Click here to view La Crosse Area Weather
Home > News > Story
 Advertisement 

SECTION SPONSORS


Published - Monday, March 19, 2007

POST COMMENT | READ COMMENTS (191 comment(s))

Dog owner takes on town’s pet ordinance
By JOE ORSO | La Crosse Tribune

.
Eleanor Herrick is meeting with an attorney today to explore what legal action she can take to keep more than two dogs at a home in the town of Holland.

On Friday, she had made plans to sell five of her seven dogs in order to be legal under the town’s dog ordinance, but changed her mind over the weekend.
“It has pretty much ripped my heart out,” said Herrick, 42, who attended two recent town board meetings in an effort to find a way to keep all of her seven dogs. “In a lot of ways it’s like having kids taken, which isn’t a fair comparison to people who have actually lost children, but it hurts.”

In 2005, Herrick moved from Isanti, Minn., back to the home where she grew up to take care of her mother, who had lymphoma and needed a bone marrow transplant.

She brought her miniature schnauzer and six Labrador retrievers, which joined her mother’s Tibetan Spaniel in the home at W 7421 Kip St., Holmen, Wis. The eight dogs are indoor dogs and three of Herrick’s were rescued dogs, one after Hurricane Katrina.

When she was updating her dogs’ shots this winter, she was told about the dog ordinance, which limits dogs older than five months to two per individual or family living together. Anyone wishing to house three or more dogs must apply for a conditional-use permit from the county of La Crosse, which Herrick did in January.

“People didn’t realize I had dogs until they got a note from the county,” Herrick said. Neighbors “protested on the basis of potential noise and potential odor. They had been living next to these dogs

without any knowledge of noise or odor for 14 months.”

Herrick, who trains and competes her personal dogs, said while she didn’t seek to set up a breeding and training facility implied by the permit, she was willing to do so to keep her dogs.

But at a board meeting Wednesday, March 14, supervisors Kathy Dummer, Jim Lakey and Jim Halvorson voted down a motion by supervisor David Carlson to allow Herrick to register her four personal dogs and get rid of her three rescued dogs within 60 days.

Although six people in the township legally own three dogs, their variances were granted before a meeting on June 9, 2004, when that board passed a motion to stop considering variances on the dog ordinance. The decision, said Marilyn Pedretti, town clerk, happened after an influx of requests for variances.

“The current conditions truly create criminals out of responsible dog owners,” Herrick, a nurse at Community Memorial Hospital in Winona, said at the March 14 meeting.

George Hammes, town chair, said in about a year and a half, no one had complained about Herrick’s dogs.

“Personally I think we should review our dog ordinance,” Hammes said. He plans to create a committee of board members and citizens to review the dog ordinance, and said Herrick would be a good candidate for that committee.

Dummer expressed concerns that since the ordinance allows for two dogs, liability would rest with the town if they allow more than that.

“Once we get to more than two animals, the problems that can arise do arise,” Halvorson said.

Herrick said some of her dogs are now at a commercial kennel.

She said the town board members “need to remember that their roles have real effects on real people’s lives.”

The Town of Holland has about 700 dogs, said Marie Dummer, town treasurer.

Joe Orso can be reached at (608) 791-8429 or jorso@lacrossetribune.com.
.
 Advertisement 
 Tell us what you think...

 Comments »

The Moderate wrote on Feb 9, 2008 5:09 AM:

" My question is how does the Trib keep this thread intact when just about every other article in the last year loses a bunch of posted comments? "

Jim Branch-Mansfield Ohio wrote on Apr 14, 2007 3:39 PM:

" The town of Holland is an embarrasment and a disgrace to the United States of America. You have slapped in the face, every veteran that died so that Americans may be "free". You folks truely have no clue what freedom is. "

Deanna wrote on Apr 7, 2007 8:39 AM:

" This is a sad sad case of people with nothing better to do than interfere with another persons life. Let her keep her "babies". I have three well kept dogs of my own and couldnt imagine having to find homes for any one of them. They are a part of our family and our home. One thing is for certain. When we are out and about we will definately drive right past this town with our babies ! "

Patricia Self, Deatsville, AL wrote on Apr 5, 2007 5:10 AM:

" The town treasurer lists the total number of dogs in the town as 700. The human population is 3,042. It is not as if your town is over-run with dogs. What is keeping the town council from allowing these wonderful, disciplined, and loving animals to stay with their owner? It's not as if she knowingly acquired them, one-by-one, after moving to Holland--in willful violation of the town ordinances. She came when her mother needed her presence and assistance and, knowing it would not be a short stay, brought the dogs with her instead of boarding them out. This is a caring and loving animal owner, one who maintains shots, who keeps the dogs under close scrutiny, and who considers the dogs her "children," her family. Please find a way to have the dogs remain with those who love them. "

Tina in Texas wrote on Mar 30, 2007 8:45 PM:

" Elenor I admire you for being with your mother when she needs you the most. I admire you even more for standing up to this ridiculous ordinance. If the dogs are clean and cared for and there is not any outraged and upset neighbors then what is the big deal?? Maybe a waiver of some sort could be issued for "special circumstances" like yours. "

a reader wrote on Mar 30, 2007 12:11 PM:

" Sadly, the neglectful or abusive dog owners will not be deterred by arbitrary limits. How unfortunate that someone with well cared for and well behaved animals should have to go through this. "

Becky wrote on Mar 28, 2007 6:24 PM:

" Please let Eleanor keep her dogs. I have 4 labs and they are better behaved than a lot of "single" pet households. It would kill me to have to decide who had to go and who can stay. Could LEARN foster a couple of dogs temporarily til Eleanor's problem can be solved? "

Heather wrote on Mar 28, 2007 3:18 PM:

" I think the limit laws are silly. There are already laws for nuisance barking and dogs running at large and animal cruelty. Those laws should be enforced instead of limit laws existing. Eleanor is a responsible dog owner. Her dogs do not effect the neighbors or community negatively. It's interesting that the town no longer considers variances since they got too many requests. Seems that there are many people who think that the limit law is silly. My city also has a set limit and won't issue keenel permits. I don't want to fight it so I am moving. They are losing a responsible member of the community. But my neighbors with 2 dogs that they let run at large and potty in everyone's yards will stay. Please let Eleanor keep her dogs and consider removing the limit law. "

Evelyn Bailey wrote on Mar 28, 2007 8:50 AM:

" I see comments from people who are worried about property values, people who are upset about all the "throw-away" dogs and cats in the pounds and shelters, and people who are concerend about "today it's dogs - tomorrow it could be goats, or pigs, or...". The fact remains that NONE of the ordinances address the people who create problems - they seem only to victimize folks who haven't ever been a problem and aren't likely to suddenly become one. Eleanor's neighbors weren't EVER bothered by her dogs - some didn't even know she had dogs. And yes - they ARE like kids to many of us - and you'd take any of my three dogs or three cats away from me over my cold, dead body. "

What Happened? wrote on Mar 27, 2007 2:28 PM:

" There were well over 100 comments here yesterday, today they're gone! Looks like someone "just doesn't want to hear it." Sad. "

Chuckles wrote on Mar 27, 2007 10:07 AM:

" If people want dogs they should live somewhere where everyone likes dogs. This lady says she is pure as the wind driven snow as far as nusiance is concerned. But most people with dogs are not. I say people first, dogs second. A community is entitled to set standards. "

To: Back off wrote on Mar 27, 2007 9:57 AM:

" When did she ever talk about running a business? These are her well loved pets. "

Back Off? wrote on Mar 26, 2007 12:28 PM:

" Say what? Back off? I WILL NOT. If she wants to run a business she can do it in a commercial zoned area. It is my right to defend my property value, and I WILL! As for not wanting to live near me, GREAT! That will keep property values from being artificially inflated and keep my taxes down. DOGS GOT TO GO! "

Ideas wrote on Mar 25, 2007 3:23 AM:

" This is ridiculous. To those of you who are worried about your property values going down because of the presence of 7 well-behaved, well-cared-for dogs: Your propery values ARE going to go down, but not for the reasons that you think. They are going to go down because of all the negative publicity you have brought upon yourself in causing Ms. Herrick to lose her dogs. Obviously, from the blog posts, the public overwhelmingly supports Ms. Herrick. You'd better back off, or no one will ever want to buy a house in your community. LET MS. HERRICK KEEP HER DOGS!! "

Multiple Dog Owner II wrote on Mar 25, 2007 1:00 AM:

" How can having dogs next door decrease property value if the yard is well cared for and the dogs are quiet (there are gardens and a pond there). We lived in a city in WI for years with 9 properly licensed dogs and our neighbors' housing values continued to climb as did ours each year (along with the taxes). Fortunately we are now in the country and have no judgemental people such as yourself for neighbors. Despite being "nuts" we manage to hold down white collar professional jobs, raise a handicapped child and take care of our home/property appropriately. I would bet money that our neighbors don't even know how many dogs we have (or care -- they all have multiple dogs as well). "

Multiple Dog Owner wrote on Mar 25, 2007 12:52 AM:

" First of all I think it is a breach of privacy for a vet to have to turn in clients who come to him/her for medical care for having too many dogs. To "two dogs are enough" -- who died and put you in charge? Since when do you know how many animals someone can care for? If the yard is clean and the dogs are quiet what concern is it of yours? How are they bothering you? "

Concerned in Illinois wrote on Mar 24, 2007 5:22 PM:

" To the person who says that a neighbor owning 7 dogs will reduce her property value - IF the dogs are quiet, IF they live indoors, IF they don't roam the neighborhood and frighten people, IF they are cleaned up after, IF they don't live outside and bark for hours on end and - IF they've been so quiet and unobtrusive over the past year and a half that you didn't even know they were there, how in the WORLD is their presence going to reduce the property values of the entire neighborhood? What is your proof? You say this is a "kennel." Sorry, but seven dogs living in the house is not a "kennel," any more than caring for a sick family member makes your house a hospital. "

wow I am glade I didn't buy that house in Holland wrote on Mar 24, 2007 1:44 AM:

" I have a friend how is saleing a house in holland nice place my husdand and I were just talking about moving over there now I will not even think twice about it I have 12 dogs all up to date with shots and all in traning and some with blue ribbins too we spend alot of time amd money on our dogs they all live in our house with use and they are loved very much Eleanor I am so sorry to hear about your mom SHAME SHAME TO THE TOWN BOARD AND SHAME SHAME TO THE CITIZENS OF HOLLAND FOR LETTING THIS HAPPPEN LET HER HAVE HER KIDS REMEBER GOD IS WATCHING USE TRINA C WITHLOVE FROM ALL THE KIDS DALLAS,TEXAS.JAKE,SHIREFF,JOEY.GINGER.BRANDY,MONTY,JESS,BASILY,TJ,AND THE HOUND THATS MY FAMILY "

This town needs to get a clue wrote on Mar 23, 2007 6:02 PM:

" I can't believe the people who can say that their property value will decrease. You obviously have never had the companionship of a dog. They are more loyal than some of your best friends, if you have any. Leave this woman alone and let her keep her dogs. Deal with this on a case by case basis. If the neighbors didn't even know she had them, what's the problem? I think the neighbors should butt out. They all sound pretty selfish. "

Protect my Property Value wrote on Mar 23, 2007 2:41 PM:

" If these dogs are there, it will decrease my property value. If the town board lets this woman have a kennel (7 dogs) in a residential area, then they had better reduce ALL the neighboring assessments by 75%. Reduce my assessment by 75% so the rest of the township pays, and then I'm all for this. Otherwise, PROTECT MY PROPERTY VALUE! The dogs got to go! "

rescuetrain wrote on Mar 23, 2007 1:57 PM:

" Under WI law pets are deemed property. I do not understand how the government can restrict the number of property items you own as long as they are not disruptive to society. If you own 7 cars, all properly licensed, in working order and parked in a garage, does the township care? No. If the cars are sitting on blocks in the front yard then the township can be concerned. Well trained dogs not causing a nuisance should not be regulated by the township. This is an intrusion on personal rights! When a property owner doesn't take care of the property, be it cars or dogs, then the township can get involved. A blanket statement preventing a good pet owner from owning however many they can take care of isn't anyone else's business. The township of Holland should be ashamed!!!! "

Kathy Smola wrote on Mar 23, 2007 1:55 PM:

" To the town of Holland: Please, please, please reconsider your stance and issue a variance to allow Eleanor to keep all of her dogs. These dogs are not vicious, they are not a nuisance, in fact, her neighbors didn't even realize she had that many dogs. As a fellow pet lover, with 3 cats of my own, I was heartbroken to hear about this story. Eleanor's dogs are her FAMILY! How would you feel if you were told that you had to get rid of some of your family members? This is a tragedy that there is such a law in effect that would make her have to give up her "kids". Please, I am urging you to reconsider your position and allow Eleanor to keep her family in tact. "

Colette LaDue wrote on Mar 23, 2007 8:52 AM:

" Sooo, if the 7 dogs are alowed to stay ...the world will end?? I believe that if the town has the right to make such narrow minded laws, that they should be ready and willing to spend the time necessary to review each of the (and they made the rule that a permit for more dogs could exist) permits - with publicly stated critera - such as... are these animals sick, mistreated, noisy, smelly, dangerous -with each criteria able to be substanciated and with NO SUBJECTIVE, anti-animal, opinions. So, if she was making a business of this and brought money into the tax situation of the town - then it would be OK? Is this another case of this country's ability to make business-corp. more important than the people? "

holland should be ashamed wrote on Mar 23, 2007 8:03 AM:

" first eleanor came to care for her dying mother. In this selfish day and age that is remarkable in its own right. But what does she get for being a loving and caring individual? her dogs ripped from her care. And why because she was getting them routine medical care that probably many people in holland do not even do. This is sad and the people of holland who are putting her through this should be ashamed. I would vote for an ordinance on kids in a second. "

HOGS, HOGS, HOGS wrote on Mar 23, 2007 7:18 AM:

" If they let her keep the dogs, I'd better get my permit for HOGS or, I'll get an attorney. "

You are ALL nuts wrote on Mar 23, 2007 7:11 AM:

" 1. Dogs are NOT HUMANS. 2. Equating dogs with humans is STUPIDITY. 3. Two dogs is more than enough. "

deena wrote on Mar 22, 2007 9:52 PM:

" I live in WI. I find this truly taumatic!! Allow this owner to keep her dogs. All of them! Isnt there a law in WI that states that pets are good for ones health? This woman Elenour came all the way from a different state to tend to her mothers needs and she brought her kids with her. She went about it legally and is getting slammed. Make a good example out of her for being honest. If she wanted to be sneeky she could have taken different dogs to different vets. She did the right thing and dont deny her the babies that she saved and raised. Please dont do this to her! "

Lisa -WV wrote on Mar 22, 2007 8:48 PM:

" Oh, MY HEART GOES OUT TO ELEANOR!!! Quality bred english labradors and a woman who loves them dearly.. OK you can have 2 dogs, not feed them or take care of them, its all good???? This woman takes care of her dogs and takes pride in what she does. SHE LOVES them... how do i know this? i am a labrador owner/lover/breeder as well, and someone who doesnt care wouldnt do the things with her dogs/lines that this woman has.. SHAME on this town. Go after the ones who REALLY need their dogs taken away, go after the ones who owns dogs/cats that have litter after litter from the neighbor hood dog... Concentrate more on getting drunks/drug dealers off the streets there... SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE YOUR PRIORITIES MIXED UP... LEAVE THIS WOMAN AND HER DOGS ALONE!!!!! "

Stockiemuir Jack wrote on Mar 22, 2007 6:18 PM:

" Eleanor, I hope you get to keep your dogs, especially the Labs (they are probably related to me!). We Labs need to stick together! I look forward to meeting them all when my owners take me on walks. I will ask my owners to carry a few extra kibble pieces to share with your dogs, should we ever cross paths. Good luck to you all! : ) Your friend, Jack J. Town of Holland "

To; Rules are Rules wrote on Mar 22, 2007 9:57 AM:

" Rules were made to be broken. Try not to be so sanctimonius. This woman is a fine example to dog owners everywhere and tried the "legal route" by applying for a variance. Shouldn't they be considering this on a case by case basis and not lumping everyone together because of an "influx of requests". Whaaaa! We have too much paperwork! Give me a break! "

Barbara Miller wrote on Mar 21, 2007 10:50 PM:

" Why punish instead of helping? There are folks that work tirelessly to save the animals that lose their way and fall into a rescue situation. Shelters are always begging for help. They are put into a position of over-crowding and they call us to take the dogs when their days are up. We can't save them all and when we save some, it seems like there are penalties to pay instead of communities being thankful. It doesn't seem right that this fine lady, because she chooses to save has to give up her rescues and maybe her own. Our world is so messed up. Increase the numbers and grant variances. Show some compassion for those that cannot speak. They weren't named "Man's Best Friend" for nothing. Look in the mirror and admire the person you see there ... "

Bill owned by 4 rescues wrote on Mar 21, 2007 9:12 PM:

" Again government and those in charge will punish all for the irresponsibility of a few. As mentioned by others, I've seen children who behave worse than pets. Will they limit the number of children a family can have? "

Bill wrote on Mar 21, 2007 9:10 PM:

" Again government and those in charge will punish all for the irresponsibility of a few. As mentioned by others, I've seen children who behave worse than pets. Will they limit the number of children a family can have? "

Kathy wrote on Mar 21, 2007 8:30 PM:

" If three of the officials who voted against Miss Herrick are up for election April 3rd, then send them on a permanent vacation! This is irresponsible legislation. Who says 8 dogs are more of a problem than 2? Provide the facts! Far better to have a nuisance law that addresses noise and oder rather than the number of dogs kept. "

Kaye Smith wrote on Mar 21, 2007 7:37 PM:

" In a day and age where we have disposable plates, and diapers we also find that many people think it is acceptable to have disposable pets. Ms.Herrick does the right thing in moving back home to care for her elderly mother and she also does the right thing by moving her own personal dogs with her. Do you know how many people would have just dumped the dogs? Many! I have had people dump their dogs for some pretty stupid reasons, and in Ms. Herrick’s case I would have understood. However Ms. Herrick does not turn her back on her own mother or her dogs, and she is punished for it? I find her refreshing. This town should be ashamed of itself! Kaye Smith Founder Dead Dog Walking Pit Bull Rescue "

Karen K - and Willie, Maggie and Abby too! wrote on Mar 21, 2007 7:05 PM:

" Oh no - a post from a family with three dogs! Responsible dog owners should not be punished by this inhumane and cruel law - the law of the land says that these laws are unconstitutional - unfortunately you will destroy a family by the time this works through the courts - Fight them Eleanor - we support you - dog owners across the country support you! "

Goldog wrote on Mar 21, 2007 6:25 PM:

" Someone please help me understand this insanity. We have a woman who moves at a moments notice to help her mother, not knowing about the dog limits. She lives there for more then a year and no one even knew she had dogs. No complaints were ever filed. THEN, she is told she is not in compliance and does the right thing and files for an exemption. The exemption is denied by the board. Just what is wrong with this picture? This could be your dog, your beloved pet. VOTE YOUR CONVICTIONS. "

goldog wrote on Mar 21, 2007 6:19 PM:

" Someone please help me understand this insanity. We have a woman who moves at a moments notice to help her mother, not knowing about the dog limits. She lives there for more then a year and no one even knew she had dogs. No complaints were ever filed. THEN, she is told she is not in compliance and does the right thing and files for an exception. The exception is denied by a bunch of self righteous committee members. Just what is wrong with this picture? VOTE YOUR CONVICTIONS. "

Shirleysommers wrote on Mar 21, 2007 6:14 PM:

" "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist." John Adams. >>I don't support agendas or laws that punish the innocent along with the guilty! "

It's not that simple wrote on Mar 21, 2007 5:58 PM:

" Who says, those cute Pot Belly pigs, are livestock; the same government that says only two dogs? If dogs/hogs are property, and limiting where and how many one can have is unconstitutional, as some have suggested, I want my hogs mommy I want my hogs! "

Eleanor Herrick wrote on Mar 21, 2007 5:49 PM:

" First, I would like to thank everyone for their generous support. It means so much to me. Second, I would like to ask that those who support a variance being granted contact the Town of Holland to express those opinions, and to encourage your friends and family in the Town of Holland to do the same. Local opinions carry the most weight. Finally, as we approach the election on April 3rd, I ask that we cast our votes carefully for the candidates that best represent our interests and values. Bless you all. "

Shamed wrote on Mar 21, 2007 5:36 PM:

" Shame on the council and the residents. Stand up for this woman and let her keep her dogs. She is what we all wish to have in our lives, responsible, caring and compassionate. Where are the hearts of this community? Do not boot out well tended and behaved dogs out, they do not understand what they did to deserve this treatment, I don't either... hang your heads in shame. When they come to boot you out for having grass that is too long... don't ask for help from the community, it won't be there. "

Goldogs wrote on Mar 21, 2007 5:34 PM:

" Someone please help me understand this insanity. We have a woman who moves at a moments notice to help her mother, not knowing about the dog limits. She lives there for more then a year and no one even knew she had dogs. No complaints were ever filed. THEN, she is told she is not in compliance and does the right thing and files for an exception. The exception is denied by a bunch of self righteous committee members. Just what is wrong with this picture? VOTE YOUR CONVICTIONS. "

Michael G. Chapman wrote on Mar 21, 2007 5:03 PM:

" This arbitrary ordnance is totally unjust. Why not have an ordnance that if dogs disrupt the neighborhood, run loose in the neighborhood or do (you name it)then the owner will be prosecuted. Well-behaved dogs deserve a break. This responsible and loving pet owner should not be punished for rescuing and taking care of her dogs. Give her a break and let her keep them. If the town council does not understand this, they should be replaced. "

why stop at dogs, what next? wrote on Mar 21, 2007 3:33 PM:

" So some say the dog limit was set before "bad" things could be caused by dog owners, lets apply it to everyone one, not just the irresponsible owners! So lets spread that thinking around a little more and see how those same people like it! More crimes happen at night, so now no driving around or being out after 9 p.m.! You now have a curfew and you have never done anything wrong! Ok, so say that is a proven fact... should everyone's rights be taken away? Now if the degree of the situation warranted drastic measures, then you address the actual problem, but you don't just create laws arbitrarily! "

They needed help. wrote on Mar 21, 2007 3:32 PM:

" These animals needed help. Ms. Herrick came to their aid. Let the dogs stay. "

Deb H. wrote on Mar 21, 2007 3:21 PM:

" I don't understand why Eleanor can't get a conditional use permit since there have not been any complaints about her dogs. A conditional use permit would allow the town to SET CONDITIONS on the keeping of greater than 3 dogs which should cover the concerns of neighbors/the town so what is the problem? Let this person, who has proven themselves to be a responsible pet owner, keep her dogs. Those who are not responsible (have complaints) can be denied a permit, those who are can be granted one. Why is that so difficult for this town to figure out? All laws like this do is encourage people not to be honest about the number of pets they have. I sure wouldn't be licensing my multiple dogs if I lived in that town!! "

Audrey wrote on Mar 21, 2007 2:42 PM:

" Addendum: I did call. The woman I spoke to was Marilyn. She was polite...as I'm sure they are receiving many calls..and said she would pass my message on. Good luck..god bless...and "light" "

Audrey wrote on Mar 21, 2007 2:37 PM:

" EVERYONE...should be as conscientious as this woman is with her dogs and we would not half the problem with dog fighting/ overpopulation/ euthanization,etc of dogs that could easily be otherwise adoptable. PLEASE consider the circumstances and allow her to care for her family. "

Natalie Fay wrote on Mar 21, 2007 10:40 AM:

" I am utterly shocked by the treatment of this pet owner. It's appalling and heartbreaking. "

Eric wrote on Mar 21, 2007 10:39 AM:

" why is the law being used to punish an outstanding dog owner. Someone that should be the poster child for repsonsible dog ownership, instead some council members feel the need to vilify her? I don't get it. Good luck Eleanor and Reno, and council members open your eyes, please, laws are not meant to punish repsonsible adults. Common Sense anyone?? "

Lynn wrote on Mar 21, 2007 9:10 AM:

" If everyone in Holmen had their dogs trained like Eleanor, this would not be an issue. Those worried about the barking while the dogs are outside should ask themselves whose dog is doing the barking? Is it their dog that will be doing the barking if they see Eleanor's dogs outside? Then whose dog is at fault? Do the neighbors keep their kids quiet while they are outside playing? Dogs listen much better than kids and they will only be in kennels a short time. This lady has given up a lot to care for her mother and she doesn't need this also. What is this world coming to? We used to help our neighbors in need, not make things difficult for them. May God bless you, Eleanor, as you take care of His creatures. "

Jodie Smith wrote on Mar 21, 2007 8:36 AM:

" This is an appalling situation, that a few members of a town can decide how many animals we can have. This woman was bothering no one and she should not have to lose her family. "

My Dog Votes wrote on Mar 21, 2007 8:04 AM:

" Luckily Eleanor and Reno live in a democracy! Ironically - the very people who voted against her are actually up for re-election on Tuesday, April 3rd! Eleanor and every other pet owner in town should be asking the question: Is Your Candidate Dog-Friendly? Visit My Dog Votes.com or DogPolitics.com to download the My Dog Votes Guide To Dog-Friendly Candidates & Help Save Dogs & Democracy. Eleanor & Reno - See you at the polls! "

Greg Lynch - Lakewood, Colorado wrote on Mar 21, 2007 2:33 AM:

" The town board members who are putting this poor lady in this horrific position took office after evidently checking their brains at the door. I would encourage a campaign to recall these idiots as soon as possible, lest they do more damage to their electors over whatever issue surfaces next. How about an ordinance limiting the number of children a couple can have? After all, they are without a doubt harder to train than any of Ms. Herricks labs, and they talk back, to boot! "

Pamela (in Australia) wrote on Mar 21, 2007 12:52 AM:

" Local Governments and local Councils around the world should start realising that pets are part of our families, not mere chattels that can be dispensed with at will. Hearts are broken when callous Councillors sit around their round table making these dreadful Laws. Smacks of the Peta mob and Animal Rightists who don't want humans owning any animal whatsoever. LET THIS WOMAN KEEP HER BELOVED DOGS....AUSTRALIA IS WATCHING YOU...THE WORLD IS WATCHING YOU!!!!!! "

Kathryn - Colorado wrote on Mar 20, 2007 11:05 PM:

" Superviser Halvorson said “Once we get to more than two animals, the problems that can arise do arise” Those problems can and SHOULD be addressed on an individual basis. TWO dogs - depending on the owners and dogs - can cause as many (or more) problems than 7 dogs. If 7 dogs are well behaved, why should they be punished??? Good Luck to you Eleanor!! "

Jane Harford wrote on Mar 20, 2007 9:46 PM:

" The facts from the town meeting state that Eleanor's dogs have lived there for over a yr without any issues. Eleanor is a known quantity in her own community, as well as the lab breeder world. The woman moved home to help an elderly, ill family member. None of what has been stated factually is negative. Most of what is true is positive. These dogs are contained, quiet, well trained, therapy trained animals and living with a responsible owner. You are tearing out the heart of a wonderful breeder/owner/caretaker(for her mom). I find it appalling that you're tearing apart a family because of an arbitrary law from years ago. Look at the facts, look at the situation and grant this woman the variance she has earned and deserves. "

WHAT'S THIS WORLD COMMING TOO!!! wrote on Mar 20, 2007 8:49 PM:

" PLEASE PEOPLE PUT YOUR ENERGY TOWARD SOMETHING ELSE!! GIVE THIS LADY A BREAK THE ONLY THING SHE IS GUILTY OF IS LOVING HER DOGS!! TO BAD THERE WENT MORE PEOPLE LIKE HER!!! WE HAVE TO MANY OTHER ISSUES GOING ON HOW ABOUT ARE SOLDERS THAT ARE DYING IN THIS WAR!!! LEAVE THE LADY ALONE!!!! "

Be realistic wrote on Mar 20, 2007 8:38 PM:

" As much as you like to say it, these are NOT kids, they ARE DOGS. I love my dog, but it is still not the same. Also, would you all be so adament for this woman if she were a garbage lady, for example? She's preying on your emotions, people, get off the dog haters websites and step into reality. "

TJ Thurston (Huntley, IL) wrote on Mar 20, 2007 6:44 PM:

" I have had dogs my entire life - during my childhood my family had 4 big dogs along with us 4 big boys. There was never an issue of health or welfare and our neighbors loved our dogs. I am also an attorney in Illinois and think that these town board members are thinking like robots - "the law says A, so we do A. We can't think for ourselves." As a lawyer, I was taught to apply the law with compassion. Clearly the town board is not so doing in this case. Overturn the law or allow the variance for these pet owners. "

How about this? wrote on Mar 20, 2007 6:40 PM:

" How about this - give BB guns to everyone with kids or dogs. If Eleanor's dog comes into your yard, tears up your trash, poops on your lawn, or barks at night, you can pop it with the BB gun. OK? Everyone with me here? Everyone happy about attacking animals who don't know any better? Super! Now, let's continue. Here's where it gets sticky folks. In return, she can, if your kid tromps through her yard, plays loud music, has a boyfriend or friend (because Lord knows YOUR kid would never do it) who peels out at midnight, gets drunk and throws up on the lawn, has a pool party that interrupts your flower planting on a summer day, or does any other irritating kid behavior, pop your kid with a BB gun. Sound fair? "

Molly -- the dog wrote on Mar 20, 2007 6:30 PM:

" Eleanor, I'm setting aside dog biscuits in case your attorney needs them for strength. My human parents have "pieces of paper" they think will help, too. Make sure you let me know if you need extra help. I'll be there in a heartbeat. "

Pat Herschman wrote on Mar 20, 2007 6:15 PM:

" When wlll government learn that dog owners vote and should have rights too?????? WE DON"T WANT YOU TO DECIDE HOW MANY PETS WE CAN TAKE CARE OF!!!!!!!!! Instead of writing new laws limiting the number of pets we can have, why not ENFORCE existing leash laws??!! "

Venice California wrote on Mar 20, 2007 6:06 PM:

" This is yet another example well intentioned individuals making incredibly poorly thought out legislation. One has to wonder if anyone takes Civics in school anymore. Blanket laws like these that leave virtually no room for justifiable exceptions are as heinous and dangerous as any zealot or dictatorship all in the name of democracy. Democracy? What bunk! What happened to the live and let live tenant of democracy? What happened to giving people the chance to either perform and succeed or mess up, before regulating them? Instead we have the let's over regulate democracy to the enth degree allowing creeping socialism to become the norm where the government is granting us our rights ...or not. "

Marilyn Carr wrote on Mar 20, 2007 5:13 PM:

" I live on Maryland's Eastern Shore and cannot imagine this happening to me, my family and all our fur children. What on earth are those people thinking, or are they thinking at all. Furbabies are our children and this Reno sounds far more human than a whole lot of "humans" that I know. I will pray that this wonderful response in this lady's favor will wake up those people who so glibly are willing to break her heart as well as hearts of her dear dogs. Hopefully they will read all these comments and use their common sense to approve this exemption. If she lived there all this time and people didn't even know she had dogs - tells you something doesn't it!! "

Barbara Lachney wrote on Mar 20, 2007 3:28 PM:

" While I do not live in your area, I have visited your beautiful state many times. I have often said that Wisconsin is surely blessed by God with it's natural beauty and wonderful folks. But perhaps I must reconsider. How can a township punish the caring and conscientous simply because she has dogs. Dogs that are NOT abused, noisy, smelly or otherwise bad citizens. On the contrary. Ms Herrick has proven that her animals are the type of neighbors we should all strive to be. How many of you can say the same about your own children, spouses, or friends? We must ALL band together for the sake of the countless Reno's. For if not, we may be next, "

Dorothy Znosko wrote on Mar 20, 2007 2:55 PM:

" Dear Town of Holland Folks: Boo to you for not allowing a variance for Eleanor Herrick's dog, Reno! Double shame on you being he is a therapy dog!! What were you thinking? I have seen children wreak more havoc than 4 dogs; are limits on children next? 2 Lab Owner in Jackson, MI Dorothy R. Znosko "

Dorothy ZNosko wrote on Mar 20, 2007 2:53 PM:

" Dear Town of Holland Folks: Boo to you for not allowing a variance for Eleanor Herrick's dog, Reno! Double shame on you being he is a therapy dog!! What were you thinking? I have seen children wreak more havoc than 4 dogs; are limits on children next? 2 Lab Owner in Jackson, MI Dorothy R. Znosko "

reasoning is misdirected wrote on Mar 20, 2007 2:01 PM:

" I believe some of the laws regarding dog numbers are being misued and are misdirected in their use. Puppy mills should be the primary concern when it comes to numbers and abuse, neglect and catching a law breaker. Not this lady and her 7 dogs who lived peacefully for 14 months. Dog people are a multi billion dollar industry in the United States and we are a powerful group when you go messing with our furkids. I hope this is resolved and all these dogs get to stay right where they belong, at HOME! Cambridge, OHIO "

Appalled American in France wrote on Mar 20, 2007 1:47 PM:

" A daughter comes home to take care of her sick mother, brings her dogs who are so quiet the neighbours don't know they are there, and the township wants to add to her troubles by taking away her dogs. This is too bizarre for words. "

Laura wrote on Mar 20, 2007 1:29 PM:

" So its better to have 2 dogs that may or may not be well cared for rather than have 4 dogs that are treated as family members. Oh yeah! That makes sense. "

Kathy Beard; Douglass, TX wrote on Mar 20, 2007 12:54 PM:

" Eleanor Herrick is a very responsible and loving person to all of her family both human and animal. She obviously takes very good care of her dogs and is very considerate of her neighbors. This is apparent since she lived with her mother for fourteen months and none of her neighbors even knew that she had seven dogs. Please leave Eleanor and her dogs alone. This separation could be devastating for all involved. "

Eleanor Herrick wrote on Mar 20, 2007 12:22 PM:

" I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to read the article, and a special thank you to those who took time to post their thoughts here. Your support is deeply appreciated during this difficult time. I hope there will come a time when I'm able to report a happy ending. If you're ever facing issues about these kinds of ordinances in your own hometowns, please remember my story when you cast your votes. "

where can I send a donation to help with legal expenses? wrote on Mar 20, 2007 11:50 AM:

" I'd like to send some money to help Eleanor's legal fees. When can I send a donation? She is fighting a battle for all pet owners. Your town could be next! Three cases limiting pets have been over ruled by higher courts in the past. If it has to go to court, let's make this one the next to get thrown out! "

Effective laws and ordinances wrote on Mar 20, 2007 11:48 AM:

" Even in my own hometown we did away with several most recent ordinances when it was finally agreed upon that if we just upheld the OLD ordinances, we wouldn't need the new ones. This sounds like the same thing! Doesn't Holland have ordinances that can deal with the actual "problems that can arise"? Noise, roaming at large, odor or property destruction problems-those are the things that the community should be protected from. Not 7 dogs in one household that do not cause ONE of those problems! "

worried about hogs? wrote on Mar 20, 2007 11:23 AM:

" To the person worried about hogs coming in next... check you zoning ordinances, hogs (cows, horses, etc.) are LIVESTOCK. Dogs are domestic animals!!!!!!!! "

number arbitrarily selected?? wrote on Mar 20, 2007 11:12 AM:

" Where is the evidence that 2 or more dogs would create a public safety concern or a public nuisance? Where is the evidence to support any specific number of pets being a nuisance or safety hazard?? It sounds as though this number was arbitrarily selected! Responsible dog ownership should be rewarded not punished. There had been no complaints against Eleanor or her dogs, why is she being punished? Obviously because the town is abusing their powers?! I would like to remind the town supervisors of "Kadash vs City of Williamsport (Pennsylvania), 1975: �What is not an infringement upon public safety and is not a nuisance cannot be made one by legislative fiat and then prohibited. Even legitimate legislative goals cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when the goals can otherwise be more reasonably achieved.� "

Individual Responsibility wrote on Mar 20, 2007 11:05 AM:

" Some people can't even take care of themselves, much less one dog. However many people, myself included, own several dogs and provide better care that many children recieve today! Get rid of the draconian law and leave Ellen Herrick and her dogs alone. "

Appalling.... wrote on Mar 20, 2007 9:52 AM:

" A responsible dog owner who has the means to own and care for not only dogs that she already owned but some that she rescued and she's being asked to rip her family to shreds. The world needs MORE people willing to step up to the plate and be kind, loving and good to animals. This town should hang it's head in shame. I am very grateful that I live in an enlightened town in a dog friendly country. I am planning on sending this story to everyone in my address book and hope you hear from people all over the world about the barbaric practice I read about here. Shame Shame Shame!!! "

Stooddard has dog issues too wrote on Mar 20, 2007 8:54 AM:

" I was so surprised to see this article, since we are having the same problem in Stoddard. We have 3 dogs. My dogs are all small, 13lbs, 11lbs and 3lbs, yet the village has a problem with them.They are all house dogs and go into my large fenced in yard only! Yet there is nothing being done about the dogs that run around town loose in and out of everyone's yards. These officials need to be concerned with the dogs that are vicious and loose in the city limits and leave us with good dogs alone! "

UNBELIEVABLE! wrote on Mar 20, 2007 8:34 AM:

" This story is totally unbelievable! Government time would be much better spent on other things! This lady takes care of her dogs and keeps them quiet as to respect her neighbors. Why not go pick on the ones that don't! The ones that don't register their animals, don't have them spayed or neutered and let free to roam the streets creating even more un-wanted homeless animals! A better solution would be to let her keep the ones she has and not allow any more. As long as she is caring for them and respecting others in the neighborhood is it really such a big deal?????? "

Louella Ericksen wrote on Mar 20, 2007 8:24 AM:

" I feel that a limit on dogs owned by a responsible owner is very cruel. Dogs are such a comfort to people, especially if they are alone. If they are quiet, cause no odor, and have been trained properly, let the lady keep her pets! I know how heartbreaking it is to lose even one, but all but two it's devastating!!!! Please be kind to her. "

It's not that simple wrote on Mar 20, 2007 7:56 AM:

" You all keep talking about irresponsible pet owners. So, we remove the limits for responsible people, and remove the right from irresponsible people. Sounds good to me. I still want my hogs! "

Christine Wicks wrote on Mar 20, 2007 7:04 AM:

" I am horrified This Lady has done nothing but good for people, both family and community, in the work she does and the work she carries out with her dogs. Here in UK such work as therapy dogs is voluntary, meaning no payment. Why is she being made to re home her much loved family of dogs, because of some silly ordinance that hurts the responsible, but not those it should hurt. Please have a heart and reconsider your decision. This Lady deserves help not obstacles. If all dogs were so well behaved we wouldn't have a need for your laws. Work with this lady not against her please. "

Deb wrote on Mar 20, 2007 6:49 AM:

" What ever happened to common sense? If this board can not make the right decision, then they should be replaced with people who can use a little common sense. I would rather have Eleanor in my neighborhood with 7 dogs than some of the irresponsible dog owners who have 1 dog. I guess common sense is not so common. Eleanor, you go girl. Deb "

Glad I live in Ohio wrote on Mar 20, 2007 6:07 AM:

" Sorry you can only have two dogs.However,you may have as many children as you want,even if you don't spend any time with them,take care of them,abuse them,or don't give a crap what they do. Stupid,stupid,stupid law and ever dumber people that hatched this idea!!I think I would have to take my chances in court. Where do I send monitary donations to help with the lawyers fees? "

bestuvall wrote on Mar 20, 2007 1:46 AM:

" Holland?? you make me embarrassed to be Dutch.. "

Jane wrote on Mar 19, 2007 10:46 PM:

" Please let this lady keep these dogs. Why should good pet owners be punished with the bad? There should be laws to enforce the problems that bad pet owners cause. Go for the deed done by the few. Don't harm the folks who are doing what is right. "

To: Good Grief!!! wrote on Mar 19, 2007 10:38 PM:

" Socialism is when the government owns all the businesses, we are FAR from Socialism. "

It's not that simple wrote on Mar 19, 2007 10:34 PM:

" Great! That means the guys can start their HOG FARM operation in the town of Onalaska, after all, any limits on animals are unconstitutional! That also means the no hoofed animals within the city limits is also unconstitutional, I can now have pot belly pigs as pets, just like dogs! Look out La Crosse, Holmen, and Onalaska, the hogs are coming right next door! "

Sue Barrett wrote on Mar 19, 2007 10:32 PM:

" The only reason for restricting pet numbers is if you cannot control bad pet owners any other way. Even with a 2 dog limit, the poorly trained and cared for dogs will pose more noise, odor and nuisance value than Eleanor's well-trained dogs. They are well trained and clean,and will remain so since they are HOUSE pets. "

Dog ordinance rationale? wrote on Mar 19, 2007 10:10 PM:

" If an ordinance causes undue hardship to a citizen that is not causing a nuisance, and if the town won't grant a variance due to concern about potential problems down the road, what about a special permit, with conditions specific to the situation? Shouldn't common sense prevail? Why does an exemplary dog owner have to suffer to ungranted variance, intended to cover the worst case problem makers? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Good grief, try a temporary variance or special permit, if everyone is so darned nervous about what if, what if.... And make some changes to the ordinance process if it's not working! And it's not. "

Farsight wrote on Mar 19, 2007 9:57 PM:

" Let her keep all her dogs. They're obviously not a problem if the neighbors did not know they lived there. Laws are made to help and protect people - and variances are granted to allow exceptions to the normal laws when they become necessary. This gal obviously is a responsible pet owner and deserves the variance. "

concerned in chicago wrote on Mar 19, 2007 9:44 PM:

" laws that are enforced by whim and caprice are worse than no law at all. allow the varience for e.h. and vote out the bums. "live free or die" "

Karen wrote on Mar 19, 2007 9:23 PM:

" With all the problems in the world today, why would anyone want to worry about how many dogs a person has - especially when the dogs are well taken care of and are not causing any problems. The council members should be ashamed of themselves. No one complained about these dogs. Why create a problem where there isn't one?? Don't these people have anything better to do than to pick on a kind woman with well-trained dogs? "

Annonymous wrote on Mar 19, 2007 9:18 PM:

" I find it interesting that her reasoning that it was okay to break the ordinance was that "no one knew about it". No one knew about Jeffry Dahmer, to use an extreme example, and that did not make it okay. Laws are made for a reason; unfortunately some people abuse those rights. "

Prognosis: According to the Lab...you're going to be just fine. wrote on Mar 19, 2007 9:12 PM:

" Now, we'll just have to convince the Town of Holland board of directors. I'll be there if you need me. -- Molly "

glenn socia wrote on Mar 19, 2007 9:09 PM:

" Keep adding pressure to the elected officials. They are the ones that really matter. They make the changes, and if not, use the ballot box to make a change. I think they had a lawyer tell them what to do. It's the people who live there that should sway their decisions. "

Quote... wrote on Mar 19, 2007 8:49 PM:

" If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men. ~St. Francis of Assisi "

Caring Daughter, Good Citizen, Not this Community's Type wrote on Mar 19, 2007 8:46 PM:

" This woman is obviously a caring, responsible Citizen who came home to care for a seriously ill mother. She practices superb animal husbandry concerning her dogs and you nail her to the cross. Good Job People. I could understand it better if the dogs run amuck everywhere throughout neighborhood and/or town, but they don't. Instead she has Registered Therapy dog(s), Canine Good Citizens. Must be slow business in Holland that they need to deprive 2 woman of the source of pleasure in their lives. Eleanor, Get a lawyer, post an address so that we can send money. I would bet that you would get lots of small contributions, which will add up to big money! I think the town of Holland needs a lawsuit concerning the rights of the individual. "

SANDRA DAVIS wrote on Mar 19, 2007 8:32 PM:

" The people of this community should be ashamed of themselves, letting go their freedoms and rights so easily. I believe if I can provide for and had the space for 100 dogs, it is my right to own those dogs. My property....my right. "

Me to wrote on Mar 19, 2007 8:29 PM:

" Congratulations to everyone who is responding to "Dog Owner takes on town's pet ordinance". This shows what a difference "I'm only one person" can make. That person alone with all the others who say the same thing can make an army. This is a good fight. A fight that should be won by the good dog owners and the responsible dog breeders. Good luck Eleanor. You are the kind of pet owner we want more of. "

Unbelievable... wrote on Mar 19, 2007 8:17 PM:

" I can't believe we are hearing this in this day & age. Of all the horrible things going on in the world today, why take away something that gives so much joy? Even to people that have children, these dogs are our babies. When the husband turns his back, when the kids have grown & gone... there is one who will never leave you... your dog. Let her keep her dogs. This is UNBELIEVABLE! "

Good Grief!!! wrote on Mar 19, 2007 8:17 PM:

" Where are Eleanor's rights? This is socialism plain and simple. "

petlover wrote on Mar 19, 2007 8:14 PM:

" I have more problems with people's childern than I do with people's pets. Parents let their childern run loose, cause vandalism, burglary, etc. Most good pet owners keep their pets at home and well cared for. Why is it that pet people are regulated to care for their animals more than parents must care for their childern? Let Eleanor keep her dogs. Heck the neighbors didn't even know that she had them. As far as bredding, I haven't seen anything that says that Eleanor is a breeder--she just has many dogs in her household. "

Christina wrote on Mar 19, 2007 7:57 PM:

" These are not dogs, these are someone's children... I dont see anyone telling the lady down the street to get rid of one of her 8 human children! "

Christina Debowski wrote on Mar 19, 2007 7:50 PM:

" Having lived in Wisconsin all my life and enjoying all this state has to offer, am saddened that our rights as dog owners are being violated at every turn. Once the government decides how many animals you can have, how soon will it be before they decide how many children, or how long we are going to be able to live? Not that far in the horizon. Chilling thought? Then let's stop the foolishness before it gets to that point! Christina Debowski "

Diane T wrote on Mar 19, 2007 7:33 PM:

" OMG Now the government is telling us what to have and not to have. Labrador Retrievers are not a viscious animal. In fact they are the best animal you can own. They are personable, lovable and most of all enjoy peoples company. They greet you with a smile every time. Wagging there tail. They are her KIDS. Would you tell a family with 7 kids to find homes for them??? Stop and listen to yourself. Every situation is different. Let her keep her dogs. Stay out of her business. "

What happens to the wrote on Mar 19, 2007 7:20 PM:

" It's intrusive, into-everybody's-business nanny laws such as this that help to fill the animal shelters with "surplus" pets. When responsible, capable, caring adults are forbidden by their all-knowing town councils, condo boards, etc. from keeping the number of animals they would prefer, then each "forbidden" animal represents one more that is killed in a pound or shelter. Ms. Herrick's "redundant" pets will no doubt be placed with responsible people who will see to their care. Each one who needs a "new home" represents one more shelter dog killed for lack of one. I am on the staff of a breed rescue group. We are called on to find new homes for WANTED pets whose owners have been forbidden by law from keeping them, not because they are a nuisance or are neglected, but because of an arbitrary numerical limit. "

Sad Day... wrote on Mar 19, 2007 6:36 PM:

" It sickens me to read about Eleanor's trials in this town. You've stripped her of her reason for being there in the first place. You're draining her of her strength to help her mother fight for her life. The added misery you are causing her and her mother will surely affect both womens immune systems. Shame on you...go find something productive to enforce...These dogs are, and have been her family...how dare you rip apart families in this way. Again shame on you and all of you rightous people out there who belive this should be enforced... "

Donna wrote on Mar 19, 2007 6:25 PM:

" Are we heading the way of the communist countries..next they will start limiting the number of children a person can have. It should be based on each circumstance. I had a friend with a similar problem, she just hid some of the dogs at my house until the coast was clear. She also uses a different address for the vets (out of state), what else could she do? "

Rights wrote on Mar 19, 2007 6:16 PM:

" Amazing nearly all the posters in here complain about wanting their personal freedom on property they own. But how many of the same people want to take away the rights of bar and restaurant owners to choose if they want to allow smoking in their businesses. Keep government out of our lives as much as possible. If someone has too many pets that are a nuisance the neighbors will let the city know and the problem can be corrected. "

People are the problem wrote on Mar 19, 2007 6:14 PM:

" I have five dogs and they are all obedience trained and very lovable and quiet. I have never seen or heard of a dog throwing garbage out of a car window, raping someone, mugging someone, cursing at someone over a parking space, ect. People are the problem! not dogs! If a dog is a problem in a neighborhood you can bet the owner is the problem. Don't attack the dogs who were born to love people if given the chance. Fine the bad owners who don't take the time to train and socialize their dogs. Good owners should be rewarded. "

To: More than 2..... wrote on Mar 19, 2007 5:56 PM:

" Why should no one have more than two cats? "

Animal Lover wrote on Mar 19, 2007 5:47 PM:

" I understand why they have these town ordinances, but if a person proves that they are responsible pet owners then they should have no right to tell them how many pets they can have. I hope she gets the support from people when she's fighting for this. Good luck Eleanor, I'm routing for you on this! "

What happened to the Constitution? wrote on Mar 19, 2007 5:46 PM:

" The US Constitution assures our right to own property. The town's law is unconstitutional and needs to be revoked. Herrick is obviously knowlegeable and dedicated, and takes exceptional care of her dogs. She would be a valuable member of an ad-hoc committee to come up with a more useful law; one which would restrict unresponsible behavior rather than punish the conscienscious. "

cam wrote on Mar 19, 2007 5:46 PM:

" I sure wish there was a law on how many children people could have!!! We can't keep our windows open in the summer because the neighbor's grandkids (I think they live there full time) are always running around screaming, with no regard to whose yard they're in. They are mouthy and not disciplined at all. It's terrible!! I'd rather live next to seven well behaved dogs any day! "

Variances wrote on Mar 19, 2007 5:45 PM:

" Variances are granted by towns all the time for all kinds of reasons, lower taxes for disabled, elderly and blind, allowing building or additions in areas too small under the rules etc. If the reason for the law is 'dog problems' and if the person with the dogs is not causing any 'dog problems' then the variance should be granted. If for no other reason than compassion for the illness she is coping with in her mother the variance should be granted. I can't imagine only being allowed to have two dogs as my pets. But the animal rights folks who want to end all breeding and all ownership of animals think its a step in the right direction :( "

Stephanie Worrall wrote on Mar 19, 2007 5:39 PM:

" What is happening in the States?!? I am an American citizen, but have been living abroad for many years. Being away from the land I was raised in makes it even dearer to me, but what I have been reading in the papers lately makes me wonder if my beloved homeland is still a land governed by, for and of the people. Government should only be for the protection of the people- not there with its finger in every day to day action. Let the lady have her very well-behaved dogs. And the townspeople should try to remember back to the days when neighbors supported, not legislated, each other. "

As long wrote on Mar 19, 2007 5:23 PM:

" IF there aren't noise complaint and she's taking care of these dogs, why does the govenment care? Isn't there real problems to work on? Maybe were overfunding them if this is what they do with their day! "

to: Town of Holland board members wrote on Mar 19, 2007 5:14 PM:

" If you'll review the comments that have been posted here, you'll get a good sense of what good people (and Molly -- the dog) think. I'd say you certainly will be among good company and strong support if you allow Eleanor Herrick and all her dogs to remain together as a family. "

Dogged by dog laws wrote on Mar 19, 2007 5:08 PM:

" I am facing the exact same predicament as Eleanor. Fortunately I am in the position to move from my home which is what I'm doing. I have a neighbor that has three dogs. They don't pick up after them, they don't get them vaccinated, they are tied up in an unfenced yard, intact, and having litters one to two times a year. They bark at all hours of the day and night, BUT that's OK because they only have three. I have seven, they are inside, have a fenced yard, are picked up after twice a day, hardly ever bark, are vetted and groomed regularly, and I'm the one in trouble. It should really be up to the individual owner. If someone is willing to pay the variance to be checked out once a year, than let them have the dogs. It's just unfair "

Tricia Breen wrote on Mar 19, 2007 4:07 PM:

" It makes no sense that responsible people should be punished despite being responsible. Don't look at the numbers. Look at the ability of the individual to care for the dog(s) they own. There are people who own one dog that are nuisances. There are people like Eleanor, who own several and do it without imposing any hardship on others. Be logical and rational - it isn't required of bureaucracys to be dumb, even if it is the norm. "

more than 2... wrote on Mar 19, 2007 4:06 PM:

" dogs should ok, but make sure you never allow more than 2 cats. "

R A wrote on Mar 19, 2007 3:50 PM:

" What about the people in West Salem who were granted the kennel permit for "50 DOGS" for breeding purposes!!!! That was outrageous.. Now, this is outrageous. If I could have 7 dogs I would, I love them, and if she can care for them in the right manor she should have them. If the neighbors didn't even know she had 7 dogs, why would they care now?? Vote the bums out people!! "

To Responsible Breeder wrote on Mar 19, 2007 3:08 PM:

" You sound like a good breeder to me. I have no issues with what you are doing, because you are improving the breed, and doing everything to prevent backyard breeding. Amen to you. My pets are all adopted from rescue groups, but someday I want to get a well-bred yorkie. I am glad that there are good breeders out there for me to consider. There is no "you against me" here. I am angry with BYBs and puppymills. Check out the ads in the Tribune for "dogs for sale", all those without phone numbers... ask yourself, why don't they have phone numbers?? "

P. K. Van wrote on Mar 19, 2007 2:57 PM:

" Shame on the town board members for this capricious law making and SHAME ON THE CITIZENS OF HOLLAND for allowing it continue. "

Jennifer Mitchell wrote on Mar 19, 2007 2:25 PM:

" This is a very sad situation for Eleanor who dearly LOVES her dogs. Both her and her dogs will suffer greatly, as would YOU if someone forced you to give up 1 of your 3 children! The ordinance is illogical and should be re-looked. Stricly based on the NUMBER of dogs, it does not protect the community from nuisance or aggressive dogs, chronic barking, odor or filthy health conditions, animal neglect or abuse, irresponsible breeding, etc. Eleanor and her well-cared-for, well-bred dogs have caused absolutely no problems or threats to the township. I suggest the township issue a reprieve, at least temporarily until they can come up with a logical ordinance that better serves the purpose, i.e., regulating dog ownership based on evidence of real problems. "

Concerned in Illinois wrote on Mar 19, 2007 2:22 PM:

" Oh... and did I say that I no longer recognize my country? "

Concerned in Illinois wrote on Mar 19, 2007 2:19 PM:

" Patty - she didn't have to have offended anyone, not personally. Apparently someone was offended at the mere idea that someone has more dogs than they would want. This denial was based upon "well, what ifs" and "maybes," not the reality of the situation, which was that her dogs were so unobtrusive as to be imperceptible by neighbors until their attention was called to their presence. Give someone who is normally powerless a little power, and they'll rip your heart out. Governments are supposed to protect us from vigilanteism, not subject us to it. Sounds like in Holland, "Let no good deed go unpunished." "

Patty wrote on Mar 19, 2007 2:06 PM:

" It will be truly horrible to take this woman's beloved dogs away. Obviously they are not a disturbance to the neighborhood. Go after the BYB and leave reputable breeders like Eleanore alone. Please don't take her babies away. It is heart breaking for her and her dogs. "

Dyno-Mutt wrote on Mar 19, 2007 1:57 PM:

" What y'all need to do is vote the bums, who make these unreasonable, uncaring & un-American laws, out of office! "

Good Dog Owners vs. Bad Dog Laws wrote on Mar 19, 2007 1:28 PM:

" Eleanor should be granted a variance as soon as possible. She and her dogs have not caused a problem. She is a responsible dog owner, as evidenced by the testimony of her neighbors. The ordinance should then be revised to reward responsible dog ownership and punish irresponsible dog owners only. Eleanor is an educated, knowledgeable professional who can help the Town do this effectively. Reward good citizenship rather than punish it, and grant Eleanor the variance she deserves. "

Conditional Use Permits wrote on Mar 19, 2007 1:27 PM:

" A request for a conditional use permit requires applicants to request permission from neighbors to 'have 7 dogs'. If the neighbors have concerns, they must present those concerns. Documented concerns usually do not get granted conditional use permits. "What if" concerns should not be the end of the 'conversation' between the two parties. This is where the 'conditional' part comes into play and the county is to negotiate the conditions. If odors are voiced as a concern,...then....dogs must reside indoors at all times and feces is to be picked up and not left on the ground, would be the 'condition' applied to make it acceptable to meet the neighbors concerns. i.e.,Neighbor sees a pile of poop, calls the county, and owner is cited and 'conditional use' permit is revoked. End of story.... That's how it's supposed to work. "

To: As a breeder wrote on Mar 19, 2007 1:22 PM:

" I won't get into the disagreement about breeding show dogs vs just wanting a good pet. But I do have to wonder what kind of high fallutin' world you live in, that you think $1000 is a reasonable price for a pet. One could almost conclude that you think pet ownership should be reserved for the rich. "

Patty wrote on Mar 19, 2007 1:09 PM:

" NOT THEIR AFFAIR! I wonder who she offended, to make them go after her like that. We all know that humans, get offended easily, so instead of taking it out on the person who she offended, they are taking it out on the dogs. How sad. Next we will see the government telling us, who we can talk to and who we can't. "

Patricia wrote on Mar 19, 2007 1:03 PM:

" When I first read this article, my first reaction was....Oh NO, no way is this happening...here in America"! But yes, it was. How sad, that we as a country, are sinking down to the level of other communistic countries. China, with their only 2 childred allowed per family, etc...If the town council has adapted the new ruling based on what could happen, well then what's to stop police from arresting individuals for crimes that they don't commit,m based on they "Might" happen??? I think she should sue them. The dog is a registered therapy dog, not a dog who wanders the neighborhood, getting into trouble! "

Joy Elliott wrote on Mar 19, 2007 12:52 PM:

" I think it is a terrible thing to make some one "get rid" of their well trained and well cared for animals,,,worse yet to force this responsible dog owner to choose who has to go. I can only hope the City will re think and re- evaluate the ordinance,and bring this nightmare to a sensible conclusion. "

Limits are arbitrary and capricious wrote on Mar 19, 2007 12:45 PM:

" There is no legal way to have a limit when that limit does not account for property size, square footage and animal weight. A 7 dog limit per residence is arbitrary and capricious. Land Use must be permited and not have a blanket resriction just as the amount property taxes paid that are paid arenot a blanket arbitrary number. Sewer taxes are also dependant on square footage and bathroom numbers. If there is to be an infocen\ment of an arbitrary number why not reduce allthe towns taxes to the lowest number withing the town and let the largest home pay that amount? "

Allow the variance wrote on Mar 19, 2007 12:44 PM:

" Change the ordinance and in the meantime allow the variance so Eleanor can focus on her job and caring for her mother. Why should she be punished for moving in to help her mother? That's the reward she gets? To lose the rest of her family in order to help her mother? Hasn't she sacrificed enough? Not to mention the fact that she has rescued and fostered MANY dogs-I guess this will be the end of that too! "

Concerned in Illinois wrote on Mar 19, 2007 12:39 PM:

" Pet limit laws have already been determined to be unconstitutional and arbitrary: http://www.nokillnow.com/petlimitlawunconst.htm ----- I completely understand that some people don't like dogs and don't understand those of us who do. That's fine - no one's dog should ever be allowed to deny their neighbor's safety and enjoyment of their property. No dog should be allowed to be a nuisance, irritation or health and safety risk. Eleanor's dogs were none of those things. Some are Therapy dogs - they visit nursing homes to give comfort and joy to residents. I believe she does a Dog Read program, which helps children learn to read by reading to the dogs. She saves the lives of unwanted dogs by fostering them for a rescue. Are these dogs nuisances? Or are they assets to the community? "

As a breeder wrote on Mar 19, 2007 12:31 PM:

" Only a select few dogs bred by "show" breeders are kept for performance or show. The rest make WONDERFUL pets. Why? Because their parents must have excellent temperaments and soundness in order to compete and win titles in the events they do. Also, "responsible" breeder means that they utilize spay/neuter contracts and Limited Registration for pets sold in order to have the least impact on the overpopluation problem. BTW, Great labs from great breeders in this area are usually less than $1,000.00. No dog is perfect. But I do work my behind off to make sure they have an excellent start to life before they go to you, and have excellent temperaments and trainability. That temperament and trainability are part of why no one noticed she had that many dogs for that long! "

Homeless Animal Rescuer wrote on Mar 19, 2007 12:28 PM:

" As a member of a homeless animal rescue team in the area I have seen several hundred dogs come through our program, mostly due to irresponsible owners. We vaccinate/spay and neuter all of our pets, requiring anyone who adopts from our organization continue this care. Eleanor is doing everything the "right" way and still people complain,not only affecting Eleanor and her dogs, but alsolocal shelters and rescue workers. There are many overcrowded shelters and foster homes in this area. Taking these dogs from their home will not only be devastating for Eleanor and for the dogs but will most likely result in euthanization of others due to lack of space! It's a shame that selfish people are rewarded while kind, responsible people are punished! Eleanor and her dogs have not caused problems! Why would anyone want to cause problems for them? "

wrote on Mar 19, 2007 12:22 PM:

" speaking of responsible pet owners...why do we have to pay the city EVERY YEAR to register our dog(s). we already pay several hundred dollars EVERY YEAR to have them vaccinated, as we must prove this every year upon registering them with the city..... meanwhile there are dog owners who do not have their pets vaccinated, nor registered with the city... and apparently they are left alone while the good, responsible owners continue to pay ever increasing annual fees. "

in response to re:irresponsible dog breeding wrote on Mar 19, 2007 12:18 PM:

" Why's the price of a well-bred puppy so high? I have spent hundreds testing my dogs to ensure they are free from hereditary health problems and only breed to cleared dogs. I socialize and evaluate my pups, and carefully screen the homes they go to, refusing some people and matching pup with person in others. A BYB sells puppies to anyone with a checkbook. I also keep every puppy I breed as long as I need to find it the "right" home, responsible breeders don't dump the "leftovers" at the pound as so many BYBs do. I am here for my puppies their whole lives, and will answer questions from the families. I also will take back any dog I've bred at any time in it's life for any reason. Try that with a BYB. No, I am NOT the problem, I am part of the solution. "

Dana wrote on Mar 19, 2007 12:13 PM:

" Where will the dogs end up if she has to get rid of some of them? In an overcrowded kill shelter, with an irresponsible owner, euthanized, or placed with a rescue group? How horrible to think of the first three outcomes. If she indeed calls a rescue group, she more than likely will not be able to place her dog with them, because they are too busy dealing with the overwhelming number of ill cared for surrenders, and strays from irresponsible people who view pets as "dumpable". Let this woman keep her dogs, they are doing no harm to anyone...in fact her neighbors didnt have any idea how many she even had until it was brought to their attention. "

Molly -- the dog wrote on Mar 19, 2007 12:07 PM:

" Grant Eleanor Herrick an exemption, and then amend the ordinance. What's the matter with that town board? Even we dogs can see she's as close to a perfect care giver as you can get. "

Multiple Dog Owner wrote on Mar 19, 2007 11:38 AM:

" Its a shame that a responsible pet owner may have to choose what dogs she keeps and what she has to get rid of. If all of her dogs are licensed, vaccinated, well cared for, and not causing a public nuisance I dont see what the problem is. Let her have a permit! "

Re: Re: Irresponsible Dog Breeding wrote on Mar 19, 2007 11:35 AM:

" I have never bred a dog, nor will I ever. My dogs are all spayed and neutered. I will not be responsible for adding to the overpopulation of dogs and cats in our country. Every dog that is bred and not spayed/neutered adds to this huge problem. As for the cost of good quality dogs, I don't like it either. If you want a dog, adopt one that will die in a shelter. Adopt from rescue groups. You can get wonderful pure-breds from animal rescue groups. Breed for high quality, not money. "

re: irresponsible dog breeding wrote on Mar 19, 2007 11:15 AM:

" I think you and others like you would like to have all the rights to breed dogs, your price range is ridiculous, $2,000-5,000 for a puppy? That would suit you just fine if ordinary people weren't allowed to breed dogs that aren't PERFECT. Many people don't want dogs for show, they just want a pet. Home breeders breed pet dogs not show dogs. Personally I think people who only raise dogs for show shouldn't be allowed to breed. "

RE: Rules are Rules wrote on Mar 19, 2007 10:49 AM:

" Good next time your KID tromps through my yard or wakes me up with its screaming, I will be sure to apply the same "rule". Please.