(To view the two most recent newspaper articles regarding my court battle, see below)

This page is regarding a legal battle  with Mohave  County  AZ on a constitutional issue that is quite controversial. I'm  challenging the constitutionality of Mohave County's 'PET LIMIT LAW' for which I will appear in court for the third time on Sept 20, 2006.  These laws have been  challenged and successfully  overturned or repealed  in over 1,000 cities, counties and even  three states over the past 5  years alone.

This particular pet limit law is in violation of the equal protection Claus.  Pet limit laws takes  property away with no due process. Pet limit laws do not have any rational basis.  There is no reasonable basis for government intervention.

Because I have the desire, ability and resources to give one more  homeless dog a wonderfully happy life,  I have to appear in court and face a fine of $250 or 3 months in jail.  It's a class 2 misdemeanor.  So, I stand before the judge as an equal standing criminal as liquor store robbers,  child molesters,  drunk drivers with 5 priors or spousal abusers.  THAT OFFENDS ME GREATLY!!  God bless the poor  souls who have 2 dogs over the limit. 

The question in the instant case is whether the Mohave County Ordinance limiting personal ownership of domesticated animals to four or less violates a person’s right to own property.  In Mohave County, “[a]n area in which five (5) or more dogs, cats, or other small animals are kept, maintained, trained, bred, boarded, or offered for sale, with or without compensation, and with or without outside runs and facilities” is defined as a “Kennel.” Mohave Co. Zoning Ordinance § 9.  Mohave County regulates kennels such that:  In the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government is prohibited from depriving a person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  The Mohave County zoning ordinances are an overbroad regulation of animal ownership and violate an individual’s constitutional right to own property.

The established rule to determine the validity of an ordinance is whether the ordinance is “rationally related to a legitimate” government interest.  City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 440 (U.S. 1985).  No purpose or goal for the Mohave County’s intrusion on a person’s property rights is provided in the zoning ordinances.  Therefore, the defining of a kennel is the only expressed government interest in the regulation of animal ownership.

This law directly affects each resident in the county and is responsible for killing upwards of 40% of the pets we now destroy in Mohave County each year.  Simply due to an arbitrary and invasive law by the county to control what property we are allowed to own in their minds - not based nor supported by the constitution.

The common definition of a kennel is “an establishment where dogs are bred, trained, or boarded.”  The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition.  A kennel is commonly a commercial undertaking for the purpose of temporarily caring for other people’s animals.  Simple private ownership of five or more dogs, or any number of animals for that matter, does not meet the common definition of a kennel.

There is no legitimate government interest in defining any area with five or more dogs as a kennel.  Mohave County’s definition of “kennel” equating private animal ownership with the commercial practice of “kenneling” animals is not a legitimate government interest, nor is it rationally related to one.  In fact, defining private ownership of five or more dogs is an unacceptable interference with a person’s constitutional right to property. 

Nor can it be argued that Mohave County’s definition of “kennel” furthers the government’s interest in preventing nuisance.  No rational relationship to can be made between a “kennel” and the prevention of nuisance.  The presence of a kennel with five or more animals has as much, if not more, potential to be a nuisance as private ownership of five or more animals.  No empirical evidence exists to supports the idea that a legislatively created “kennel” would reduce any level of nuisance that otherwise would occur without such government regulation.

The day I appeared for the arraignment,  there was a full court room.  At a minimum,  85% of all who approached the bench, were there for ''one dog over the limit' charges.    $250 fine or 4  months in jail.  DOES THE PUBLIC REALIZE HOW MANY DOGS WE ARE KILLING DUE TO THESE ARBITRARY AND INVASIVE LAWS????? We are actually preventing the county from having to kill them at tax payers expense!!!

Knowing that Pet Limit laws prevent good people from caring for good pets,  these laws condemn many animals to an unnecessary death.  Seeing as though Mohave County Animal Control is extremely strapped for funds and is having difficulty in keeping up with the increasing number of calls,  cannot afford to hire the necessary officers, nor equipment,  have very limited access to computers to help place the animals in their care and by no means are doing any prevention or humane education programs,  it would seem logical for them to consider what so many other communities ( including Bullhead City in the same county ) to allow those who live in rural areas and wish to have more than 4 pets, (but do not breed,  board, or rescue,)  to do the responsible thing and be allowed to care for more than 4 pets  without the threat of standing next to those who drive drunk,  rob convenience stores or beat their wives as if we were an equal standing criminal. I don't breed,  I don't do rescue - I just want to keep my 5 dogs.

Sampling of actual cases of Pet Limit Laws being challenged and subsequently overturned/repealed.

Pet limit laws were proposed and defeated in large and small communities throughout the U.S. since 2001, including Fort Thomas, KY, Richmond, VA, Cherry Hill, NJ, Gwinett County GA and Springfield, Ill. along with nearly one thousand cities, counties and three states over the past 5 years alone. This success can be attributed to the efforts of concerned cat/dog owners and breeders, rescue groups and feral cat caretakers who spoke out strongly to their lawmakers.

The Minnesota Case
Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids, 1997

Law called: “ invalid exercise of police power violating the plaintiffs' Constitutional right to due process.”
The 1994 Pennsylvania Case

Pennsylvania Court Strikes Down Ordinance Limiting Number of Cats Per Residence
By opinion dated March 30, 1994, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court struck down an ordinance that limited the number of cats or dogs that could be maintained in a single residence to five.

The Borough of Carnegie, which is located just outside of Pittsburgh, enacted an ordinance that provided: "No person or residence shall be permitted to own, harbor or maintain more than five (5) dogs or cats, or any combination thereof, within the Borough limits…"

Article from New Orleans, AP wires, May 16, 2003

Judge nixes law that limits Kenner residents to four pets


GRETNA, La. -- A state judge has overturned his own ruling and a Kenner ordinance limiting households to four pets.

The ordinance violates residents' property rights, Judge Alan Green ruled Thursday.

In February, he had upheld the ordinance and the conviction last year of Patricia Kruebbe, who has 12 cats and spends thousands of dollars a year on cat food and veterinary bills.

I am an author of humane education/ character development materials for schools and live 42 miles north of Kingman on a lonely dirt road on 2.25 acres. I work from home.  Planning and Zoning has refused to discuss my quest for a land use permit since they require 2.5 acres.  Within a 3 mile radius, I have only 4 neighbors and they have all written to the courts in strong support of my efforts.  Pets are contained, spayed and neutered, sleep inside my home at night, happy, healthy and loved dearly.

( It may be of interest to some, to see the last court battle I was embroiled in Riverside  County CA where the county tried for four years to convict me of an infraction but failed.  4 years and 43 court appearances and I walked away with a clean record.  which is a sampling of the worldwide coverage I received for winning this ignorant battle.  Then don't forget to watch the 7 min documentary film by George Lucas' film Company regarding the entire situation also. )

The prevention of a nuisance is not a rational basis for defining all areas with five or more small animals as a “kennel.”  However, substantial empirical evidence exists to support overturning such a limitation.  A reasonable person would not take on the private ownership of more animals than that person could responsibly care for.  In this case, Mr. Randy Warner owns five “rescue” dogs. If Mr. Warner did not provide a house for these dogs, they would likely be either feral / stray animals, or in the pound, most likely awaiting euthanasia.  These animals are provided with a safe, healthy home.  The housing of these animals without the manifestation of any negative social or community effects is a beneficial service, which actually saves the government time and money.  This societal benefit far outweighs any theoretical “governmental interest” to broadly limit animal ownership and infringe on a person’s property rights.

The Mohave County limitation on animal ownership is not analogous to statutes and ordinances in other States that have been determined to be constitutional.  See, e.g., Holt v. Sauk Rapids, 559 N.W.2d 444 (Minn.Ct.App. 1997); Gates v. City of Sanford, 566 So.2d 47 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1990);  Village of Carpentersville v. Fiala, 425 N.E.2d 33 (Ill. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 990, 102 S.Ct. 2271.  These laws in other states are all related to more dense residential areas.  The basis for upholding these laws came expressly from the need to regulate public health and safety and/or nuisances.  In the instant case, the five dogs are housed in a remote rural area.  The dogs do not constitute an overabundance of animals in a residential area, as in Gates.  The few surrounding neighbors have all provided letters indicating that the dogs do not constitute a nuisance.

An illustrative analysis of the regulation of nuisance through laws limiting animal ownership appears in the Pennsylvania case, Commonwealth v. Creighton, 639 A.2d 1296 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994).  The governmental interest asserted in Creighton was the regulation of nuisances. Id. at 1299.  The Court in Creighton determined that the government cannot justify regulation of animal ownership simply based on the existing condition of animal ownership. Id.  This would be regulation of a condition as negligence per se. Id.  In order to justify limiting a person’s property right to own animals, the government must show that there is a “nuisance in fact.”  Id.

In the instant case, the Mohave County ordinance, if based on regulation of nuisance, does not establish any methods for determining the existence of a nuisance.  Therefore, the ordinance would be regulation of a condition as negligence per se.  Mr. Warner’s ownership of the five dogs does not constitute a nuisance, as shown in letters from Mr. Warner’s surrounding neighbors.  Therefore, his ownership of five dogs on a rural property 2.25 acres in size is not a nuisance in fact.

Moreover, the court in Creighton determined that an overbroad limitation on a person’s property right to own animals is not justifiable.  Creighton, 639 A.2d at 1300 (“[E]ven legitimate legislative goals cannot be pursued by means which stifle fundamental personal liberty when the goals can be otherwise more reasonably achieved.”).  Mohave County Animal Control, separate from the improper “kennel” regulation, has the authority to regulate potential nuisances that can manifest from private animal ownership, such as excessive noise, loose animals, unsafe or unhealthy conditions, etc.  The overbroad limitation of private ownership of animals is an infringement that is both unfair and unconstitutional.

I  totally understand that many who have larger numbers of pets cannot  appropriately provide for the number they happen to have.  There  are just as  many, if not more, that could easily offer the proper  care, loving and  containment necessary for a group of happy, healthy  pets and not be burdened  financially.  Thus, saving the lives  of countless pets who would otherwise die  an unnecessary death. But, we already have laws on the books dealing with issues surrounding barking,  biting,  clean yards free of feces, etc.  No correlation what so ever to the number of pets at one given home.


The Mohave County  ordinances defining the private ownership of five or more dogs, cats, or other small animals as a kennel, and requiring a permit for a kennel, is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.  The private ownership of five dogs in a remote rural area does not constitute an overabundance of animals in a residential area.  Nor does the existence of five dogs on 2.25 acres of rural property constitute a nuisance.  Therefore, the Mohave County ordinance is a violation of an individual’s property rights. 

For those in support of this effort, please send a letter of your personal views to Kingman/Cerbat Justice Court 0801   524 Beale Street, Kingman, Arizona 86401

For details on the successful  and growing movement to abolish pet limit  laws in this nation,  please see

Randy N. Warner
President    21st Century Animal Resource and Education Services
16224 North Linda  Drive
Dolan Springs, Arizona  86441



Challenging The Constitutionality of 'Pet Limit Laws' in Arizona

Mohave Daily News
Laughlin Entertainer
Colorado River Real Estate Magazine
Needles Desert Star
Laughlin Times
The Weekender
Clippin' The River
Wheels N' Steals
River Cities Business Journal
  AccuWeather Forecast updates for our local community.
Market Watch
Sponsored by:
Click here to translate this site to the language of your choice.


Special Sunday Feature  July 16, 2006

Top Story

Animal lover isn't fond of county's pet limit  (See Bottom of page for Letter To Editor in Kingman Daily Miner also)



The Daily News

MOHAVE COUNTY - Randy Warner's trailer stands at the base of the Cerbat Mountains, somewhere near mile marker 37 on Highway 93. You can squint and see his nearest neighbor's house along a dirt road, and the scorpions and rattlesnakes outnumber people.

But Warner doesn't get lonely. He has three Dalmatians, two pit bulls and six Australian shepherd mix puppies to keep him company.

“Well, the puppies are only here for a week,” Warner explains. “Then they go to Adopt a Rescue pet in Vegas.”

But even when the puppies go, Warner will still be one dog over Mohave County's pet limit of four and he'll face court - and a $250 fine with up to 4 months in jail - when his case is heard in September.

Warner knows some owners can't properly care for a large number of animals, but he doesn't think he's one of them.

He's made a career of rescuing unwanted pets without heeding local regulations. As the founder of Dalmatian ResQ, he fostered 2,700 Dalmatians over a period of 15 years and is a veteran of a three-year court battle with Riverside County (Calif.) Animal Control, in which he made more than 40 court appearances. See for multiple national media coverage and also for the 7 min documentary film made by George Lucas regarding his efforts with Riverside County authorities.

Warner will appear in court to challenge the constitutionality of Mohave County's Pet Limit Laws which limit homeowners to a maximum of four pets unless they own 2.5 acres.  Warner owns 2.25 and the county refuses to discuss the possibility of a variance.   “I have a reputation of fighting for my dogs,” he said. “I'll win this case. It just might not be this time.”

Warner could avoid the fines if he bought another quarter acre and got the land use permit required to operate a kennel. If he had a kennel, he could legally own more than four dogs. But building such a facility would cost money he doesn't have, and Warner insists he doesn't want to run a kennel. He just wants to give a fifth dog a home.

“The fact that they would charge me for being responsible and giving one additional needy creature a good and loving home is counterproductive to the entire overpopulation problem.”

Warner estimates 8 million adoptable pets are killed in the United States each year. His dogs are all taken in from owners who couldn't handle their feisty antics. Some owners bought the Dalmatians after getting the wrong idea from Disney's ? Dalmatians,” Warner said. In reality, the dogs are a hyper breed in constant need of attention. When their owners realize they can't deal with their personalities, Warner is unable to turn them away.


Pets are most often turned in for urination, tearing up furniture and when the owners move. After they are given up, the shelter holds them as long as there's room, but they don't often have time to train troublesome animals. Most are held for a week on average before they're euthanized.

When Randy Warner taught humane education at California and Arizona schools, he stayed away from euphemisms when talking about the numbers of animals put to sleep nationwide.

“I used the word ‘kill' when talking to kids; I don't believe in sugar-coating,” he said. “I get the kids' attention by shocking them, then I go on to the positive message.”

The positive message is that many of the 8 million annual deaths can be prevented with laws that limit breeding and litters, Warner said.

Leah Rojos, bureau manager at Bullhead City Animal Control Shelter, thinks that before such laws can be implemented, they need to be looked at from both sides.

“It will cut down the numbers, but the other side is people putting their litters into a gunny sack and dumping it into the river to hide from the law,” Rojos said. “It needs to be something that's enforceable,” she added.

There are currently no state laws requiring spaying/neutering, unless the animal is adopted from a shelter. The problem with Bullhead City's “high volume of wild feral cats” remains, Rojos said. Many residents think they're helping by feeding the animals, but they're only giving the cats breeding grounds.

The feral cat population swells in the summer months when animal control doesn't set traps in temperatures over 90 degrees because it's inhumane.

“They're just breeding, breeding and breeding,” Rojos said. “And then they go on to the next place and it's a continuing problem.”

While the younger cats can still be domesticated, there is no way to train mature feral cats. They are euthanized, and accounted for half of the total deaths at the shelter last year.


Randy Warner believes humane education should be taught once a year in all grade levels. He has offered his services as a guest speaker to local schools, but has been unable to “get in.”

Mohave County School superintendent Michael File said, “We don't really have a specialist that comes in to do humane education in the schools. The science curriculum touches on food chains and animal care.”

High schools go by a science curriculum that doesn't include humane education, according to the Arizona Department of Education Web site, while elementary schools and junior high schools rely on programs like those offered by the Animal Control Shelter.

Looking into an animal's eyes and having to put it to sleep is the biggest heartbreak of Rojos' job. Despite more than a decade at the shelter, Rojos hasn't lost her compassion and says it keeps her motivated to educate future generations.

She still takes in animals she's bonded with into her home when they're nearing euthanasia or when there's no room at the shelter.

“Maybe one day I'll just be here for the law enforcement part of it,” she said.

printable version Rack Locations e-mail this story


Tri-State Online // Mohave Daily News
Privacy Policy
2435 Miracle Mile / Bullhead City, Arizona 86442-7311 / 928-763-2505
Last updated: Sunday, July 16, 2006


  Search        Real Estate | Great Grocery Buys | Coupons | Contact Us
Kingman Daily Miner
Other WNI Publications
The Prospector

Home Page
Local News
Mohave 911
Letters to the Editor
Community Calendar
Out and About
Life Style
Kingman Hotels

Meet Your Merchant
Kingman Home Showcase
Smart Buyer
Kingman-Golden Valley Real Estate Book

About Us
Email Updates

Kingman Advertising Rate Card

Navajo Hopi Observer
Palo Verde Times
Prescott Daily Courier
Verde Valley News
Williams Grand Canyon
Winslow Mail

home : letters to the editor Sunday, July 16, 2006

By Jennifer Bartlett
Miner Staff Writer
KINGMAN – Just what should the price be for loving a dog? That is the question animal activist Randy Warner is trying to answer by challenging the constitutionality of pet limit laws.

Warner has for years cared for and given a home to countless dogs. When he moved to Dolan Springs, he moved with 10 dogs. Over the years, that number has grown and shrunk and Warner was down to four dogs.

Recently, Warner, after bringing in a fifth dog to his family, was cited by animal control for having one dog over the limit. Due to this citation, Warner must appear before a judge and faces a $250 fine and up to four months in jail.

“I live for my dogs,” Warner said. “There isn’t an army big enough to take away my fifth dog if I don’t wish them to.”
Warner contends that there should be exceptions to the pet limit law. While he admits that not every dog owner could, or should, be allowed to care for a large number of animals, he believes that exceptions should be made in cases where it is proven that the owner can.

“So, because I have the desire, ability and resources to give one more homeless dog a wonderfully happy life, I have to stand next to domestic abusers, convenience store robbers, drunk drivers or hookers when appearing in court. It’s a Class 2 misdemeanor. God bless the poor souls who have two dogs over the limit,” Warner said.
Referring to AZ  HB2329 Strengthen Animal Cruelty Penalties changes cruel mistreatment of an animal from Class 6 to Class 5 felony and increases the minimum jail time from 6 months to 9 months and the  maximum from 1.5 years to  2 years   "So, in other words,  they consider me a more severe criminal than those who are cruel to animals." Warner said.

“The prevention of a nuisance is not a rational basis for defining all areas with five or more small animals as a ‘kennel,’” he said. “However, substantial empirical evidence exists to support overturning such a limitation. A reasonable person would not take on the private ownership of more animals than that person could responsibly care for. In this case, I own five ‘rescue’ dogs. If I did not provide a house for these dogs, they would most likely be either feral/stray animals, or in the pound, most likely awaiting euthanasia.”

Over the past 15 years, Warner said that he has fostered approximately 2,700 Dalmations. He has been fighting the overpopulation of animals for years by promoting humane education programs to schools and children’s groups to teach them how to properly care for animals and the importance of spaying and neutering pets.

In Mohave County, those owning and caring for more than four dogs require a kennel license. In this case, Warner said the county told him that his 2.25 acres of land is a quarter acre short of what is needed to have a zoning use permit for a kennel. He said that the Planning and Zoning Department would not even consider a variance.

Carol Sherrard with Mohave County Animal Control said the pet limit ordinance has been in place for the 23 years she has worked for the county. While not sure when it was enacted, it was there before she was, she said.

Sherrard said the animal shelter is consistently overcrowded and many animals are put down due to lack of space. Limiting animals is one way to limit overpopulation, she said, because of the threat of a citation.

“Our goal is to go out of business,” Sherrard said. The lack of responsibility shown by owners is what keeps the kennel overcrowded. A viable solution just hasn’t been found yet.  I hope Warner can help.

“The fact that they would charge me for being responsible and giving one additional needy creature a good and loving home is counterproductive to the entire overpopulation problem,” Warner said.

Warner said he found it ridiculous that people can breed dogs as much as they want without regulation and give puppies away in front of stores like Wal-Mart as long as they do not exceed four adult dogs. However, if a responsible pet owner wants to take in one more dog, they have to stand up in court to face criminal charges, Warner said.

The solution, he said, is to design a law that would regulate breeding. The ideal situation, he said, would be for all of the animal groups in the county to get together to formulate an alternative to the pet limit. People need to be prevented from giving away free puppies and selling puppies without a breeding license. People shouldn’t even be allowed to advertise without a license.
The county should also have one week a year where spay and neutering of pets is almost completely paid for. It needs to be more promoted.

Warner said he doubts that he will be able to overturn the ordinance. All he can hope for, he said, is to have an exception made for his individual case. That, he said, could open the door to allow for exceptions for one or two over the limit in future cases.

Jennifer Bartlett <>

Speak Up! - 07/16/06


The residents of Mohave County are sending a very strong message to our young people. But, not the message that we should be sending. We are all aware that Mohave County is forced to kill thousands of dogs and cats annually. The kill rate is embarrassingly high.

Throughout the country, those who demonstrate volunteerism are highly valued. By supplementing what would otherwise be the full responsibility of local governments, these individuals fill the gaps left by skeleton staff to properly execute mandate.

Instead, when a good citizen steps forward to save the life of just one more pet who would otherwise become staggering statistics, he/she is met with incredible and very encumbering fees, regulations and rules, restrictions and county permits, legal threats and more. This, while the average citizen who errantly becomes a backyard breeders does so with no regulation, guidance or structure at all. They are the problem.
Animal control agencies, a study in failure, that have a highly questionable record of humane performance and fail to 'market' their commodity, using poor business practices, that could obviously be made current to save many lives. This is directly related to the lack of forsight & funding given by the county supervisors.

We must show local elected officials, that even though animals don't vote or contribute to campaign re-elections, WE DO! And we can do it volume!!!! We need to rearrange our laws in an appropriate fashion that fits the value of a responsible and compassionate effort or punishes the ones who abuse or contribute to the problems.

Call or write to your county supervisor this week and demand that they re-write the laws and add restrictions to having litters of puppies or kittens without a county issued breeding permit. ( a nice source of revenue to fund animal control) Then for those who rescue and who have the finances to properly care for these animals, are not socked with an over abundance of fees, charges, permits and extra costs to fund the beaurocracy, but are watched by animal control but in a way in which those who adopt are appreciated - not hassled & threatened. And if re-elected, HOLD THEM TO IT!!!

Law enforcement , elected officials and a surprising majority of our citizens have no respect for the lives of these innocent animals or these issues would have been dealt with accordingly. The subsequent lack of results are contaminating our young people simply because we were too ignorant and apathetic to correct them..

So, until further notice, the general public of Mohave County and our elected lawmakers are sending a strong message, and it is coming through loud and clear – JUST KILL THE DOGS!!

Randy N. Warner

Dolan Springs, AZ


Dear Editor,


 In response to the article on 7-16-06 on Randy Warner in Dolan Springs on the problem with Mohave County and the fact he has 1 dog to many.

 After seeing that article I contacted Warner. I was an owner of a Dalmatian. She passed away a few months ago at 13 yrs old. I had been looking to rescue another Dalmatian. After speaking with Warner I found that he was able to assist me with rescuing a Dal who's owner was killed in an accident and she was unwanted by the family and had been abused and neglected. I am forever grateful to him for allowing me to bring her into my home and have her become a part of my family.

 I went to Dolan Springs to get her. His place was Immaculate and the dogs he had there were so well taken care of, I could not believe that the County was going after him! The one thing that the article did not say was that the dogs he has, THEY ARE DEAF! They can't be placed in homes! He has taught them sign language, they understand and they are very much loved. I was very impressed!

  I found that he teaches in schools. He teaches humane classes to kids to teach them responsible care of pets. I think it's great what he does and there needs to be more. It would help over breading and the killing of a lot of animals. He does this for free! He has written 7 books and there was a documentary that was done on his efforts. He has tried to get into the schools here but has been refused, while other schools can't wait to get him. Our schools offer Humane classes, I think they should let him in. Parents don't take the time to teach responsible care of pets. This is a once a year class and the outcome is fantastic!


What makes me angry is that this man has done nothing but good! Our tax dollars are going to pay to prosecute this man because of being 1 dog over the limit! I think our money should be spent prosecuting drug dealers, rapists and child molesters! Mohave County should spend their time going after them and not after a good citizen! What has this country turned into? Maybe if the County gave more money to the shelters to SAVE the lives of animals we wouldn't need people like Randy. What about the people with 20 pets or the person with 1 that neglects their pet, won't clean up after them or keep them healthy! Go after them!

 With Dalmatians, 1 in 10 are born deaf. They are abandoned, abused or killed unless they go to a place that deals with deaf dogs. Is Randy to have a dog killed because of a hearing impediment? Take down the irresponsible owners and leave Randy alone! 21st Cares is non profit and he gets a lot of donations and support. I will continue to support him myself! Thanks for your hard work Randy!


Sherry Hill

Bullhead City


Letters to the Editor:

In the 2years since my court appearance, I've had 50-60 calls from Mo Co residents stating their dismay with the way it was handled and that the laws are totally backwards and archaic. In the same time period, I've had dozens of calls to accept litters of puppies of which I now turn down.  No rescue in Mohave County nor Clarke County, NV would accept them due to dog overload, lack of funds as well as approved homes.

It is clear Animal Control Supervisor Lane Plunkett is comfortably positioned with his lips firmly attached to the seats of the sheriff and board of supervisors of Mohave County.

Therefore, as he continues his rigorous routine of a poorly executed job performance, it is no longer in my best interest to try and defend myself to a man nor county government who continues to bask in the non existent rays of their own successes.

I will no longer be a loving caregiver for these animals, nor use any common sense in my decisions and by all means cancel any and all attempts towards honesty.  After all, it was these traits that brought me to court. I now fear I will once again face the muted idiocy and discolored dignity  that Mohave County calls ''their justice system''. My hope is that others in this county begin to disassemble any thoughts of reason, compassion or common sense when appearing in a Mohave County court.

Not that getting rid of any of my dogs was ever a viable option, I will be correcting the situation in a manner that is totally within the laws in Mohave County, but in a way much different than the court's ruling.  So, the area has now lost another willing provider of compassion and responsibility - something that this county sorely lacks.

As for the county and it's laws, they were written long ago and much has changed.  So should they be.   With many good and viable laws that would drastically reduce the numbers of unwanted pets as well as to bring another source of revenue for the county that are already in place around this nation,  I am happy to  share them with any interested party.  I have offered to share these with supervisors and others in Mohave County on numerous occasions, but rationale, compassion and reason must be set aside, for this is Mohave County.

 Randy N. Warner

16224 North Linda Drive

Dolan Springs, AZ 86441








 To Kingman Daily Miner Home Page

All original content copyright © 2006, Kingman Daily Miner and may not be reprinted without permission. Kingman Daily Miner Online is a service of Kingman Daily Miner Inc. Questions or comments should be addressed to Kingman Daily Miner Online is a proud publication of Western Newspapers Inc. All Rights Reserved.

To view our Privacy Policy Click Here.
 Software © 1998-2006 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved