The Daily Alaska empire., 1937-02-10
THE MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT

It is a strange condition but nevertheless an . evident phenomenon that the day following the respective arngs of the proposed new dog ordinance before the City Council there significant absence of dogs from the city streets. Officials have noted this remarkable condition to exist for much as five days, particularly when there is evidence that sone concrete action may be forthcoming.
 Some facetious observers have remarked that the dogs are just smart and have been listening in,- some of the~warm remarks that have been emanatirg from the City Hall Council nights and it true that considerable canine comment has been heard outside the building each and every oc- casion that the dog ordinance has up However, there is greater evidence support the contention that the owners are the ones who suddenly become dog conscious with the result that they take care of their dogs for few days All of which does not result in anything permanent and leaves the Juneau dog problem just as much of problem as ever, and haven't heard any say thus far that there is not minor problem in connection with the control of dogs in the city
 But it strikes that one point in the present canine controversy can stand just little more serious consideration. That is the all-sweeping matter of enforcement. How is the ordinance going to be put into effect granted that the Council finally decides to put it the books? It is generally ad- mtted that the present ordinance there two or three oF yhexgdda ine~ With ahifna roaming at large) is not enforced The natural question then arises whether there is any particular provision in the proposed ordinance which would take of the matter of enforcement automatically. The old ordinance leaves it up to the Chief of Police to appoint ogcatcher to carry out the provision of the existing law which sets up all the conditions under which dog can be declared a nuisance. Tie new ordinance reads Tt shall be the duty of the Chief of Police some person appointed by him, to restrain and impound such dogs thus found Thus, it would appear, that there is little difference in the enforcement clause of either ordinance except that under the new proposal any dog that is not on leash could instantly be declared nuisance But the question still remains who is going to pick up the pooch? .s sss Chief of Police Roy Hoffman had made it clear why the present dog law is not enforced. He has told the Council time and again, and he is supported by the record that he can't get gcatcher to stay the job Several have been employed by the city but all have quit after short time for one and another; the primary one being that they don't like to catch dogs.
 That it appears is the crux of the whole situa- tion-he lack of dog catcher It doesn't make any particular difference what the law is. If it is not enforced itnight well not be the statute books The new ordinance will be more effective than the old unless its provisions carried Pass, ing ordinance dozen isn't going to solve the dog nuisance problem unless the ordinance is forced.
 We are inclined to believe that dog ordinance should be too strict The main idea is to keep them under control and off the principal streets where they admittedly nuisances. The primary responsi- bility of rests with the owner but the fact remains that the owner will not always shoulder his responsibility thus the need for enforcement official.
 Elsewhere they control dogs. Surely somewhere in the Territory of Alaska there is person who will serve in the capacity of dog-catcher Until he is found and employed by the City of Juneau, one or twenty ordinances will not solve the dog nuisance pgoblern xwss.. sass srssgzas 4ssss .s.s sss