A proposed dog ordinance in Auburn is being revamped to accommodate concerns raised by residents and pet-advocacy groups. Originally, the proposal included specific regulations for breeds with more aggressive reputations. The revised rule no longer contains breed specific regulations, referencing all dogs equally.

But dog owners will face harsher penalties for loud, barking dogs. A once marginal increase for each offense has been replaced with a three-violation penalty, starting at $25 for first time offenders and leaping to $100 for third plus transgressions. And the law remains strict about the number of dogs permissible per dwelling, and contains additional rules about the allowable size and weight.

Opponents of the regulation fear it penalizes good dog owners. But even good dog owners can yield rowdy and mischievous dogs, and love can skew judgment. I once had a neighbor whose dog always tore apart my trash. I was constantly having to shoo the dog away and not always in time to prevent a labor intensive cleanup. I confronted the neighbor, who informed me that the dog was a popular breed, so how could I be so sure it was their dog?

What? There are many brunettes in America, but I’m not Keira Knightly.

Not that I can’t appreciate the bond between animals and people. I know many excellent dog owners, with excellent dogs. But for pet-advocacy groups to claim that laws are too stringent, knowing full well the overwhelming impact of delinquency and neglect just seems hypocritical.

Laws pertaining to animals are no different than laws pertaining to people. Penalties are designed to target deviant behavior. Good dog owners are not the problem. The problem is that lax ordinances make it harder for the city to penalize poor dog owners and/or poorly behaved dogs. Blanket rules often seem to have little wiggle room, but the reality is that offenses are always handled on a case by case basis.

Think about it. Does everyone who gets pulled over for a dead taillight get a ticket? No. But the officer is likely to be less lenient on repeat offenders.

The city isn’t anti-dog or anti-dog owner. Laws are typically drafted in response to common offenses, and tend to be broad in their terminology to allow room for exception. Compromises between lobbyists and lawmakers, can occasionally render laws muddled and defunct, especially if the challengers are personally invested or, as in this instance, have taken personal offense.

Bottom-line; if you’re a good dog owner with a well mannered dog, don’t panic. This outcome probably won’t affect you, either way.

Estabrook’s column appears Mondays and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com