This is one of those all-too-frequent occasions when you wonder if government employees have nothing better to do than chase down homeowners who break some little-known rule. The dispute has even reached the County Council, which is considering a change to apply the law only to owners who leave their dogs without shelter when they themselves leave the premises.

All this attention over homeowners who don't have doghouses in fenced-in yards? C'mon.

The matter came to the council's attention after environmental activist Anne Pearson was cited for not having a doghouse for her collie Siri. Animal Control officers were in her neighborhood when they spotted the infraction, asked Ms. Pearson to comply and threatened to take away her pet. After three warnings, they cited her. But the Animal Control Commission dropped the charges after determining that Ms. Pearson was responsible and the dog was in no danger.

So Councilman Ed Middlebrooks has proposed changing the law. Is that really necessary? Don't we just need a little common sense from Animal Control officers?

We appreciate the work of the officers, who are just trying to protect helpless animals - often a thankless job. But surely most public officers exercise some judgment before they apply obscure rules.

Do police officers arrest every jaywalker they see? Do they pull over every confused driver who makes a boneheaded maneuver? Do they cite every speeder or chase down every litterer?

Siri wasn't really in any danger because he had no shelter. His owner was watching him. He wasn't showing any signs of trauma or neglect. So, other than applying the letter of the law, why was Ms. Pearson singled out? If this becomes standard operating procedure, we fear for the county.

Animal Control officers who don't want the law changed point to Bogus, a Rottweiler mix who died of heat exhaustion last summer while his owner napped inside. They say a doghouse would have offered shade that would have prolonged the dog's life at least a few more hours.

This is a good example of the sort of irresponsible pet owner who should be cited. But is Ms. Pearson's case a good comparison for that of a man whose obviously distressed dog was near death in 98-degree temperatures?

It is not. No law - including this one - is going to afford absolute protection for pets who have irresponsible owners, but it can, if applied foolishly and indiscriminately, burden responsible pet owners like Ms. Pearson.

The law, if you look at it on its face, borders on the ridiculous. But it doesn't urgently require a rewrite. It just needs to be applied with some common sense.