|
|
FARMINGTON – A public hearing on a barking dog amendment proposed for the town’s animal control ordinance ended with agreement for a need to continue the draft’s revision process, although the majority of selectmen did vote to bring the question, in whatever form is eventually decided, to a vote at the March 20 annual town meeting.
Some residents attending the selectmen meeting Tuesday night had concerns that the proposed process moves from complaint to investigation and on to court but doesn’t include the possibility of mediation between neighbors. Others worried about the very definition of “nuisance barking” and another had concerns about his hunting dogs barking when they hunt.
The proposal to implement the amended ordinance to include barking dogs comes following complaints of 20 barking and howling sled dogs that moved into a Whittier Road neighborhood last summer. The draft, used by other municipalities, defines a dog as being considered a nuisance “by continued or repeated barking, howling, making of other loud or unusual noises, or in any other manner disturbing the peace of any person.”
The ordinance outlines a procedure for written complaints, allows for a waiver fee to be paid to avoid going to court and imposes progressively stiffer fines of up to $250, if owners are found to be in continual violation.
An appeals section was added in response to the last meeting’s suggested revision that allows for the matter to be taken to the Board of Appeals but some pointed out that comes only after the citation has been issued.
“Am I going to cited every time I hunt,” resident Larry York asked selectmen. “They’re working dogs.”
Lisa Weddle asked “who determines it’s a nuisance?” Dogs bark when coyotes howl, she said.
“Most dogs bark for a reason,” Barry Weddle said. “This (ordinance amendment) would open up a door for a lot of people to take advantage of this,” he said referring to the possibility of disgruntled neighbors using the ordinance as a means to bring frivolous complaints.
“This ordinance tries to balance the right of the dog owner and the neighbors’ rights,” said Town Manager Richard Davis.
“We shouldn’t need it,” said Selectman Jon Bubier. If you respect your neighbors’ rights you wouldn’t let your dogs keep barking, you’d find a way to fix it, he said.
Jean Perron who owns the 20 sled dogs which triggered the ordinance amendment work, said she has now received 44 summonses, each with a fine of up to $35 if found guilty of disturbing the peace in a couple of upcoming court appearances. One of the summonses she said was for a half hour of barking at feeding time.
“When the coyotes howl, the dogs howl. I can’t stop it,” she said and added she has purchased a bark control device and will see if that helps the situation.
“What possessed you to move into a neighborhood with that many dogs and not find yourself a problem,” Bubier asked Perron.
Neighbor Tom Taylor said he lives a quarter mile from Perron’s house and said when they moved in “it was an unbelievable noise, barking and howling. Low and behold it was a family that had moved in. How selfish and insensitive to move into the neighborhood with 20 dogs,” Taylor said.
Selectman Dennis Pike wanted to table it and time to rework the proposed amendment because of the concerns raised at the meeting. As the town warrant needs to go to the printers next week, Pike wanted to have it taken off as a warrant item, noting there wasn’t enough time to come up with a draft that voters could study before deciding the issue.
“There should be enough time for voters to make an informed decision at town meeting,” Pike said.
Davis said as written, the warrant article’s wording is generic enough that any version of the amendment revised in the coming weeks can be submitted to voters. Board Chair Steve Bunker said it can be debated on the floor at town meeting and voted on then. Selectmen voted 4-1, with Pike opposing, that the dog barking amendment be included on the town warrant with revisions continuing up until nearly the town meeting.
In other matters, selectmen unanimously approved amending the town’s tax increment financing district to include the Farmington Grange. Grangers asked for the hall’s designation so $10,000 of Farmington’s TIF funds can be used to pay for the building’s improvement, such as insulation and electrical upgrades. The organization wants to continue having a year-round farmers’ market at the building.
These days dogs are used as passive-aggressive weapons: what bullets are to guns, barking is to dogs. Barking kills—a slow, painful death of a million bee stings. Communities should focus on the root cause of the conflict between barking dog and innocent human: the barking is the root cause. It’s the BARKING that’s the source of the conflict. The source of the conflict is not the barking-sufferer’s REACTION to barking, whatever that reaction may be. Chronic barking is molestation. The party at fault is the household with the barker(s). It doesn’t matter what the sufferer-of-barking does to try to get the barking to stop—they feel desperate because they are not getting support from the outlying community to get the barking stopped. I’m not talking about partial-barking stopped—I mean 100%-barking stopped. The barking-sufferer has a right to enjoy her patch of real estate unmolested by barking. The barker needs to get gone.
In a conflict between one person and a dog, the human should win out every time. Human rights trump dog rights. Who is it that pays the mortgage or rent? Not dogs. Why do we as society allow dogs to have more rights than people? Barking is a serious offense: barking makes people—literally—insane. Chronic barking causes the barking-sufferer to not be able to meet his obligations in paying the mortgage or rent and put food on the table. People, obtaining dogs, who like to “have their own petty egos petted,” are clueless as to what it takes to truly care for a dog. Being the guardian of a dog is a lifelong commitment—it is similar as caring for a human infant—and dogs cost money. Leaving dog(s) in a yard unattended and unloved is a hazard to anyone who is not the owner and who is within earshot of the barking. A barker is a menace. A barker is a health hazard. A barker is an “ignored” dog—it’s time we see chronic barking for what it is: it’s animal neglect. Things have to be done, by the community, on behalf of the barking-sufferer, as in laws, fines, punishments and jail-time.
Communities should give power to law enforcement to seize yard barkers without the dog owner’s knowledge, impound the dog(s). Or 6 months in jail. Or a $1,000 fine. If I had my wish, the dog would be euthanized within 24 hours.
Dog-haters are made, not born. Residents become hostile after years of their communities having more sympathy for barkers than for barking-sufferers, communities who spit on human need for peace and quiet where they live. Having dogs growing up, I used to like dogs. I’ve learned to loathe barkers, and by association, I hate all dogs always everywhere. Barkers are REALLY, REALLY bad public relations for dogs in general. Well-meaning dog owners should pressure arrant dog owners with barkers because barking gives the whole dog species a bad name.
You know, how would you feel if you went to go poop in your own toilet, the next-door neighbor’s dog heard you from outside, barked continuously 5 feet from where you’re doing your business? How would you feel if you put a dish in the microwave oven, the other next-door neighbor’s dog heard you from outside, barked continuously 5 feet from where you’re trying to eat a pleasant meal? How would you feel if the phone rings, you answer it, the next-door neighbor’s dog heard you from outside, barked continuously 5 feet from where you’re trying to have a conversation where you yell into the phone “I can’t hear you. What’d you say?”? And finally, how would you feel if this went on, day and night, for five years? Answer honestly, because you would not have had a good night’s sleep in five years. How would YOU feel?
Dogs have no business around human dwelling areas. Dogs are “guests” and as such, must behave. If dogs don’t behave, banish them. Dog be gone.