You’d be living in sin! 
I can see a problem if somebody has 10 yapping dogs, but that’s not the same as having 6 house cats. Again, instead of dealing with each case on an individual basis, lawmakers have decided to lump all instances together.
I think for the most part, you’re right. I occasionally catch Animal Cops on Animal Planet and have seen when they have to deal with collectors. The other day, I saw where they were working with two brothers who had 40 dogs living in their house and I’m not talking about yorkies either. All the dogs were the size of labradors or a little larger. There were serious inbreeding problems and many had other grave health issues. On another show, they had to pull something like 68 cats out of a single apartment, many of which were also very ill and terribly unsocialized to boot.
Another reason many cities and counties have restrictions on the number of pets per household is to keep people from running puppy, kitty and other pet mills. Several years ago, I worked for a dog groomer who also bred puppies on the side. He told me that he had at least 30 dogs on his property at any given time. He also said that he had to move out of our city to the county next door because he had too many dogs. What he didn’t say but I strongly suspect, is that the Humane Society and/or police had started investigating him so he split. I was going to write more about him here but I think I’ll to do a Pit so as not to hijack this thread. Maybe I’ll finish it tonight.
But… but… the sign said “Fine for five or more pets”!
Also seen on the highways:
“Fine For Littering”
scribbled below that:
“Great for Loitering, too!”
How would they even known-if let’s say you have six cats, and they’re all indoors?
Ridiculous.
Not to mention aquariams. Re-reading the article, they mention “dogs, cats and rabbits” specifically. No mention of things like ferrets or the various “pocket pets” which can breed and really have a population boom. I’d still like to know, if they are also as gung ho about making sure other public safety concerns are complied with, such as being sure your trees and shrubs don’t block the line of sight at intersections etcetera. The law, as presented is poorly thought out. I agree they need to have some sort of law to prevent collectors and such, however the fines are disproportionate IMO. Perhaps if the person has been repeatedly warned, and has not complied, then pull out the fine bat and whack them, but initially?
It depends on what sort of ordinance is being enacted. In Michigan, if a community enacts a new zoning provision limiting the number of pets, then those with too many pets will be grandfathered in, at least for the life of the pets. If it’s a police-power ordinance, then there is no grandfathering.
Unfortunately the minutes of the relevant meetings aren’t online yet. They’d be interesting to read. (They do look a bit skeletal, though.)