Uno the beagle not welcome in Gwinnett County

Uno the Beagle not welcome in Gwinnett County

America loves a hero. For many dog loving American's Uno the beagle, who won Best in Show last year, is that hero. Uno captured the hearts of America during his celebrity tour that included the first-ever White House visit by a Westminster winner. When his victory was announced Uno's howls of joy were only drowned out by the passionate response from the crowd who cheered his victory.

http://www.clipsyndicate.com/publish/video/515830/beagle_is_numero_uno_at_westminster

Uno's year started the day after he won, when he went to Sardi's for the winner's traditional plate of strip steak. He also made the rounds on a host of television shows delighting audiences with his cheerful personality.

Since then he's spent an hour with Texas Gov. Rick Perry. He rode with Snoopy, America's other most famous beagle, in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. He threw out the first pitch at Milwaukee Brewers and St. Louis Cardinals baseball games. Well, okay, he fetched the first pitch.

Uno rang the bell to open the NASDAQ stock exchange and spent his third birthday visiting the commander and chief, President George Bush in the White House. Laura Bush gave Uno a red-white-and-blue collar and lead as a birthday present. The famous hound also got a chance to play with 270 school kids and Girl Scouts. Later, he visited injured GIs at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Now retired, Uno is a certified therapy dog who visits Ronald McDonald Houses around the country. "Uno has a wonderful personality and temperament," said Westminster Director of Communications David Frei and TV host for USA and CNBC, who added, "I've been doing this for 20 years and have never seen a dog that the public responded to like Uno."

According to a November 26, 2008 article in the International Herald Tribune Americas, the Global Edition of the New York Times, Uno has had a busy year.
Uno had a day declared in his honor in his home state of Illinois

Uno met the family of Peanuts comic strip creator, Charles Schultz. The comic character, Snoopy, was Uno’s ink-on-paper beagle forebear.

Uno appears to love the applause and the attention heaped on him and people seem to relate to him as a type of underdog champion.

While Uno was welcomed by the White House for his accomplishments it is ironic is that his howls of joy and excitement would be in violation of this county's ordinance on nuisance barking.

If Uno or any of his champion "brood" ever decided to visit Gwinnett our county's ordinance would consider any barking exuberance of more then five times for thirty seconds would be a violation of county code. One is left to wonder whether laws written to condemn dogs like Uno are written to make prosecuting and convicting dogs like Uno rather then written advocating to assure their safety in the community.

The owner of the property Uno was visiting could be cited, pay up to a thousand dollars in fine, face six months in jail and if the animal rights attorney was inclined have Uno seized and become the property of the county governments animal shelter.

While the issue of dog's barking more then five times for thirty seconds is what a vast majority of dogs do - after all they are dogs, an ordinance of this nature will be viewed as a first of it's kind that specifically criminalize owning beagles.

Here's what the Humane Society of the United States says about traits common in beagles.

Shelters
Surrender: “During my years in rescue work, the most common reason for surrender I heard was that the beagle’s barking was causing trouble with the neighbors.”
Adoption: “If a potential adopter is considering a beagle, they need to accept that beagles bark. Beagles love to bark so much that I am convinced they soon forget why they started barking and just continue to bark for the sheer enjoyment of it. A potential adopter should know that their prospective new family member will be a vocal one.

As a long time owner and advocate for beagles in our community I'm convinced too that beagles bark simply because they can. Anyone who has had the pleasure of being owned by a beagle knows that they are fiercely stubborn in their ways, have an attention span of a gnat, and follow their nose to wherever and whatever direction it takes them.

Of all the real crime issues in Gwinnett, an explosive growth in drug trafficking, illegal immigration and gang violence, the beagles are the only criminal element which have successfully visited the white house - doesn't that say something about the county's mixed up priorities?

Tax Woes for Lilburn City Councilman Eddie Price

When you think of property taxes and elected officials it never dawns on you that those with the power to tax your home don't think they have to pay taxes on the property they own.

An investigation into property held by Lilburn City Councilman's Eddie Price has resulted in a tax bill off over $1,700 being issued to Councilman Price for illegally claiming a homestead exemption on rental property he owns.

Councilman Price has owned and operated his business, Eddie's Automotive (located on Webb Parkway), in the City of Lilburn since June of 1990. He lives in Lilburn with his family and is a deeply committed member of the community. However, he's not as committed to pay his property taxes.

Price involved himself in my dog barking case in Gwinnett's Recorders Court last August when he testified that he was caretaker for his wife's rental property located two doors down.

Property records confirmed the house is deeded to Price's wife "Wanda Moaveni" with the tax bills being sent to Price's luxury home located at 230 Flowers Cove Lane in Liburn. Price now rents that property out to a family who owns two outdoor dogs whose barking apparently isn't an issue.

What is unclear is why Price had such an issue with my dogs since he lives several miles away - or was he interested in forcing me out of my home so he could purchase it in a distress sale? Regardless, his ethics and capacity to represent citizens should be questioned.

One is left to wonder what role Price played in the county solicitor's position that "my" neighborhood would be better served if I surrendered upwards of ten of my dogs or MOVED to resolve my barking dog issue. Was Price interested in justice and tranquility or merely seeking the opportunity to purchase my property in a distress sale?

The integrity of any political figure who seeks to kill old lazy hounds should be an issue for all of us who cherish our family pets. Those elected to government positions must serve as a role model in paying ALL the taxes that they are required to pay. It is disingenuous for a person of Price's political stature to run on a "deep commitment" to the community keeping property owners taxes low while in fact he is claiming exemptions he is not entitled to.

Councilman Price chose to involve himself in my dog barking case which ultimately opened up his involvement of the skimming off of tax revenue he was participating in. Those who cast stones should not live in glass houses.

This issue will certainly surface during future discussions with the city of Lilburn's attempt at annexing a large part of un incorporated Gwinnett.

I certainly don't want a person who places personal greed over citizens rights to own pets making decisions for me or my hounds.

Yes we can change our animal welfare culture

Studies show that over 66,000 households in un incorporated Gwinnett own on the average 1.2 dogs as family pets. Over 53,000 households own on the average 1.7 cats and an even more astounding number of families in pet rich Gwinnett own both. The needs and wishes of this large voting and taxpaying block has all but been ignored for years in helping to shape the county's animal welfare policies.

One of the agenda issues for tonight's animal advisory council meeting in Gwinnett is a discussion on what the focus of the county's animal advisory council should be. Should this group be beholden to those who own and fund our county's pets OR should it simply be a special interest group that isolates county animal control and leadership with policies that control rather then serve the county's animal needs.

The Board of Commissioners created the Animal Advisory Council (AAC) in 1993 to study animal-related issues in Gwinnett, to provide a channel for dialogue, and to offer advice and recommendations to Animal Control and the Board.

It was created under the auspices that the CITIZENS of Gwinnett were desirous of establishing an animal council to study, make recommendations, and to offer professional advise to the Board of Commissioners regarding animal welfare issues. More importantly, this AAC was created to provide a channel for dialog between the citizens of Gwinnett and the Board of Commissioners they have elected. Only though this open dialog could the community's pet owners maximize the coordination of resources towards resolving the county's animal welfare issues.

Unfortunately, through the years the original inclusive membership of the AAC has morphed into a group that effectively excludes that same open and honest dialog with it's citizens. While many of the county's other "advisory committee's" include members appointed by individual commissioner's representing their district's interest - the AAC does not.

Groups like the County Transit System, Historical Restoration and Preservation, Merit Board, Planning Commission, Recreational Authority, Springfield Golf Course Commission, Tree Advisory Committee and Water & Sewerage Authority (to name a few) all include nominating processes with members from each district and one at large appointed by the county chair. The Animal Advisory Council instead relies solely on members appointed by and only with the approval of animal control.

With the dramatic increases in dogs and cats being killed at the new Gwinnett's Animal Shelter, the focus has shifted to the role the county's animal advisory council should have moving forward. Obviously, the AAC is hesitant about making any professional recommendations that might suggest changes in animal welfare policies that effect the same group that is solely responsible for approving their membership.

Commissioner Mike Beaudreau has recommended a dialog be opened with local animal advocates and pet owners on alternatives that would open up county animal welfare policies and solutions to those who feel disenfranchised in the process.

Proposals that are being raised that include term limits on how long volunteers can serve on the AAC and a process of having each of the four elected commissioners nominate one dog owner and/or one cat owner to the council therefore giving pet owners a voice in developing animal welfare policies in the county. This would be a stark contrast to the current makeup of the council which is and has been controlled by special interests if that special interest is merely appeasing the animal control interest that control their appointments..

Changing the stagnation of ideas coming out of the current AAC is only the first process in turning the tide in our shared animal welfare policies. Many local animal advocates feel that wholesale changes in the makeup of the AAC are in order to bring about fresh ideas that would save hundreds of pets that otherwise are being euthanized. This stagnation in having a voice in developing alternatives to catch, hold and kill policies is a major influence in the dramatic drop in rescue participation at the new shelter - which has seen a drop in the last year of over 30% in the number of animals moved into rescue.

While the problems associated with numbers of pets increasing in the new shelter makes finding solutions more tenuous the issue of a dramatic reduction in the number of pets going to rescue groups is more problematic. There is clear evidence that the rescue community feels not only disenfranchised in the process but fears the intimidation issues as well. The new AAC must be able to rebuild these fears with a new partnership of shared respect between the two factions.

The problems of functionality of the current makeup of the AAC runs deeper then just the process of who and how members get appointed to this exclusive group. The bylaws that created this group all but stifle off any creative thinking that might bring about improvement in operational aspects of the shelter.

Section 4 of the bylaws quite clearly states "The AAC has no independent authority to act on any of it's own recommendations" and in fact under Section 6 of the same bylaws it states "The AAC shall only submit recommendations which have been approved by a majority vote. All recommendations for action MUST be submitted in writing to the Chief of Police and Animal Control Manager. Any recommendations to the Board of Commissioners MUST be authorized by and coordianted through the Chief of Police and County Administrator.

With stringent rules like this is there any wonder that no ideas of merit ever surface upwards to our elected commissioners relaying the wants and concerns of the very citizens this group is suppose to provide dialog for? Is it any wonder that the only ideas that have come out of this group of late was the recent passage of the draconian revisions in our county's animal ordinance which not only criminalized many aspects of normal pet behavior but relieved animal control of any responsibility in investigation violations of many aspects of those ordinances?

Those entrusted with the decision making in setting animal shelter policy try to create order by closing off and isolating themselves from those and that which does not fit. They become bureaucratic with an obscured vision to the community's wants and needs while lacking the clarity needed to truly implement successful no kill policies.

Killing and control simply becomes a means to the end.

Over the next few years Gwinnett is in serious need of major changes in nor only our poorly written animal ordinances but more importantly how the county handles it's animal control issues.

We need a serious cultural shift from controlling our animal issues to providing animal services that enhance responsibly owning pets in our county.

Common sense dictates that pet owners/taxpayers are relied on to fund animal control and therefore should be entitled to help direct the county's animal policies in a "no kill" or "less kill" direction.

In an era of recessionary times animal welfare issues face the same budgetary struggles as other critical community service programs and are best served by seeking alternatives that not only point a community in a "less kill" direction but drastically reduce the costs of animal control as well.

Judges rule on proper value of a dog's life

What is the proper value of a "dog's" life? That is a question debated in legal circles for decades.

The law in Georgia still views pets as nothing more then a person's property. Yet, many county's have implemented new animal ordinances which seem to ignore both the premise that the state is not entitled to seize property without "due cause" and without upholding the constitutional issues related to due process.

"Freedom just around the corner from you

But with the truth so far off, what good will it do?"

The truth is Gwinnett's revised animal ordnances, passed in January of 2007, grant huge discretionary power to the county attorney's office in seizing, impounding, or forcing citizens through threats and intimidation to get rid of pets even over such mundane violations of the county's public nuisance animal laws.

What is even more ironic is the law was drafted, passed and is now being enforced by the county solicitor who lauds herself as an animal advocate.

"Friend to the martyr, a friend to the woman of shame,

You look into the fiery furnace, see the rich man without any name."

There is an extreme disconnect between advocating for the safety and well being of animals while proposing laws that land these animals in high kill shelters for minor infractions.

Drafting and passing an ordinance which even allows fines of up to $1,000 and jail time for up to six months on pet owners is an unusual way for the county to advertise itself as a great place to raise your family especially if that quality of life includes owning pets.

If the county continues with it's policy of treating pet owners as criminals won't we morph into a community where only criminals will own pets?

Those of us who "own" pets know better. We do not place a "replacement' value on what we view as a priceless part of our lives. A true animal advocate understands that domesticated pets are far more then simply pieces of property we own but intrinsic parts of our family that are entitled to be kept safe and protected - even if that protection is against the county judicial system itself.

"Well, the rifleman's stalking the sick and the lame,

Preacherman seeks the same, who'll get there first is uncertain.

Nightsticks and water cannons, tear gas, padlocks,

Molotov cocktails and rocks behind every curtain,

False-hearted judges dying in the webs that they spin,

Only a matter of time 'til night comes steppin' in."

Is the Gwinnett of the future nothing more then the mess we now call Atlanta? Will Gwinnett continue to push aside responsible citizens turning this county into a Clayton County quagmire? Affluent communities are nothing more then the sum product of those who choose to call it home. When that product is made up of negative influences Is it only a matter of time before night comes steppin in?

There has been an outpouring of opposition to the county's flagrant attacks on pet owners with demands that the animal ordinances once again be revisited in order that those laws represent the core values of our citizens concerning the role of our family pets. The county attorney's have once again missed the entire point in that the minor changes that have been proposed do not deal with the core issue that the county does not have the right to take property from it's citizens without equal due process being afforded to those charged with violating that same ordinance.

Just to be clear, pet owners are not entitled to a trial by jury in recorder's court. Further, there seems to be an air of arrogance with a county solicitor's animal advocating office that makes it it's own rules of discovery by lowering the bar of a defendant being guilty until and if they can prove innocence beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to a recognized standard that people are indeed innocent until the state proves their guilt.

This whole process makes a mockery of justice in our county court with an assumption that the court's primary function is to extract and generate revenue for the county as opposed to being a court room where justice is served. Maybe it's a little too much to expect our county courts to understand the role pet's play in a community's vibrant lifestyle but what excuse do our elected officials have?

Judges rule on the proper value of a dog's life

http://www.sj-r.com/homepage/x2094350144/Dave-Bakke-Judges-rule-on-the-proper-value-of-a-dog-s-life

Some families wouldn’t take a million dollars for their pet. But, to the law, a family pet may be nothing more than a piece of property.Molly is a dachshund and is part of the family as far as Mark and Mindy Leith and their boys, Corbin and Colby, are concerned.

At the end of April 2006, Molly, who was 7 years old then, was in the Leiths’ back yard in Lincoln. Another dog, allegedly their neighbor’s Siberian husky, Cosmo, got out of its yard, over or under two fences, and attacked Molly.When Mindy Leith got home, the attack was under way. She saw Molly being ripped apart by the bigger dog she recognized as Cosmo. Mindy got between the dogs, kicking the attacker, which growled and lunged at her while a bleeding Molly crawled under a table, her body torn open.

The Leiths rushed Molly to their veterinarian in Atlanta. They were told to take their dog to the animal hospital at the University of Illinois immediately if they wanted to save her. There was no hesitation.Molly spent three days in intensive care in Urbana.

The Leiths visited every day. Their dog had four broken ribs, muscle damage, a punctured lung and cracked vertebrae, but she lived. The cost of keeping Molly alive was $4,784.72.

The Leiths took out a loan to pay the bill.In 2007, the Leiths sued Cosmo’s owner, Andrew Frost of Lincoln, for their medical and travel costs.

On Sept. 26, 2007, in Lincoln, 11th Circuit Court Judge Paul Lawrence found Frost negligent and that Cosmo had indeed attacked Molly. However, the judge awarded the Leiths just $200 despite the fact that they were out more than $4,700 in vet bills.

The judge based the damages on testimony from an area kennel owner and dachshund breeder. She testified that a dog Molly’s age and breed is worth $200, tops. The judge found that, according to Illinois law, the damages awarded by the court could not be more than the dog — their property — is worth.Illinois law can treat a pet as if it were a car. If a car is worth $5,000 and the owner pays a repair bill twice that amount, then goes to court to recover the $10,000 from the driver who hit him, the court would probably rule that the owner cannot be awarded more than the value of the car.

The only time intangibles come into play is if the monetary value of the car, pet or family picture of Aunt Matilda is negligible, perhaps having only emotional value to the owner.

Both sides appealed Lawrence’s ruling to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Springfield. The Leiths argued that the damages should be higher. Frost said there is no proof that it was his dog that attacked Molly so he shouldn’t have to pay anything. Attorney Nick Burgrabe of Lincoln represented the Leiths, and Andres Padua of Bloomington argued on behalf of Frost.

The Leiths testified that Molly is like a member of their family. She goes with them on vacation. She sleeps with the boys. Anyone who has ever had a beloved pet knows you can’t put a price tag on that. But if you could, it would be more than $200.On New Year’s Eve, appellate court Justices Thomas Appleton, Sue Myerscough and Robert Steigmann agreed. Appleton wrote the decision.

The crux of it is that Molly’s market value at the time of the attack was negligible. The judges questioned whether anyone would pay $200 for a 7-year-old dachshund that was not a show dog.But, Appleton wrote, the Leiths “demonstrated how much Molly is worth to them by paying $4,784 for the dog’s veterinary care.”

The family, said the court, should be awarded the full amount.Padua said it is too early to say whether Frost will ask for a rehearing or take this to the Illinois Supreme Court.Molly had no comment other than a wag of her tail.

Dave Bakke can be reached at 788-1541 or dave.bakke@sj-r.com.

The Death of Animal Welfare Politics

There will be a meeting of the Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council tomorrow evening (January 20th (2009) at 7:00 PM) at the county shelter. There are a number of issues on the agenda including a follow up on proposed changes in the county's dog barking and tethering laws.
In addition the council will begin discussing the role that the animal advisory council has in serving the needs of pet owners in the community. The agenda is posted at the following link:

http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/departments/police/pdf/GAACAgendaJan20_2009.pdf

The shelter has released it's annual shelter report for years 2007 and 2008. Those figures are posted at the following link:

http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/departments/animal_welfare/pdf/ANNUAL_Shelter_2008.pdf
The figures just released show many disturbing trends since the new shelter was opened. For the 5600 dogs that found themselves in our brand new shelter facility over half - 2966 - would die in that facility. Only 924 of these beloved dogs would be reunited with their owners.

The numbers were even more disastrous for cats. Of the 4823 cats that went through the county shelter, 80% - 4025 were killed.

One would assume that Gwinnett didn't need to spend several million dollars if the sole purpose was to find new and more innovative ways to kill our way to animal control. Yet, under the current policies and advise of our leadership in animal welfare issues the number of dogs and cats being killed in our new facility are staggering - in two short years the kill numbers have gone from 5400 dogs and cats to 8000.

While the problems with the economy have been frequently used as excuses for the an increased amount of killing in our new shelter the figures compiled by animal control don't support that claim. In 2008 animal control did have an increase of about 500 canines (15%) and 700 felines that were picked up on the road but it is unclear whether this increase is the result of an increased occurrence of dogs not being properly restrained or owner abandonment.

More discouraging is the 50% increase in the number of stray cats picked up by animal control. The number of stray cats picked up has grown from 1700 a year in 2006 to close to 2500 in 2008. This would appear to be a shift in focus on ridding the county of feral or yard cats by animal control. Cats dropped off at the shelter as owner surrenders increased by 300 during the time period of 2007 to 2008 from around 2000 to 2300 and yet this number is down from the number posted in 2005 of over 2600. There does not appear to be a correlation of an increased number of pets being surrendered at the shelter by pet owners effected by our current economic turmoil.

Sadly, the number of pets being killed that the new shelter has risen as well. Dogs being killed at the shelter has increased from 2100 in 2005 to close to 2700 in 2007 to close to 3000 in year end 2008. This represents an increase of over 33% over the past three years. If we do nothing at all this number will continue to escalate.

While the number of cats being killed remained constant during the years of 2005 through 2007 with 3000 cats being killed that number rose dramatically in 2008 to over 4000 cats dying in our new shelter - again an increase of over 33 percent.

Despite a claim on the shelter's web site of an increased number of pets being adopted or placed in rescue adoptions have dropped off from a high of over 2300 in 2005 to 1982 in 2007 and 1906 in 2008. Despite all the promises of providing the community access to a new facility it would appear that the new shelter is not showing any increase in the number of pets adopted out of our new shelter.

By far the most disturbing number in the 2008 annual report is the drop in number of animals going to rescue. Those numbers show 1770 animals rescued in 2007 as opposed to only 1200 on all of 2008. One is left to wonder why our new shelter is having such a problem with placing dogs and cats into rescue despite having access to a brand new facility supported by the rescue community.

The only area of animal control that seems to be trending upwards is in the number of citations being issued. Perhaps thanks to the changes in our county's poorly advertised animal ordinance in January of 2007 the total number of citations issued has increased from 1400 in 2005 to close to 2300 in 2008.

Has the county's animal welfare focus shifted from saving and rescuing pets to cracking down with criminal enforcement of our new ordinance? Citations issued for "nuisance" animals has rose 20% in 2007 while the number of pet owners issued citations for "restraint" almost doubled. Citing rather then educating pet owners appears to be the focus of Gwinnett's current pet enforcement trends.

Pet owners throughout the county are outraged with the direction our pet friendly community has taken. Impounding dogs that bark, threatening responsible pet owners with jail and the total disregard with seeking real solutions for the thousands of innocent pets that end up in our new "state of the art" shelter needs a leadership voice that has been lacking with our animal advisory council. Please plan on attending and giving your voice and support for those voiceless victims who cry out.

Permission to cross post

Fallacy of Change - NO on Gwinnett's Proposed Barking Dog Revisions

Gwinnett County has rolled out the proposed changes in the now controversial "Public Nuisance" dog barking provisions. These changes are in "draft" form as submitted by the county attorney's office.

While there are a few "cosmetic" changes to the ordinance nothing at all was changed under the penalty provisions which allow the county solicitor's office to recommend six month jail terms, up to $1,000 in fines and potential loss of any family pet cited under the ordinance.

Since these sentencing guidelines can be stacked for owners of multiple pets there is nothing in the proposed changes that would prevent pet owners from facing life altering jail sentences, financial ruin through extremely large fines and more importantly the loss of a families pets. In other words, those who own four pets still face up to two years jail and $4,000 in fines while those who own eight pets could see those penalties doubled.

The revised law still fails to address the county's practice of charging barking violations based on the number of dogs owned as opposed to only citing dogs accused of actual violation of the barking ordinance. You could still face jail time - pay fines and even have impounded dogs who aren't even involved in a complaint.

The ordinance also fails to address the costs associated with enforcing laws that still don't include involving animal control in investigating any allegations of ordinance violations. These costs will include the additional expenses occurred trying to enforce another poorly written ordinance in Gwinnett's Recorder's Court.

The county attorney's office failed to take heed to the costs being run up in my failed prosecution on violating the existing dog barking ordinance. Do the citizens of Gwinnett really want to see huge increases in our county court budget that already faces an overloaded case load on crimes that seriously do impact our community?

Are we going to see recommendations further down the road for courts set up exclusively to prosecute dog barking cases and jails to house pet owners convicted of owning a "barking dog"?

As written in this draft these changes are totally not acceptable.

Absent the issue of ignoring the major problem of common sense sentencing guidelines here are the proposed changes. I will address a number of legal and constitutional issues this draft still fails to address.

Instead of seeking new solutions towards laws that encourage and reward responsible pet ownership our leaders in "animal law" issues continue to draft and pass draconian animal ordinances which provide for the impounding of family pets for even minor first time violations.
Instead of seeking ways to prevent pets from becoming "shelter fodder" our leadership creates new categories and excuses for impounding and adding to the number of pets killed. In effect, our laws discourage and punish those who might choose to adopt a pet that otherwise is killed.

10-33. Public nuisance animal.

(a) A public nuisance animal shall mean and include any animal that:

(1) Is repeatedly found at-large; or
(2) Damages the property of anyone other than the owner; or
(3) Is vicious; or
(4) Attacks without provocation; or
(5) Makes any vocalizations for more than 15 minutes without interruption or more than 30 minutes if the vocalization is intermittent. These time limits do not apply if the vocalizations are given as a warning to the presence of an intruder. Officers enforcing this subsection are not required to measure the vocalizations with the use of a sound level meter. Upon notification of a complaint concerning such vocalizations, the owner of such animal shall be given written warning indicating that such animal is creating a disturbance, so long as the complainant provides the officer with the address of the owner. If the disturbance is not resolved within two days or a subsequent compliant is made for such animal by a different individual, who resides at a different location from the first complainant, a court summons shall be issued in accordance with the requirements of this articles; or(5)

(a) animal that makes any vocalizations or more than 15 minutes without interruption or more than 30 minutes if the vocalization is intermittent shall be defined as a public nuisance animal.

(1) These time limits do not apply if the vocalizations are given as a warning to the presence of an intruder.
(2) Officers enforcing this subsection are not required to measure the vocalizations with the use of a sound level meter.
(3) Upon notification of a complaint concerning such vocalizations, the owner of such animal shall be given a written notice from the Animal Control Unit indicating that such animal is creating a disturbance and advising the owner of some possible solutions to rectify the nuisance. The complainant must provide the officer the address of the owner and a physical description of the offending animal before any written notice shall be sent. The owner shall have three (3) days to resolve the disturbance.
(4) If the disturbance is not resolved within three (3) days and the animal control unit receives a second complaint from the original complainant, he or she will be asked to provide a sworn statement regarding the disturbance. The original complainant will also be required to obtain a sworn statement from another individual regarding the disturbance. The statements must be from individuals residing at different addresses in close proximity to the animal creating the disturbance. Upon receipt of the sworn statements, a citation will be issued in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance.
(5) If the disturbance is not resolved within three (3) days and the animal control unit receives another complaint from another individual in close proximity to the animal creating the disturbance, both complainants will be asked to provide a sworn statement. Upon receipt of the sworn statements, a citation shall be issued in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance.
(6) The original barking complaint will remain on file and active for a period of thirty (30) days following the three (3) day resolution period. If no further complaints are made during the thirty (30) day period, the complaint shall expire and the process begin again.

(c) Any such public nuisance animal may be impounded and the owner or possessor charged for a violation of this article.

What follows are the pitfalls and legal issues this draft fails to address. They are:

!) While section (1) addresses an exclusion for "intruders" the law fails to identify what the court's interpretation of intruder is. In my case the judge ruled that intruders DID NOT include what most pet owners view as customary issues they would EXPECT their dogs to bark at including cars parked in front of your house with people who could be stalking your property, strangers walking your neighbors back yard, strangers attempting to access your neighbors property or parked in their driveway thieves breaking into your neighbors, pedophiles watching and filming neighborhood children playing.

This law is written to interpret an intruder to be "someone who physically enters your property".

In fact, our county solicitors office has pointed out that under the current law dogs left outside even in fenced and secure yards for more then the allotted thirty minute timeframe the law allows for "intermittent" barking would be an admission of violating the ordinance even if the only evidence was based on a complaint statement.

2) Section (2) not only doesn't require animal control to measure the noise levels but fails to require any type of investigation to verify that the pet owner is in violation of the ordinance. In fact, these complaints can be filed AT animal control with animal control issuing citations without even verifying that any of the facts stated on complainant's sworn statement are true. Animal control is not required to investigate or even visit the location were the dogs are being cited.

In my case the sworn statement filled out that resulted in my citations being issued included several obvious false statements INCLUDING the fact the complaining party claimed to reside at the house located next to me when in fact she lived several miles away. Animal control not only failed to investigate this issue but did NOT require her to furnish any PROOF of residence including displaying a driver's license. Obviously someone who doesn't even reside in "close proximity" of where the alleged barking dog violation occurs CAN NOT swear to facts such as the "dogs bark day and night".

This law allows for abusive manipulation by real estate speculators and those who might seek some sort of vindictive retribution on issues that have nothing to do with the dogs being cited.

In fact, the sentencing guidelines encourage those who simply don't like dogs, don't want dogs living in their neighborhood to have these dogs removed by exploiting this poorly written ordinance. Those of us who have responsibly owned dogs for years are at the mercy of any unethical predatory realtor only interested in selling a property nearby with no long term commitments to our neighborhoods.

No where in our county codes do we grant private citizens the power to not only bring about criminal charges but in fact manufacture evidence to support those changes WITHOUT any policing investigation except for barking dogs. We would not allow a citizen to go to their local police station and swear out a statement that they witnessed someone driving under the influence or committing road rage WITHOUT assigning an investigating to verify if these changes were even remotely true - yet dog owners do not have the same DUE PROCESS rights?

Further it is an embarrassment when our county attorney's office who writes these drafts and laws fail miserably in addressing truth and credibility issues with their own witnesses. This is the same attorney's office that threatens lengthy jail terms while denying trials by jury, that completely fails to understand what compliance to discovery motions are all about. Only in dog barking cases would the solicitor be allowed to introduce manufactured video's at the trial while ignoring any filed discovery motions in the process.

I would suggest that Gwinnett County Attorney's office spend a little more time brushing up on a document called the U.S. Constitution - especially the first year law school sections that address due process and cruel and unusual punishments. That would be a change we as citizens are all entitled to. We don;t ask for much as citizens on this fine community but we do ask for fairness.

3) Section three is equally confusing - while it suggests that the owner of such animal shall be given a written notice from the Animal Control Unit indicating that such animal is creating a disturbance and advising the owner of some possible solutions to rectify the nuisance - it doesn't address HOW the owner is going to be advised on possible solutions if animal control is not required to investigate any of the accusations involved. I would suggest that this issue of investigating allegations prior to bringing about citations is seriously needed in any ordinance change being proposed.

It is ironic that dog barking appears to be the ONLY animal violations that lacks this step in the process. All of the other issues addressed including dogs running at large, no tags, damage to property require investigations and citations being written based on this investigation.

4) Section (4) addresses the requirements of requiring sworn statements but what are the penalties involved for those who file false and frivolous charges? Is the county going to continue a practice of accepting at face value that all citizens are being honest with their allegations or are pet owners entitled to an accepted "innocent until proven guilty" concept that seems to get lost in these cases.

Simply because a citizen "owns" a dog is not evidence that the dog violated the statute absent of any investigation into the claims on the sworn statement. Going back to my case in addition to being falsely accused of "harboring" dogs that barked day and night I was also accused of breeding dogs, kicking and beating my dogs, keeping my dogs in horrible conditions and that in fact all of the dogs I owned were guilty of violating the ordinance. Despite their being NO evidence that any of these allegations were even remotely accurate animal control focused on the allegation that there might have been a violation of the barking dog ordinance. I say might because even knowing all the facts they still failed to verify any of the claims and accusations on this "sworn" statement so why should pet owners feel any more protected under the revisions being proposed?

The statement " The statements must be from individuals residing at different addresses in close proximity to the animal creating the disturbance. " would require definition as well. This change would have eliminated one, two or all three of the witnesses used in my case who did not "live" in close proximity to the animals doing the barking. The fact is the old law allowed two witnesses who lived several miles away and a third witness who lived over a football field away and admitted to being hard of hearing at the trial. Arguably he couldn't possibly hear "disturbing" dog barking coming from my address. Even IF barking could be heard coming from the direction of my house it would be impossible to determine IF those dogs were mine or IF an intruder was responsible for causing the dogs to bark.

It is ironic that our county attorney's office used a witness with those hearing limitations who testified that while he was hard of hearing and required a hearing aid he could still hear my dogs from his bedroom which prevented him from being able to sleep. I guess the thought of turning down the volume on his hearing aid never crossed his mind? Does the law address these issues? No......it does not but instead uses these weak excuses in obtaining convictions.

5) Section (5) has the same problems as section (4).

6) Section (6) is the only provision that makes any sense. It would have also prevented my case from ending up in court and ending up costing local taxpayers thousands of dollars in court costs that could have been spent elsewhere. Under the existing ordinance it is unclear as to if a pet owner makes substantial changes to correct a problem whether or not those changes were effective or whether there might be a different issue involved.

There are a number of common sense issues that the county attorney's omitted from the proposed changes. I often wonder if the people who draft these laws even own a dog let alone more then one.

News flash for the county attorney's office - DOGS BARK 0 but typically they have a very good reason for doing so. While I fully understand that neighbor's are entitled to privacy and I too would be upset if my dogs or my neighbors dogs barked well into the night the fact is under this law it is also virtually impossible to allow your dog out in your yard for more then thirty minutes without risking being cited if a neighbor feels so inclined.

A much simpler approach would be to address the issue of barking dogs under the county noise ordinance. It is ironic that if a pet owner chooses to allow their dog(s) out in the yard while they are mowing the lawn and that process takes more then thirty minutes they can be cited if there dogs bark intermittently for noise but the much louder noise coming from the lawn mower is legal. It's also concerning that a pet owner who simply takes their dog(s) out in the yard to play at lunch time could be cited if that activity includes playful intermittent barking that lasts for more then thirty minutes - YET property owners who enjoy "playing" with their leaf blowers are completely legal. While can understand the outrage if a property owner pulled out their lawnmower or leaf blower at 3:00 AM it defies logic why the close to 40% of Gwinnett families who own pets are denied access to their own yards during daytime activity. My "offense" occurred in the middle of a Sunday afternoon when many of my fellow neighbors were tending to their chores including possibly mowing their lawns.

I'm still waiting for one of our county legal scholars to explain to me why three minutes of dogs allegedly behaving like dogs on a sunny afternoon is such a danger to the community that twelve year jail terms are in order?

Wouldn't it be much to eliminate all the large government ineffective bureaucracy by simply developing a mediation process to settle these "neighborly" disputes? While that doesn't support case loads for the legal community in arguing when and if the dog barked it does act as a guardian to the county's funds.

A mediation group of enlightened adults (who stop acting like adolescent's) which could include someone representing animal control and the county solicitors office and who could mediate any disagreements without tying our courts on such frivolous nonsense?

This law can be easily manipulated by neighbors who have issues or squabbles that have absolutely nothing to do with the dogs involved. Rather than drawing our neighborhoods together, squabbles that lead to the loss of our family pets will instead serve as a catalyst for ripping them apart. Many citizens who choose Gwinnett as their home also have a love affair with their family pets. The image of having Fluffy or Fido ripped from the family home is one that will seriously damage an already depressed market for the homes we own.No one wants to live in a community where a family lives in fear---even that fear that their family pet could very well be next to be accused of being a "public nuisance." Our community will be judged on how we treat our elderly, our children and our family pets. That is the community's core of family values.

Please forward your comments to:

Our commissioners

Charles.Bannister@gwinnettcounty.com
Commission Chairman:Charles Bannister770.822.7010

District 1 Commissioner: Lorraine Green 770.822.7001 Lorraine.Green@gwinnettcounty.com

District 2 Commissioner: Bert Nasuti770.822.7002 Bert.Nasuti@gwinnettcounty.com

District 3 Commissioner: Mike Beaudreau770.822.7003 Mike.Beaudreau@gwinnettcounty.com

District 4 Commissioner: Kevin Kenerly 770.822.7004 Kevin.Kenerly@gwinnettcounty.com
Current Animal Advisory Board

allisonwilkerson@bellsouth.net Allison Wilkerson Rooks Gwinnett Municipal Association

carla.brown@gwinnettcounty.com Carla Brown Member at Large
Tricia.Smith@gwinnettcounty.com Tricia Smith Gwinnett Extension Service

DK1011@aol.com Dennis Kronenfeld Feline Issues

calicoglk@netzero.com Gloria Kennedy Gwinnett Humane Society

outland@laberge.org Gail Laberge Chairperson - Lawrenceville Kennel Club

CPSeals@aol.com Clara Seals - Member at Large

Mary.Respess@gwinnettcounty.com Mary Lou Repress New Shelter Director

Our long drawn out trial on dog barking came to a conclusion today with Judge Muise finding me guilty on ten counts of violating Gwinnett's Barking Do

Our long drawn out trial on dog barking came to a conclusion today with Judge Muise finding me guilty on ten counts of violating Gwinnett's Barking Dog Ordinance. I am thankful that Judge Muise chose not to punish my hounds and instead placed me on two years probation.

I am forever grateful for the excellent work of Attorney's Anna Sumner and Jennifer Miller of Alston & Bird for representing the hounds in this case. Anna and Jennifer took this case on pro bono and understood that my primary concern was and has always been to make sure ALL my hounds were safe. So tonight the only noise I hear is the sounds of hounds snuggling and snoring beneath my feet.

The hounds and I would also like to extend a warm thank you to all in the rescue community and fellow pet owners for your support over these last difficult months.

AJC - Lilburn man with 25 dogs gets 2 years’ probation for noise

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2008/08/29/hounds_noise_ordinance.html