Pet Guardianship Laws

hiitdogs

hiitdogs

Cathlete
I know there are a lot of pet owners and pet lovers on this forum and I wanted to post this as a warning for everyone to watch their local legislation.

As many of you know, I have 5 Mini Aussies and a small cat. A couple of months ago I was going over 15 rounds with my Homeowner's Association. Whereas my CC&Rs say that we can own a "reasonable" amount of pets, my HOA received a complaint by a not so nice neighbor of mine and I was notified that I owned more than a reasonable amount of pets and I needed to "dispose" of some of them. Now that's nice wording.

Well, geeh, what is a reasonable amount of pets anyway? A reasonable amount for someone who doesn't have a clue, maybe one dog. My dogs never have been a nuisance, no barking, I pick up the dog poop EVERY day, no problems, no anything. Aside from that one neighbor who seems to have a personal axe to grind with me, none of the other neighbors even realized that I have 5 dogs. And they did make it VERY clear to the HOA that there has never ever been an issue.

Anyway, several letters went back and forth between me and the HOA. My argument was that under the current legislation pets are "personal property" and the HOA had no legal right based on their CC&Rs or bylaws to restrict my personal property as long as my personal property does not effect the majority of the neighbors in a negative way. Fortunately, I didn't have to get a lawyer involved and my own legal background was sufficient to make them back off and other than postage and a lot of aggrevation, it didn't cost me anything.

A couple of days ago, I found out that some animal rights groups have moved to pass legislation in my area to change pet ownership to guardianship. Now that sounds great. However, what is does, is not only make my argument with the HOA null and void but also put all of us pet owners in jeopardy.

For example, I took one of my dogs to the vet on Monday because he has been limping on and off. They did a basic exam and then told me x-rays would be necessary. Well, I anticipated that. BUT the price tag was almost $ 1,000, $ 998.82 to be exact - GASP!!!!! I have another vet that is about 1.5 hours away from where I live and I already have x-rays scheduled with that vet for 4-11 for both of my pups to get their hips certified (OFA) price tag $ 100 to $ 150. Really a no-brainer, right??? Not so fast!!!

If the guardianship legislation goes through, the state, the county, any animal welfare group, a private citizen, etc. could either sue me (if the vet reports me) to force me to do the expensive x-rays OR my dog(s) could be confiscated and I have no recourse, NONE!!!! If the legislation goes through, technically any vet that is not into my feeding schedule (raw and homemade) and about 70 % in our state are recommending nothing but the kibble diet (which I think is not good). So if the legislation goes through as proposed, technically my state could REQUIRE me to feed a kibble diet or confiscate my dogs, if I don't comply.

Now, this legislation has already swept several counties in CA, OR and RI, introduced by PETA and other animal rights groups. Whereas I am the first one to scream for animal rights at the top of my lungs, this is completely and utterly ridiculous!!!!

Anyway, just watch out in your states and counties and be aware. Pet Guardianship sounds really warm and fuzzy, BUT there ARE serious drawbacks.
 
Thank you for the info. I'll be on the look out for it.

Janie

4760884_bodyshot_175x233.gif
[/url]
The idea is to die young as late as possible.
 
Just another example of the government getting involved where it doesn't belong. With all the cases of animal abuse out there, why make life more difficult for the genuinely caring pet owner? Crazy.

Sparrow

Even after all this time the earth never says to the sun, "you owe me." Look what happens with a love like that.

It lights the whole sky.

- Hafiz
 
Well, here's the thing about this kind of stuff. While most of us are responsible pet owners & care for them as if they're our family, there are some who do not & they kind of ruin it for everyone else.

We have an ordinance that restricts single family homes to five pets. I've seen some really horrible situations that have made this ordinance absolutely necessary. Recently we had an elderly woman who owned 5 dogs. She couldn't care for them, much less herself. I had 2 people from 2 separate utility companies stop in my office after being in her house telling me something had to be done--there was feces all over the floor, the dogs were uncared for & running wild, & there were piles & piles of clothes in her basement that were hard as a rock from being peed on so much.

In another case, we have a woman who owns 5 pitbulls & keeps them in her garage. She trains them to be aggressive. She's had 2 dogs put down in the last 5 years b/c they've had more than 2 instances of biting (postal deliverers, our ACO officer, & once one of our police officers who actually had to shoot the dog). Every time she loses a dog, she replaces it with another poor animal.

So, I don't know the answer to this situation, it's a toughie. On the one hand people who truly care for animals should be allowed to rescue them & give them good homes. On the other hand, how do you prevent people who don't care for animals or are incapable of owning that many?

Typically laws like this are passed for good reasons. Unfortunately it's one of those cases of the poor behavior of a few punishing everyone else.
 
Hi Laura,

In the instances you cited, were those situations actually addressed and resolved by animal control?

I think the problem in cases like those is that there are probably already animal neglect/abuse laws in place that could cover those situations, but they aren't being enforced because the departments that cover animal control, etc are usually terribly underfunded and understaffed.

I've done research on pet guardian laws in the past, and they always seem to have the unintended effect of punishing the responsible owner. If government wants to help, they should start properly enforcing the animal welfare laws they already have.
 
Gayle--addressed, yes; resolved, no. State law--especially in NJ--pretty much goes by the philosophy that "a woman's home is her castle." State law allows up to 5 pets & right now there's absolutely nothing we can do to prevent people from having animals, regardless of their history. Municipalities are not allowed to pass ordinances that are more restrictive than state law.

The only thing we can do is react after the fact, as with the woman with the revolving passel of pitbulls. Eventually we got the SPCA involved because someone (as in ME!) suggested we stop using the "aggressive dog" approach & use the animal welfare approach. The fact that they were living in her garage was enough to qualify as animal cruelty. The problem is unless we have staff constantly monitoring her or receive a complaint, she can go right back to her old habits & probably has.

We managed to get the elderly lady out of her house & into an assisted living community, but only after all of her utilities were shut off & we could get in under "unsafe health conditions" (no running water being the main trigger here--EWWWW!). Her dogs went to various acquaintances in the area, poor things.

So, with all that said, the problem is we're dealing with individual rights vs. animal welfare laws. Kind of the opposite of your position, since people's rights, regardless of their treatment of animals, will trump animal welfare laws in all but the most extreme situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top