/or cats to five.

"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," the proposal reads in part. "It was reported that in city shelters these factors have contributed to a 20% increase in the rate of animal impounds. ... However, there is one barrier that prevents animal adoptions -- the city's limit on the number of animals a person may own."

Raising the legal limit is an idea supported by the L.A. Department of Animal Services' new general manager, Brenda Barnette, who says the move could help prevent healthy dogs and cats from being euthanized in municipal shelters. Barnette told the L.A. Daily News that her "research shows that communities that have increased or have no pet limits, they're saving more animals' lives, with no more incidence of barking or fighting dogs." She also argues that more pets mean more pet license fees, potentially bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars in new revenue to the city coffers.

Of course, not everyone is in favor of increasing pet limits. Jim Clarke of the Apartment Assn. of Greater L.A. is one major opponent of the proposal, telling KABC News that his group is "concerned about the noise and the quality of life for our tenants. We're concerned about rodents."

Another concern opponents have raised is the wording of the motion, which refers to "[raising] the number of dogs and/or cats that a city resident may own," rather than the number of dogs or cats living in a single household. Opponents fear this could lead to unmanageable -- but legal -- numbers of animals in households where multiple people live.

Phyllis Daughherty of the Animal Issues Movement, who is also against the proposal, argues increasing the legal pet limit in L.A. is "cruel to the animals. It's cruel to people who will have dog packs in the streets." Daughherty predicted outrage from residents if the motion is approved. "L.A. will be known as the Barking City," she told the Daily News.

Others doubt that many pet owners would run out and bring home additional pets and say the proposal, should it pass, would mainly affect pet rescuers.

The L.A. Department of Animal Services held a town meeting for citizens to weigh in on the proposal last week in Van Nuys. Another town meeting takes place Wednesday at the department's West L.A. animal care center, 11361 W. Pico Blvd., beginning at 6:30 p.m.

RELATED PET NEWS:
San Francisco commission puts proposed pet-sales ban on the back burner
Former dogfighting 'bait dog' escapes euthanasia at Southern California animal shelter

-- Lindsay Barnett

Photo: Lefisc / Your Scene

Comments

[catlover46]

There's a limit? I have 14 cats.

[Jillian Clemmons]

I think this is a wonderful idea. As a foster dog mom for my local shelter, I totally support this.

[Susannah2k]

The one barrier that prevents more adoptions is discrimination against dog owners by landlords. Do something about that, elected officials!

[RealisticExpectations]

I love the bit about it "increasing rodents".

Dogs and cats would LOVE to deal with any rodent "issue".

What do they think this is? Tom and Jerry?

[concernedanimallover]

If this law goes into effect then the potential adopter should be screened, financially and to have suitable safe home, so our four legged companions are not neglected due to the fact the person thought they could handle an extra mouth to feed/medical but realize they don't have the money. That's my only concern, people can be selfish and not think first for the pets well being.

Save lives and Adopt!!

Umm I hoped i made sense.

[alan]

my neighbor has 10 cats.

where can I snitch on him?

ten cats produce a lot of poop.

[SDedit]

Jim Clarke's argument makes no sense. In rental units, landlords decide how many pets to allow... and whether to allow pets at all. The change in law is completely irrelevant to landlords. They can still set whatever pet policies they want.

And that Phyllis Daughherty person is completely overreacting, too. Nowhere does it say the new law will allow people to have "dog packs in the streets." Leash laws and animal neglect/abuse laws will still apply.

I do think the allowable number should be based on the number of square feet of the residence, rather than a set number "per person." 5 dogs in a 2500 s.f. house is manageable. 5 dogs in a 400 s.f. studio verges on hoarding.

[Jesse]

New meaning of home of the free and the brave.....

[caroline]

Ventura county's limit is 4 dogs or cats. Then that can be anything from 4 Great Danes living in a condo to 4 indoor cats on 1 acre.

Personally, I think there should be a higher limit on cats, as long as they're spayed/neutered and not causing problems.

[Joe]

Cool. I'll save the life of a cat, as long as it's de-clawed.

[Lowell1]

Jim Clarke of the Apartment Assn. of Greater L.A. is one major opponent of the proposal, telling .... We're concerned about rodents." --generally speaking, cats and dogs, particularly terriers, reduce rodents. Mr. Clarke is apparently unaware of the nature of either cats or dogs.

Another concern opponents have raised is.... unmanageable -- but legal -- numbers of animals --if unmanageable, this in itself is a violation of the existing codes and therefore not an issue.

Phyllis Daughherty...argues increasing the legal pet limit in L.A. is "cruel to the animals. " --because it is SO much more "humane" to kill them in the shelters or prevent their ever being born???

"dog packs in the streets." Daughherty predicted -- The leash law is NOT being revoked. Consequently any dogs in the streets, let alone "packs" of them are no more likely with an increased limit than they are now. But perhaps it is Daughherty and others' view that no one should be allowed ANY pet? Certainly those most shrill in the restrictive regulations are also those who, like Wayne Pacelle of HSUS, would prefer NONE: " We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals". LA has bigger issues than the monitoring of the number of pets people own. Get out of people's homes and back into reasonable government.

[L.A. Voter]

Joe, I'm going to guess most cats would pass on your quite cruel offer. De-clawing involves not merely removing claws but cutting off the first joint of a cat's toes, resulting, at best, in a cat who has no way to defend him- or herself if they somehow get outside, and at worst, in crippling deformities and continual pain.

BTW, could someone at the Times please check into Phyllis Daugherty's self-asserted credentials? She is well-known for inserting herself into every animal issue in L.A., but has often, as in this case, fallen short of the full facts. As other readers have pointed out, she blithely asserts that increasing pet limits from three to five would result marauding packs of dogs and plummeting property values, but fails to show one whit of evidence to support these inflammatory claims.

Similarly, last year she asserted to the City Council that since private rescues and shelters charge adoption fees they were in fact "selling" animals and should therefore no longer be allowed fee waivers that let them pull animals from City shelters for free. The City Council, having no idea how little they knew about rescue, promptly started making threatening noises about shelters "profiteering" on L.A.'s homeless animals. But Daugherty deliberately omitted key facts, like the fact that private shelters and rescues routinely pull animals who need extensive vet care for injuries and illnesses that would make them immediate candidates for euthanasia in City shelters. She also omitted the fact that in the interim from pulling the animal from the shelter to finding a new, suitable home for it, that animal must be housed, fed, socialized, spay/neutered and often behaviorally or medically rehabilitated. Since no one in L.A. could possibly be under the impression that food, shelter and vet care are free it has to be that these omissions of basic facts were deliberate. Once these factors were (belatedly) pointed out to City Councilmembers they hurriedly backed off, but the smears had done their damage.

There needs to be accountability for deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting the truth in a public forum.

[Dr.Rosset]

There is nothing in this proposal that would override landlords restrictions. Also, these naysayers don't believe in property rights or your rights as a citizen. They seem to be unable to care for their own pets so they assume others cannot. None of the comments from those who oppose this raise in limits are rationale in any way. In fact it seems that they are stretching to find a legitimate reason for opposing what should be your right as a citizen to decide for yourself. Right now LA is known as the anti dog and cat city around the world thanks to people like Judy and Daughtry who see everyone who owns an animal as an abuser. Its time to stop these draconian laws and quit seeing everyone who loves animals as a puppy miller. The AVMA recently stated that 98% of the breeders take extremely good care of their animals and we have enough laws on the books in this country to take care of the less than 2% who don't, without punishing families and their family pets. The campaigns to mislead the public into getting rid of all pet shops, breeders and all pets who had homes before this pet limit law went into effect has been proven to be false. All that was needed was to enforce the laws already on the books, but the goals of these people was to end pet ownership entirely. They call you a petist - thats anyone who enjoys the company of animals, and if you own more than one pet or rescue animals they call you a hoarder. This name calling to slander entire groups of people has got to stop. This is the same action as would fall under hate crimes. We have way to many cases where the cities, HSUS, and the local animal control officers are being sued for false unwarranted searches, false accusations, and other violations of civil rights perpetrated on people who own animals. Right now HSUS is being sued under the RICCO ACT, and by private owners found not guilty of abuse for killing their animals. The HSUS is being investigated by the IRS for illegal lobbying activities. This so called animal welfare group run by former members of PeTA and the ALF spends less than .4% of its 100 million dollars on the direct care of animals. Under cover videos of the sanctuaries it is suppose to take care of were found to be dangerous for the horses with sharp items in pastures and run down buildings. The goals of HSUS and PeTA are to stop all pet ownership, eating of meat and all medical research, and the use of all animal products. But their real threat lies in the hate they spread for those of us who do like living with our pet companions. Its time to stop them before their deranged ideas kill more of our pets.

[James David Adams]

I think you should be able have as many pets you want as long as the pet is taken good care of. I live in Lincoln,Ne and my female dog had puppies and I gave some away . Two of them was abused so I took them back and got them there shots and had them fixed along with the other three and they get this food and care but since I have three dogs already the city says I must get reed of the other four when they are being took care of with great care.I don't think this right and I think this against my civil rights and the rights of my dogs rights to have great loving and caring home. I wish there was something that I could do about this. Please Help me if you can I love my dogs.

[Steve]

This continues to reinforce the fact that California is a police state. I heard LA also has these mandated annual city inspections for apartment residents, so not only did they pass this draconian law, they easily have the means to enter your apartment and enforce this law. What would they honestly do if they caught me with a fourth cat? Throw it in a shelter and put it to sleep when it can't be adopted? What the hell would that accomplish?

Don't worry California.....one day when it comes time to raise kids and start a family, I will be in another state. I am not raising kids here. Speaking of kids, why not have a limit on how many you can have in a residence? Aren't we worried about kids being abused? Kids are messy and unsanitary as well, so there will certainly be a "rodent" problem. Ahaha.