Should there be any federal laws made limiting the number of dogs a person can own and house on their persona?

i think that if people can afford to take care of abunch of dogs and give them the proper loving and care and feed them and all that then i think it should be ok cause that person or persons can afford to give their dogs the right stuff their dogs need but i also think if people aint cabale of takin care of their dogs they should give the dogs to people that can take care of them

Laws should look at how the animal are housed and cared for. My goal when I retire is to have a farm specifically for animals that need homes. I dont want to be restricted by the numbers I can have. As long as there is adequate space, shelter water and love for them all there should not be any limited on the animals I should be allowed to care for and either find homes or for those that are difficult to place have a forever home with me on the "farm". Some people cant care for one dog or cat and there are some that can care for more. Situations are individual.

Since you're question says "federal", I'm assuming you're in a country set up as a federation, such as Switzerland or the US. Here in the US, our government isn't set up that way. The Constitution grants certain powers to the federal government, all others are assumed by state and local governments. This would definitely be a local government issue, and many local governments here do have such laws.

no that should be left to the state

it is impractical and inexusuable for a person that is living in say baltimore to have ten dogs

but someone living a rural area like utah or montana should be able to take care of such a large pack....

I dont think you can legislate people into being good pet owners any more than you can legislate people into being good parents. Tinker made some good points, particularly with regards to consumer education so I gotta give him my vote.

no i don't think they have the right to tell you what you can or can't have in your house..
i have 4 dogs and i take very good care of them..
i have all boys so i don't have the problem of puppies.. but i also have a friend that has 20 dogs in her house.. yes she is a breeder. but i don't think it wrong to love animals and to take care of them the right way.. they are what makes me get up in the morning.. they come and hug me to tell me it is time for them to go out.. i would go nuts without my animals and i have plenty of them..

Here in Canada there are regulations .. again like you depending on the licencing, municipal regulations.. as a rental (housing) control.. but to be honest here ..we're encouraged to get animals fixed.. m/f with dog tags fixed at different rates for ex. if your dog is fixed you would have a reduce cost.. if not, than it would be much higher rate.. and most breeders here, when they sell a puppy have papers in place , agreeing that the new owners cannot breed the pup and it has to be fixed, within a time frame , with proof from the vet.. now that being said, not everyone is a responsible owner .. what I find is not the licenced breeders necessarily being a problem but the people who think they can take 2 different (supposed) pure breeds and mix them together and now we have a new breed and we'll jack you on the price,, that to me is the biggest puppy mill scam of them all, Here pet stores don't in general carry puppies or kittens because of the stigma attached to it, but not all of them.. I agree.. so I guess, no matter where we live we have abuse of animals in one form or another... but if people like you and I keep helping to instill laws than we are making progress.. after all

Not federal law. State or local law, perhaps.

Tinkerdill said exactly what I would say. It's a local issue, although states could fund campaigns to educate people on the issue. There are so many reputable breeders who provide excellent care to their animals -- I wouldn't want to limit the people who are doing right by their animals by enacting federal laws.

I feel that if people had to acquire a license to own a pet it would narrow down the amount of people that would have one. I feel that not just ANYBODY should be able to get a pet. They should have to be financially stable, no history of abuse or neglect etc. They should run checks on when a person last owned an animal, what animal it was. If we could keep a trace of pet owners it would be so much easier to narrow down the ones who commit crimes against them...

Not the federal government....they have their hands in just a little too much, already....

In my state, here in the US, the city decides this...and we are limited to 4 cats and dogs, per household....it can be all cats, all dogs...2 of each, however you total it, but 4 is the max....

Some good answers here. Unfortunately the one by LionKing isn't financially feasible, though I have often thought if people had to pass a test to own a horse there would be a lot less horse abuse.

License fees generate money for their localities. Even with fees as low as $4 per dog, my county has hundreds of unlicensed dogs. I have a large number of dogs (all properly housed and licensed TYVM!) but it took over 10 years for the animal control officer to drop by to see if they were licensed. It seems they have no plan in my county. If they get a call in an area, they knock doors on the rest of the street for the rest of the day. So if they never get a call in your area....

What LionKing said is desirable, BUT what it REALLY SAYS is that more education is necessary. Our government CANNOT and should not be responsible for what adults MUST teach children about animal care and being responsible for the animals in our care. Too many people believe it's okay to throw away animals.

But how can we teach children to be responsible for animals when too many adults believe it's okay to throw away CHILDREN when they become annoying, or bothersome, or a hindrence to a new relationship? Heavens, the leading cause of death for pregnant woman is MURDER, committed by the father of the child, who often just doesn't want to pay support.

Animals were given to us as humans to care for. Now that so many people live apart from the earth (ie. kids believing milk comes only from stores, not COWS) we need people to reconnect. I'm not advocating "animal rights" I'm saying all people need to be a little bit more proactive when it comes to animal abuse. Whether it's puppy mills, cat hoarding, horse slaughter, Premarin mares purposely kept in foal for their estrogen packed urine or commercially farmed live stock, forced to live unnaturally.

Education begins by not just accepting what PETA says in commercials or even the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) because BOTH orgs want to do away with the ownership of companion animals. PETA kills 2/3ds of the animals they 'rescue', but they don't mention THAT in the ads...

So don't look for more laws. Lobby for funds for more education!

Most states and towns do have laws limiting the amount of pets you can own. Some even have laws limiting the amount of a certain type of pet you can own. But until humans see animals as more than just a commodity puppy mills and kitten mills will be a problem. And speaking of peta..or shelters for that instance, some animals cannot be saved...just made peaceful. If a dog comes in sick and injured is it more humane to drug it and keep it alive when I will never have any quality of life. Or is it better to put them out of their misery. I agree with the latter.

no
just like some of the above said as long as the people look after the animals feed walk clean and take to vets for check ups then it will be fine they should howver be trainer not left alone and kept active mentaly and physical due to a well balanced dog

When I get my massive amount of disposable cash, I'm going to have a herd of dogs that need a place to live and yes, they will be fixed and we will not be in town

no in the country you should be able to have as many as you want as long as you can care for them the right way but in the city i would say no more than 4 either way it should really be up to the pet owner as long as they are not like the people on animal planet with 23+ cats or dogs and the area is filthy

No, absolutely not.

Absolutely NOT. IT is the first step in taking away more of our rights as humans. Next it would be to allow humans to have only one child like they do in China. That is a very dangerous slope to go down.

That is not reasonable. The less the federal government gets its "paws" on the better. I rescued a mutt from a private shelter that took donations to run that was quite nice. They cared for about 60 dogs at times.

We just had a law passed in Raleigh saying you cant have a dog "tied-out" for more than 3 hours. My sister has 2 huskies on ropes that are about 100 feet each. Huskies are not house dogs, hers can get out of any fence or pen so where does that leave them? These dogs love the cold. They will swim in ice-water and not have a bit of a shiver. Now, how will they let the dogs run all day with this new law? If you let them completely loose, they run for miles and sometimes get lost.

We already have cruelty to animal laws that should work. Why put more laws in place without judging each case individually.