• Barking sense • Ag suitability Barking sense I am pleading with any and all reasonable and clear-minded people on this island to not let the dog-barking issue get sidetracked yet again by hunters. Please, in the name of all
• Barking sense • Ag suitability
Barking sense
I am pleading with any and all reasonable and clear-minded people on this island to not let the dog-barking issue get sidetracked yet again by hunters. Please, in the name of all that is just and sane, think about the effect that a constant barrage of unwanted noise would have on you and your family, and have some empathy for those who are dealing with this problem.
The issue of a proper noise ordinance to cover incessantly barking dogs has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, and we need to grow the backbone to shut that argument down once and for all. This is an issue of dog owner responsibility and nothing else. Not hunting, not culture, not mainlander vs. local.
Purely for the sake of delving into the issue, however, and exposing the utter bankruptcy of the hunting argument, let’s just assume that hunting really were a justifiable issue. Again, this is only an assumption for the sake of argument.
In such a scenario, in order for anyone to claim that a strong dog-barking ordinance is not appropriate because it infringes upon the “rights” of others to hunt, they first would have to assert that the “right” to hunt is more important than the right to peace and quiet in one’s home. They would have to assert that the “right” to hunt is more important than the right to a good night’s sleep. Moreover, the majority of the population would have to accept such assertions so as to allow the status quo to persist.
This then begs the following question: How many of you are willing to give up your right to peace and quiet in your own home? How many of you would gladly trade quality sleep — a biological necessity — to protect your neighbor’s “right” to do something with is not a biological necessity, like hunt? If you can not state, in complete honesty, that you would make such a trade, then it is not right for you to assume someone else should. If you would not accept someone standing outside your bedroom window making noise all night long, then you can not, in good conscience, sit idly by and allow others to suffer from the onslaught that many of us do.
However, this is exactly what the “anti-dog-barking ordinance” group demands of you when they make comments like those made by Royden Orsatelli (“It’s them complaining,” Letters, June 28).
To add insult to injury, Mr. Orsatelli suggests that the barking dogs are providing personal and property protection. I am reminded, however, of the story “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” How can a dog that constantly barks possibly be a reliable alarm to any kind of threat? In fact, one of the arguments that detractors to the ordinance issue make is that these dog owners may not even realize their dog is making so much noise.
This further throws into doubt the utility of these animals as a source of protection — their owners don’t even realize the dogs are making noise.
To further compound his faulty logic, Mr. Orsatelli then says that people moving here from the Mainland are the ones “always complaining about something.” However, many locals have spoken up about this issue in the Comments sections of previous articles and letters on this subject. This is not a malihini vs. local issue.
Given how illogical the “hunting argument” is, I ask again that those of you with common sense and a sense of decency and respect for your neighbors not allow this argument to gain or maintain any traction. Unless, of course, you want the existing noise ordinance completely stricken from the books, because if the law can’t protect the basic rights and needs of everyone, it should not do so for anyone.
Michael Mann, ‘Ele‘ele
Ag suitability
My friend Sherwood Conant, in his July 4th “Gentleman joke” letter expresses his disappointment with our Planning Commission’s decision to allow a “farm dwelling” on the Dechka property in Seacliff Plantation in Kilauea.
The Dechkas had to go before the Planning Commission because their three acre CPR lot is in the Shoreline Management Area, not because it is in the Ag district.
Dozens of homes have previously been approved on the slopes of Seacliff Plantation, as is allowed by our CZO. The Commission made the correct decision, and to blame the Dechkas, who bought their property just seven months ago, for such things as high property taxes and sad state of agriculture on this island makes no sense at all.
On Kaua‘i thousands of acres of marginal land with no ag water, like the Dechkas property, are now zoned “Agriculture.” Sherwood Conant, an experienced former Kilauea farmer, is currently serving on a blue ribbon committee which has the goal of separating “Important Agricultural Lands” from the lands unsuitable for agriculture. Let’s hope that Sherwood and the rest of the committee are up to their task.
Mike Dyer, Kilauea
