Dear editor:

The recent complaints about Powell dog limits have triggered the question: Is the “right” number of dogs two, four, or something else?

That question is the problem.

There is no correct number of dogs. A single neglected, constantly barking dog can make a neighborhood miserable, while four well-trained dogs can be a non-issue. This is a problem about behavior and not numbers. 

Instead of focusing on actual nuisances, some city officials seem apt to act like central planners: pick a number, expect it to work for everyone, then, when residents push back, they say reexamination of the issue would be “total chaos.” No. “Total chaos” comes from trying to micromanage private life with arbitrary rules that ignore individual circumstances. 

We’ve seen this before. Powell had an exotic pet permit ordinance that, upon application to the city council, allowed unusual pets such as goats or sugar gliders. The simple problem was that city ordinances didn’t specify under what circumstances a person was entitled to a permit. As part of my representation of the goat’s owner, I drafted a sample ordinance with some basic standards regarding noise, odors, sanitation, the animal’s and owner’s character and behavior, so that going forward, individuals can have the constitutionally required notice about what would entitle them to a permit and the city could still exercise some discretion to prevent a property owner from, say, keeping a herd of cattle or an elephant on a city lot. 

It would have been an easy fix for the city, but rather than adopt a simple amendment, officials simply scrapped the ordinance altogether, fixing the due process issue raised by the case the way death cures disease. 

Based on the conduct and comments of city officials, it appears governing at this level of minute detail is exhausting. And I can believe it. I have a suggestion for city officials going forward: Stop acting like bureaucrats and start trusting people. If it’s exhausting or “chaotic” listening to lengthy, impassioned testimony about what the right number of dogs is, just remember that an elected official’s paramount role isn’t to please complainants or supporters — it’s to protect individual rights, like the freedom to use one’s property in ways that do not harm others. 

The majority of jurisdictions in America, including in Wyoming, get by without a two-dog limit. That alone suggests something about the necessity of Powell’s ordinance.

But there’s stronger reasons to view the limit with suspicion: If a dog is barking incessantly, Powell officials can simply enforce the existing nuisance laws. If an owner is neglectful, deal with that. But if a family is responsibly caring for their animals and not bothering anyone, it’s none of the government’s business whether they have two dogs or four. 

The whole mindset is reminiscent of the people whose solution to gun violence is to disarm everyone rather than merely prosecute and punish criminals who use firearms to commit violence. 

My suggestion is simple: Freedom works better than central planning. Powell doesn’t need more arbitrary limits. It needs the humility to admit that officials can’t regulate their way to an optimal society, and the courage to let responsible people live their lives, while recognizing that there are existing methods to deal with a neighbor who is making life miserable. 

Austin Waisanen

Attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation

Powell