Dear Editor,

Melissa DeHaan’s letter of Nov. 14 concluded that the case against CARE isn’t about barking dogs, but is an “ever-escalating grudge fight.” Well, no.

First, because we were charged with a crime “allowing a dog, or dogs, to bark continuously for an hour or more ” the taxpayers paid for the prosecution. We had to defend ourselves against this vindictive and frivolous charge because our survival was at stake. Although the evidence he presented supported our cause, complaining cost him nothing.

---

---

Second, CARE takes many measures to mitigate noise, including installing sound-absorbing panels, housing “noisy” dogs in buffered areas, removing barkers promptly from outside yards, and purchasing expensive citronella collars, which humanely curtail barking.

Buffering sound outdoors is challenging given the topography. We hired an acoustical engineer to measure from Smith’s home, while we took our “best barkers” outside and roused them up. We learned that decibel levels were still well under the permissible nighttime limit set by the county for kennels.

---

---

The berm and plantings Ms. DeHaan recommends are a great idea, but Mr. Smith demands instant and total sound abatement. Nevertheless, we go on seeking ways to improve the situation. A noisy environment is stressful for the animals, too.

In a perfect world, there wouldn’t be any homeless dogs to disturb Mr Smith’s suburban paradise. But since perfection eludes us, wouldn’t it be more fruitful to cooperate on partial solutions than to waste resources on litigation? We at CARE think so.

Sincerely,

Sharon Haller

Laurie Raymond

CARE Board of Directors

Glenwood Springs

Dear Editor,

Less than a month after JFK’s assassination, CBS ran a segment on the news about a new rock band from England that was destined for American shores in the spring. Two years later, first fatalities from Vietnam became common and race riots became epidemic.

A counterculture emerged and celebrated at Woodstock as men walked on the moon, and Ted Kennedy drove an aide into the waters off Chappaquiddick.

It makes one wonder if JFK would have had it in him to foresee and/or amend things that were pending or that followed, or if these trends and character flaws were inevitable? Witness the overt tragedies of Nixon and Clinton.

Forty years ago, was it that sunny Friday afternoon we heard about JFK’s assassination, or two days later, broadcast live, the TV murder of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, that seemed to have had the bigger impact? For “baby boomers” it was the beginning of an awareness of vulnerability, and yet more freedom.

All this, and the subsequent events in American life could have been topics of catch-up and conversation in a ’57 to ’67 high school reunion on Sept. 1, 2001. It was nice to have had innocent reminiscence before Sept. 11.

Hold bold thoughts in our hearts, and with humility, pray for the strength to prevail and learn broader lessons. Things are not inevitable.

Fred Stewart

Grand Junction