Ohio: City Council approves minimum standard for doghouses

Cleveland Plain Dealer ^ | 02/11/04 | Donna Iacoboni

[Chummy]

"Please note in the article this ridiculous, overreaching law goes on the books all because of a few who expressed a concern over a woman."

A woman? Please explain. I thought the article was about a dog.

"With all the deep problems of the world, these morons couldn't rely instead on people to think and do for themselves?"

If you read the article, a person did do what was right and removed the dog...she was charged with felony theft. It's common sense -- if you own an animal, take care of the darn thing!

Well, I did read the article, and the root cause is the act or more accurately the alleged negligence of one woman. The dog did not decide by itself to remain outdoors. Next, we find that a few people who expressed concerns about how one woman was behaving wind up with a law on the books that affects everyone in that community.

Was this a widespread problem in that Ohio town? Or was the law written specifically at the urging of a few who were ired at one woman?

No, I'm afraid I cannot agree with you that "doing the right thing" meant seizing someone else's dog without their permission. "Doing the right thing" would more have been along the lines of approaching the dogowner (the woman) with one's concerns, perhaps contacting a group like the ASPCA or Humane Society if the dogowner proved uncooperative. "Doing the right thing" would most in fact be the dogowner (the woman) giving more respect and regard for that dog.

Instead we find that a few people who were upset with one woman and how she treated her animal get a law on the books that effectively now does the thinking for all of the citizens of the community, under a broad variety of conditions subject to interpretation, and that is ridiculous.

You're right: if you own an animal, care and provide for it. But we don't need a law to tell us that, to legislate common sense, now do we?