Comments on Six Pets Might Be the Cutoff in W.Va. City

User Avatar

Sharyn   Lexington, Virginia

8/13/2013 1:22:00 PM

If the animals do not go outside, what are the neighbors complaining about? And Mary, this country was founded on freedom, not freedom limited to what you or I think is "enough." the government has no business limiting our rights unless they infringe on our neighbor's rights. If there is no complaint, a person should be allowed to keep the number of pets he or she wants, not limited to six simply because someone across town complained about someone else.

User Avatar

Isobella   Nashville, TN

9/10/2009 4:50:04 PM

I disagree one hundred per cent with this new rule. As long as a person has adaquate space and is properly taking care of their pets I see no reason to limit the number of pets. This will cause an increase of animals in kill shelters and for what? If I lived there I'd move with my three dogs and four cats to a more petfriendly and less weird city.

User Avatar

Mary   Battle Creek, MI

4/27/2008 11:47:10 AM

I don't know why you would need more than six. I think four is plenty.

User Avatar

Pat   San Angelo, TX

4/27/2008 10:15:53 AM

If this is something that this town feels it has to do, I think the new rules should only apply beginning with pet acquistions made after the date the new rules take effect. It would be extremely unfair to require people to give up pets they already own that they got before this proposal was made. In this situation, it would be almost impossible to find new homes for these animals; their shelter would not be able to accomodate many of these pets. Also, a large majority of these pets are probably very well socialized and housetrained and would make excellent pets for someone. Requiring these owners to give up some of their pets would be cruel and almost a certain death sentence for many due to a circumstance they have no control over. It isn't right.

User Avatar

Gayle   Denton, TX

4/27/2008 6:28:27 AM

Is this going to solve a problem or just make a worse problem?


User Avatar

Jane   Amherst, MA

4/27/2008 6:23:07 AM

There is certainly a twist to that rule, I'm not sure if I agree.

User Avatar

nathan   somewherein, OH

4/26/2008 2:27:52 PM

John 3:16

User Avatar

Christy   Covina, CA

4/26/2008 11:59:30 AM

1 is enough for me anyway for now!

User Avatar

bertha   SAN DIEGO, CA

4/26/2008 9:47:21 AM

i think 2 should be the cut off except for the people that foster.... good luck!

User Avatar

Scott   La Crosse, WI

4/25/2008 3:24:41 PM

Just another example of the intrusiveness of government into people's lives. If you think this is none of the government's business, Google the Libertarian Party and join it.


User Avatar

Carol Ann   Reading, MA

4/25/2008 3:12:55 PM

We have a law here in Reading Ma. If you have more than three dogs you must register for a kennel license which is about $200 a year. Ridiculous!

User Avatar

ang   winters, CA

4/25/2008 9:42:16 AM

I dont' know how to say this other than that is crap. I understand the more pets you have, the less time you have for one on ones, but making people get rid of family memebers si just stupid and mean. Now if the animals were not being cared for I could understand. I myslef have 3 dogs and 2 cat's. I would never give them up. Or Pay the fine, that's just nonsense. And shelters are already over full

User Avatar

Liza   Grand Bay-Westfield, NB

4/25/2008 8:56:46 AM

So what happens if someone has 4 cats? Do they have to pick which one to get rid of? I couldn't do that! As long as animals are being cared for, then what's the problem?

User Avatar

frances   proctorville, OH

4/25/2008 5:13:04 AM

good job

1-14 of 14 PAGE:  1

Top Products