Idaho Press-Tribune

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Canyon cities should raise dog allowance (take poll at right)

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Friday, December 31, 2010 12:15 am

I would like to commend the five Burley City Council members who voted to raise the limit of dogs allowed per household from two to five. Especially Denny Curtis, who has enough intelligence to realize how much our pets are like family members.

Not only was this a very compassionate act, but a very bright move on the part of the City Council.

It would behoove Canyon County cities — Nampa and Caldwell, especially — to look at this move. What a simple solution to help the Canyon County Animal Shelter with the problems and expenses it is having during these difficult times.

I’m sure there are many more people who would love to rescue another pet but are not allowed to because of city regulations. More dogs allowed per household means more pets adopted, more license fees collected, and fewer animals to house and feed, saving the county shelter money and increasing the license revenue coming in.

Research has proven that pets also contribute to the health and well-being of seniors. Wouldn’t it be nice if the senior apartments and senior housing would lower the deposit fee for a small pet? Seniors are unable to come up with hundreds of dollars for deposits just so they can have a companion. That one gracious act alone would be a big boost to our cat problem. But most of all, think of all the loving animals that are waiting for a life that they may not get because of city regulations.

• D.L. Stanford, Nampa

Editor’s note: According to Canyon County animal control, the maximum number of dogs allowed for a single household inside Nampa city limits is two. In Caldwell, it’s three.

© 2015 Idaho Press-Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Check out these other popular articles

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Hubert posted at 9:03 am on Tue, Jan 11, 2011.

    Hubert Posts: 536

    If this were about keeping chickens for meat and eggs I could see the value of it but more dogs next door on a hot summer night with my windows open--no way--arf arf arf

  • Toast41 posted at 10:35 am on Tue, Jan 4, 2011.

    Toast41 Posts: 117

    I think people should have the right to own more than four dogs in the city limits but they should have to apply for a licence and pay a fee to have animal control come out and assess the situation to determine if they are capable of handling more than four dogs before a person is issued one. They should also be held to a higher standard and if they get multiple complaints or they don't keep up with sanitation standards they get fined and the licence revoked

  • BeAccountable posted at 2:50 pm on Mon, Jan 3, 2011.

    BeAccountable Posts: 2

    AMEN, MrHyde. That's what I was talking about in my post and was trying to address the ISSUE. But I see a lot of opinions posted in this particular forum are nothing more than people ranting & raving just to see their words in print & have nothing to do with the subject at hand. So if a person has several dogs & they don't bark, trespass onto anyone elses property, & their 'waste' is always picked up, what difference does it make? A resposible pet owner does not infringe upon the rights of others....that's being accountable!

  • MrHyde posted at 11:27 am on Mon, Jan 3, 2011.

    MrHyde Posts: 3

    As long as the dogs are not violating any one elses peace (barking, escaping, damage, etc) then it really is no ones business how many dogs a person owns. If a person wants twenty dogs then so be it as long as it does not impact anybody else. MYOB people and get your noses out of others lives and no, I am not a dog owner.

  • FlyingSpaghettiTroll posted at 10:42 am on Sun, Jan 2, 2011.

    FlyingSpaghettiTroll Posts: 939

    Spuds, my post was in reference to the fact that pacundo can make anything about illegal immigration and welfare fraud. Look at his post before mine, and tell me that it really makes sense.

    For that matter, look at his latest post and ask yourself if it makes sense. Do competent dog owners have dogs who bark incessantly? Do you find good owners have a constant stench coming from their yard? Does it take more than 2-3 dogs barking to keep you up at night? Why use pit bulls, the most demonized breed, as a standard example?

    There's an obsession with pacundo that's all about restricting rights and presuming the worst of everyone. He has a sick fetishism for attacking minorities and the lower class that permeates everything he posts. All the while he's obsessed with not presenting evidence and claiming that peer review is part of the 'lefty liberal agenda'. Since the IPT won't deal with him, my hobby has been degrading his quality of experience on this site.

  • pacundo posted at 9:23 am on Sun, Jan 2, 2011.

    pacundo Posts: 912

    If the laws were strongly enforced? Who is supposed to enforce what law? I don't think Idaho has an enforcable dog barking law without a victim that is willing to sign and prosecute. I called the police numerous time about my nieghbors pitbull that barked at all hours of the night. Nothing was done about the barking unitl the pit cornered my toddlers. The pit excaped from its yard. The police arrived and dealt with the dog. Read Idaho law. As for responsible people being able to take care of 5 dogs in a subdivision....give me a break. 5 dogs will bark at the fence frequently. The 5 dog residence yard would smell like a stockyard after time. Calls for police due to dog barking and at large will on the rise. You want to pay for more dog police? I dont.

  • BeAccountable posted at 10:34 am on Sat, Jan 1, 2011.

    BeAccountable Posts: 2

    I agree with the 'spirit' of D.L. Stanfords' opinion. I'm assuming we have noise/nuisance laws around here?? If these laws were strongly & consistantly enforced, there would be no problem. I believe responsible people can determine for themselves how many dogs they can realistically care for & the by product of helping the local animal shelters makes it a WIN WIN situation.

  • pacundo posted at 5:17 pm on Fri, Dec 31, 2010.

    pacundo Posts: 912

    Spuds, the lefties here usually don't make sense. The Troll is a loon. He provides great amuzement for us. You will learn to enjoy his rants. Most are very wierd and almost always off track. He often attempts to spin yarns about liberal and abnormal views trying to justify himself. I am sure he supports welfare dog programs managed by state and federal paid social workers.

  • Spudmans1 posted at 2:16 pm on Fri, Dec 31, 2010.

    Spudmans1 Posts: 214

    It never ceases to amaze me that those who can least afford it have the most pets. Johnny doesn't have proper clothing but by golly he's got a dog. If you want more animals then move out of the city into the country. And FlySpaTroll just what in the heck are you talking about? You make absolutely no sense at all.

  • FlyingSpaghettiTroll posted at 12:24 pm on Fri, Dec 31, 2010.

    FlyingSpaghettiTroll Posts: 939

    When I think of animal rights, the first thing that comes to mind is how all poor people are committing fraud. If we could lock the homeless up in kennels, house break them, and then sell them to families I'm sure Jesus would be pleased.

  • pacundo posted at 11:24 am on Fri, Dec 31, 2010.

    pacundo Posts: 912

    5 dogs per SICHA household? If country residents are in such a poverty state how does allowing them to have more dogs benefit anyone. Does food stamps cover dog food? Does anyone think strays, and dogs at large may becoming a huge problem if people in the city have up to 5 dogs per household.? Anyone up for a dog bite? Barking dogs keeping you up at night? I know the terrorists (gang members), probationers (gang members) and dopers (gang members) will have plenty more Rots and Pits chained up to thier front and back doors if this is allowed.

  • rcjava67 posted at 7:00 am on Fri, Dec 31, 2010.

    rcjava67 Posts: 59

    Is this all City Council members have to discuss at their meetings? Also, for anyone living in a subdivision where people have even 2 dogs that are allowed to bark all times of the day and night, some allowed to "escape" their yards to do their "duty" wherever, we know what kind of havoc this plays on the residents of the subdivision. Having up to 5 dogs on a small lot is rediculous and should not be allowed.


e-Newsletter Signup

Sign up today to receive breaking news and daily email headlines every morning.

Opinion Poll