The County Council’s current version of the barking dog bill is an improvement, but changes are still necessary. That was the consensus among several island residents who commented on the bill during a public hearing Wednesday. “This is important to
The County Council’s current version of the barking dog bill is an improvement, but changes are still necessary.
That was the consensus among several island residents who commented on the bill during a public hearing Wednesday.
“This is important to me because it’s well documented that noise pollution and barking dogs not only disturb our peace and well-being, but causes disputes between neighbors,” said Bill Peterson.
Bill 2604 lines out the rules for a dog which continues to “bark, bay, cry or howl intermittently for 30 minutes within a 45 minute period of time, or continuously for a period of 15 minutes.”
The bill requires that two separate complaints be filed with animal control, as well as logs of the barking’s frequency or a statement from an officer who witnessed the barking. That was a concern to commentators.
“A lot of the neighbors don’t want to make waves, so it (would be difficult) to get two people in the same neighborhood to testify about barking dogs,” said Lisa Kerman. “What about having someone from outside the neighborhood (that has witnessed the barking), would that be an option?”
Peterson said he didn’t think that rule was effective, either.
“Multiple household laws have rarely been effective to control barking dogs,” Peterson said.
Bruce Hart, however, said he thought that there needed to be three witnesses weighing in on the dog in question.
Protection for the dog owners was also a point of concern.
“Unfortunately there are people who are involved in neighbor disputes that will like to get their way,” said Lynn Alwood. “If a false complaint is filed and loses, then the party making the false complaints should be penalized.”
Pam Welch said she had mixed feelings on Bill 2604’s section 22-4, which exempts dogs from repercussions if their barking is for a good reason. Those reasons include someone walking by the dog or someone trespassing in the dog’s territory, or some reasonable and apparent cause for the barking.
“There’s always a reason for barking,” Welch said. “There is no circumstance under which a dog would ever be deemed a nuisance barker and every other section of this document becomes meaningless. My logical side says please stop wasting everyone’s time on useless legislation.”
Bill 2604 will next be referred to committee meetings before it makes another appearance at the County Council for a second reading.
