I was disappointed in your headline declaration of "Tom Godbey backs down on stricter pet ordinances". (I corrected your spelling of ordnaces) I was in attendance of that meeting and I don't have a clue as to why you would headline that, unless it was a direct attempt to attack or discredit Tom. I really didn't think Tom needed to "take responsibility" for bringing forward an issue that is actually quite necessary.
The fact that he did take responsibility for personally bringing actually demonstrates his willingness be of service to residents (and be sensitive to overstepping his role). Pet numbers in Garretson are huge. I walk my dog virtually everyday and there are dogs and cats everywhere. Most dogs are confined but there are probably 20-30 cats that run loose (a violation of city ordinance).
There are a number of places near me that have dogs that are penned and bark practically all night long. Luckily I live in a concrete and brick house and the only time I hear it is when I am outside with my dog. (I did speak to this at the meeting also, concerning a dog in the mobile home part west of me).
I do not think your head line was accurate, the council is going to review the ordinance with the sheriff's office and then determine how best to continue. Both Tom Godbey and Dave Bonte voted against tabling it.
-Bruce Brown 304 Royce St Garretson, SD 57030
Editor’s response:
Yeah, truth be told I wasn’t happy with the headline either. A classic example of deadline crunch-time. It was one of those deals where I had laid out most of the paper before the article was ready, and I needed something quick to sew it up and that’s what I ended up on. I wasn’t satisfied with it, but didn’t get it changed to anything better before it went to print. (Hence the spelling error too. In fact, with the jump of the story you’ll note the headline was different and I intended to mirror it on the front, got busy with other pages instead and forgot. Again, when the crunch is on, wheels fall off.)
I was trying for something that assured folks that they’d get to keep their pets and referred to the fact that many patrons around the city that I and my wife had spoken with, were upset that Tom was pushing to set a new pet limit at 3 pets rather than 5. Lots of folks were mad about that, and would potentially have had to get rid of family pets had the amended ordinance in its original form gone forward.
Everything else you refer to is in the story, and yes they should most certainly address these issues and get a law enforcement perspective. Tom apologized, owned up to his mistake
and wanted to work forward. I think his intentions were in the right place, but he maybe didn’t go about it in the right way. Folks were mad because they perceived him as anti-pet, or that he was coming after their family pets. Not his intention I’m sure. Just like the headline, wasn’t my intention to offend anybody, just to let people know that they didn’t have to get rid of any family pets.
And you are absolutely right about the stray animal problem. I’ve taken a few kittens to the humane society myself, and it’s most certainly a problem.
I’ve seen you out walking your dog, and you’ve got a cool exercise zone in your yard I’ve been meaning to compliment you about, so I’ll just do it here. That’s an example of good, responsible pet ownership. Others not as responsible, leave food out for the strays, which of course only creates more strays.
So in conclusion, thanks for the feedback Bruce, and to Tom, no hard feelings.
-Garrick A. Moritz Editor, the Garretson Gazette
