What do you think should be the maximum number of pets allowed per household?

What is the point of limiting animals when there are already laws regarding noise and yards/homes that are not well-maintained? That is the problem with pets and their owners. You could have one pet that creates a nuisance because it is not given good care.

If one has enough space and resources to care for more than 5 animals, more power to them. I have 2 dogs and 1 indoor cat and 3 ferel cats that I also feed that have lived in my yard and garage for the last 3 years. They are all happy and healthy.

THANK YOU to the wonderful people that do Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) with stray and feral cats and kittens. If anyone is feeding even one cat, or knows anyone who is, please visit AlleyCat.Org and/or The Foundation For Homeless Cats.Org to learn more about this program.Thank you for caring! Have a great day!

The majority of "Pet People" are resonsible enough to know their limit. There are so many homeless animals no limit should be placed on individuals with the resources and time to give. The laws regarding cruelty and neglect should be strickly enforced.

I think it depends on your income and lifestyle. You can have a lot of pets if you can afford them and if you live in an area where can be comfortable.

I voted for 3 or 4 because, with only a cat and dog, I find it extremely hard on the budget to pay for Vet care, flea, tick and heartworm meds, yearly booster shots and sometimes, special food.
However, if anyone has the financial means, I don't believe there should be a limit. If the Vet bills and meds would be controlled and pet owners get a break, I would adopt another cat and dog from a local shelter. God knows there a lot of sad animals in need of a home so they won't be ultimately euthanized.

Actually, the limits should depned on the circumstances of the individual pet caretaker. If there is space, income, environment, and other resources to maintain good animal care and training, why make any limit?

If you have a farm you can have quite a few animals, but in a household 3 small animals, depending on the size of your house and what is allowed by law. One also should have a fenced yard and have their animals spayed or neutered.

This is the type of legislation that drives me crazy. Why? For some people one noisy dog is too much. Some people shouldn't have one dog, others can handle many.

Once a law is passed limiting dogs who believes it will really be enforced. Is there going to be a dog counter who goes from house to house, apartment to apartment knocking on doors and saying, "May I count your dogs?"

This society should get over its inane appetite to pass inane laws that wont/cant be enforced except as retaliation. for example, we know the dog counter is a satirical device. However, I can see someone getting ticked off at their neighbor for taking a parking place on the street, and reporting that neighbor for having too many dogs.

Finally, be careful. The same mentality that things 3 or 4 or 5 dogs is too many is only 3 or 4 or 5 dogs away from thinking one is too many. See my hub http://hubpages.com/hub/How-to-Tell-If-Should-Obtain-Your-First-Dog

It may make you smile. If it does read my other dog hubs.

What about people who foster animals and save them from kill shelters? Will they then be asked to relinquish these animals to be ultimately euthanized because they have too many animals? I agree with the school of thinking that if you have the time, desire and resources to provide for animals then the number should not be counted. I voted 5 or more because how much is more? Isn't that the same as limitless? Fortunately, we are blessed to have the resources and passion to care for 5 or "more" animals. Wouldn't it be a shame to deny an animal a good home because the law says you are at your limit? Like was mentioned in previous blogs, a one animal household may have a constantly barking dog and another may have "5 or more" who are well behaved and cause no problems. This question is such a gray one that it is impossible to have a right or wrong answer. Ulitmately, it is what is right for you and your family.

I feel that if a person has the financial means to care for more than 5 pets then go for it, as long as the pets are well taken care of~ what does it matter how many you have.?

I think there is a big difference between 5-6 well maintained pets, and 50-100 cats/dogs. We have 1 dog, 2 cats & 2 rabbits, and used to have 1 hedgehog, so we usually have 5-6 pets. Is it a lot? Yes, but we keep up on it and are responsible. However, we know having 2 dogs and more than 2 rabbits would be too much for us, so we never go above those limits.

There are a lot of variables that go into play for restrictions, and I think those somehow need to be accounted for. Such as, if the home is well maintained and the animals are being taken care of. Colorado & Michigan just recently had major hoarder stories in the news, and obviously those are cases we need to avoid.

As a cert. vet. tech and a trainer, I do believe there should be limits set in order to maintain order in a house and that each pet has quality time with their owners,especially since so many people tell me "I would love to have a dog/cat but I'm never home, it wouldn't be fair" I respond to them that 2 pets would be nice as companions when you are not home and being home by themselves is still better than being dead from no one owning them. I also understand that care is also quality, it is expensive and time consuming and when people have multiple pets every thing is multiple or things are ignored. Most people are good hearted when they get pets but fail to realize that they can live 15 or so years and a lot can change, new family,allergies, jobs, relocations etc. and then there are more pets left unwanted where if they only had a couple maybe they could take them with them or be able to place them themselves. I have 3 dogs,lease 2 horses and 2 human kids and work part-time and volunteer at school my time is well used and I couldn't imagine having more poop to clean up, stalls to muck, laundry to do that it would be fair to have more pets I also know I would give up so much as to not have to place any of my critters I can do without the material things but not what really matters most.

It all depends on how many people in the home can give an appropriate level of care for the number of animals living there -- and what the animals' needs are. You could have a dozen animals needing a minimal level of care, or 3 that need constant monitoring and medical attention.

If you have one or two competent people at home almost all the time, and you have the space and income, why limit it to a specific number? Our county imposes a space requirement (bare minimum 150 sq ft per dog, depending on the breed & size) and shelter, food, water, sanitary conditions, etc requirements. 150 sq ft minimum is allowed only for the smallest dogs, but is allowable for a toy breed with newborns, I believe. We have spare bedrooms, basement, den, living room, etc and plenty of land with an 8 ft fence. We can feasibly foster many dogs at a time, and we do. For many homes, two is better than one (playmates), and two is probably the best number. Some homes should never have a pet. Some homes can handle many pets and/or foster dogs.

People should be able to have as many animals as they can take proper care of, depending on their finances, space and the time to play with them. Big Brother is getting too nosey. What will be the next restriction passed by the goody two shoes? For each right that is taken away from one person, it leaves the field wide open to take a right away from someone else. Perhaps Goody Two Shoes should take a long look at themselves and consider what someone else wants to take away from them. It may be a great wake up call.

I get so tired of people trying to limit the number of animls, as if that is the problem. The problem is caring for the animals, and I belive that a person should be able to have as many animals as he/she can properly take care of. For some people that could be no animals, others may only be able to manage 1. I currently have 15 animals [dogs(6), cats(6) and horses (3)]. However, at one time I had 36 animals [dogs(12), cats(20) and horses(4)]. At that time, I could properly take care of that many. At this time, I cannot. I did not get rid of any animals, but, through natural attrition, over time my animal family has gradually reduced. How sad would it be if I was forced to get rid of most of my remaining animals because of a law stating some random number based on no factual data? And, what would happen to those animials? Most of them would end up euthanized for no reason except a bad law.

I believe the laws on pets should revolve around the provision of care, not the number. If you can love and care for 8 then great, if one is your max then that is fine too.
It should be about responsible pet ownership not a number.

Like many here, I also believe the number of pets/animals we have should soley be based on whether we able to care for them well (food, vet, shelter), will we be kind to them, and most importantly, will we take the time to give them the love and attention they all deserve?

Currently we have 4 cats, all of which we adopted from the neighborhood. However we have had up to 7. A few have come to us for their retirement years, and so have been different ages. The older ones have passed on now reducing our number this year to below 5 for the first time in a long while- we love and miss all of them. We have a small house with a yard that they love exploring and stay on our property for the most part (when they aren't sleeping all day in the house!). We have found it dificult at times to care for the number of cats that we've had, but we've always managed to do well by them. It does mean some sacrifice, but our animal companions are worth it!

Our neighborhood varies in the number of pets: some have just 1 or 2, others have several cats or dogs plus rabbits that they rescue. I would hope that noone ever came to our area to count, because most people here have been very responsible caretakers of their animals.

I think it depends on the INDIVIDUAL... can some people handle 5 pets? 10 pets.. yes.. while others don't seem to give even one the care they need or deserve. In our town.. you can get a kennel license and have 40 yapping dogs and that's fine.. but it STILL won't cover that one cat you have in your home that doesn't disturb anyone... go figure.

This poll should be something like "How many pets is the most you have had?" or "How many pets is the most you ever plan to have at one time?" Asking how many "should be allowed" makes no sense. Almost all the commenters are saying the same thing -- it depends on the circumstances. Deciding in advance, for someone else, what number is too many is just an infringement on the other person's rights. Of COURSE the animals should be well cared for, but there are already laws for that, as well as laws for animal behavior that infringes on others.

YOUR QUESIOTN IS ALMOST A SURVEY FOR YOU TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY DOG CARE SALONS YOU SHOULD OPEN

I CRY - FALSE QUESTIONAIRE

No limit- There does not need to be a legal limit because there are already existing humane laws for pets. If someone is hoarding animals and not providing for them, that can be dealt with through the existing laws. There are plenty of people in Chicago who own multiple pets and devote the time, space and money to care for them.

Even just one dog can be a problem if it's not trained, or if it's dangerous or annoying to neighbors with barking. And what if the person happens to have 5-lb Yorkies or Chihuahuas, 5 might not be too many for them. Even 5 large dogs may be fine for a person who has the resources and time to devote.

By limiting the number of pets, it may cause less people to adopt another pet who needs a home.

instead of counting pets, how bout making a surprise visit to all pet owners at least 2x a year to make sure the conditions are acceptable? that way, it will provide protection for our housemates, no matter how many we have. maybe the seller or provider of the animal should be held legally responsible for the well being of the pet, as well as the caregiver. i think it will make for more thorough consideration of the new home before turning over the adoption papers.

It's not a queation of the number of pets you have its' can you take care of them. Punish the owners that don't take care of them and leave the one's alone that do take care of there pets even if they have 5 plus.

It depends upon the location of the property, the space of the property, the abilty of the caretaker to provide financially for health and welfare of the animals and also emotionally needs of the animals.

Because of the large, homeless pet population, there should be no limit if you can afford it.
There are two things that would help. If veterinarian costs, flea-tick meds and even good quality foods could be corraled, most of us would adopt more pets. The only thing keeping me from adopting another dog and cat (I have a Brittany dog and a long-hair domestic cat.), is the cost of the above necessities. I can't believe that the manufacturers of these things, and the veterinarians have to be so expensive: I thought they were animal lovers.

Also, there should be a temporary curb on breeders. There are many purebred dogs and cats at shelters that would be adopted if the breeders didn't supply the same. A one-year moratorium could make a huge difference.

As for euthanasia: why can't these poor unfortunate creatures be put down with carbon monoxide instead of the terrible ways presently in use. Carbon monoxide produces the easiest and most painless way to die. Please, someone - suggest this to the powers that be, if you have any clout.

An OWNER should not have a limit on owned pets. Animals are not adopted, they are purchased weather from a pet shop, breeder , shelter or theguy on the WAlmart parking lot, you give them some money, they give you a pet. Our government does n't know how many pets, TVs, boats, cars or houses I can afforrd to keep responsibilily. I am also against MANDATORY spay nueter. MY vet and I know best when is the right time to S/N my pets. For some dogs 6 months is fine, while for others two years is best.

Society today is so quick to pass laws. Many of these laws are not based on common sense. If you own your property and you can care for your animals, what right does anyone else have to say as to the quantity? If you have 12 cats who are confined to your property, properly vaccinated per law, not abused, and are not disturbing the peace, why should someone else judge you as wrong?
I am also against mandatory spay/neuter. Let's spend our resources on education instead. Then we may not need all these laws.

I'd like to point out that limiting the number of pets could be very sad for some families. Case in point: A friend of mine lives in a large house on several acres that is technically in the city but on the outskirts of town. They have nine children. The family had a family dog that was really attached to the mom. Then five of their children over time got dogs. All of theses dogs were regularly vetted, ate quality food, received individual attention, exercise, and training. They were happy well cared for animals that never disturbed anyone. Why should we limit a family like this that has the time, resources, and will to provide so many good homes to needing pooches. On the flip side I had a neighbor with only one dog; but that one dog was wild, untrained, uncared for, unhealthy, noisy, lived on a chain, and aggressive, and no one did anything to help him. The humane society and police force said unless it was starving or attacked someone they couldn't do anything about this even though it was clearly neglected. Owning pets is to subject to individual circumstances to say owning only 1 or only 5 will fix anything. Personally I have what I feel is the ideal number of pets for my life style.

I cannot see how some people are hoarders of animals and they get away with it. They are not helping these animals by hoarding them, these animals don't get the love affection they need, because there are to many of them. besides that there is little control with so many animals.

If you have the resources, time, and are a responsible owner, why should there be a limit? I have five large dogs. We scoop daily, and they do not stay out barking at all hours. Meanwhile my neighbor ties his ONE dog out, leaves it out, and it barks for, literally hours. It all depends on the owner.