Those of us who are owners have been told that our pets must go because they are health hazards. This was supposedly the justification for the ruling. Yet Petersen asserts that the health aspects were never even mentioned. The Cambridge Department of Health said last week that its only regulation on keeping animals states that no one may keep more than three dogs or cats in an apartment.

Thus far, enforcement by the Houses has varied in intensity. On one extreme is Leverett, and at the other are Houses whose senior tutors have made some token statement about getting rid of pets but haven't tried to put any teeth into their warnings.

Master Richard T. Gill got the ball rolling in Leverett in December when he posted a memo in the dining hall saying that the animals had to go. An angered student affixed a P. S. to the note:

P. S. This includes the resident rat in the dining hall. -RTG

RTG

Then Kaufmann called in six roommate groups to tell them their animals had to go. He claims to have had 100 per cent compliance from the six. "I like dogs as much as anyone," Kaufmann said last week. "But the welfare of the community was being totally ignored." Leverett, remember, was the place where dogs were relieving themselves in the hallway, according to Kaufmann.

He said he doesn't want to be the only hard-liner. "I'd be very disappointed if I turn out to be the boogie man in this," he mused. And there are indications that Mather is not exactly a haven for pets either. There are very few there now, and one resident who knows his way around the House pretty well said Sunday, 'If there's any House where that rule will be enforced, it's Mather."

In fact, it seems that the old male-community Houses are the ones where pets are really scarce and are threatened with extinction. Another of that genre, Eliot, has a low pet population, too. When Kaufmann says, "I believe in communities like this," you begin to think he's not alone.

Then there are places like Adams, Quincy, Winthrop, and Lowell, where resisters to the CHUL ruling have not been hassled too much, and where some members of the House administration own pets themselves. The rule, incidentally, applies, only to students since masters and senior tutors are living in their permanent homes.

In some cases, the superintendents in these Houses will crusade to oust the animals. Adams' J. V. Cogan has been quite persistent in all parts of Adams, including Claverly. One students complained to a friend the other day about being balled out by Cogan for keeping a dog.

One of the night watchmen in Quincy spends a good part of his time trying to force outside a German Shepherd stray which has recently made Quincy his home. The dog, named Woof by a few students, is well trained and extremely friendly, and now he's afraid to leave the courtyard. Any move by the superintendent or his staff to get rid of Woof is not going to make him very popular with the rest of the House, which has started providing for his needs.

A secretary in one of the not-so-strict Houses said, "We're going to fight it to the hilt. But it gets to the point that if you want to have a good name around here," you comply.

Naturally, the pet owners themselves aren't giving in yet, either. I have absolutely no intention of cooperating. We've taken damn good care of our dog, given him shots, and worked hard at training him. He doesn't bother other people. He means too much to us for us to give him up just because the CHUL affirms a regulation we consider unjust. Our feelings on the subject are hardly unique. One guy is talking about a law suit over his cat unless Harvard can prove that he's not doing justice to the animal.

Of course, at the same time Harvard is telling us we can't have pets in University housing, it is trying to tell us we cannot live off-campus. What then, Harvard, is the solution for a student who really wants to own a pet? Transfer. One high-ranking University official, a bit discouraged by the handling of the pet situation, said of the CHUL ruling, "It's like re-establishing the coat and tie rule."

Despite the February 8 deadline, House officials are waiting for one last action by the CHUL, which meets again Wednesday night. "We've had confusing signals from the committee," Winthrop Senior Tutor Thomas D. Parker pointed out. "Once they decide what to do, we'll go from there."

But can the CHUL act responsibly on this matter? Twice it has had opportunities to give it some serious thought, and twice it has railroaded through a no-pets decision. Its own subcommittee came out unequivocally