City will review two-dog limit

As financial difficulties take a toll on pet owners, forcing more animals to the streets or into shelters, some Oak Creek residents find it impossible to turn the forlorn creatures away.

[freenation313]

I think we should change it to one dog. No, wait, no dogs... Is this really a concern for our government? If neighbors are complaining, than it is a problem, but obviously if the owners can keep their neighbors happy then who cares?

It's laws like this one, and "not being able to park on the lawn, or put a boat on the lawn, etc." that just are so pointless. If no one is complaining, what gives the right to a cop to come over and enforce these laws?

[Mike53051]

I completely agree with you Free. Just another arm of government putting it's nose in where it doesn't belong!

[We Really Do Have Freedom]

Here's another example of city officials in power "creating" their morale values and opinions onto the community. Yeah right, we really do live in so called "free" society. Can anyone else see in in action?

But in SM it will be easier to enforce something like tis, because your corrupt Mayor and Police Commissioner will unleash the legal go ahead to their already corrupt SMPD officers, and allow them to continue to take target practice at dogs with their .357's while in uniform. Let's see, SMPD blew away by 2 dogs, in 1 year, so in a way, they already are enforcing it...

Next SM officials will pass a law that you can't have sex with anyone, unless you are legally married with papers...

[windsavage]

I agree that there should be limits as to what kind and how many pets a person may have within the jurisdiction of any community.

It doesn't matter where a law is being enforced due to a citizen complain or not, as most laws are enforced without any complaint, such as speeding or vandalism.

If one actually READS the article that started this thread, it brings up an example of some nut whom if they could, would adopt and take home every damn stray cat and dog they could find. That would not be safe or healthy for the people surrounding this person. Unfortunately, this finding a person who will adopt all strays nilly-willy is not rare.

[Your Moron]

windsavage wrote:

I agree that there should be limits as to what kind and how many pets a person may have within the jurisdiction of any community.
It doesn't matter where a law is being enforced due to a citizen complain or not, as most laws are enforced without any complaint, such as speeding or vandalism.
If one actually READS the article that started this thread, it brings up an example of some nut whom if they could, would adopt and take home every damn stray cat and dog they could find. That would not be safe or healthy for the people surrounding this person. Unfortunately, this finding a person who will adopt all strays nilly-willy is not rare.

What a Moron! So you "think" families with 3 dogs shouldn't have a right to have 3? What about when they have puppies? Are people suppose to relocate them to another city because they may of had 5 puppies? Lumping families even with the person who picks up all the stray animals into the same batch, shows you only feel laws should be whatever you "think." It's people like you in public office that is running this country into the ground...

[windsavage]

Your Moron wrote:

<quoted text>
What a Moron! So you "think" families with 3 dogs shouldn't have a right to have 3? What about when they have puppies? Are people suppose to relocate them to another city because they may of had 5 puppies? Lumping families even with the person who picks up all the stray animals into the same batch, shows you only feel laws should be whatever you "think." It's people like you in public office that is running this country into the ground...

Three things here,

a) Vox Populi - It is the citizens of a community whom are responsible for the laws enacted and enforced there, not a politician.

b) Public Safety - The US Constitution balances a person's liberty to do as they please against the possible harm such a liberty or may cause and will err on the side of preventing possible harm.

c) Public Health - This is usually the "trump". While a 2 dog minimum may seem arbitrary, it is actually public health officials who make those recommendations.

In this case, it's the citizens of Oak Creek whom are responsible and while they are researching this "two dog minimum", they might want to consider a "two cat minimum."
.

[Clueless]

windsavage wrote:

<quoted text>
Three things here,
a) Vox Populi - It is the citizens of a community whom are responsible for the laws enacted and enforced there, not a politician.
b) Public Safety - The US Constitution balances a person's liberty to do as they please against the possible harm such a liberty or may cause and will err on the side of preventing possible harm.
c) Public Health - This is usually the "trump". While a 2 dog minimum may seem arbitrary, it is actually public health officials who make those recommendations.
In this case, it's the citizens of Oak Creek whom are responsible and while they are researching this "two dog minimum", they might want to consider a "two cat minimum."
.

WRONG and sorry to hit ya with REALITY!

a - Who makes the laws? You state "not a politician." Since when does any community pass laws without going thru our legal system? They can't and only elected officials can pass any law...

b - Haha! So that means everything in life needs to be banned so it would be "preventing possible harm." Lets see, ever our pillows could technically suficate anyone, so according to you, they need to be banned. Drinking water could technically kill us since it blocks our air passages we need to breath and again could cause us "harm." Need I go on?

c - So public health would be the exact same thing as b. Anything that can technically hurt our health would then need to be banned. Again, techically, air, water, food have a potential to harms humans, so according to you, they also need to ban them.

Get a life! I can tell you "think" you know everything, but your not even close... People like you and city officials in government positions "pick and choose" what they personally deem harmful or a health risk, and they ram their idea's down the communities throat... Like Gigi the goat. You "think" it is a health concern, so then we need to kill all of them. Name one thing in life that is NOT a harm or health factor IN ANY WAY?

[allison]

Every community has pet laws.
Shorewood has two only total.
Tosa it's 3. I live on two acres in the woods and I can have 5 but no farm animals. I can also apply for a kennel license if I have more thand 3 dogs..
In Milwaukee you can apply for a "pet fanciers" tag if you have more than 3.
Litters are factored in. Animals under 6 months don't count toward your total.
So you can rant and rave all you want, but these laws are long standing and most citizens, even crazy animal lovers like me, understand the need for limits, just like on junked cars and lawn grass height.

[Another SM Nut Job]

allison wrote:

Every community has pet laws.
Shorewood has two only total.
Tosa it's 3. I live on two acres in the woods and I can have 5 but no farm animals. I can also apply for a kennel license if I have more thand 3 dogs..
In Milwaukee you can apply for a "pet fanciers" tag if you have more than 3.
Litters are factored in. Animals under 6 months don't count toward your total.
So you can rant and rave all you want, but these laws are long standing and most citizens, even crazy animal lovers like me, understand the need for limits, just like on junked cars and lawn grass height.

haha... Another nut that "feels" and let their "opinion" restructure laws as they see think fits. Aren't you glad that the US is a "free" country? hahahaha Actually, we are ONE OF THE WORST COUNTRIES IN THE ENTIRE WORLD WHERE WE REALLY DO NOT HAVE FREEDOM'S they claim we do have. Again, they pick and choose what freedom's we are given, and most americans forget that, and have blinders on and only see things their way....

So puppies under 6 months don't count in totals? Well then, why do the US censes then count babies under 6 months as a full person, and consider them a full person the day they are born?

[allison]

I'm just stating actual laws - the feelings seem to be all yours.
I researched so I wouldn't move to a place that would hassle my 2 dogs and 2 cats.

[A Victim and Dont Know It]

allison wrote:

I'm just stating actual laws - the feelings seem to be all yours.
I researched so I wouldn't move to a place that would hassle my 2 dogs and 2 cats.

See, your already a victim of officials "morales & values" in laws in a so called "free society." This goes to show you, for having 2 dogs & 2 cats, legally, you can not move nor live where you want to, and you have to find a community inside the USA where officials "morales and values" don't decide what you can or can not have! This is inside this so called "free Society." So why aren't "free" to live where you really want to? This is just like it was 40 years ago, with blacks, and only allowing in 1 or 2 black families in a community, or none at all... Think about it, but your mind is so "shelled" and confused, you don't realize your a victim... Maybe some day, you will think on your own, outside the box you are in!:)

[windsavage]

allison wrote:

Every community has pet laws.
.

Truism. What we have here are people whom are already in the PETA mindset, have abandon all sense of logic and rational thought and quite frankly are, like PETA, in the buffoonish stage.

Where I live in Milwaukee, we've never had a pet problem for long and quite frankly when a problem did surface with owners either having too many pets not taking responsibility for their pets actions, the situations were rectified through legal avenues. The pet owners didn't like it but hey, the majority rules. They just never stuck around long after that.

[CLUELESS]

allison wrote:

I'm just stating actual laws - the feelings seem to be all yours.
I researched so I wouldn't move to a place that would hassle my 2 dogs and 2 cats.

Yeah Allison, you're so blinded that you don't see your a victim!!!? HELLO! So in America, a "so called" Free country, that you are not allowed to live whereever you want, and you had to "search" for a place you are accepted based on city officials morales and values? Guess your not old enough to remember when blacks were also limited on where they could live...

It's people like you that are killing the American way. You are so clueless that you don't really see what is going on around you, and how blind the majority of people are to see how your a victim without someone tell you... Even now, you probably won't comprehend what was just said...

Thank you Mr Zeplocki, and other corrupt officials to screw over your community! SUPPORT CORRUPTION, support your criminal officials in SM!

[HHN]

"release the hounds"
Montgomery Burns

[No Freedom In US]

Here's a perfect example of how "free" we really are. The last 20 years, city officials have been brandishing their own personal morales/values into our "freedoms" we "supposedly" have in America.

Anyone that tells free americans where they can and can't live, really isn't free hey? If you have 2 dogs, you can live here but if you have 3 dogs, you can't live here... America.... The land of the free.... hahahahahaha

Does anyone else see how ironic city officials are, and how they influence "Freedoms" as they want them...