Barking dog ordinance passes

The county has a new tool to help control nuisance barking dogs. The county commissioners last Thursday unanimously passed the Barking Dog Control Ordinance.

Several residents attended the Thursday decision meeting to express support and opposition for the ordinance. County Attorney Naomi Leisz and Sheriff Tom Rummel also were in attendance. Sheriff Rummel said he sees the ordinance as a tool for law enforcement to work with. “Before, we as law enforcement didn’t have any teeth to work with,” Rummel said. “This gives us a tool to talk to residents and get them to get their dogs to be quiet.”

The county commissioners and sheriff noted that the ordinance is intended to deal with incessant barking, day after day. Commissioner Tony Cox said the ordinance originated from complaints about barking dogs, and law enforcement approached the commissioners saying they needed a tool for enforcement.

“We’re not talking about dogs that bark at delivery people or the mail man,” Commissioner Carol Brooker said. “It’s for people who have habitual problems.” Sheriff Rummel added that the ordinance gives the county the ability to log complaints and track the problem.

Cox said that incorporated towns and cities within Sanders County have similar ordinances. The county also looked at ordinances in neighboring counties in researching what to do in Sanders County. “Most do have an ordinance,” Cox said.

Law enforcement can issue citations for offenders, with a fine of $50 to $500. “We all know that to get people’s attention we have to get in their pocketbooks,” Rummel said. Additionally, a court may order the dog impounded after a third or subsequent conviction. The original ordinance had jail time as a penalty, but the commissioners chose to strike that from the wording. “I think we all agree no one should go to jail for a barking dog,” Cox said.

The ordinance was passed with a one-year sunset. That means that at the end of the year, the commissioners can review the ordinance, see if it is working, find any gaps and then decide whether to renew, revise or repeal the ordinance.

Sheriff Rummel said that while the county doesn’t have an extensive number of dog complaints, they do hinder law enforcement. “They add more to our calls,” he said.

Several residents in attendance asked why the issue wasn’t put to a vote to the county residents. The commissioners stated that to be on the ballot, it needs to come from the citizens. Commissioners provided the residents with details on how to get a measure on the ballot, including costs and signature collection.

While a public hearing was previously held on the matter to take public comment, commissioners allowed residents to provide ordinance feedback at the decision meeting. Resident Ed Farmer, who opposed the ordinance, said that people moved here for a reason, to get out of the city. “Next thing, this is going to be California or Oregon,” Farmer said of the additional regulations.

Resident Mary Reed started an online petition against the ordinance. As of Monday, more than 250 people had signed and commented on the online petition. Commissioner Brooker reminded the residents that state law requires public comments to be submitted in writing.

“We don’t want you to make a law against our dogs,” resident Diane McDonald said. “It’s that simple.”

Steven Hardy, another resident who opposed the ordinance, said he moved here for freedom. “Our county has enough laws already. Where does it end?”

Sheriff Rummel said the ordinance is “about coexisting with people. Have some common decency. This comes into play when people just don’t care about their neighbors. This ordinance gives us a tool to work with.”

Leisz, the county attorney, said that she looked at using the public nuisance law for enforcement, but that law doesn’t apply to all instances. She said they tried to make the ordinance as simple as possible.

Thompson Falls resident Greg Hinkle spoke in support of the ordinance. “I do not have the right to adversely affect my neighbor,” he said. “What I do on my property is my business. But if it affects my neighbor, I don’t have that right.” He said that he and his wife have a rental property. They also have neighbors with dogs that bark incessantly. He said the rental property was busy until a negative review online complained about the barking dog issue, and that review affected their business.

Another resident in support of the ordinance, Kathy Warrington, said “I have pets. They are my kids too. But like children, you have to train them. I like having the ability for law enforcement to step in.”

While there is no time frame for the ordinance, Sheriff Rummel said most of the complaints are at night.

The ordinance will take effect June 22, 30 days after the commissioners adopted it.