Good news! Nuisance barking relief is on the way

Responding as an owner of previously (hopefully) barking dogs - I have some input here.

My one lovely dog never barked. We live on 2 acres outside city limits and have had emu and chickens that our dog protected and only barked at mountain lions, foxes and raccoons trying to get to our other animals.

We acquired a second dog - still no barking - until we kept a friends dog for a few weeks who went overseas.
The visiting dog taught our dogs to bark and as long as we were home, we sushed them and it stopped.

Apparently, they began barking while we were away during the day and some evenings when we were out.
Not randomly, but as people and dog walkers passed our home. It took a neighbor to let us know this, and at first, it was hard for us to believe as we had taught them quite stricktly. However, we took measures: first bark collars which did not work well, then settled on bark houses that attached to our fence. It took a little while, but we are in control of that.

A second neighbor accosted us in the back yard, possibly altered, screaming and yelling that our dogs barked all night long in the back acre. We keep our dogs in at night (via locked doggie door) and we know the periods of time that were in question were not our dogs. This abuse from that gentlemen went on for some time and we KNEW it was not our dogs at that point.

We recently had a couple of notes in our mailbox about our dogs barking at night. I don't know if it was the same gentleman or not - but I have no one to contact about dates/times etc.

We are doing everything possible to eleviate the barking - however if there is a time we don't know about - we need to be informed, not accosted.

Personally, if for any reason my dogs were barking day or early evening and I don't hear it - please call me.
Leave me your number so I can give you mine. I want to be a good dog owner - but without proper feedback, it is truly sometimes hard to know if your dogs behave with you.

My first neighbor has my email and phone so he can contact me in daytime if there ever is a problem. We check in to make sure all is good.

I understand that complainers may be met with hostilty - but we are not all that way - but we do need to know the when and why our normally well behaved pets are barking.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

You're right Dixon, I'm so sorry.

---

No apology is necessary. No harm done. We all make little mistakes like that.

Quote:

---

...when we're talking about living creatures with minds and voice boxes all their own, it's incomparable to other "noise pollution" you reference.

---

Not true! When the quality of someone's life is degraded by noise pollution, the problem is essentially the same whether the noise source is leaf blowers, jackhammers, over-loud music, or barking dogs. And, while I acknowledge that some level of compromise is desirable and that it's possible for a complainant to be over-sensitive, and I also acknowledge that reasonable people may disagree where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable levels of noise, I must insist that dog noise (like some other canine behaviors) is often at unacceptable levels by any reasonable standard, and the solution requires the dog owner to either bring the behavior under better control, get rid of the dog, or move to some more remote place where people won't be subjected to the problem.

Quote:

---

I'm not dismissive of the needs of bothered neighbors...

---

Looking back over all your posts on this thread, I must insist that, consciously or not, you have tended to be dismissive of the needs of those bothered by dog noise. Focusing on the subjective nature of "nuisance" while mostly evading discussion of the dog-owner's responsibility to solve the problem; suggesting that the suffering of the dog is more important than the suffering of the aggrieved neighbor; attempting to exempt dog noise from the same standards of civility that we apply to other sources of noise pollution; suggesting--outrageously--that someone's having inconsiderate neighbors somehow reflects negatively on the complainant (which someone earlier in this thread rightly labeled victim-blaming); minimizing or ignoring the fact that many dog owners are hostile, threatening or just uncaring when approached politely about the issue; focusing instead on your perception that much of the problem lies with the complainant being "unhelpful" (as if it's his or her responsibility rather than the responsibility of the dog owner to solve the problem)--all of these responses are dismissive, disrespectful, irresponsible, and nonconstructive.

Much of what you and some other dog owners say reminds me of stuff I've heard from, e.g., inconsiderate smokers who dismiss complaints as just oversensitivity in order to evade their responsibility to change their behavior. To use a word you've been slinging around, they feel "entitled" to impose their smoke on those around them, just as many dog owners feel entitled to impose their dogs' barking, feces, aggression, and obnoxious behavior on those around them. Since you brought up the concept of entitlement, let me suggest:

If you think your presumed right to own dogs trumps the rights of those around you to peace and quiet, you are afflicted with an attitude of entitlement.

If you think those around you should be willing to accept any substantial amount of hassle so that you can have a dog, you are afflicted with an attitude of entitlement.

If you think your neighbors have any responsibility to be "helpful" in solving your dog's behavioral problems (apart from notifying you that the problem exists), you are afflicted with an attitude of entitlement.

The decision to own a dog carries with it acceptance of total responsibility for the dog's barking, pooping, aggression, and other behaviors. Responding to these very real issues with evasion, minimization, or shifting the responsibility for change onto the aggrieved parties is the sort of behavior that gives dog owners a bad name.

In my experience, neglected noisy dogs and rude inconsiderate neighbors are part and parcel of the same package. Certain breeds (i.e. beagles) are highly prone to barking, but, ultimately, the owners are to blame. Some people just are not qualified to own dogs.

Just sayin'

Richard

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

...When the quality of someone's life is degraded by noise pollution, the problem is essentially the same whether the noise source is leaf blowers, jackhammers, over-loud music, or barking dogs. And, ...

---

Thank you Dixon for so eloquently articulating my thoughts and feelings on this subject. This is exactly how I feel. I honestly couldn't have said it my better. bravo!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

And, while I acknowledge that some level of compromise is desirable and that it's possible for a complainant to be over-sensitive, and I also acknowledge that reasonable people may disagree where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable levels of noise...

---

See, we TOTALLY AGREE! This is exactly what I'm saying. And so far, what I hear suggested is 5-10 minutes of barking (including lapses) during the middle of the day makes it a "nuisance," and one complaint is sufficient for fining your neighbor several hundreds of dollars. You want a suggestion?

Here:
To declare a barking dog a "nuisance," one must first document that notification has been presented in writing to the dog owner, stating the duration and time of day of the offense, after which the dog owner has 30 days to remedy the situation before an official complaint can be filed. There after, it should require either three independent complaints, or two additional complaints from the same individual at no less than 15 day intervals, before any fines are imposed. With each filed complaint, the owner should receive notification that their dog is being reported as a "nuisance." A dog owner should also be able to appeal any complaint with evidence that their dog is not the offending animal.

Furthermore, if the baseline measurement of an offensive and finable act is that "the quality of someone's life is degraded," then I think we should fine people who wear petrulli oil or exude body odor when in public spaces, people who's "medicine" permeates the air, all cell-phone carriers and wi-fi users (you're welcome, Linda), people who don't control their screaming children, and all outdoor concerts. NOT! I guess I'm just old-school. I won't tell you what religion you should or should not practice, who you can and can not marry, what you can or can not do to your body, what you can or can not eat, how many children you can or can not have, or what pets you can or can not have. I'm resigned to the fact that whether its radioactive waves from cell phones, exhaust from cars, smoke from tobacco, or the stress caused from hearing you talk psycho-babble to your screaming child as I suffer in silence, we are all in the process of dying and that life is as easy or stressful as we choose it to be. There is no guarantee to a "quiet and peaceful" life. Rather, you role with the punches, try to get along, learn to tune things out, try to be helpful, meditate, get all sorts of "one" with it all, yin-yang the hell out it, and know that nobody WANTS to be an asshole.

I guess I just think we should ensure that dog owners are given a chance before getting all "Big Brother" about it.

Nameste
:Yinyangv:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

See, we TOTALLY AGREE! This is exactly what I'm saying. And so far, what I hear suggested is 5-10 minutes of barking (including lapses) during the middle of the day makes it a "nuisance," and one complaint is sufficient for fining your neighbor several hundreds of dollars.

---

This isn't the correct intention/interpretation. The operative word in the new definition and justification for a fine is 'chronic' meaning repeating violations. The difference is that only 1 person will be required to report the repeating pattern of the offender to begin the strongest enforcement, it's never about '1 instance'.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by nancypreb:

You want a suggestion? Here:
To declare a barking dog a "nuisance," one must first document that notification has been presented in writing to the dog owner, stating the duration and time of day of the offense, after which the dog owner has 30 days to remedy the situation before an official complaint can be filed. There after, it should require either three independent complaints, or two additional complaints from the same individual at no less than 15 day intervals, before any fines are imposed. With each filed complaint, the owner should receive notification that their dog is being reported as a "nuisance." A dog owner should also be able to appeal any complaint with evidence that their dog is not the offending animal.

---

Thank you for this constructive suggestion, the terms and process are exactly what Animal Control is trying to figure out now. I hope a couple other factors are kept in mind. Since responsible owners rarely allow their dogs to slip into the nuisance territory it means that 3 or more documented long day or late night sessions by someone obviously so rudely not caring really is a high indication they do it over and over. Whether the offender responds with denial/indignance or apology/interest in abating is also a big clue of confirmation.

I absolutely agree with starting by giving the offender clear terms to abide by and a chance to comply. It would also make everyone's job much easier if Animal Control accepted video recordings. They are nearly at everyone's fingertips these days, he said/she said can be totally avoided and very quick examples can be created with date/time stamps that can't be altered. The complainer can't lie, the dog owner can't deny.

Because of the volume of complaints, Animal Control is considering hiring someone to only deal with barking complaints to streamline the proof and process factor. The point is, the law changes are only meant to clamp down on offenders who repeat and repeat, and the process both can be and needs to be much quicker than it is now, and does not have to be complex like now to have proof of violation and be fair to both parties.

IMHO, the solution/process is much simpler.

For those of us in the Greater Metropolitan Sebastopol Area (where our neighbors are usually feet away, rather than acres), it works like when there is very loud music being played. Assuming the complainant has asked the offenders nicely to please turn it down and they haven't, the police are called. They come to the house in question and make a judgement call as to whether or not it is loud. Perhaps they use a device to record decibel levels. If yes (and often even, no), they knock on the door and mention that there has been a complaint and could you please turn your dog down. Sorry, turn your music down. Most reasonable neighbors will respond appropriately (which is, they turn the music down, not start screaming that their rights as a citizen have been violated). If the noisy folks turn the music back up an hour later, or a day later, then the police return and remind them that they are in violation of local noise ordinances. One more occurrence and they are fined, etc.

In the case that the people in question are NOT in violation of the noise ordinance, the police can tell the complainant that in their judgment/scientific testing, the noise is not too loud.

You don't have to wait two months for any action to be taken*.

Most reasonable people in what is generally considered a neighborhood know how to behave in civilization, and also know the difference between public and private space. They know that residential areas are generally quiet. They know that moving next to a lumber mill will expose them to the sounds of a lumber mill. It isn't that hard.

On the other hand, every once in awhile an asshole moves in next door. They know they are assholes. Hell, they take pride in the fact that they're assholes. It doesn't take long to figure that out, and avoid them. It's not about being a "victim". It's about knowing that at some point you cut your losses and work around them.

To think that some people don't want to be assholes is disproven by the vast majority of prison inmates and front page headlines.

:pant::console: :heart:

* Here is a fun experiment you can try at home: take a dog and stake him outside your bedroom, living room or office window. Make him bark repeatedly the way agitated doggies do, let's say once every two seconds with occasional breaks, so that it is averaging 25 barks a minute at 70 to 100 decibels, which is the generally acknowledged volume of a dog's bark. If you don't have a dog, have a friend go out and stand in the same position and hit a metal saucepan with a spoon.

Repeat this procedure for one hour. Three times a day. Five days a week.

Heck, do it for five minutes and get back to me.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Ted Pole:

To think that some people don't want to be assholes is disproven by the vast majority of prison inmates and front page headlines.

---

True that.

and for some of us, it's a situational call...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Ted Pole:

IMHO, the solution/process is much simpler....

---

I like to say, how would be if instead of a dog, a human stood outside your window shouting "Hey!" every few seconds for hours on end, would that be ok? ...And of course it wouldn't be. And that wouldn't be tolerated for very long, would it? And really, what's the difference whether it's animal or human? The only difference is, we can't blame the dog. So it's the owners responsibilty. When a neighbor tells me they are quiet, but their dog isn't, it cracks me up. To me, the dog is an extension of the owner. Regardless of how they may view themselves or their neighbors, it comes down to this: how they control theor dogs barking reflects directly on how they show up in the neighborhood.

Secondly, I'd like to believe that there are no real assholes in the world. That would be nice... But just look at the world situation: it's obvious there are assholes. Yes, theoretically all humans are redeemable at heart, I get that, but that doesn't mean humans don't act like assholes. And really, what's the difference what motivates people to engage in selfish antisocial behaviors? They still have to be corrected or the world goes to shit.

I have a neighbor who has had as many as 30 goats in his front yard, not taking care of them, keeping the grounds clean etc, even letting one lay dead on the ground for a week. (Yup, he really did that.) when a goat was observed escaping and living in my yard for a week, he denied it was his and made no effort to retrieve it. Eventually it disappeared, probably became a coyotes dinner. He has had as many as 7 dogs that he doesn't interact with ever except to feed them. He had an illegal metal recycling business in his yard that got to the point where he had a semi truck sized dumpster in his yard which was completely cluttered with junk. He regularly threw old washing machines, stoves etc into this giant metal dumpster, usually @ around 9-10 at night. Man that was loud-It sounded like bombs going off! This in a residential neighborhood. Even though it was illegal, it took over a year to shut him down. He retaliated against his neighbors by placing 900 watt halogens in the trees, pointing them directly at their homes, in one case shooting light into a little girl's bedroom. Roosters, dog barking, stinky illegal farm animals that weren't properly cared for, loud music blaring, and unsightly masses of junk. Even neighbors who were sympathetic to the dude eventually got disgusted by his behavior. He alienated literally everybody in the neighborhood. Is he an asshole? A sociopath? Or just a libertarian expressing his belief in personal freedom?

Personally, I think there are assholes in the world. And if people allow petty tyrants to go their merry way, they will walk all over you and the quality of life in the community goes down. Rather than one poster's new age advice to "go with the flow, meditate and let it go" rationale (once again subtly implying the compliant isn't "spiritually evolved enough" to not let a nuiscance get under their skin,) it sometimes does take real world action to make positive change, even in just your own neighborhood, much less the world.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Ted Pole:

They know they are assholes. Hell, they take pride in the fact that they're assholes...To think that some people don't want to be assholes is disproven by the vast majority of prison inmates and front page headlines.

---

All of us have been thought to be assholes by someone or other at some time or other, but most of us don't want to be assholes. Even if we use fair, objective, reasonable criteria to decide who we'd label an asshole, most of those whose behavior is so obnoxious as to earn the title do not, I think, see themselves as assholes. Often they see those who seek to constrain their obnoxious behavior as assholes (a form of the ad hominem fallacy). When we're in a polarized situation wherein both parties see the other as an asshole, being open to recognizing possible assholey tendencies in ourselves rather than projecting assholiness onto the other can be the biggest challenge--and the best chance for a positive outcome.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

All of us have been thought to be assholes by someone or other at some time or other, but most of us don't want to be assholes. Even if we use fair, objective, reasonable criteria to decide who we'd label an asshole, most of those whose behavior is so obnoxious as to earn the title do not, I think, see themselves as assholes. Often they see those who seek to constrain their obnoxious behavior as assholes (a form of the ad hominem fallacy). When we're in a polarized situation wherein both parties see the other as an asshole, being open to recognizing possible assholey tendencies in ourselves rather than projecting assholiness onto the other can be the biggest challenge--and the best chance for a positive outcome.

---

My experience is true assholes never think they are assholes, ( because they are unconscious of being an asshole,) but tend to project their assholeness on everyone around them. As for the reverse, meh, not buying it. My inner asshole rarely rears its head because I know my shadow intimately. When you do the inner work of personal inquiry, you learn not to let your inner asshole become your outer persona.

Case in point, the guy I referred to would never have changed. The only thing that mAde him a better neighbor was involving the authorities. After he was slapped with stiff fines, he came into compliance.

One way to define a sociopath, is a person with no empathy; ie; they don't care at all about how you feel. If you care about others, you may have an "inner asshole"; ie: "shadow", but, imo, you are not an overt assh@le, by definition.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MalletKatMandu:

My experience is true assholes never think they are assholes, ( because they are unconscious of being an asshole,) but tend to project their assholeness on everyone around them. As for the reverse, meh, not buying it. My inner asshole rarely rears its head because I know my shadow intimately. When you do the inner work of personal inquiry, you learn not to let your inner asshole become your outer persona.

Case in point, the guy I referred to would never have changed. The only thing that mAde him a better neighbor was involving the authorities. After he was slapped with stiff fines, he came into compliance.

---

Exactly! And the book "The Sociopath Next Door" reports that 4% of all people are born with no conscience, and that they're really good at disguising this fact.....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by hales:

One way to define a sociopath, is a person with no empathy; ie; they don't care at all about how you feel. If you care about others, you may have an "inner asshole"; ie: "shadow", but, imo, you are not an overt assh@le, by definition.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MalletKatMandu:

I have a neighbor who has had as many as 30 goats in his front yard, not taking care of them, keeping the grounds clean etc, even letting one lay dead on the ground for a week. (Yup, he really did that.) when a goat was observed escaping and living in my yard for a week, he denied it was his and made no effort to retrieve it. Eventually it disappeared, probably became a coyotes dinner. He has had as many as 7 dogs that he doesn't interact with ever except to feed them. He had an illegal metal recycling business in his yard that got to the point where he had a semi truck sized dumpster in his yard which was completely cluttered with junk. He regularly threw old washing machines, stoves etc into this giant metal dumpster, usually @ around 9-10 at night. Man that was loud-It sounded like bombs going off! This in a residential neighborhood. Even though it was illegal, it took over a year to shut him down. He retaliated against his neighbors by placing 900 watt halogens in the trees, pointing them directly at their homes, in one case shooting light into a little girl's bedroom. Roosters, dog barking, stinky illegal farm animals that weren't properly cared for, loud music blaring, and unsightly masses of junk. Even neighbors who were sympathetic to the dude eventually got disgusted by his behavior. He alienated literally everybody in the neighborhood. Is he an asshole? A sociopath? Or just a libertarian expressing his belief in personal freedom?

---

Yep, this is what what some people regard as their inalienable Constitutional rights. Others might call it "self-actualization." I've always been fascinated with what glitch in Google Maps got them from being the cute suckling babe to blubber-headed boob they've wound up as. I gues that's why I write fiction, to try to understand reality.
-Conrad

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by MalletKatMandu:

He retaliated against his neighbors by placing 900 watt halogens in the trees, pointing them directly at their homes, in one case shooting light into a little girl's bedroom.

---

A pellet gun would take care of the lights. You would be totally justified.

Richard

To answer your question, I would say that, technically, "asshole" is the correct term. Let's hope he doesn't join the Police Department. (Gee, what if he already has?) Seriously, it's a safe bet that he was tortured as a child. On that ground one can have sympathy, but you've still got a right not to be his victim.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

Yep, this is what what some people regard as their inalienable Constitutional rights. Others might call it "self-actualization." I've always been fascinated with what glitch in Google Maps got them from being the cute suckling babe to blubber-headed boob they've wound up as. I gues that's why I write fiction, to try to understand reality.
-Conrad

---

Of course dogs bark, but when the barking becomes repetitive and constant, something else is going on.......and more than likely the animal is stressed, lonely and unhappy. That is not good for the animal's health and well being and it certainly can be annoying, stressful and impact neighbors.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by meherc:

Sure some dogs bark but so do some wacos / emotionally

---