Appeals court upholds dog limit ordinance
ORFORDVILLE — The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has upheld a 2008 decision by the village of Orfordville to deny a kennel license for a couple who had nine dogs in their home.
Gary Anliker and Jeanne Tomlin, 308 Olson Drive, Orfordville, fought for several years to keep more than three dogs—the limit set by Orfordville ordinance. They tried to get a kennel license to keep the dogs and appealed to the county when the application was denied.
They also tried to fight against a court order forcing removal of most of the dogs from the home.
Anliker and Tomlin have been in compliance with the court order since 2010, said their attorney, Mark Schroeder of Janesville. Schroeder on Monday did not know what happened to the dogs that could not stay in the home.
The couple's only option at this time would be to appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but they have not done so, Schroeder said.
The Gazette was not able to reach Anliker or Tomlin for comment.
In late 2009, Anliker told The Gazette that he and his wife had several terriers, a Chihuahua, a miniature pincher and husky mixes. At that time they had nine dogs.
Police Chief Dave Wickstrum previously said that neighbors started filing barking complaints in mid-2007. Police issued 19 tickets, he said.
In June 2008, Tomlin asked the village board for permission to exceed the nine-dog limit. The board denied the request, according to online court documents.
In December 2008, Anliker and Tomlin applied for a kennel license and were denied. They appealed on the grounds the board failed to give proper notice for a public hearing about the application, according to online court documents.
The board in May 2009 gave notice for a second hearing, held the hearing and denied the application.
The couple again appealed to the Rock County Court, this time on the grounds the village ordinance was vague and therefore unconstitutional. Tomlin argued the couple did not have fair notice of what factors the village would use to grant or deny a license.
Judge James Welker upheld the village's decision, and the couple appealed to the state court.
Meanwhile, in June 2010, Judge Daniel Dillon at the village's request issued a court order to remove all but three of the dogs.
The appeals court agreed with Welker that the Orfordville ordinance limiting the number of dogs is constitutional. The ordinance provides sufficient standards governing its discretion, according to the appeals court decision.
Apr 20, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
EZONER, Thank You.
Apr 19, 2012 at 3:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
flvvr -- unfortunately your wrong. Noise is diificult to prove and much tougher to take action against. I dont believe that the ordinance was only to stop hoarding. Is the number somewhat arbitrary -- yes. But the intent was to make sure that if you had a kennel, that you had the right to operate a keneel and that certain guidlines were followed -- such that others were not affected by the business. Apparently the city determined the more than 3 would require a kennel liscense. If the property would not/could not support a kennel the which the people should have investigated before taking on the animals, then thats the deal. Done. Its the neighborly thing to do.
Apr 19, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Well dog gone it anyway !
Apr 19, 2012 at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Pet limit laws do not provide the benefits which proponents claim but rather have negative repercussions for animals in our community. At the same time that household limits discourage responsible individuals from providing a good home for more needy animals, they do not prevent an irresponsible one from acquiring unlimited animals. Unfortunately, caring can't be mandated.
Only a very small fraction of animal control complaint calls ever involve more than two animals while the vast majority of abuse and neglect complaints concern only a single animal’s welfare. Whereas one individual may be able to responsibly care for and nurture several animals, another may be unable to care for even one. And if problems arise, enforcement agencies already have ample ammunition at their disposal in terms of public safety and property rights laws. In fact, unsanitary conditions, excessive noise, and interference with property are all unlawful in virtually every community regardless of whether pets inhabit the premises or not. Instead of correlating numbers of animals with problems, issues such as neglect, noise, and sanitation can be addressed specifically.
Proponents of pet limit laws claim that they prevent animal hoarding. The assertion that if one chooses to share their home with more animals than the government bureaucracy says you should that they are somehow a hoarder or criminal is undeniably false and simply having more animals than an arbitrary set limit does not make one sick or a scofflaw.
Animal hoarding is a mental disease and a crime whereby individuals keep large numbers of animals beyond their capacity to care for them resulting in neglect and cruelty and often death. There are three key defining characteristics that constitute hoarding:
1. Keeping large numbers of animals; and,
2. Inability to provide even minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation, shelter, and veterinary care, with this neglect often resulting in starvation, illness, and death; and,
3. Denial of the inability to provide this minimum care and the impact of that failure on the animals, the household, and human occupants of the dwelling.
Focusing on the first, without the other two, is not hoarding in the same way that very large families with numerous children are not child abusers by the simple fact that they have a lot of children. In order to constitute criminal activity, there must be the added elements of neglect or cruelty. More importantly, animal hoarding is punished by existing state animal cruelty laws. Since the current laws that can carry onerous punishments do not deter these individuals, a local pet limit law certainly won’t. And since these individuals are mentally ill, they are hardly making an informed decision about whether to hoard animals based on a pet limit law.
Apr 19, 2012 at 10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
The dog owners in my neighborhood give dogs an undeserved bad rap. The "it ain't MY dog" syndrome. Yes, yes it is your dog. Now shut it up so I can relax on my deck.
Apr 19, 2012 at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Many times people with too many dogs are not responsible, and you hear horror stories about 40 animals in one house in very poor conditions. This was not one of those......however, loving or not these people were not being reasonable with the municipal code which was reasonable.
Apr 19, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Check with your township about dog ownership.
Don't just assume that you are "in the country" and can do anything that you want.
There are laws "in the country" too.
Apr 19, 2012 at 2:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gee simple solution. Sell the house in the city and find a house in the country if you want more dogs than the ordinances allow. But you better be damn sure you can actually take care of them also.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.