• Lucky dog • Focus on the merits • Courageous vote Lucky dog Three times I have read Nick Nicholson’s letter (“Thanks, but no thanks,” Letters, Oct. 31) to make sure that I understand exactly what he’s saying. If I
• Lucky dog
• Focus on the merits
• Courageous vote
Lucky dog
Three times I have read Nick Nicholson’s letter (“Thanks, but no thanks,” Letters, Oct. 31) to make sure that I understand exactly what he’s saying.
If I understand correctly he’s blaming the Kaua‘i Humane Society for rescuing his “lost” dog but not notifying him until the morning of the following day. This man simply doesn’t get it.
First, he says that he never has a collar on the animal at home and that during his absence a workman was on the property and the dog was outside. Apparently there’s no fenced area to keep the dog confined. He continues by saying that “he’s never gone more than six or so houses away.”
When he came home from work and found the dog gone he combed the neighborhood, called the dog’s name but the dog was nowhere to be found and so he went off to a second job followed by dinner and another trip through the neighborhood and still there was no dog. Then and only then did it occur to him to phone the Kaua‘i Humane Society (after closing time) and leave a voice message about his missing dog before he went to bed.
Now, first thing in the morning he received a phone call from the Kaua‘i Humane Society saying they believed they had rescued his “lost” dog and indeed they had and he was happy to find his dog safe and well. That should be the happy ending to the story but not this time.
This character actually has the nerve to write and say that he was extremely upset with what KHS had put him through. He says in his letter that the dog wasn’t “lost” until they, the KHS, “rescued” him. What is he talking about?
This dog was wandering about the streets with no collar, no license and no leash and perhaps not even an ear ID chip and this dunce blames the KHS for his shattered nerves and wants no part ever again with the Kaua‘i Humane Society. I bet they want no part of him any more either.
Has he given any thought to the fact that his dog could have been hit by a car and that by taking him to a safe place they may have saved his life? Apparently not.
Furthermore, his understanding of the leash law is completely wrong. This man needs professional help because he writes that he “believes the leash law is intended to recover abused, nuisance or lost pets.” No telling where he got that idea from but he needs to read up on the laws regarding animals in the County of Kaua‘i where he will find that no dog is allowed to roam freely about their neighborhoods. They are to be enclosed in dog runs, fenced yards, in the house or on a leash at all times.
He’s one lucky owner that the Kaua‘i Humane Society was there to rescue his lost dog and keep him safe in their care until the next day.
Gini Stoddard, Wailua Homesteads
Focus on the merits
Touché, Phyllis Stoessel (“Fair and balanced,” Letters, Oct. 31).
Thank you for your response to the contents of my letter. You are correct. Councilman Kawakami’s comments and Councilwoman Kawahara’s comments, as quoted in The Garden Island, both fall into the category of “criticisms.”
Initially, I wish to say that I wholeheartedly agree with your expressed approval of “open confrontation among council members” but I would add “with dignity and respect.” I wholeheartedly agree also that there should be “more, not less, deliberation and discourse of issues on the council floor.”
With you and I agreeing on what we expect to see and hear emanating from council meetings, I suggest we examine the context of each “criticism.”
Councilman Kawakami’s comment (re “petty” and “grandstanding”) is undeniably directed to what is said during the course of discussions and debates among the council members. Short or extensive discussions or debates, you will agree that the comment should focus on the merits of any orderly and properly constructed proposal made or submitted for consideration by a council member.
Injection of “petty” or “grandstanding” comments or speeches have no place or persuasive influence in convincing fellow council members. This is what I believe constituted the focus of Councilman Kawakami’s criticism. Laudable? Yes! Fair? Yes!
Councilwoman Kawahara’s criticism of her colleagues, on the other hand, was not directed at individual conduct during the course of discussions or debates but was aimed directly at the end results of final deliberations. The majority voted against her proposal which reveals inadvertently, but excusably, her failure or inability to persuade, convince or justify the need or importance of her proposal. Laudable? No! Fair? No!
Incidentally, if the criticism attributed to the “lone female member of the council” had been a male member, I would have still written my letter to the editor.
Alfred Laureta, Lihu‘e
Courageous vote
Mahalo Rep. Hirono for casting your historical vote for the Affordable Health Care for America Act. I admire you for your courage and conviction in helping H.R. 3962 to pass.
Gloria Horace, Princeville
