Justice Olsen says, "The court of appeals held that Howard is a pet in accordance with the dictionary definition."

"Do we really want to interpret the law in such a way that the courts of this state must look at every dog to determine whether it�s a good, quiet dog? Or do we want to say that because dogs generally bark and chew, all dogs must be classified as pets?"

• I think it's fairly obvious that dogs are pets and subject to the law.
• I agree with the appeals court's reasoning that "pets" under the law ought to be defined by what they do.