Every Pet Deserves A Good Home…

Massachussetts Town Puts Limits on Cat Ownership

Cat Collage

A Massachusetts town has made it illegal to own more than three cats without getting a special license. Voters at a town meeting in Dudley added language to a town bylaw on Monday night that makes it illegal to own more than three cats without a $50 residential kennel license.

DUDLEY Massachusetts has made it illegal to own more than three cats without getting a $50 residential kennel license. Voters at a town meeting in Dudley added language to a town bylaw on Monday night in response to a neighborhood feud over the 15 cats owned by Mary Ellen Richards.

The Telegram & Gazette of Worcester reports that ‘one’ neighbor claimed the cats have ruined his yard.  (When you get complaints from only one person… the problem is usually the complainer!!)

Richards has put her home up for sale and says she plans to move to a “more cat-friendly community.”

Dudley is about 60 miles southwest of Boston.

This is not a good thing at a time when the kennels, shelters and rescues are over-flowing with animals of all types!!

This is just another example of taking the easy way out, punishing everyone (especially the cats/pets) and avoiding responsibility and leadership by making another restrictive law to punish everyone (or the people they choose to apply it to) instead of addressing the issue at hand, which is what leadership is all about and what our country is lacking!  Plus they add just another fee to their coffers and people’s lives that would go a long way toward cat food for hungry pets.

Generally 15 cats is too many… but 3 is too little for a true pet lover who is rescuing, fostering and keeping animals from being euthanized!!  And in today’s tough times, every incident must be looked at on an individual basis.  JOMP believes that this should be the rule everywhere!!

Animal and Pet Owner advocates and organizations everywhere should be advocating to remove the restrictions on pets and move back to a case by case basis, only if there are health or abuse violations, or at least put pressure on all counties, cities, municipalities, communities and homeowner’s associations to up the amount of pets allowed to be owned or taken care of in their community on a per person basis to at least 4 to 6 before requiring a license and to stop certain communities for restricting their residents to 1 or 2.

In Orange Country CA a lady, living in a senior community, who had one dog and one cat promised her friend that if anything happened to her, she would take her pets… also one dog and one cat, because she had no relatives to take them.  Over the next year the community changed their rules to only allowing one pet; both old ladies had to hide their cats, restricting their social interactions.  And when the second elderly woman died, the “community” would not make an accepting for the surviving friend to take her friends elderly dog.  The woman hired a attorney, using up a good part of her funds to fight the community and still lost.  She had to sell her home (at a loss in this market) and move to a rental to keep her promise and save the lives of her friend’s two pets).  This should never happen!  I know of other stories where pets have been put to sleep because a friend in a senior or restricted community could not rescue them and there were not takers quick enough to rescue them from the shelter.  (All shelters and rescues should have a no kill policy… otherwise they are neither a shelter nor a rescue!!).

These kinds of rules and laws allow officials to be cowardly, enforcement agents to be overwhelmed, pet owners to be dishonest and creates enough fear or monetary distress for those that follow unfair rules to cause more pets to be euthanized.  The woman in this case is now moving, but the residents of this town are stuck with the law and fee.

If you have the means, the room and the love in your heart, every American should be allowed to adopt or rescue just one or two more pets.  If everyone adopted just one more pet the situation in our shelters would improve greatly… helping the local governments where they live and helping us move to doing the right thing by all pets and animals.  As Dr. Laura says… Now go do the right thing!!

Call Dudley Massachusetts and tell them to revoke this law and start working in your area, and nationally to have similar restrictions relaxed or removed!!! We are becoming a country of restrictions instead of a land of freedoms!

Ask Marion/JOMP

Source:  AOL news

Posted:  Just One More Pet


Tell Gaston Co NC Anima Control NO to Gas, etc – Same in Michigan!!

Florida’s Idea of Cat Population Control

PetSmart to Hold National Adoption Event

Judge Rules:  NYC Must Create More Animal Shelters

Is Your Pet a Voiceless Victim of the Tanking Economy?

Adopt Just One More Pet… MV Shelter Reduces Cat and Kitten Adoption Fees …

Where there is a will…

Homeless With Pets… Choosing Pets Over Shelter

California: Protest Governor’s Plan to Cut Shelter Funding!

Chinese City’s “One Dog” Policy Has Residents Howling

Humane Society list of pet financial aid-related organizations


And here we thought Chicago’s attempt to pass a five-dog limit was controversial!

Adopt Just One More…MV Temporarily Reduced Adoption Fees

Community Cats in the Spotlight

November 5, 2009 Posted by | Animal or Pet Related Stories, animals, Change Number of Pet Restrictive Laws. Ordinances and Rules, Just One More Pet, Pet Adoption, Pet Friendship and Love, Pet Owner's Rights, Pets, Political Change, Stop Euthenization, Uncategorized, We Are All God's Creatures | , , , , | 1 Comment

Stop California SB 250 – Save Our Dogs and Our Rights

I hate “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” as much as the next gal, but you know, when big hunks of blue stuff dotted with clouds are crashing into your head while you walk across the street, what are you gonna do?

So, Californians who think that medical decisions about your animals should be made by you and your veterinarian and not the good folks in Sacramento, please check out this action alert from Laura Sanborn of Save Our Dogs, who says that despite recent amendments, the core provisions of California’s SB 250 are unchanged — and very similar to the defeated mandatory spay/neuter bill, last year’s AB 1634:

Violate an animal control law even once and you may never be allowed to own an intact dog ever again. One violation and your intact licenses can be denied or revoked at any time, forever. No one can have intact dogs under those conditions. Suppose your county unknowingly hires a PETA member as head of animal control. In an effort to balance the budget, this person revokes and denies all intact licenses, including yours, generating millions of dollars in fines. He/She is fired six months later but it’s too late, your dogs have already been surgically sterilized. It’s not possible to reattach the parts even if they decide to give you back your licenses.

This will cost local jurisdictions money. Say you get a citation for some minor animal control infraction. No longer can you just pay the ticket.  You have to fight tooth and nail every step of the way to preserve your future right to own intact dogs. If you lose you either get out of dogs or leave the state. Instead of getting a check for $50 in the mail, the county will have to hold a hearing, and maybe an appeal hearing, go to court, etc. In the end the county will pay thousands in staff costs to collect one $50 fine. It’s only $50 to the county, but it is your life with your dogs to you so you’ll do whatever it takes.

The new fees for having intact licenses denied or revoked almost seem designed to drive dog owners underground. The state has a poor licensing compliance rate already, 10-30% compared to over 90% in Calgary. If you apply for a license and it is denied, you can be charged an additional fee for having the license denied. Maybe the local agency doesn’t charge such a fee now, but they may when it is time for renewal. Just one more thing to drive people away. And of course what will they do if you don’t pay the fee? Impound and kill your dogs, of course. You can’t even sell your dogs or give them away. You have to have a intact license to do that.

All these new fees and punishments will be enforced with the threat of impounding your dog. Any law that impounds owned dogs or increases the cost of redeeming impounded dogs will kill dogs. Most owned dogs that are forcibly impounded are ultimately killed. Taking dogs from their owners is usually a death sentence. Increasing the costs to redeem a dog, especially with an 11% statewide unemployment rate, will kill dogs. Before they are killed, the impounded dogs will sit in the shelter for the state mandated waiting period. The state is required by the existing Hayden Act reimbursement mandate to pay local governments for this cost. The state already pays over $20 million a year for this reimbursement. How many more fire fighters, police officers, teachers, and nurses will have to be laid off to cover the addition reimbursement the state will have to pay out if SB 250 passes?

We fail to see the point of this bill. There is no action that is currently legal that SB 250 makes illegal. All it appears to accomplish is give local animal control the power to forcibly spay/neuter as many dogs as possible. What it does do is make responsible pet owners afraid of their local animal control agency. This will reduce licensing compliance and licensing fee income. It will increase the cost of enforcement. Fewer dogs will be adopted because the public will avoid contact with the shelters. More dogs will be impounded. More dogs will be killed.

SB 250, The Pet Owner Punishment Act, just kills dogs and strips pet owners and people in general of another right.

This is a terrible and stupid law. It will not do what it claims to want to do, and it will worsen the lives of pet owners, cost money, and kill pets. Please follow these simple action steps and help stop SB 250. Act now!

UPDATE: Gina mentioned this in the comments, but I’m adding it here, too: Alley Cat Allies is urging Californians to contact their legislators to speak against SB 250, saying it will hurt stray, homeless, and feral cats. You can read their take on it, and use their action tool, here.

Source:  PetConnection.com

SB 250 – full Senate votes this week!

Posted:  Just One More Pet

Related Articles:

June 2, 2009 Posted by | Animal Rescues, Just One More Pet, Pet Blog, Pet Owner's Rights, Pets, Political Change, Stop Euthenization | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments