Thursday, August 16, 2012

This Week's Barking News Roundup - 08/16/12

Oakley council considers rules on noisy dogs

Excerpt: Oakley's Municipal Code currently stipulates that vocal dogs become an unreasonable disturbance when they bark continuously for 15 minutes or intermittently for 30 minutes.

But that requires authorities responding to complaints to stay in that spot for at least 15 minutes to determine whether the canine is actually violating the law, and if it doesn't bark while they're there, a repeat visit becomes necessary, further stretching already limited manpower...

Tip: Does your community have stupid barking laws like Oakley's? Well, you can share a piece of your mind via the Facebook comments on this story.

Officials ponder proposed 'dog control' ordinance

Excerpt: It all started with a request from a resident for a barking dog ordinance and now, the Oxford Township Board is considering a "dog control" ordinance that encompasses a variety of canine-related issues.

Back in Court Over Barking Dogs

My comments: Looks like that Tonawanda repeat offender is going back to court because her dogs are still barking. This lady's 77 years old, and, IMHO, she should give it up on the dog ownership front. It's obvious that she can't handle the responsibility.

I'll finish this week's edition of the Barking News Roundup with a super-happy fun opinion poll. As they say in Chicago, vote early. And vote often.

The Department of Shameless Self-Promotion. Does your neighborhood feel like Tonawanda? No matter how much you complain, those idiot dog owners just don't get a clue. Well, don't holler at them. You'll just lose your voice. Instead, voice your displeasure with the bumper stickers and tee shirts in my QuietBarkingDogs store.

1 comment:

  1. YQN:

    Good post. Keep up the good work. A few thoughts:

    On the Oakley proposed ordinance. Its good that the city is taking noise pollution from dogs seriously, but the article illustrates the fact that such ordinances have subjective language that is easy to argue against. Allow me to be the Devil's advocate for a minute - how does one truly define "disturbing the peace"? For that matter... why is it wrong for a dog in that county to bark for 15 minutes and one second, but perfectly OK for it to bark for 14 minutes and 59 seconds? What if you are surrounded by noisy dogs?

    The best thing about the article was that it granted an Apologista an opportunity to make an absolute fool of himself... check the one comment: "yea, makes perfect sense to fine someone for a dog barking. That's like fining someone for talking.
    Don't like the sounds of dogs barking? Then move! To make a law specifically targetting dog owners is illegal based on equal rights."

    I almost got a "Bingo" out of those 4 sentences! Hey Facebook Dummy: People talk at 60 decibels, dogs bark at over 100 decibels and that's 16 TIMES AS LOUD! Oh, and by the way we should legalize shooting dogs because any laws restricting the actions of gun owners is discriminatory. I'm going to have to add that stupid excuse to my list.

    On the second article. Again, demonstrates that it is difficult to set limits on barking. Again, how do you define a "nuisance" or "disturbing the peace" in an absolute sense? One good thing was, the city has an interest in holding dog owners accountable for ALL of the problems they create with their dogs, not just barking. I believe that barking, biting, dogs at large, etc... are merely symptoms of a larger underlying problem. The problem being that dog owners are NOT held accountable, generally speaking. Its that entitlement thingy, again. If we set higher standards, and make meeting those standards a compliance issue, ALL of those problems should ameliorate.

    On the "back in court". Good observation on your part YQN... the dog owner definitely needs to hang it up. Again, I feel that the privilege of housing ANY animal is dependent on 2 things: 1) You must be able to meet the needs of the animal in question, and 2) It must be housed in such a way that it will not negatively impact the peace or human health or safety.

    The Facebook comment on the above was also priceless: "LOL! I have 6 dogs all around me...I have ZERO problem when they bark..lets me know when someone is walking by, wandering around or loitering too long. Thank you Rex, Stella, Zoe, Shelby, Kionna, Norwood, and Buster for protecting our little area and keeping us informed of intruders!!!!! Even at 10:00 pm or 7:00 am!".

    While a high IQ is not required for posting on Facebook, the above comment is stupid even for a nutter. They are using the "Its not bothering me" excuse, which is the most idiotic thing to ever spew from human lips. Hey Facebook dummy #2: How about your neighbors shoot all of your dogs... I'm sure it won't bother them one bit! They also used a variant of the "they are doing their jobs" excuse.... tone up the entire neighborhood, 24x7 over the most trivial of events... people walking non-barking dogs, the guy 5 houses down washing his car, etc... Hey, how about your neighbors hire a hit man to take you and your dogs out? He'll just be "doing his job", correct?

    In any case, keep this up. These posts are very informative.