Finally, people in situations like this in Unincorporated Sonoma County are going to get help....
For a long time, many people whose homes and well-being have been regularly intruded on by the stab stab piercing of nuisance barking have all reached the same dead end of trying every legal recourse and failing because the current law ties the hands of both Animal Control and the police to enforce the Section 5-126 noise ordinance, but confronting the law-breaking irresponsible person yourself for relief is considered harassment.
Many have found themselves with no other recourse but to visit or phone a neighbor to beg they please stop a dog's continuous barking especially after 10pm or even midnight.... and then get admonished for the unwelcome phone call plus a denial or hostile replies.
The brazen indifference of irresponsible dog owners for their repeated rudeness contrasts greatly with the far greater numbers of responsible owners you hardly ever notice, have no difficulty being considerate and share very similar perspectives of what crossing the line is. The factor of Nuisance Barking being controllable noise is about to be addressed much more directly and strongly in Unincorporated Sonoma County.
I attended an Animal Control meeting last April for the public to first discuss multiple new regulations being drafted. By far, barking relief was the most prevalent and heated topic and the primary reason many were there. The summary report termed the issue an 'epidemic'.
April 7, 2014 Public Workshop Agenda (pdf)
Animal Control Codes proposed revisions (pdf)
Summary of submitted comments (pdf)
Animal Control was already feeling big pressure to deal better with Nuisance Barking. Long overwhelmed with daily complaints, they were just as frustrated by a cumbersome and unfair complaint process, an inadequate verification process and very weak enforcement tools. For starters, a big improvement to Section 5-126 will be that the number of people/dwellings required to complain to begin strict enforcement will be changed from 2 to 1 because it's almost always true that others are suffering the virtual assault in silence than willing to fill out a complex legal form feeling the hostility already and in fear of retaliation.
Separating barking from other controllable noise issues like parties, leaf blowers, etc... is also being addressed and the definition of Nuisance Barking being considered is "Chronic, Unattended Repetitive Barking" to mean these differences:
--Responsible owner barking pattern: Random and short lived spurts of barking during reasonable hours with occasional exceptions as they do come up about which caring owners would typically be apologetic. The daily average pattern blends into the background and nobody stands out.
--Irresponsible owner/Nuisance Barking pattern: Repeatedly leaving dogs out and ignoring barking with no regard for what time of day or night is, combined with denial, hostility and indignant entitlement when confronted about it. Neighbors never know when the barking is going to end, but do know it won't be soon or due to any empathy the owner has for the well-being of neighbors OR the dog.
The neglect factor was strongly acknowledged as many attendees agreed they could hear the desperation in the dog's pleading/agitation and hoped the stricter laws would help relieve the animals as well.
The board encouraged further public opinion in writing and I submitted a follow up outline, proposal and implementation suggestions to Public Health Director Ellen Bauer that was very warmly welcomed and passed around to all concerned, including County Supervisors.
I have been personally invited to the next meeting after a new Animal Control Department head is named and want to bring as many additional comments and ideas from Sonoma County residents as I can to reflect public opinion.
You are invited to participate in the questionnaire in the next post.
Thank you,
Alex