Name one(or more)town within the continental United States that does
not permit the ownership of dogs - or, at least, restricts ownership
to those who receive special permission. Such town(or enclave, or
city) should have a definite geographical area, a year round
residential community, and be a distinct political entity - no trailer
parks or retirement communities.

Hi!

I was unable to find a city or municipality (that has its city codes
indexed by search engines, at least) that outright bans dog ownership.
I also called a friend at the American Dog Owner's Association
(http://www.adoa.org), and he was unaware of any city or municipality
in the US that does so. However, I was able to find one small town and
one big city that require permission/licensing:

The town of Wood-Ridge, NJ requires any dog residing in the
municipality for more than 10 days to obtain a license, according to
the Wood-Ridge city code:

http://www.wood-ridge.com/code/Dogs-and-Other-Animals-Pg13401.pdf
[Adobe Acrobat Reader Required]

Among other things, it lists:

"Licenses shall be required for the following dogs or cats of
licensing age:

A. Any dog or cat owned or kept within the borough by a resident of
the borough on Jan 31 of any year.
B. Any dog or cat aquired by any person during the course of any
calendar year and kept within the borough for more than 10 days after
aquisition.
[...]
D. Any unlicensed dog or cat brought into the borough by any person
and kept within the borough for more than ten days."
[Page 4]

"The Animal Control Officer is authorized and empowered to cause the
destruction of any unclaimed dog or cat, in as humane manner as
possible, under the following contingencies.

A. When a dog or cat so seized has not been claimed by the person
owning, keeping, or harboring the dog within 7 days after notice or
within 7 days of the dog's or cat's retention, including maintenance,
and if the seized dog or cat is unlicensed at the time of its seizure
and the person owning, keeping or harboring the dog or cat has not
produced a license and registration tag for the dog or cat."
[Page 14]

In other words, if you don't license your dog, and they catch it, they
will kill it after a week. Not the best place to live, in this
researcher's opinion!

Burbank, California has a similar code:
http://www.ci.burbank.ca.us/cityclerk/bmc/CHAPTER%206%20-%20NEW.pdf
[Adobe Acrobat Reader Required, Large Document]

"Sec. 6-507. Necessity for Dog Registration; Exceptions.
No person owning or having custody or control of any dog over the age
of four (4) months shall keep
such dog unless the dog is validly licensed with the City as provided
by this article; provided, however, that
the provisions of this article shall not apply to any dog owned by or
in the care or charge of a nonresident of
the City who is traveling through the City or temporarily sojourning
therein for a period not exceeding thirty
(30) days, nor to any dog temporarily brought into the City for the
exclusive purpose of being entered in a
bench show or dog exhibition, provided such dog is so entered and not
kept elsewhere in the City, nor to any
"Seeing Eye" dog while being kept in training or after being acquired
by the blind. Dogs in a licensed
kennel must be kept exclusively in such kennel; otherwise they must be
registered as provided in this article."
[Sec 6-507, Page 22]

"The said Superintendent shall capture and impound any animal found
within the City limits not
wearing a registration or license tag issued by the City or by any
other municipality in the County of Los
Angeles or by the County of Los Angeles."
[Sec 6-206, Page 12]

Burbank's code doesn't explicitly state what the city does with
unclaimed, unlicensed animals.

I hope the above answers your question. I'm personally somewhat
relieved that there doesn't seem to be a city that has outright banned
dogs!

To answer your query, I used the following search terms:
"dog ownership" permission municipality
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22dog+ownership%22+permission+municipality
"dog ban"
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22dog+ban%22
"dog ban" municipality
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22dog+ban%22+municipality
"restrict dog ownership"
://www.google.com/search?q=%22restrict+dog+ownership%22&hl=en
"ban dog ownership"
://www.google.com/search?q=%22ban+dog+ownership%22&hl=en

Have a great weekend!

Axe

---

Clarification of Answer by axe-ga on 13 May 2002 09:00 PDT

Knowledge_seeker: 
 
As the original answerer I value your feedback. However, I answered
the question as it was posed. The the part of the question you
neglected to mention:
 
"or, at least, restricts ownership to those who receive special
permission."
 
specifically is what I referred to. As for the semantics of what
"special permission" means, licensing IS, in fact, special permission.
You may not own one unless you license it. It doesn't get any clearer
than that.
 
The question was also answered another way - In that it informed alj
that such a municipality does not exist. As I mentioned in my
question, I contacted someone who handles legislative affairs
regarding dog ownership *for a living.* He informed me he wasn't aware
of any. Follow-up comments addressed the constitutionality of such
bans. In my opinion, this is a clear-cut, definite answer.
 
If alj is unhappy with the answer, he may publicly rate the answer,
request clarification, and/or request a refund. That is well within
his right, and I would encourage him to do that if indeed the answer
isn't what he meant.
 
Regardless of all the above, I don't believe public second-guessing
when there is no factual error is appropriate for a public answer. I
say this not because I happen to be the one on the receiving end in
this case, but because I think the "customer" should make the final
decision, not other researchers who may hold other opinions. Clearly,
if there is a factual error, then corrections should be made as
needed. That helps the customer. And in the end, that's what we're
here for. Right?
 
Axe  

In my e-mail letter of May 31st to 'answers-editors@google.com' I
stated why I was dissatisfied with the answer to my question(ID
15223). I ask that you read it.
On May 18th I had sent a message under "Request for Clarification", to
the researcher (awe-ge) who responded to the question,  where I stated
why I thought the answer was inappropriate.
Basically - the researcher had taken the words 'receive special
permission' and applied them to the routine licensing and registration
of dogs that is required by virtually every community in the country.
If this were valid, why would any sane person even ask the question -
and offer to pay $50.00 for an answer? This distortion of meaning is
also unfair to persons who, having correctly read the question, did
not touch it because they recognized its difficulty. And there were
some of these, as witnessed by a couple of the comments.
There may not be an answer to the question as stated, and in that case
no reply is warranted or expected; but if there if there were an
answer I did want to hear about it.
alj-ga

Hi ALJ!

In addition to the above answer, I have found articles discussing
breeding restrictions, number limits, and Nuisance laws pertaining to
dogs in the US, but have yet to find any place that restricts all dogs
within its limits.
Dog Owners Guide:  Dogs and the Law
http://www.canismajor.com/dog/laws1.html

Ohio is one state that requires pet registration.  “Ohio law requires
dogs to be licensed in the county of residence and to under the
control of the owner at all times. License renewals are due between
December 1-January 20; new licenses must be obtained within 30 days of
arrival in the county or when a puppy reaches the age of three months.
License programs are administered by county auditors; license fees are
set by the commissioners according to a formula set by the state.
License money is deposited in the dog and kennel fund to pay farmers
for livestock lost to unidentified dogs, finance the administration of
the program, and fund the incarceration of stray dogs for five days
(unlicensed) or 14 days (licensed).
The law also requires dog to be under the control of their owners at
all times. Loose dogs can be impounded and the owners cited for
violation. About 2.2 million stray dogs enter animal shelters each
year, and only about 600 thousand are returned to their owners. Many
dogs never find their way home because they lack identification, and
the best bargain in town for identification is the state-mandated dog
license.
Some counties have separate animal control agencies, but many contract
with an animal shelter to house the strays. Larger counties tend to
choose separate agencies; Montgomery County (Dayton, Ohio); Lucas
County (Toledo, Ohio); and Franklin County (Columbus, Ohio) all
operate an animal control division separate from the county humane
society. Some counties have integrated programs in which the dog
wardens and the humane society share facilities but are compensated
separately. Hamilton (Cincinnati. Ohio) and Clermont (Near Cincinnati)
counties are even more closely tied; both have animal control programs
run by the local humane society.
License fees near Cincinnati range from $8 (Franklin County) to $12
(Lucas County), with most set at $10. Hamilton County's license fee is
$9.”
“Making Sparky legal:  Ohio dog laws”
http://www.canismajor.com/dog/ohlaws.html


Rott-n-Chatter.com lists those towns and counties where specific
breeds are banned in the continental United States. Mostly Pit Bulls,
American Bull Dogs, and Chows.
http://www.rott-n-chatter.com/rottweilers/laws/breedspecific.html

Several likes to breed specific legislation are found here.
The Stafford Exchange
http://www.staffordmall.com/exchangebsl.htm

Several of the sites mention conflict with dog bans and the US
Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, because the dog is the property
of the dog owner.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
( http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
)
 

I hope this helps!
Penguin

Another site which lists Canine Legislation Alerts is the American Kennel Club at:
http://www.akc.org/love/dip/legislat/legislative_alerts.cfm

This would help you decide where to live if yu're either pro-dog or anti-dog.

maybe I'm missing something here, but when alj-ga referred to "those
who receive special permission," I don't think generic "licensing" is
applicable - don't many US jurisdictions require dogs to be licensed?

Yes, I agree with mmi-ga...I didn't answer this question because I
didn't find any area that restricted dogs outright. I think the
"special permission" that alj-ga was referring to would include seeing
eye dogs for the blind etc..

"...enclave..."  Well, I live part of the year at Waikoloa Villas on
the Big Island of Hawaii.  It is a distinct property with physical
boundaries (golf course, ravine, roads)within Waikoloa Village. Our
condo rules do not allow pets of any kind and I have never seen a pet
in the sixteen years we have owned our property.  While Waikoloa
Village itself does allow pets, the Villas does not. If you would
consider this distinct area an "enclave" then there are hundreds of
such areas in the USA with such restrictive covenants.  " PETS: No
pets are allowed on Villas? property except guide dogs. PLEASE DO NOT
FEED THE WILD CATS OR DUCKS BECAUSE THIS WILL ENCOURAGE THEM TO STAY
AROUND."       

          http://www.waiklolavillas.com

Do you consider these type of restrictive covenants to be responsive
to your question??

The following site provides a very good overview of dog control laws
...

THE NEW BREED OF MUNICIPAL DOG CONTROL LAWS:
ARE THEY CONSTITUTIONAL?
http://www.grapevine.net/~wolf2dog/review.htm

In particular ...
"Courts have upheld a wide variety of canine control ordinances based
on the Sentell principle that the state's police power to control dogs
is virtually unlimited. (40) Modern canine control laws take various
forms and cover numerous areas including licensing and registration,
(41) running at large, (42) disease control, (43) kennels and
breeding, (44) sanitation, (45) summary destruction, (46) ownership
limitations, (47) and fighting. (48)  Procedures for violations of dog
regulations usually proscribe impoundment of the dog, notice to the
owner, release of the dog upon payment of fines or destruction of the
dog if it is not claimed. (49)"

Of particular interest may be the link to case law concerning
'ownership limitations, (47)' which provides the following ...
"But see Smith v. Steineauf, 140 Kan. 407, 412, 36 P.2d 995, 998
(1934) (unreaasonable to restrict ownership without showing
nuisance)."

As the constitutionality of banning dog ownership in a city probably
depends upon the decisions of previous cases, this may be as good a
place as any to start.  Unfortunately I was unable to locate free
access to this particular case.

I think that alj's question could not have been more clear..."Name ONE
(or more)towns within the continental United States that DOES NOT
PERMIT the ownership of dogs..."

And given the willingness to offer $50 for this answer, it was my
opinion (and obviously that of others) that alj was referring to
specific exemptions such as seeing-eye dogs rather than the easy-to
find municipalities that require dog licensing (I think you'd be
hard-pressed to find one that doesn't!) I am sure I am not the only
one who could have answered alj's question with, "I couldn't find any,
but ..."

Obviously it is up to alj to determine if the question has been
answered sufficiently.

I certainly don't think this would normally be an appropriate forum
for Researchers (and Commenters) to engage in infighting over how a
question "should have been answered." In the end, Google is right,
that's up to the questioner.

However, given that we all (Questioners, Researchers, and
Commenters)understand that the Google-Answer service is in the
beta-testing stage, I think it is worth raising an occasional question
in the interest of smoothing out the process for researchers and
thereby improving the service to questioners.

That said, alj this is a freebie for you ...

I couldn't find what you were looking for, but...

I did find you an entire continent:

"Unlike the human population, the number of dogs in Antarctica has
been declining. In fact, the "1991 Protocol on Environmental
Protection to the Antarctic Treaty" bans dogs from the continent
entirely starting April 1, 1994. This was done to protect the seal
population from distemper."

http://astro.uchicago.edu/cara/outreach/coldfacts.html

Awaiting your feedback ... 

-Knowledge_Seeker