BarkingDogs.net

A Model Anti-Barking Law and Supporting Infrastructure

From time to time, we at barkingdogs.net are approached by civic leaders who would like us to suggest an anti-barking law that might be suitable for adoption in their community.

We are currently unaware of any jurisdiction anywhere that has an effective barking law in place.

However, after years of careful thought and continuous input from the public, our study group has developed a potentially highly effective ordinance that can serve as a model anti-barking law. We call our model ordinance a four strike probationary law, which is featured further along on this page.

Nonetheless, to make that law or any other dog noise law work effectively will require a multi-faceted, four-pronged approach that includes the following:

1. Preventative measures

2. A clear law

3. Effective terms of enforcement

4. Supporting Ordinances

Component One: Preventative Measures

Before being granted a dog license, all applicants should be required to successfully complete a dog owner education class. Undoubtedly, that one simple measure could prevent ninety percent of all of our dog-related problems, including chronic barking.

Almost everywhere, there will be a local humane society that already offers such classes. The city need merely ask that the local chapter include complete information on both how to quiet a dog and the need to do so. In addition, class participants should be required to make both a written and verbal pledge to behave responsibly, including a specific promise to keep their dogs in a quiet fashion.

Those taking the course can pay their fee directly to the humane society. That way, there should be little expense for the tax payer.

Component Two: A Clear, Unambiguous Law

Coming up with the law itself is the easy part. Here is a good one:

It is unlawful for any person to keep within the city limits, any dog that barks, yelps, cries, howls, or creates any other noise that any person finds distressing or disruptive.

Component Three: Effective Terms of Enforcement

Any police or animal control officers who, in the course of their duties, witness a barking dog violation, should write a ticket to the negligent dog owner or take other appropriate action immediately.

Citizen complaints should be filed with the police department.

Because of the danger involved, the identity of the complainant should be held in confidence.

The Procedure

The noise of a barking dog, force-fed into a neighbor's home, constitutes a dire threat to the health and well-being of all who dwell within. For that reason, the city should regard getting the noise stopped as their greatest priority, placing that far ahead of concerns about who is to blame and what penalty should be assessed, which are legal matters that can be addressed at a later time, after the threat to the health and well being of the community has been removed.

Accordingly, when there is a dispute over whether a given dog is barking in a problematic fashion, the city needs to take immediate steps to determine the truth of the matter, just as they should always move with all alacrity to investigate the report of any toxic substance flowing freely through a residential neighborhood.

On the first complaint:

Upon the first complaint, a police officer should call at the home of the accused dog owner. In our experience there is nothing as sure to bring a barking problem to an abrupt end as an in home visit from a uniformed officer. For those who say that the police are too busy for such matters, we submit that solving the problem once and for all with that first visit will save the department immeasurable time, relative to what they will be forced to invest if the problem is allowed to fester, producing a chain reaction of animosities.

During the course of the visit, the officer should explain why the noise laws are important and remind the dog owner of his pledge to keep his dog in a quiet fashion. While there, the officer should ask the dog owner to either confirm or deny that the dog is barking problematically. In addition, the officer should inform the dog owner of the sequence that will follow if there are additional complaints.

If, in the opinion of the complainant, the noise level is still unacceptable 24 hours after the first visit, a second complaint can be filed.

On the second complaint:

If the dog owner previously denied that his dog barks problematically, then, upon receiving the second complaint, the dog's behavior will be tested on location.

While one can often use a direct behavioral test to show that a dog definitely is an inappropriate barker, it can be far more difficult to prove that a dog is not being problematically noisy. For example, it could be that the dog barks only when he sees a certain cat, who he encounters only in the wee hours of the morning. In a case like that, to get to the heart of the matter, the city may need to place monitors in the area to determine the true facts. We know of one instance in which a municipality contracted with a private detective agency to handle their monitoring duties. Or alternatively, the complainant could personally set-up or bear the cost of setting up the necessary surveillance equipment.

Setting up a webcam that allows city officials to monitor the behavior of an accused dog by way of a live internet feed is another possibility. In addition, as the technology progresses, it should soon be possible to document the behavior of an accused dog by way of a noise-activated camcorder that kicks-on only when triggered by a barking dog or some other nearby noise.

If the surveillance substantiates the complaint, then, the dog owner whose false denial made the monitoring necessary, will be billed for the expense.

Once a second complaint has been filed and the barking problem has been substantiated, either through testing, the dog owner's previous admission, or by way of surveillance, the city will arrange for the owner to meet at his home with a dog trainer, contracted by the city and paid for by the dog owner. The dog trainer will troubleshoot the problem and offer simple solutions as well as more complex instruction on how to correct the problem. Because the dog owner will pay the contractor directly, again there will be no expense to the taxpayer.

If, in the opinion of the complainant, the noise level is still unacceptable 24 hours after the dog trainer's visit, a third complaint can be filed.

On the third complaint:

Upon receiving the third complaint, a police officer will contact the dog owner. If the dog owner denies that the dog continues to bark problematically, the animal will be behaviorally bark-tested on location. If a barking problem cannot be detected through a direct behavioral test, surveillance will begin again. As before, if the surveillance substantiates the complaint, the dog owner, whose false denial made the monitoring necessary, will be billed for the expense.

Once the continuing barking problem has been substantiated, the dog owner's dog license will be placed on probationary status.

Terms of Probation:

From the start of the probationary period, the dog owner will have three weeks to get his dog quieted. However, the dog owner must agree to meet the following conditions for the full three-week probationary period.

Unless someone is actively engaged in the process of bark training their dog by responding to his every bark, the animal must be kept in a location where he cannot be heard by the neighbors. Accordingly, if the dog is allowed to bark uncorrected within earshot of the neighbor's property, the animal will be immediately impounded and held until the owner can meet with a judge to explain his lapse and, perhaps, ask for a second chance.

The city should be able to strike a deal with a private kennel, thereby securing a reduced rate on kennel space for dogs on probation. That way, if the owner has to leave the property, he will have a more affordable place where he can drop off his dog, at least until the animal can be bark trained or otherwise permanently quieted.

After three weeks have passed, the dog must have either been silenced or moved permanently outside the jurisdictional limits.

If an additional complaint is substantiated after the completion of the probationary period, the dog will be either impounded and put up for adoption or forever banned from the city limit.

Supporting Laws:

No law can work in the absence of supporting ordinances. Accordingly, the city will need to have other ordinances in place that accomplish the following:

• If the dog owner refuses to comply with the established procedures and requirements at any point, then, either the dog must be permanently removed from the city limits forthwith or kenneled in a professional facility in preperation for the move. Otherwise, the animal will be immediately impounded and put up for adoption.

• All unlicensed dogs must be immediately removed from the city limits or placed forthwith in a professional kennel until a license is secured.

• Once someone's problematic barking dog has been legally banished or permanently seized, then, that person will become ineligible to apply for a dog license for some considerable length of time to come.

Go to New Animal Control.Org for more information about animal control reform

This page is part of Section Five:
the Cure section of barkingdogs.net