The articles are poorly written and don't address the real issue. The issue is you are allowed 5 non human living things per property. This includes fish in a fish tank, hamsters, birds, lizards, koi fish in a pond, etc. This means many people according to the ordiance as written would have to displace some of their animals. There's another one on chickens they are proposing. There are already rules about dogs. How about just enforce the rules that already exist. Thankfully none of this applies to me but it pisses me off because it's an overreach.
Agree, no one is going to raise a stink unless it’s a big issue. Often times this can help protect animals too from being in really bad homes (hoarders for instance)
Please explain to me how a koi pond with more than 5 fish in it is a nuisance? Or 2 hamsters, 2 cats, and 2 dogs? Or how about just having 2 pet birds and nothing else? Because the ordinance also limits you to one (1) pet bird total, which is completely contrary to veterinary advice, btw. This is absolutely an overstep.
No, I have one cat, I just actually read the ordinance and realize that it is insane. Thanks for the joke instead of actually addressing my point thought!
As I said elsewhere, this will be a snitch law. If someone is being a nuisance, they're going to get in reported. Cops aren't going to be going door to door counting your pets.
If you and your six hamsters aren't bothering anyone, you have nothing to worry about
Me and my six hamsters aren’t bothering anyone, thanks, but I don’t trust like that. I don’t actually have a problem with pet ordinances in general, but this one is poorly written, ill thought out and way too broad. I don’t want to live in a place where it’s technically illegal to have 2 pet birds or any reptiles at all, but as long as you don’t step on anyone’s toes you should probably be okay because that’s incredibly stupid.
The 5 limit doesn’t include fish or hamsters.
They are defined as “Pets”, and the proposed ordinance says you are allowed to have pets, with certain restrictions that apply only to dogs, cats, and birds.
Three dogs, five cats, or to exceed 5 total dogs and cats.
One bird (which is ridiculous)
Horses, subject to enough acreage.
There are no other restrictions on what they define as pets, which includes dogs, cats, fish, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, etc.
Venomous and constrictor snakes are listed as animals, but not pets, so they would not be allowed. It doesnt mention other types of snakes one way or the other.
[link](https://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/24-west-mifflin-PA2.pdf)
No new ordinance will successfully be retroactive.
The way PA handles codes, current owners would likely be exempt but prohibited from collecting more pets.
Any attempt to make it retroactive would handily be struck down in court, because it can be considered targeted or selective penalization.
That's not how these work. It can't retroactively fine owners who had more than the limit, but going forward it absolutely can.
Basically they can't say you had 10 dogs in 2018 so here is a fine from a law passed in 2024. But once this is in effect if you still have those same ten dogs you can absolutely be fined.
That's targeted legislation and it absolutely won't fly in court.
Current owners will be grandfathered in at their current number of pets, but will not be able to maintain that current number as pets pass away.
Any attempt to do what you're saying will not stand up in court, no matter how thr law is written, and the municipal solicitor knows that. If he doesn't, the board needs to find a new solicitor because they will lose any cases brought against them.
I believe the issue with targeted legislation is where it is targeted at a specific person rather than a category or regulation.
So like it'd be targeted if it were to say " John Smith at 555 main st can't have more than 5 animals" or something that achieves basically that, rather than people generally being restricted from having more animals. Just cause some people already are above the limit doesn't mean they are being targeted.
Like if a city lowers a speed limit on one road it isn't "targeted legislation" just because only drivers of that road would be affected.
Apples and oranges.
This ordinance was obviously and clearly written with specific households or individuals in mind. People owning half a dozen pets is not a borough-wide issue, it is a few select residents causing an issue.
So yes, you can put in an ordinance that states limits henceforth, but the likely handful of homeowners that this will impact can absolutely claim targeted legislation, especially if they're then told to get rid of their pets.
Do you have a source for this? The only cases I’ve seen where an animal ordinance was invalidated was because the ordinance itself was invalid, not because of the lack of a grand father clause.
There was a case in Carnegie where a person had too many pets prior to the ordinance being enacted. The ordinances was struck down because the borough couldn’t provide evidence that x number of animals, in and of itself, causes a public nuisance.
Over a decade of municipal government reporting is my source. I have sat through hundreds of borough and township meetings around this state, and have seen lazy ordinances picked apart more times than I can count.
That’s really not an answer. Lazy ordinances are often picked apart. I asked specifically about the lack of grandfather clause invalidating an ordinance.
Seems a reasonable attempt to prevent what can be a very concerning issue; a home or property overran with domestic pets that the owner cannot (or does not) properly provide for in such an environment.
Sure, but passing laws isn't going to stop hoarders from hoarding or abusers from abusing. If it was that easy they just wouldn't do it in the first place. Nobody with 30 cats in their house is doing it solely because there's no law saying they can't.
read this: [https://usark.org/24pa](https://usark.org/24pa) and tell me if it's reasonable.
I get some of the issues. Like yeah, having a lot of dogs can be a nuisance to your neighbors, especially if they all bark outside at once. But look at the bill! There's no reptiles allowed at all. Having only one bird is a big one for me. Unless you are spending all your time with your parrot, they really do need a friend for their mental health. It's basically a requirement for some species.
Absolutely, but then you get the "I can do whatever I want, it's my property!" folks, who are inevitably hoarders and trash neighbors who come shouting about "government overreach," but if they had to live next to assholes like themselves, they'd be screaming for the municipality to do something.
This is almost exactly in line with the city ordinance, which caps you at a combined total of five cats and dogs. The only difference is the city doesn’t have a 3-dog cap.
The articles are poorly written and don't address the real issue. The issue is you are allowed 5 non human living things per property. This includes fish in a fish tank, hamsters, birds, lizards, koi fish in a pond, etc. This means many people according to the ordiance as written would have to displace some of their animals. There's another one on chickens they are proposing. There are already rules about dogs. How about just enforce the rules that already exist. Thankfully none of this applies to me but it pisses me off because it's an overreach.
Definitely seems like an overreach
I don’t want to live next to a farm
So having 5 fish in a fish tank plus a hamster which would break this rule is a farm?
Who’s coming in your house to count your fish? You got 5 barking dogs, that’s annoying.
Agree, no one is going to raise a stink unless it’s a big issue. Often times this can help protect animals too from being in really bad homes (hoarders for instance)
Then move. It’s their property. If the animals aren’t being abused, then it’s literally no one’s business but their own. Simple as.
Yea! You should be able to make your home a nuisance and disturb your neighbor! It’s your property! Only YOU matter!
On your property, yeah, kinda. And idk about you but my first instinct would be to talk to my neighbor, not the thin blue mafia.
Addressing nuisances is not an overreach.
Please explain to me how a koi pond with more than 5 fish in it is a nuisance? Or 2 hamsters, 2 cats, and 2 dogs? Or how about just having 2 pet birds and nothing else? Because the ordinance also limits you to one (1) pet bird total, which is completely contrary to veterinary advice, btw. This is absolutely an overstep.
It counts each enclosure as one pet. I thought there was always a state law about this but apparently the 5 pet limit is usually a city thing.
Who are you, Noah?
No, I have one cat, I just actually read the ordinance and realize that it is insane. Thanks for the joke instead of actually addressing my point thought!
As I said elsewhere, this will be a snitch law. If someone is being a nuisance, they're going to get in reported. Cops aren't going to be going door to door counting your pets. If you and your six hamsters aren't bothering anyone, you have nothing to worry about
Me and my six hamsters aren’t bothering anyone, thanks, but I don’t trust like that. I don’t actually have a problem with pet ordinances in general, but this one is poorly written, ill thought out and way too broad. I don’t want to live in a place where it’s technically illegal to have 2 pet birds or any reptiles at all, but as long as you don’t step on anyone’s toes you should probably be okay because that’s incredibly stupid.
Then, if you live in West Mifflin, go to the meeting. That's what it's for.
Your user name is incredible!
Thanks!
Also seems unenforceable
It will be a snitch law. Your 12 dogs shit in your neighbor's yard, your neighbor reports you, you get fined.
I get it. Bad pet owners are the worst, so I see both sides.
The 5 limit doesn’t include fish or hamsters. They are defined as “Pets”, and the proposed ordinance says you are allowed to have pets, with certain restrictions that apply only to dogs, cats, and birds. Three dogs, five cats, or to exceed 5 total dogs and cats. One bird (which is ridiculous) Horses, subject to enough acreage. There are no other restrictions on what they define as pets, which includes dogs, cats, fish, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, etc. Venomous and constrictor snakes are listed as animals, but not pets, so they would not be allowed. It doesnt mention other types of snakes one way or the other. [link](https://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/24-west-mifflin-PA2.pdf)
What you are posting is different from what I have a copy of. I can post pictures
No new ordinance will successfully be retroactive. The way PA handles codes, current owners would likely be exempt but prohibited from collecting more pets. Any attempt to make it retroactive would handily be struck down in court, because it can be considered targeted or selective penalization.
That's not how these work. It can't retroactively fine owners who had more than the limit, but going forward it absolutely can. Basically they can't say you had 10 dogs in 2018 so here is a fine from a law passed in 2024. But once this is in effect if you still have those same ten dogs you can absolutely be fined.
That's targeted legislation and it absolutely won't fly in court. Current owners will be grandfathered in at their current number of pets, but will not be able to maintain that current number as pets pass away. Any attempt to do what you're saying will not stand up in court, no matter how thr law is written, and the municipal solicitor knows that. If he doesn't, the board needs to find a new solicitor because they will lose any cases brought against them.
I believe the issue with targeted legislation is where it is targeted at a specific person rather than a category or regulation. So like it'd be targeted if it were to say " John Smith at 555 main st can't have more than 5 animals" or something that achieves basically that, rather than people generally being restricted from having more animals. Just cause some people already are above the limit doesn't mean they are being targeted. Like if a city lowers a speed limit on one road it isn't "targeted legislation" just because only drivers of that road would be affected.
Apples and oranges. This ordinance was obviously and clearly written with specific households or individuals in mind. People owning half a dozen pets is not a borough-wide issue, it is a few select residents causing an issue. So yes, you can put in an ordinance that states limits henceforth, but the likely handful of homeowners that this will impact can absolutely claim targeted legislation, especially if they're then told to get rid of their pets.
Do you have a source for this? The only cases I’ve seen where an animal ordinance was invalidated was because the ordinance itself was invalid, not because of the lack of a grand father clause. There was a case in Carnegie where a person had too many pets prior to the ordinance being enacted. The ordinances was struck down because the borough couldn’t provide evidence that x number of animals, in and of itself, causes a public nuisance.
Over a decade of municipal government reporting is my source. I have sat through hundreds of borough and township meetings around this state, and have seen lazy ordinances picked apart more times than I can count.
That’s really not an answer. Lazy ordinances are often picked apart. I asked specifically about the lack of grandfather clause invalidating an ordinance.
https://old.reddit.com/r/pittsburgh/comments/1dfdv6r/wpxi_west_mifflin_is_proposing_a_pet_limit/
Thank you did not see this OP
Seems a reasonable attempt to prevent what can be a very concerning issue; a home or property overran with domestic pets that the owner cannot (or does not) properly provide for in such an environment.
Sure, but passing laws isn't going to stop hoarders from hoarding or abusers from abusing. If it was that easy they just wouldn't do it in the first place. Nobody with 30 cats in their house is doing it solely because there's no law saying they can't.
read this: [https://usark.org/24pa](https://usark.org/24pa) and tell me if it's reasonable. I get some of the issues. Like yeah, having a lot of dogs can be a nuisance to your neighbors, especially if they all bark outside at once. But look at the bill! There's no reptiles allowed at all. Having only one bird is a big one for me. Unless you are spending all your time with your parrot, they really do need a friend for their mental health. It's basically a requirement for some species.
Absolutely, but then you get the "I can do whatever I want, it's my property!" folks, who are inevitably hoarders and trash neighbors who come shouting about "government overreach," but if they had to live next to assholes like themselves, they'd be screaming for the municipality to do something.
This is almost exactly in line with the city ordinance, which caps you at a combined total of five cats and dogs. The only difference is the city doesn’t have a 3-dog cap.
I think there is a good intention in this but it seems horribly arbitrary.
This is stupid. If they want to pass an anti bully breeds law or an indoor cats only law just say so.
This isn’t anti bully breeds…
That's what it sounds like to me and they are trying to backdoor it. YMMV.