I have a cat who would nearly violate this ordinance. Sheesh...

http://www.argusleader.com/news/Thursdayarticle2.shtml

High court hears case of Marion's weight limit for pooches By TERRY WOSTER Argus Leader

published: 4/26/01

PIERRE -- Cities can regulate house pets, but an ordinance that could force dog owners to weigh their animals constantly goes too far, a Marion woman's lawyer told the state Supreme Court.

Ronald Parsons represented Diane Schoenwald, who is fighting a Marion city ordinance that makes it illegal for anyone to own more than four dogs or to have more than two dogs that weigh more than 25 pounds each.

"A dog can weigh one thing in the morning and one thing in the afternoon,''Parsons told the court Wednesday. "I think the issue before the court is the weight of a house pet is not an area that needs to be regulated.''

He described a hypothetical scene in which dog owners would be weighing their pets constantly to make sure they weren't committing a misdemeanor.

"You're just saying they went too far, is that what you're saying?'' asked Justice Robert Amundson.

The case involves a 1999 ordinance. At the time, Schoenwald owned three dogs: a shepherd-collie mix that weighed 75 pounds and two golden retrievers, one of which weighed 30 pounds, the other 20 pounds. When the city charged Schoenwald under the ordinance, she pleaded not guilty. She said the city lacked authority to adopt the weight limit, the ordinance violated her constitutional due process rights and it was passed after the fact and shouldn't apply to her situation.

A circuit court dismissed the charge, and the city appealed. The Supreme Court heard the case during three days of oral arguments on various cases in the Riggs High School theater in Pierre. A decision on the case has not been made.

Jeffrey Cole, representing Marion, said the town has the authority to limit the number of animals and their weight as part of its pet-regulation ordinances.

"The power to regulate dogs includes the power to even keep dogs within city limits,'' he said. "You're still allowed to have four dogs, which is a handful.''

City officials said the ordinance targeted large dogs because they have a greater potential to harm people, create more waste and intimidate the public.

"Weight is the only way you can talk about the size of the dog,'' Cole said.

Chief Justice Robert Miller suggested that breeds of dogs might be listed. "I don't know what a 25-pound dog is, but to me, that doesn't sound like a very big dog,'' he said.

Cole replied, "I think, your honor, the size of the dog, as to the safety issue, does matter.''

Reach Terry Woster at 605-224-2760 or twoster@midco.net

-- Anonymous, April 26, 2001

Answers

Really obese dogs shouldn't be a safety problem. So maybe they are measuring the wrong thing. Maybe it should be height to the withers, or something.

-- Anonymous, April 27, 2001

Hey, hey, hey.... what's this about measuring at the withers? My little boy is only 32". He only weighs 130 lb. He is "small" for a male GD. We have seen dogs in rescue around 38" yeah, thirty-eight inches AT THE WITHERS. A mere 200+ lb.(A rareity, really.)

The size of the dog, IMO is irrelevant. What matters is the handler, the training (or lack thereof), the demaeanor of the animal and the situation. I can't stand little yiping, ankle-biting dogs. Gimme a Big Dog any day. Just a Big Dog owner's opinion.

-- Anonymous, April 28, 2001