Your Opinion: Existing city animal law sufficient

Dear Editor:

Do you know how to read proposed legislative changes?

The "doggy door" provision is in the existing code. So is the "outdoor structure" provision. So is a provision addressing "extreme temperatures."

When existing language is being replaced in proposed legislative changes, it is annotated by being "lined-through," then proposed changes follow in bold print. New language is shown by underlining.

Now, Mr. Willenbrink, did you read the existing code? Did you read the proposed changes?

But if the people of Jefferson City do not care about over-reaching, poorly-worded, and laughable code changes, so be it. But note, your animal could be confiscated, you could be fined up to $500, and/or jailed for up to three months.

For what?

For having your dog outside while you are at work, if the temperature is more than 90 degrees. If a tornado warning is issued for Cole County. If there are flood warnings. If there are thunderstorm warnings. If your dog house does not meet all city building codes (whatever that would entail).

The code already requires dog food to be "palatable."

The existing code is more than sufficient for reasonably intelligent people to read and understand how to provide for their dogs and other outdoor animals during "extreme temperatures" or other "weather extremes."

Movie title
Grade: grade here
Cast: cast here
Director: director here
Rating: rating here
Running time: minutes
Showtimes and Ticket Info