Posts: 2,490
Threads: 222
Joined: Dec 2005
http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/sect...quiet.html
To trigger a violation, dogs must still bark, howl or make other noises continuously for 10 minutes, or intermittently for 20 minutes, within a 30-minute period.
Police, however, no longer have to do the timing.
Under the new law, those bothered by a clamoring canine first must "make a reasonable attempt to advise the owner or custodian" of the nuisance.
If those efforts fail or if the owner doesn't quiet the dog after being told of the disturbance, then the complainant may "notify the appropriate enforcement agency," which could include the Hawaii Island Humane Society.
The animal owner would be guilty of a nuisance violation if he "does not take immediate and effective action to abate the nuisance" or if the "appropriate enforcement agency" is notified, responds and the barking continues.
Fines for keeping a noisy dog would remain the same: $25 for the first offense, $75 for the second, $100 for the third, and $200 for any subsequent violation.
Interesting. I'm thinking this would be hard to enforce. What about Roosters?
Posts: 180
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
My next door neighbor built a dog kennel in his back yard - directly across from my bedroom window - to house a dozen hunting dogs. These dogs bark, bay, and howl night and day without provocation. 10:00 pm, 10:02 pm, 10:10 pm, 10:12 pm, 11:15 pm, 1:20 am, 1:22 am, 1:25 am......you get the idea.
And if kids or someone with a dog walks down the street forget it. I can't even walk in my front yard without these dogs going off for several minutes.
I've spoken to the neighbors twice to no avail. Everyone who comes to my place complains about their barking. The dogs keep my boyfriend up at night, he's grouchy because can't get any sleep  ..... I'm kinda at my wits end and I don't see this law helping.
I love and own dogs. But man my neighbor's dogs are something else.
Posts: 2,980
Threads: 177
Joined: Aug 2006
It sounds like the law could help if they bark continuously for more than 10 minutes or intermittently for 20 minutes within a 30 minute period. It is all about enforcement, and about requesting enforcement on a consistent, polite basis.
This law is a start. True, there is a cultural difference in the attitude toward dogs to be reconciled (and that may never happen), and enforcement issues to work out (resources will be a problem until we insist on those resources and are willing to pay for them) but we should all be able to agree that disturbing the peace is, or should be, against the law. A respect for the rights of our neighbors is fundamental, and the Golden Rule should be adaptable to every situation: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If this law is invoked judiciously and, as a last resort (an attempt to informally resolve the dispute is built in) then it could be effective. It's very existence is a positive development.
It is easy to be cynical about the enforcement end of this, but at some point Puna will cease to be cynical about enforcement and will instead insist on it.
Posts: 2,149
Threads: 90
Joined: Feb 2006
Spunky, I recall a case a few years ago in Hilo where a man was required to reduce how many dogs he kept because the lot, according to County ordinance, was too small for the number. IIRC, the health department was who got on his case because he had over 20 dogs on a small in-town lot. If you are in one of the subdivisions with large lots, this might not be helpful, but you might want to research this possible angle. I say that because my contacts in the Police Department and some of the Mayor's statements about the new dog noise ordinance lead me to anticipate enforcement issues.
Sorry to insert cynicism, Kelena, but reality is what it is. We at the HPP Neighborhood Watch follow the "insist and persist" reporting philosophy, though, and keep plugging away incessantly. We pride ourselves on that, and they sometimes tire of the calls and actually do something about "nuissance issues." FWIW, burglary and petty theft reports in HPP are down 70% from a year and a half ago.
Posts: 2,980
Threads: 177
Joined: Aug 2006
Yes, I see that stats are down for HPP and big way. You prove my point! Insistence and persistence have paid off and you deserve a great amount of the credit for that. You have shown great leadership as head of the HPP NW and I see these are cropping up elsewhere now. Congratulations. Your reward is a better HPP and the thanks of a grateful subdivision. OK --The subdivision could care less, but I appreciate it.
Posts: 180
Threads: 19
Joined: Dec 2010
Kelena - it must be nice in your never never land neighborhood where everyone is pleasant and considerate, but I live in the cynical part of HPP. Should I start calling the cops at 10 pm? .... and then 1 am? then 3 am? Monday? Tuesady? and Wednesday??? the husband works nights and therefore is not at home when the dogs keep everyone up.
Because I've mentioned it to them multiple times, the neighbor's would know any police reports came from me. And then I would worry about what might happen to my animals when I am not at home. (one of my beloved cats has already disappeared).
You said it yourself; there is a cultural difference in the attitude toward dogs to be reconciled (and that may never happen), and enforcement issues to work out (resources will be a problem...
Yes, the law is a first step in the right direction. But it needs work.
quote:
Originally posted by Kelena
It is all about enforcement, and about requesting enforcement on a consistent, polite basis.
True, there is a cultural difference in the attitude toward dogs to be reconciled (and that may never happen), and enforcement issues to work out (resources will be a problem until we insist on those resources and are willing to pay for them) but we should all be able to agree that disturbing the peace is, or should be, against the law. A respect for the rights of our neighbors is fundamental, and the Golden Rule should be adaptable to every situation: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If this law is invoked judiciously and, as a last resort (an attempt to informally resolve the dispute is built in) then it could be effective.
Posts: 2,980
Threads: 177
Joined: Aug 2006
I sympathize, spunky. And I can't imagine what it would be like to be lose a pet in that way. You have a right to be cynical, but cynicism often becomes an excuse for inaction. Action has been taken and we now have a law on the books and that's a start. The rest will require --how did Jerry put it-- insistence and persistence. And even that may not be enough to address your particular situation. Makes me wish we had some, basic CCR's so that could be addressed in another way.
I am presently on the mainland and haven't lived in a never never land since I broke up with my partner in April 2009. Dispatches from never never land make clear though that barking dogs and inconsiderate neighbors can occur in nearly every neighborhood on the island. Sound travels on lava, that's for sure. I once visited an amazing house that had it all, on an acre of land. Next door was a guy who watched television on his lanai all day long and into the night. You could hear it as if it was right in front of you.
The dog situation on the island is a negative for me. However, as Jerry's work on Neighborhood Watch has shown, with persistence even the most intractable situations can be improved. Where there is a will, there is a way.
|
