I have heard bits and pieces of legislation that is being presented in Gwinnett County, Georgia, in regards to dogs and ownership. The good news is that the new proposed ordinance punishes negligent owners and owners versus the dog for being a particular breed. That is the one shred of good news. The bad news? It sounds like dogs are going to be punished anyhow, in the end, just for being dogs. I first heard about this through a local Atlanta area resident.
GWINNETT COUNTY: Barking ordinance may get bigger bite
By Patrick Fox
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Monday, February 02, 2009
Gwinnett County dog owners will be required to keep a closer ear on their best friends if a draft resolution under consideration becomes law.
The county’s citizen Animal Advisory Council is considering changes to the animal control ordinance that sets more specific limits on how long and how loud a dog can bark. It also allows for tethering of animals.
One of the biggest changes is the definition of “intermittent” barking, which would be defined as any vocalization by an animal for a continuing period of 30 seconds or more on five or more occasions in any 30-minute period. The current ordinance does not define intermittent but only states that such barking cannot go on for more than 30 minutes.
The draft proposal also defines as a nuisance any vocalization plainly audible to a person of ordinary hearing ability not located on the same property as the animal.
It is well documented that the concept of time as related to witnesses is often faulty, and it is likely that someone does not have a stop watch to document the incident. There will be many public employees wasting their time on bogus calls, or there will be many dogs impounded completely unfairly because of a neighbor’s vindictiveness, or for just being a dog. Addressing a scientific or objective basis for what constitutes a subjective behavior hardly ever works.
What worries me the most is the specification of “vocalization” rather than the word “bark.” Vocalization can mean whining, whimpering, howling, or more, which could very well be distress. What about a family running around with a dog, and their dogs being excited and barking?
Read on…
The proposal would excuse barking “given as a warning to the presence of a person trespassing on the property” where the animal is located.
Penalties include up to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail.
The proposal, in its infancy, is not scheduled to be heard by the County Commission in the near future.
Randy DeCarlo, a frequent critic of the animal control ordinance, said there is a more sinister motive behind the effort.
“The main crux of the problem with the animal ordinance on barking is they allow anybody to file a criminal complaint against you, without any investigation from any policing agency,” DeCarlo said. “If you own one dog, you face six months in jail. That’s absurd.”
DeCarlo added the ordinance may curtail adoptions at the animal shelter, resulting in more killings.
“I can’t remember the last time we impounded a dog for barking,” said shelter manager Mary Lou Respess.
The new ordinance, she said, actually makes it tougher to prosecute an owner because it ultimately takes two neighbors —- not one —- to swear out a barking complaint.
“People don’t say ‘I’m not going to adopt a dog because it might bark’,” Respess said. “It just doesn’t come up.”
I would offer that people don’t say that they don’t adopt a dog because it might bark, because if they don’t want a dog because it will bark, they don’t come to the shelter and adopt a dog. Or, they look at the dogs and adopt the one that is being the quietest at the given moment, thinking in their minds that he/she won’t bark at home, yet not express their impression to the shelter. Afterall, most county pounds are not adoption agencies that thoroughly screen the lifestyle of the adopters. A county pound acts more like a sorting facility at times. Once people see the ordinance publicized, if people think about their nosey neighbors or living on a street where there is wildlife or city noise that could cause a dog to bark, they may think twice about adopting in the first place. Apartment dwellers may also may shy away.
What I imagine is that a lot of neighbors will be calling not because a dog is a true public nuisance, but because they have been looking to report their neighbor for anything whatsoever for the longest time. It is well documented that the concept of time as related to witnesses is often faulty, and it is likely that someone does not have a stop watch to document the incident. There will be many public employees wasting their time on bogus calls, or there will be many dogs impounded completely unfairly because of a neighbor’s vindictiveness, or for just being a dog.
What I seem to think that while they are working out the kinks, animal control could be flooded with even more calls and dogs than they are receiving than the record number they are now. It just seems that dog ownership will get more and more difficult, or dogs will be inhumanely debarked. Some owners, unfortunately, are more driven by other things and the threat of paying another fine or getting a charge against them if they already are on thin ice for another matter could motivate someone to preemptively surrender their pet.
Hopefully, the parts of the law that allow dog tethering for extended periods of time will be wiped out, but this one definitely needs a look.
What do you think?
houndsgood Posted in