What if they held a council meeting and nobody came?

That almost happened last week, when half of the council decided to take the day off.

Perhaps the truant councillors were too busy packing lobster bibs and suntan oil for their trip to Halifax to be concerned about anything as mundane as voting on a zoning bylaw.

There aren't a lot of organizations that can operate with only half of their employees, but perhaps council is one of them.

If their number were reduced by half, we'd at least save tens of thousands in travel money when council decides to fly across the country, "for the good of the city."

The give and take was still going hot and heavy last week as smokers and nonsmokers clash on the question of whether city council should ban smoking in Yellowknife's public places.

In a market-driven economy such as ours and in the spirit of free enterprise, perhaps this question should be moved out of council chambers and into the coffee shops and restaurants which will be most directly affected.

If enough people are indeed vehemently opposed to smoking, they will simply not frequent establishments which allow it. The establishment then has the choice of banning smoking or going out of business.

Not only would such a solution free up council to deal with other issues, it would also represent democracy in its most fundamental form.

There are many things that go into establishing a good community and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with the number of buildings in any given town.

Among a town's priorities are to establish rules and guidelines to ensure the safety of all who live in the community, to protect those people who cannot protect themselves and to ensure people can take part in life's simpler pleasures without fear of bodily harm to themselves, family members or, yes, pets. And therein lies the problem in Rankin Inlet.

Stray dogs, or, at least, dogs running free, have become a problem in the hamlet and no one seems quite sure what's being done to address the situation. Becoming more and more of a familiar sight in the community are people carrying some form of "walking stick" while out with their dogs.

Even the community's Interagency group is trying to line up community representatives to appear at a meeting and explain what, if any, enforceable bylaws are in place concerning stray dogs and to ascertain if there is any threat to the health and safety of residents, especially children.

As an extreme, yet all too possible, example, one need look no further back than to the terrible tragedy in the Keewatin three years ago when unsupervised dogs claimed the life of a small child.

Such is the magnitude of the threat that animals running free or left unattended can pose to a community. There is much not yet understood when it comes to what can stimulate aggressive behaviour in animals, even when it comes to man's best friend.

The unintentional intrusion upon its turf, innocent behaviour which prompts unpleasant memories in an animal and even cases of one's perfume or fragrance have been documented as causing aggressive actions.

There can be no denying different cultures view domesticated animals in different lights and, therefore, often treat animals differently. However, dogs themselves are blind to race, creed and culture, making any child prone to aggressive behaviour.

Time and time again it has been proven in many communities that even one dog continually running loose or unattended can be a recipe for disaster. The time has come for a review of the hamlet's animal bylaws and to strictly enforce those already in place.

One should be able to walk a dog in relative peace and benefit from the therapeutic value derived from the bond between a pet and its owner. It is but one necessary ingredient in a safe and well-rounded community.

When it comes to the safety and well-being of our children, there can never be enough precautions in place. Avoidable tragedy is always the worst tragedy to bear.