What Is Your Interpretation Of The Noise Ordinance Regarding Barking?

I just did.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by peggykarp:

I will also write to Efren urging action. A barking ordinance for the out-of-city limits areas is badly needed.

---

I want to invite DOG OWNERS :dogdance: to also post their thoughts to this thread! I will moderate this thread closely to be sure you are treated with respect.

Also, I know this a very active thread that is generating a lot of email for those of you getting instant emails.

If you want to stop the instant emails click the https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...2_17-10-42.png button on the bottom of any email you get from this thread (including this one).

You can also remove this thread from your digest by clicking on https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...3_13-01-43.png at the bottom of this post (or any post on this thread). Keep in mind this techniques work across all threads on WaccoBB.net :waccosun:

( The prior post about unsubscribe not working was due to multiple user accounts on WaccoBB. Please let me know if you have any trouble with this feature. It does require you to be logged into the website)

I feel that this has been a very worthy discusion, that may well result in a change to the County Noise Ordinance!

Barry

It is not just the barking that causes problems. This county overall really needs a more effective noise ordinance. People move up to this county only to find it noisy here and that it is quieter and more peaceful in the city. The county area is one of the noisiest areas ever lived. The pet issue is just one symptom of a myriad of other problems all stemming from this issue of ill mannered people who lack some sort of social skills, empathy, concern and respect for the boundaries and privacy of others. In some areas you can easily communicate with your neighbors and the offense or problem is quickly resolved and never occurs again. In some areas people are motivated to be good neighbors, to not annoy anyone else and to maintain peace, get along. Unfortunately this does not seem to occur often in this county. Sure would like to see that happen here on a regular basis.

West county has a lot of constant noise from loud stereos, partys, very loud car engines, motorcycles and cars speeding around with No mufflers. There are also constant chain saws, hammering, machinery,. All this that goes on sunrise to sun down. These types of disturbances are not legally permitted or allowed to continue in most other areas. But here there are not adequate policies laws and staff in place to deal with these disturbances. THe legislators will say that they lack the resources, staff, money, back up to implement astronger more effective noise disturbance policies. Yet they have the money, resources and staff for so many other things. It does appear evident that there needs to be a noise ordinance to deal with things.

The quality of life certainly would improve if sonoma county would adopt such an ordinance to maintain the peace. Those who are suffering from noise disturbances into their homes and lives need privacy protection and boundaries. Those people who do not know how to respect other people need some parameters with clear regulations and laws so that they can learn how to control their behaviors. A noise ordinance would likely prevent ill wiil, hostility, violence from developing and help everyone live in peace and get along.

Regarding the barking, the gist of this issue seems to be that pet owners need to become socially and legally responsible and accountable for the behaviors of their pets. I would not just limit this to intrusive barking problems, but would also include all harmful, annoying, intrusive behaviors. Many areas have animal control regulations that make the pet owner legally and financially responsible for cleaning up after their pet, controlling their pets behavior be it barking, aggressive threatening behaviors, preventing your pets from running through other people's yards, charging other animals, chasing harassing wildlife, etc. These are called nuisance laws and are enforceable with fines and eventual removal, confiscation of the pet when the owner fails to repeatedly take responsibility for their pet wether it is a dog, cat, gorilla or fish. These policys may sound severe, but it seems that people often indulge, spoil their pets and fail to teach their pets limits, boundaries and respectful social behavior.

From the comments I have heard it appears that some folks believe it is OK for a pet to create, discomfort, disturbance and problems for other humans, animals and wildlife. There seems to be a lack of understanding and consensus that this approach is problematic, anti social and narcissiisstic. Not good for the animal either who is spoiled instead of taught limits. I have lived in areas where people regularly control their pets and stop problems from developing. The barking and pet problems remind me of people who are into spoiling and indulging a child instead of teaching the child limits and respect for other people and their boundaries. It all makes me think that this county would benefit from a noise ordinance. The county does not want to do it and the sheriff police will say they do not have the staff or resources to hire more staff or to enforce such an ordinance. Yet it is our tax dollars and isn't it time all of our tax dollars are returned to us and spent on something that would improve the quality of life here, .

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Oceans11:

It is not just the barking that causes problems.People move up to this county only to find it noisy here and that it is quieter and more peaceful in the city. The county area is one of the noisiest areas ever lived. ....

---

pretty funny - country mouse vs. city mouse!

ag areas are by definition pastoral, but not in the sense most people think. It's a cliche that people who move to the country complain that the farmers who run their tractors at dawn are a problem.
I'm not picking on you, Oceans11 - I'm just pointing out that rural environments have their own pollution problems, whether it's chemical or aural. And it's most surprising to people who've come from urban environments.
I've lived in both; I hated barking dogs when I was in urban areas, but I got quickly resigned to them here. On the other hand, trying to sleep when there's constant traffic noise, or passer-bys talking, is now a problem when I visit the city.

I couldn't agree more. You have accurately reflected my feelings regarding these issues. I totally agree-the barking is just the tip of the iceberg. As a longtime resident of 39 years, I think I can state with some authority that times have changed. When once upon a time there were many summer homes and only a few full time residents out here, almost all the homes out here are occupied year round. Let's face it folks: this is no longer the Wild West. With today's housing costs and the high cost of living, we should expect our quality of life to reflect these changes. Why should it be noisier here than in say, a neighborhood in Santa Rosa?

An example: Over the past month one of my new neighbors across the canyon have subjected me to a new rooster (on the deck facing the canyon!) two new dogs that bark in the middle of the nite, shooting off 22 rifles (apparently legal for target practice within a "reasonable distance from other houses,), gunning the engine of a souped up motorcycle (with a 3rd party muffler engineered to be as loud as possible,) and now with the nicer weather, he's running a country music station in the afternoons on his deck facing the canyon (which acts like a giant amplifier,) so I have to keep my windows closed, He also has a bright CFL light facing the canyon 24/7. And that's just one guy! ...and don't get me started about the crazy goat man who has had as many as 30 goats across the street from me in a 500 sq ft pen! What stink! And PRMD said that was legal.(because he is the only guy around here who owns almost an acre.)

It really is time to take a look at our antiquated and inadequate noise ordinances and perhaps implement some regs regarding outdoor lights. I am sick and tired of halogen spotlights all over my neighborhood.

I know this is going to piss some people off but I think we should also revisit the sacred Rural Residential regs. I mean really-is it cool to have a rooster in what amounts to a suburb with a few extra trees?

I have written Efren regarding some of these issues and intend to do my part to start the ball rolling. It is time to make some serious changes out here. I am tired of being intimidated and told to suck it up.

Thanks for your articulate summation of my feelings and the feelings of many west county residents who feel as we do.maybe this thread will inspire other people to take action.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Oceans11:

It is not just the barking that causes problems. This county overall really needs a more effective noise ordinance. People move up to this county only to find it noisy here and that it is quieter and more peaceful in the city. The county area is one of the noisiest areas ever lived. The pet issue is just one symptom of a myriad of other problems all stemming from this issue of ill mannered people who lack some sort of social skills, empathy, concern and respect for the boundaries and privacy of others. In some areas you can easily communicate with your neighbors and the offense or problem is quickly resolved and never occurs again. In some areas people are motivated to be good neighbors, to not annoy anyone else and to maintain peace, get along. Unfortunately this does not seem to occur often in this county. Sure would like to see that happen here on a regular basis.

West county has a lot of constant noise from loud stereos, partys, very loud car engines, motorcycles and cars speeding around with No mufflers. There are also constant chain saws, hammering, machinery,. All this that goes on sunrise to sun down. These types of disturbances are not legally permitted or allowed to continue in most other areas. But here there are not adequate policies laws and staff in place to deal with these disturbances. THe legislators will say that they lack the resources, staff, money, back up to implement astronger more effective noise disturbance policies. Yet they have the money, resources and staff for so many other things. It does appear evident that there needs to be a noise ordinance to deal with things.

The quality of life certainly would improve if sonoma county would adopt such an ordinance to maintain the peace. Those who are suffering from noise disturbances into their homes and lives need privacy protection and boundaries. Those people who do not know how to respect other people need some parameters with clear regulations and laws so that they can learn how to control their behaviors. A noise ordinance would likely prevent ill wiil, hostility, violence from developing and help everyone live in peace and get along.

Regarding the barking, the gist of this issue seems to be that pet owners need to become socially and legally responsible and accountable for the behaviors of their pets. I would not just limit this to intrusive barking problems, but would also include all harmful, annoying, intrusive behaviors. Many areas have animal control regulations that make the pet owner legally and financially responsible for cleaning up after their pet, controlling their pets behavior be it barking, aggressive threatening behaviors, preventing your pets from running through other people's yards, charging other animals, chasing harassing wildlife, etc. These are called nuisance laws and are enforceable with fines and eventual removal, confiscation of the pet when the owner fails to repeatedly take responsibility for their pet wether it is a dog, cat, gorilla or fish. These policys may sound severe, but it seems that people often indulge, spoil their pets and fail to teach their pets limits, boundaries and respectful social behavior.

From the comments I have heard it appears that some folks believe it is OK for a pet to create, discomfort, disturbance and problems for other humans, animals and wildlife. There seems to be a lack of understanding and consensus that this approach is problematic, anti social and narcissiisstic. Not good for the animal either who is spoiled instead of taught limits. I have lived in areas where people regularly control their pets and stop problems from developing. The barking and pet problems remind me of people who are into spoiling and indulging a child instead of teaching the child limits and respect for other people and their boundaries. It all makes me think that this county would benefit from a noise ordinance. The county does not want to do it and the sheriff police will say they do not have the staff or resources to hire more staff or to enforce such an ordinance. Yet it is our tax dollars and isn't it time all of our tax dollars are returned to us and spent on something that would improve the quality of life here, .

---

And by the way, this is not ag I'm talking about-I'm speaking to RR zoning only.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

pretty funny - country mouse vs. city mouse!

ag areas are by definition pastoral, but not in the sense most people think. It's a cliche that people who move to the country complain that the farmers who run their tractors at dawn are a problem.
I'm not picking on you, Oceans11 - I'm just pointing out that rural environments have their own pollution problems, whether it's chemical or aural. And it's most surprising to people who've come from urban environments.
I've lived in both; I hated barking dogs when I was in urban areas, but I got quickly resigned to them here. On the other hand, trying to sleep when there's constant traffic noise, or passer-bys talking, is now a problem when I visit the city.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

Everyone's different regarding what blows their mind.

---

Of course, but "what blows my mind" and "what's immoral and shouldn't be allowed" are two different things--a point many people don't get ("Homosexuality grosses me out; therefore it's wrong" etc.). When people take their personal feelings of outrage or whatever as reason to prohibit something or even to judge it as immoral, they're slipping into what the Critical Thinking community refers to as "egocentric and sociocentric thinking."

Quote:

---

We make all kind of wacky distinctions and sort things into what may appear to be arbitrary groupings. You may not find the sorting criteria one that you personally would use, but usually you can at least figure out what it is.

---

I would never dispute someone's right to feel however they feel, but when we go beyond feelings into the realm of moral judgment (and even beyond into prohibiting certain behaviors), not all sorting criteria are created equal; some are more reasonable than others, and some are ego- or socio-centric, thus not appropriately applied to other people.

Quote:

---

There are a whole bunch of differences between cows and dogs...

---

Of course. There are differences between any two things we can name. But vis-a-vis the current discussion, the question is "Are there any objective differences between cows and dogs (as opposed to differences in how we feel about them) that would reasonably lead to different criteria for whether, how, or in what circumstances they may appropriately, morally be killed?"

This topic is very emotional for many, myself included, and emotional topics tend to lead to polarizing, sometimes self-righteous outbursts that miss ambiguities, nuances, and appropriate uncertainty. Is it immoral to kill cows in India but moral in the USA? Is it immoral to kill and eat horses in the USA but not in France? Is it immoral to kill and eat dogs in the USA but not in Switzerland? Or is there one moral standard that should cover the whole planet and, if so, which one? The standard of the country with the most military might? Perhaps it should be illegal to kill dogs in the USA unless you eat them? Do we all have a moral obligation to be strict vegetarians? Should we be sweeping the path in front of us like Jainist monks do to minimize the chance that we're stepping on bugs? And if it's okay to kill bugs but not to kill other animals we like better, isn't that self-centered thinking? Does an animal's "right to life" depend on whether we find it pretty, ugly or cuddly? Does it seem to anyone here that there's an easy, indisputable answer to this stuff? [A lot of this is moot for vegetarians, but it's still not as simple as some might like to think. Even most--all?--vegetarians benefit from industries that kill animals in one way or another.]

Some of you may be interested to know that I'll be devoting an upcoming installment of my WaccoBB column "The Gospel Acccording to Dixon" to our relationships with animals, but it'll be at least a few months before I get to that topic in the scheme of things...

I meant to reply to something someone said about all dog owners feeling entitled. AND being a cat lover.

In this neighborhood where I live, there is that situation across the street from me with the little dog constantly barking. Well, I’ve written a lot about that.

The thing is, there are a number of other people in this neighborhood who have a problem with this particular dog, and many of them are dog owners themselves. But… their dogs are well behaved. The people are responsible dog owners. My next-door neighbor has 2 dogs that she doesn’t even walk out to her car unless they’re on a leash. Her dogs don’t bark and they certainly don’t chase after little kids on bikes. As a matter of fact, one of the dogs USED to, before she got it, go after cats. Walking this dog on its leash, it would start to bolt when it saw a cat. She’d firmly hold the dog back, tell it “NO!” and now the dog just keeps walking when it sees a cat. However, she’d NEVER take the dog off the leash, even though it’s now no threat to cats.

Several other people I’ve talked to about this are dog owners, as well. One woman told me how she gave her dog to her son because it was barking at night when she’d leave the house and the dog was left alone for a substantial length of time. The barking bothered her neighbors. She couldn’t do anything about the dog’s behavior because it happened when she wasn’t there. She WAS lucky enough to have someone loving to care for the dog.

But the point is, these terrible behaviors we’ve been talking about from dogs are happening ONLY with dog owners who, for whatever reason, will not do anything about their dogs’ behaviors. They do not respond to requests from neighbors. I do believe that the only thing some will respond to is being fined. They need a consequence that affects THEM, or a solution where they don’t have to put forth any effort.

You’re very brave, Barry, to ask to hear from dog owners, but I’m glad you did. I want to hear what they have to say. And I hope that in this conversation, we can control ourselves better than some dog owners control their dogs. Myself included!

And I AM a cat person, but basically because I’m lazy and so are they; so we kind of see eye to eye. I don’t dislike dogs. I don’t even dislike the poor little thing across the street. I feel sorry for it, being so terrified and angry all day long. It’s throat must hurt from all that barking.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I want to invite DOG OWNERS to also post their thoughts to this thread! I will moderate this thread closely to be sure you are treated with respect.

---

BULLSH*T Dixon, to perpetrate an act, makes one responsible for it . The ire is one thing, the act is the responsibility the one who does the deed. One can justify anything given their own bias. That's a very slippery slope you are treading on.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

BTW, on those occasions when someone is driven to the desperate act of killing the dog after the dog owner has refused to correct the problem, I would consider that to be the dog owner's fault. That's where our ire should be mostly directed in such situations.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tezor:

BULLSH*T Dixon, to perpetrate an act, makes one responsible for it.

---

True enough, tezor. And when someone creates a situation wherein one or more of their neighbors is tormented nightly, losing sleep, and refuses to deal with it responsibly, that's an act perpetrated by them. I'm arguing that if the situation they created results in someone else choosing to do a terrible thing they'd never have done otherwise, they share the responsibility.

Yer dog(s) bark much, tezor?

This is a bit tangential, but I think this thread could use a little laughter to lighten up.
WARNING: If you have no sense of humor about this sort of thing, read no further.

My dog barks occasionally, not for extended periods of time if I'm home and we often don't leave her at home because of that, clear enough?