A Three Cat Law: Is This Fair?
The sleepy little town of Dudley, Massachusetts, located in Worcester County, in the Worcester metropolitan area, (population in the 2000 census of 10,006) is certainly not feline friendly. In this writer's opinion the town made a terribly tragic mistake last Monday night, when they passed an ordinance making it illegal to own more than three cats without having to obtain a residential kennel license at a cost of $50.00. Voters added this language to the town by-laws, so folks, it is a done deal!
It seems that a neighborhood feud over the 15 cats owned by town resident Mary Ellen Richards is the reason for this ordinance's passage. According to the "Telegram & Gazette of Worcester" one neighbor blamed Ms. Richard's cats for ruining his yard. Another neighbor accused Ms. Richard's cats for being responsible for her two-year-old daughter contracting hand-foot-and mouth disease (Coxsackie virus) from a cat toy that may have come into contact with cat feces.
Ms. Richards who is actively involved with Willy's Kitty Angels Rescue, an organization which traps feral and stray cats to help control the feline population. She takes these cats to free clinics to get them neutered or spayed, and then place them in foster homes outside the town. She says that all of her own cats receive appropriate veterinary care and are current in their vaccinations.
The Town of Dudley is fining Ms. Richards $100 a day for keeping more than three cats in the home she has owned since 1997. In an interview with the "Telegram & Gazette" she said, "This is the worst thing in my life to happen, this whole thing."
In comments made by readers of the newspaper's website, it was obvious that some people strongly supported the town's decision, while some thought it was ridiculous. One commenter, who signed her name as "Cat Mommy" posted, "When will we need licenses to have more than three children? This is stupid. My cats live inside and don't bother anyone. Hope they can sleep at night knowing that some lovely cats will be put to sleep or left outside in the cold now. Shame."
Another reader who was supportive of the ordinance posted, "I fully agree with them having to get a kennel license to have more than three cats. I currently have more than three dogs and in my town I have to have a kennel license for that so why should cats be any different. Especially when cats are allowed to roam free and dogs have to be leashed."
What gets me all riled up, making the hair on the back of my neck bristle is how narrow and limited the thinking was that went into the writing and passage of this legislation. Did the council take the time to consider the impact that this law may have on shelters, especially for cats that are in desperate need of adoptive homes? What effect will this law have on that abandoned orphaned kitten found wandering the streets? I shudder to think about it. What were these lawmakers thinking when they passed this ordinance?
Do you think this ordinance is fair? Leave a comment and share your thoughts.
Recent Posts
Celebrating St. Patrick's Day with your Pets
WEEKLY CUDDLE CHAMPIONS: Monroe and Buckeye
Introducing Caplin: The World's Largest Rodent
Loyal Canine Rescues Drowning Kitty
Shakti: The Cat that Lived Up to her Name
"You're Fat": Vet Hits Me With Hard Truth
The Cat who Owns an R.V.: Luxurious Travel
Lazy Dog Owner Arrested for Walking His Dog
Petside: Get Started
-
- 2010 NCAA Mascot Tournament
Vote for your favorite pet mascots to determine the ultimate NCAA mascot champion!
-
- Find a Breed
Browse dog and cat breeds to find your perfect pal.
-
- Diagnose a Condition
Use PetVet to research what's ailing your pet.
-
- Locate a Hospital
- Find the nearest accredited animal hospital.
Specials
Check out these deals picked by petside.com just for you!
Comments (16)
Ruth from England November 9, 2009 12:18 PM
That is terrible !!! For people who love and look after their cats properly this could make things very difficult.We had 3 cats when a family member died leaving his much loved pet homeless.If we couldn't have taken her in because we had no licence it would have been devastating for us and for her.
The more I learn about the USA and cats, the happier I am to live in good old England !
Andy November 9, 2009 12:26 PM
This is ridiculous. I've never seen cats destroy a person's lawn and yes, the kids could have caught hand/foot desease, but it doesn't mean the cats gave it to her. There are other means of transfering it. As for the limit...I sure hope they put a limit on giving aid to non American born immigrants. Why limit such a thing to everyone just because your mad at one person? I have 4 cats right now. It wasn't planned by all means. I am allowed 2 cats where I live. I had 1, my son moved back home with 3 of his own. Now I have 4 and they are all indoor cats. I don't have a problem and keep them clean, no one's the wiser that I'm smuggling in the other 2. Now if this nice woman that is rescuing, had 100 cats, I could see there would be a problem. It's a free Country isn't it??
Andy ;)
Ruth November 9, 2009 1:43 PM
That city council is whacky. A 3 cat limit? Are they nuts? I can see maybe a 6 cat limit but 3, no way. If the cats are kept inside, like cats ahould be, why is it anyones business how many you own. I'm sure glad I don't live in that city. What's next? A limit on the number of tropical fish you own? Get real and get a life city council members.
Vicki November 9, 2009 2:33 PM
Although I am strongly opposed to anyone dictating to me what I can and can't have on my own property, I do understand that there are people who do abuse that right and are being negligent in owning multiple cats, dogs, etc. In some cases, one bad apple does spoil the whole bunch.
jmuhj November 9, 2009 2:50 PM
This kind of legislation, if passed with the wellbeing of cats rather than the selfish, ignorant and intolerant privilege of cat-haters in mind, may be motivated by people who mean well and who are heartbroken after seeing accounts of abuse and neglect at the hands of hoarders. But such legislation is NEVER positive for cats. There is no limit on the number of children a person may have, and yet the human population is choking this planet, driving species to extinction at an unprecedented rate, and lowering the quality of life for us all. No limit is placed on the number of vehicles one may have, and yet those, as well, have a hugely negative impact on us and on the planet. The number of feline family members one may care for (never "OWN" as living beings should never be thought of or referred to in those terrible terms!) should only be limited by one's ability to properly and responsibly care for them, with love, for life. Legislation can never determine this. Only the individual can.
Amy November 9, 2009 2:53 PM
This very disturbing. First of all I honestly think it is no ones business how many cats you have as long as they are not wandering the neighborhood causing problems. The cats should be kept inside and not be exposed to health problems, accidents and what ever. People who believe that cats should be allowed to wander because it is their "nature" are so wrong. I would rather have my cats in the house where they are safe and not turning up as road kill. You have to recognize that you can not save all the strays, and you have to restrict the number of cats in your own home. Working with rescue groups is a great way to help whenever possible. Remember these places are always in need of towels, blankets,cat beds, toys and litter to operate a clean healthy environment for those they can help.
Iniki November 9, 2009 5:11 PM
This is not a good law or a good trend. That is one of the reasons I try to talk with my neighbors when we have pet problems. No one should be allowed to tell you how many animals you can have as long as you are caring for them properly. I understand the cause behind the law but it is seriously flawed.This community found it easier to fix the problems by shutting up the complaining neighbors than try to solve the real problem. We have already gone through this situation with our goats and sheep when the property next to us was sold and a very fancy house was built. The owners didn't want "Farm" animals near them. We live in a rural agricultural area. The law was on our side.Lets hope this kind of animal control does not continue as a trend.
Stella Gaylor November 9, 2009 5:54 PM
If the cats are cared for, vet checked and healthy and the house is not a smelly, dirty home. I see no problem having more than 3 cats. They must be fed properly and litter boxes attended to.
http://www.rpcathouse.com/
Linda November 9, 2009 8:35 PM
Unfortunately this is not really a free country anymore. The government (at all levels) is not focusing on what really matters for the good of this country. Instead of making laws that protect our children from preditors or getting tough on animal abuse they are now looking in our windows and counting our pets.
Pam November 9, 2009 9:52 PM
I understand the reasoning of some mis-guided person who wants to cut down or eliminate hoarding, but this is just plain wrong. For one thing, it won't stop or eliminate hoarding and two, as long as one's cats are well cared for in a clean, stable (indoor environment) home, it's no one's business how many cats you have. This legislation was proposed by someone who doesn't know, understand or like cats, or cat owners. I agree with those who feel the government is going too far in telling us what we can/cannot do; all our freedoms are being taken away in the name of the "public good."
Diana November 9, 2009 11:10 PM
This law will have a lot of unintended consequense and is a prime example of the reason why laws should not be written to deal with a specific individual or case.
annie November 10, 2009 1:18 AM
why was that 3 year old child eating a cat toy?
this is a stupid law. hope that someone comes forward and helps that woman pay for her fines.
fortunately we live in the country, or else my 8 cats would be 5 cats and i would have to find homes for 3 of them.
everett has a 5 cat limit -- i think that's what my hubby told me.
Cat Mom in Upstate, New York November 10, 2009 10:32 PM
I stumbled upon this blog and am horrified !! "Sleepy little town" is a kind assessment - I'd say "Stupid little town" !!! Perhaps some busybodies have personal issues with Ms. Richards, and are using their positions to pass ridiculous laws like this one - - shame on you!
Jess November 15, 2009 2:50 PM
Maybe the point of this matter is that this ladys cats wandered the neighborhood. If you have not lived by neighbors who own 7 to 10 cats each you can't understand the frustration of people have to put up with cats using flower beds as litter pans, urinating on outside furniture and marking everything they walk by. I have, and it's not pleasant. We talked to our neighbors and tried every electronic device, sprays, dusts on the market to deter. They don't work. The neighbors plain don't care. That Town council did something about the problem. My council want do anything. That Town is lucky
evryman November 16, 2009 5:17 PM
Just fyi, nearly EVERY SINGLE city/town in the U.S. has an ordinance as to how many pets (dogs or cats) one resident may own. Don't believe me? Check with your city, you'll be shocked. You probably just don't know it. I live in a major Metropolitan area and EVERY SINGLE city here in Southeast Michigan has a limit. I have friends in CA and WA and all their cities (and nearby cities) have ordinances as well. I think these ordinances suck, but most cities have them.
Lin December 7, 2009 10:33 PM
Obviously this town is made up of people of very low intelligence who also have no heart or compassion. If I did have the misfortune to live in that disgusting town,I would keep my cats inside. It is no one's business what you have INSIDE your house! The people who passed this law and those who support it are less than human to me...complete morons! Shame on you, Dudley, Massachusetts. Shame on you.
add your comment