Pet limits at first seem like a good idea. But with our economy and being number 1 in foreclosures in our state, the pet limit in Albuquerque should be reviewed. We have ended up with 3 dogs that family needed a home for after they lost their jobs and house. We already had 4 dogs and a cat. All of these dogs are small and well cared for, not overly barky, never left out at night and have never cost a neighbor a nights sleep. Two are ancient and sleep 90% of the time. They are walked daily and taken to the dog park from time to time. We've asked our neighbors if our dogs ever bother them with barking while we are at work, and all have told us no. Yes, we are over the limit now and it's somewhat nerve wracking, we would prefer to be complying with the ABQ, City pet limit. But would it have been better for the 3 dogs to go to the Animal Control? If animals are well cared for and so many of them need homes now, do pet limits really make sense?
To bad the bad pet owners ruined it for you.
I think the pet limits really address issues of health and safety and that is why they made some determiniation that over a certain amount can be a concern - dealing with waste disposal, pack behavior in dogs, problems with barking and complaining neighbors, propogation of diseases (for both humans and dogs - parvo can be deadly and thrives in crowded conditions, for example). As Mi3ke notes, this is really geared toward the least responsible among us.
So, I say, if you are taking good care, practicing good health in disposal of waste, addressing overly crowded conditions and no one is complaining, then no harm, no foul. I won't tell...
But I think amending the law is probably not the best idea. It promotes things like backyard breeding, can actually increase the number of animals that cannot be cared for in the city, and does introduce some potential health concerns (for both humans and the pets). Again, these laws are designed for the least responsible among us. But they still live among us, so best to keep them in check (the humans, that is)