Some pet lovers are snarling: Don't tell us how many dogs or cats we can keep.

        But officials say a limit — even if it's arbitrarily set and rarely enforced — can help keep pet problems in check.

        The issue surfaced this fall in two Greater Cincinnati communities:

Animal lover Mary Losey in her Fort Thomas home with five of her 11 dogs. She opposes a city proposal to limit the number of pets a household can keep. (Glenn Hartong photo) | ZOOM |

        • In Fairfield, which has a two-pet limit, a woman was ordered to get rid of nearly 50 animals, although they were well cared for.

        • In Fort Thomas, an injured, elderly woman languished for weeks in a garage filled with cats and their feces. She later died, and Fort Thomas is considering a pet-limit ordinance.

        The situations highlight two conflicting national trends. Worried that overflowing animal shelters must find homes for pets or euthanize them, more people are taking care of large numbers of animals, said Kate Pullen of the Humane Society of the United States. Eight million to 12 million dogs and cats enter shelters each year, and 30 to 60 percent will be euthanized, Ms. Pullen said.

        Ms. Pullen said more cities are imposing limits.

        Citing concerns about government encroachment in citizens' lives, local animal lovers think officials should enforce existing nuisance laws instead.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Should a city limit the number of pets a person can own? SELECT ONE Yes No Undecided If so, what should be the limit? SELECT ONE 1-2 2-5 Other No limit Click here to view the results without voting.

PET LIMITS

Here is a sampling of how some Tristate communities regulate ownership of dogs and cats:    • Cincinnati, Lebanon, Covington: No specified limit, but health or nuisance regulations could apply.    • Batavia: Prohibits keeping four or more dogs or cats (3 months old or older) outdoors, unless the lot is at least one acre and the animals can come no closer than 100 feet to neighbors' homes.    • Middletown: Allows no more than five adult dogs; no specified limit on cats.    • Lawrenceburg: Allows no more than two “domestic pets” over 4 months old.    • Fairfield: Allows a total of two dogs or cats over 4 months old.    • Fort Thomas: Considering ordinance limiting ownership to two dogs and two cats.    Source: Enquirer research

        “We have a leash law, we have a nuisance law, we have a dog-barking law. And if they would enforce those laws, they wouldn't need a two-dog rule,” said Mary Losey, a Fort Thomas owner of 11 dogs who opposes the city's proposed two-dog, two-cat limit. “A lot of my dogs are older — and who's going to want an old, crippled dog? Keeping these dogs is my privilege, and if I take good care of them, it's nobody else's affair.”

        Fort Thomas City Council is scheduled to consider the proposed four-pet ordinance Monday night. Ms. Losey thinks the proposal is unfair to responsible pet owners — and a knee-jerk reaction to the death of 69-year-old Bonnie Sarakatsannis.

        Officials in Fort Thomas said the proposed ordinance would allow people to apply for a variance from the four-pet limit.

        Meanwhile, Fairfield's even stricter pet regulation is expected to remain unchanged despite recent controversy, two councilmen say.

        “Change the law, and start "punishing' people who abuse and neglect their animals,” urged Linda Sue Spencer in a Nov. 1 e-mail to city council, after reading an Enquirer article about Barbara Wollebeck, 50, being ordered to remove her pets. “Ms. Wollebeck should be commended, not punished! There are exceptions to every law, and this is certainly one of them.”

        About two dozen people expressed their dismay about Ms. Wollebeck's dilemma. Among them: a real estate agent who noted that many prospective home buyers own more than two pets. “Realtors would have to disclose to the clients that Fairfield would not allow that many dogs and therefore, the sale would go elsewhere,” a note says.

        Ms. Wollebeck said she adopted mostly abused, abandoned and sick animals: 27 dogs and nearly two dozen cats. After learning she had sought help to get more than a dozen animals spayed or neutered, city officials investigated.

        “Ms. Wollebeck was doing an almost unbelievable job of keeping the conditions sanitary,” said Councilman Sterling Uhler.

        Nevertheless, she was ordered to remove all but two of the pets; when she had difficulty, officials granted her an extension, Councilman Michael D. Snyder said.

        Ms. Wollebeck has a Jan. 19 deadline to comply. She couldn't be reached Friday.

        The existing ordinance likely won't be changed, Mr. Uhler said. Besides, he said, it's rarely enforced.

        Mr. Uhler said Fairfield drafted the ordinance in the 1960s when the city was changing from farmland to a suburban community. There were conflicts, he said, because “there were people who kept packs of hunting dogs and all kinds of fauna.”

        Usually, when people keep large numbers of pets, conditions deteriorate and threaten the health and well-being of their caretakers, if not their neighbors, Mr. Uhler said.

        Mr. Uhler acknowledges a limit of two might seem restrictive. So why that number? “That was purely arbitrary,” he admits. “It was a number.”

        Jean Pritchard, a veterinarian at the Fort Thomas Animal Hospital, takes exception to that.

        “Just limiting the numbers does not address the issue,” she said. “The issue is the nuisance involved — and one pet can be more of a problem than multiple pets in some cases.”

        Besides, said Dr. Pritchard, who keeps four cats, three dogs, 27 cows and 10 horses on her property in Ross, Ky.: “We hate the idea of someone telling us how our lifestyle ought to be.”

        Still, as invasive as such regulations might seem, they're not unconstitutional, says Scott Greenwood, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio.

        “The government can make all kinds of regulations for health and safety reasons,” he said. “They just need to articulate some reason that's related to health or safety.”

        “It might be "micro-legislation,' but it's not unconstitutional.”
       

Brown Stadium costs more yet
Owners oppose limits on pets
Neyer seeks ethical opinion on vote
Perfect North opens early
RAMSEY: 'Wish list'
Bicyclist's DUI charge reduced
Developer backs out of project
Flea markets organize to hold off restrictions
NewCath fans make best of loss
Wager on game pits barbecue vs. goetta
218 welfare extensions OK'd
McNUTT: Area events
Beechmont Ave. safer to travel
Building rehabilitation company faulted
City's gun buyback a test
Dater estate fight continues
Family reaches out to another
For sale: Pieces of Americana
Goal: $100K in one month
Historic homes opened for tour
HOWARD: Neighborhoods
Land buy is experiment
Mardi Gras may be revived despite woes
NKU students learn the art of philanthropy
Ohio withholds payment to private prison
Police to get a boost from workers trained in psychology
Schools win ruling: Monroe can rely on tax rate
Smaller jail recommended
Three hurt in house fire
Wilmington shooter Kehoe gets 13 years off sentence
Kentucky News Briefs
Tristate A.M. Report