Why we don’t need Pet Limit Laws
The City of Johannesburg has instituted new pet by-laws, whereby the number of cats and dogs which may be kept on a property are limited. These by-laws came into effect as of January 2010.
As far as I can ascertain from reading the by-laws, published on the City of Johannesburg’s website (www.joburg.org.za), people living in flats and townhouses are limited to two dogs and two cats per household and people living in separate houses are limited to four of each. There appears to be some confusion as to the exact definitions regarding properties.
Council officials seem also to be either unaware of the by-laws or unsure as to the exact strictures of the by-laws. When local press contacted Johannesburg city council officials for information they received answers ranging from being unaware of the by-laws to stating the the limit is two pets per property or four pets per property.
To my mind these by-laws are objectionable, and probably also unconstitutional…
Protests from the public and welfare organisations, made at the time pet limits were originally discussed, in 2005/6, were completely disregarded.
The by-laws were applied willy nilly, without any concern for the people who will be affected by them, and without consulting with them. They allow for one particular group, pet owners, to be legally discriminated against.
The by-laws fail to take into account people’s attachment to their animals. Many people love their animals as members of their family or ‘furry kids’. No-one would consider implementing a law stating that parents may only keep a particular number of children and that additional children must be given to friends or left at a state orphanage. Separation from the owner is not only stressful for the owner, but also for the animal. Our pets often form deep attachments to us.
It also needs to be considered that, with the huge numbers of animals in our shelters already looking for homes, owners forced to give up extra animals may have no choice but to leave them at the SPCA, an effective death sentence. The vast majority of animals left at SPCAs around the country are euthanased rather than homed. This is in part due to lack of homes, but also largely due to the draconian and unreasonable adoption polices applied by the SPCA (to be discussed in a future post).
The ostensible reason for the creation of these laws is to reduce animal cruelty and the number of unwanted animals. In practice however, this law will produce just the opposite effect.
This is because the limit applies only to pet owners. Breeders and pet shop owners may keep an unlimited number of dogs and/or cats. In other words, irresponsible breeding may continue unchecked, but the number of homes which may be offered to dogs and cats is reduced. This will increase the number of homeless animals and the number of animals euthanased.
The number of homes and foster homes which may be offered to rescue animals is also reduced, decreasing the number of animals which may be accomodated by shelters and again increasing our euthanasia figures.
The only concern of significance with regard to pet welfare is whether the owner is able to provide quality care for their pets. I.e. that the owner is able to provide adequate space and activity for their pets, as well as nutrition, shelter and veterinary care. This view is supported by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, the largest association of animal professionals in the world. Their position statement can be found here: http://www.apdt.com/about/ps/limit_laws.aspx
When pet limit by-laws were first proposed for Johannesburg, pet owners were promised that those who had more than the limit in terms of pet numbers would be allowed to keep their pets, provided they weren’t ‘replaced’ after the death of a pet. This would only be humane in ensuring that animals who are well cared for and loved can continue to live in their homes. The city has reneged on this promise.
The by-laws state that owners wishing to keep additional animals may apply for a license to do so, however, neither I nor anyone else I know has had any success in getting the proscribed application forms from the council and its seems that they have not yet been created.
The cost and application process also seems to be excessively onerous. The prescribed fee at this stage is, as was reported in the local press, R485 per pet. It therefore seems likely that the council is introducing these licenses in order to obtain another revenue stream, rather than for any genuine concern for animal welfare.
The by-laws state that anyone wishing to apply for a license must complete the prescribed form (the one no-one can get a copy of) and display this notice, outside of their property, no more that one metre away from a public road, for a period of two weeks, so that neighbours may voice their objections if any. In other words, it only takes one neighbour who hates dogs or cats, and your beloved pet is destined for euthanasia at the local SPCA.
Assuming this all goes to plan, the applicant must then, along with proof that the notice has been displayed, go to the police station and create a sworn affidavit stating that the requirements have been complied with. The completed documentation and payment must then be submitted, at which point the council may or may not grant the license. Property inspections may also be done.
This process seems designed to encourage people to either flout the law or to dump their animals in despair, at the very least, this application needs to be made a lot easier.
Anyone found to be in violation of this by-law is threatened with fines, up to six months imprisonment and the confiscation and euthanasia of their pets. Considering, due to the lack of forms, that no-one can even comply with the by-laws yet, one has to question the legality of this or whether the penalties can in fact apply.
In addition, the city’s bureaucracy is overloaded. It seems senseless to add extra functions to a system that is already barely functional. We have existing by-laws dealing with nuisance barking and dangerous dogs, which would allow the community to report problem dogs and for appropriate action to be taken. These additional laws serve no valid purpose.
While the by-laws make provision for breeders and pet shop owners, they do not make any provision for those who are in the front line of ensuring the welfare of the pet population; those who work for animal welfare organisations, those who are involved in rescue and those who take in and provide either permanent or temporary (foster) homes for rescue animals. It is for this group that pet limit by-laws should not apply.
Regards
Candi Moon
O REALLY they should really think of something else to make money or use it for creating jobs for people… they can rather use that people and fine people that don’t take care of their pets or that are abused!!! give them huuuuge fines!!! you will become much richer! please think of job creating as helping and service the community than just giving fines for people that has a few pets… how are they anyway going to control that if they can’t even control your electricity bill!!!
What happens in a Sectional Title community where residents do not apply for permission to keep pets, either dogs or cats? What happens when complaints are received of the dogs barking excessively during the day, and cats roaming and entering other people’s properties and damaging said property?
Despite the basic rule in Sectional Titles stating that you may not keep pets without the written permission of the Trustees, many residents, owners and tenants, simply bring new pets without approval, which results in the Trustees having to sit with the unenviable task of having those pets removed.
Pets in Sectional Title due to the size of the properties should be limited to only one pet per household.
A unit at my complex, has two dogs, left outside all day, I saw no fresh water, and two cats. Left out without any water or food, surely this is not a pet lover but someone who got a pet, and the novelty is no longer there and this person does not have any interest in the pet. The yard has not been cleaned in ages, with pooh everywhere. Incidentally, this owner has not paid levies in over a year.
Rules must be adhered to not only for the animal lovers, but also for those that get a pet for the novelty of it and then just as soon discard it as if it was waste. The law must be reasonable and applicable to all
Being a brand new pet owner I appreciate all the advise listed here. I want my dog to get effectively trained and have a healthy and balanced atmosphere to live in. Bless you for the info.
I have done rescue work with dogs and cats and some of the rescues have stayed either because no one wanted them or they were too old and everyone wants a puppy or kitten. Currently I have 4 dogs and 32 cats and I live on a residential property with my 2 girls. My four legged kids are my life and although I have my two girls my furry kids are just as important to me. My furr kids are on Hills and Montego they always go to the vet for checkups and annually the vet comes to me for the annual check up of all my kids
I will put my life up for my kids and I will NOT allow anyone municaple to try and take one of my kids… With a house hold like that how could anyone even think of telling me that I can only decide on 4 who can stay…
I have read your other posts and all I can say is I will NOT register for this stupid so called permit. If they were doing this for the actual care and feelings towards animals then I could agree with this permit but then they would also go by doing it differently, they would target the people that need to be targeted. Back yard breeders will never be touched so pet shops will always be full
If you are looking after your animal and providing it with everything your baby needs then the council and everyone else should leave us alone… I have seen terrible things being done to animals whilst I was still doing volunteer and foster work those people should not be allowed to have animals full stop.
They should rather make a law that all animals should be sterilised, this way they will not be able to just breed but they should also make sterilisation affordable as the average man on the street who has 1 dog or 1 cat can barely afford sterilisation these days…
The SPCA killed my one baby as she got out by accident, they didn’t even give her 24 hours to try and find her home I was on the phone with the SPCA enquiring about her while they were euthanising her, they will not touch anyone of my kids…
[...] Hopeful Homeless [...]
Candi Moon has answered the reservations in respect of the breeder situation in her update below:
http://candimoon.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/breeders-and-pet-limit-laws/
I think it is unfair on animal lovers. If anything they should implement that all pets should be sterilised to prevent unwanted animals ending up at the local SPCA.
Only registered breeders should be allowed to breed. That will put a stop on the so many mixed breeds due to their owners ignorance or lack of care.
I mean you just have to look on gumtree to find the most unsuitable mixes of puppies looking for homes. eg Husky x boerbull etc etc who is going to take these pups.
Concerned animal lover. I could never choose between any of my dogs they are all part of my family.
Seeing as how my husband and I have 6 dogs, I suppose I fall into the category of people who would vehemently oppose this legislation. Ever since I’ve become aware of the new bylaws, I’ve been very worried about the future of my dogs. Our dogs are a part of the family. As we don’t have children, they are our children. I clean up after them every single day, I buy them the best quality food possible, their vaccinations are all up to date and all of them have been either neutered or spayed. Three of my dogs are rescues – my lab was a stray that my husband and I found when she was a young pup, my swiss shepherd was a ‘give-away’ in dire need of medical care which eventually cost us R3500 to save his life and my little mutt was recently adopted from a shelter. No law or fine or even the threat of imprisonment would ever convince me to part with my kids. When I got them, I took the responsibility for life. It’s cruel to suddenly institute a law that might require me to give two of them up. I totally agree with the suggestion of an online petition and will be the first one to sign up.
Darlene, that would be fine if it was true, and I would love to know who your reliable source is, since that clause was in the draft but not in the final enacted version of the by-laws. Secondly, the proposed arbitrary limits are completely inappropriate – please see my article http://hopeful.ws/2010/04/14/what-were-you-thinking/
Hi there Candi
Thank you for your article. The challenge is that we are looking at the by-laws from the perspective of the animal lover and protector, but local government has to look at the issues from the perspective of differing groups’ intersts and rights. I do like your point about procedures for tackling barking dogs and dangerous animals however. And perhaps this is the right way to approach the issues. There should be by-laws for dealing with the problems that may arise from keeping many animals on properties not taking preventative action like limiting the numbers up front. I wonder how public health protection influences the issues too?
It seems to me that there is scope here and from Derek’s article on the SAPS to start to put together an animal welfare, protection and rescue education training course for local government, the SAPS and others. If a funder could be found, I would be happy to facilitate the process and write the materials. I am a qualified adult educator. What do you and Derek think?
Best wishes
Jan Beeton
I suggest that we protest the laws as was done very successfully in Cape Town. Perhaps we can start a web petition; use Residents’ Associations and local councillors to assist us.
We host Labradors for SA Guide Dogs and currently have two retirees and one young mum to be, plus two cats on a large property. I haven’t a clue where we would fit into the picture. However, were we in a flat, I definitely would not have more than one dog and one cat. Most pet owners are sensible.
I have been informed from a very reliable sourse that this law only applies to obtaining NEW dogs. Should you already have 5 dogs for example, you will not have to give up one dog but WHEN one dog passes on then you may NOT REPLACE this dog. Thus finally getting down and then maintaining the legal number of dogs per property.