Evening star., 1936-07-02
RLINGTON COUNTY is being

n dogged by the dog problem,
~ but the consensus seems to be
4 n pity the poor pooch." About
800 residents of the county met
with the board to discuss the problem
Of a new dog ordinance for the county.
Reused by the depredations of stray
and unlicensed dogs, many of the citi-
zens petitioned the county board to
prepare a new ordinance to curb these
nuisanceS. In their zeal to comply,
the members of the board drew up
an ordinance which in many Of its
provisions was so drastic that it reused
the hitherto non-dog- conscious citi-
zenry.
Briefly, the new dog ordinance called
for restriction of all licensed dogs at
all times. either by confinement to his
owners property. or by leash in the
hands of person 16 years old or older
while on the public domain. Further
more, it called for destruction, on
sight, of all dogs found on the public
domain not restrained by leash and
not equipped with collar and license
tags.
Approximately 20 petitions and let
ters, about evenly divided for and
against. were presented to the board.
Washington sentiment was repre-
scnted by the manager of the Animal
Humane League, who offered the
leagues services in caring for stray
dogs, and several members of the Ma
tional Capital Kernel Cub.
Dog vote" Invoked.
THE citizens were assembled 10 give
their opinions and suggestions,
and some of them were most cogent.
One of the earliest of the fivc-minute
speeches to rouse the audience to
heights of enthusiasm was that of
J. D. McDcuell of Lyon Park, who
asked the members CT the board how
they would have answered his CUES
ton before election. His question was.
IF vote for you. will you vote against
my dog?" Stimulated by the approval
of the audience, his rhetoric scared to
higher levels. as he demanded, Don't
make dog catchers of our policemen.
We need them elsewhere.'
Several testified to the fact that they
had moved to Arlington County to
enjoy the pleasures of suburbsn life.
to escape from the restrictions OF urban
communities. to fulfill their ''inalien-
able rights of life. liberty and the pur-
suit of happiness And that FORE
most in that pursuit of happiness was
the right of maintaining dog II the
way that the dog wished to be main
tanned.
On the other side of the fence were
the dogless residents who objected to
erecting fences to keep out the
neighbors' marauding live stock. Chief
spokesman for these was picturesque
/ Col Peppr. who in the best Dickenslan
/ vein. spent his five minutes in de-
/ claiming about dogs to the north,
to the south. to the east and to the
west. I am surrounded by my dog
loving ncighbors. Ours of high and
low degree made rendezvous of my
place No COW lover, no horse lover,
no mule lover, no hog lover, no
chicken lover may allow his live stock
to run at large. Why may we not
have redress against the dog at large?'
THE already lively proceedings we're
further enlivened by the private
passages between F. Freeland Chew,
member of the board, and Harry
johnson, State and county game
warden. Chew went on record as op-
posed to the ordinance as drawn, but
wished to call the meetings attention
to the fact that something would
have to be done He knew OF at least
six cases of cog biting in his block,
unreported to the county health Of