Barking dogs

Sun, 2009-05-24 18:11 by Quiet Tasmania

The enormous popularity and reckless preponderance of dogs as pets in the wholly unsuitable suburban environment is causing widespread suffering to these incarcerated animals - and to those unfortunate neighbours forced to endure the anguished cries for attention (called barking) emitted by a creature congenitally programmed to free-range.

Dogs bark mostly through lack of company. The dog is an intensely socialised animal.

Dog owners have the legal obligation of keeping their dogs quiet yet they refuse to do it, Why? Because they don't want to.

Councils have the legal obligation of enforcing the barking control laws yet they refuse to do it. Why? Because they don't want to.

The ongoing consequence of this extremely common dereliction of duty is ongoing suffering for man and beast, and also the abandonment of council revenue so readily obtainable through the issuance of infringement notices for simple barking law enforcement.

Topic:

Comments

Quiet Tasmania

Mon, 2009-05-25 13:17

Quiet Tasmania websites

Quiet Tasmania has a comprehensive website on Noise in general, and barking in particular.

There is an associated Yahoo discussion group at groups.yahoo.com/group/Quiet_Tasmania

Quiet Tasmania also has a supplementary website called Quiet Tasmania News. Its web address is www.pebri.net

Peter Bright
Hobart
Tasmania

www.quietas.net

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-05-24 23:32

Carrot, as well as stick, necessary in dealing with barking dogs

Thanks, Quiet Tasmania for a useful article about an important topic.

I have also had my quality of life ruined in a number of past periods in my life by barking dogs and agree that this problem and the wider problem of noise pollution should be more widely acknowledged and dealt with. Even now, my peace is often destroyed by one pair of barking dogs in my area. (The fact that there are two together to keep each other company shows that dogs having company may not always be the whole solution.)

The problem is exacerbated by Government policies of deliberately growing our population and crowding ever more of us together in order to line the pockets of developers and land speculators at the expense of the rest of us.

The fact that it is necessary often for both partners to work to pay off the mortgage on massively hyper-inflated houses mean that many have no choice but to leave their dogs alone for long periods of time. This is not to entirely absolve such people in such circumstances to train their dogs so that they behave in their absence, but, nevertheless the situation does not make it easy for those trying to do the right thing.

Whilst I think that laws against barking should be enforced, carrots need to also provided to help those owners who try to do the right thing. Perhaps traininig of dogs could be subsidised, or some services to care for dogs left alone could be provided.

I am not particularly in favour of revenue raising as a justification for councils enforcing laws against barking dogs. I think the principle purose of fines should be as a deterrent. Any money raised above what is necessary to meet the costs of enforcement should go into programs to help dog owners to the right thing.

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2009-05-25 00:25

Bark better than bite

We should not overlook that dogs communicate with their distant colleagues by barking. It's not always distress. They have conversations. I am not personally bothered by barking dogs unless they sound distressed, in which case I would go and knock on the door and ask what was going on and call the council if I thought something was wrong.

I do worry that dogs and their owners can be victimised by people who use the law to bully not to help.

That said, I agree with James that our population pressure makes life miserable for everyone - and was totally unnecessary. When I was a child dogs took themselves for walks and it was no big deal. Some do still in my street today, but they are the exception; most lack traffic sense.

We have neighbours on all sides who seem to like to know there are noisy dogs to discourage burglars.

And, give me a loud-mouth but happy dog any day over traffic noise and construction racket.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

Audrey (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-25 11:57

People who complain about dog barking not bullies

Sounds to me as if Sheila keeps a dog herself! For instance, she thinks people who complain about barking dogs are "bullies". Then she excuses those who use a dog as a burglar alarm, and remarks that the neighbours are happy that someone keeps a dog for that purpose. That is pure rubbish. And I'd like to know when the "law" ever helped a victim to bully a barking dog owner. This is a phenomenopn unknown throughout Australia - and elsewhere.

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2009-05-25 12:46

No absolute right and absolute wrong on dog barking question

Whilst I strongly agree in general with Audrey and Quiet Tasmania I, nevertheless, don't think there is an absolute right and an absolute wrong on this question. Whilst, in my view, owners of barking dogs are treated far too leniently, it is also possible to envision circumstances where the stick could be bent too far the other way and even dog owners, who try their hardest, could be penalised unreasonably for occasional bouts of barking. All of us need to make compromises in order to get along with each other, particularly given the way we have been deliberately and needlessly crowded together by our governments at the behest of the Growth Lobby which they serve. An example of the stick being bent too far the other way is given in Tony Ryan's article "How Queensland Government addiction to poker machine revenue has destroyed local live music". Excessively zealous enforcement of anti-noise laws have made it impossible for many local pubs to stage live music. Consequently the space that would have been used for patrons to enjoy live music is now filled in most pubs with poker machines so that problem gamblers can help state governments such as the Queensland Government balance their budgets. I have lived with a problem gambler and so have been personally affected. How any treasurer with a conscience could contemplate creating the social deficit caused by problem gambling which is necessarily far higher than any financial deficit that the resultant gambling revenue would prevent in order to help him/her balance the state finances is beyond me. Also, young people are forced to travel long distances to larger live music venues. This makes drink driving offences more likely and exposes young people to more violence and drug dealing than would be likely at local venues. Of course I would probably prefer not to live near any local pub which stages live music, let alone a larger venue such as the unspeakably awful Normanby Hotel. Nevertheless, I would be prepared to put up with some loud amplified music for maybe up to two nights each week in order to prevent the greater evils caused by not allowing them them stage live music.

Quiet Tasmania

Mon, 2009-05-25 13:37

NOISE - damned Noise!

NOISE is a generally unwanted consequence of the concentrated living conditions adversely affecting us all, sometimes to such a hideous extent that noise victims, finding that the authorities won't enforce the laws against it, are forced to relocate - with all the costs and stresses that go with such an extreme move. Noise is the reason most people move out.

But even worse occurs when a victim of noise can't secure protection from his neighbour's noise assaults - and kills him.

We Tasmanian quietists have devised the term "Acoustic Assault" and we want it banned like common assault and sexual assault.

The Tasmanian government is currently pondering public submissions on its proposals to amend our noise laws. One of these proposals is to widen the times at which "music" can be lawfully broadcast in public places. Our Environment Department had offered 10pm for our consideration.

I have seen five public submissions on this topic - and ALL have expressed outrage at what I call "gratuitous din."

In my submission, I have vigorously opposed this further destruction of citizens' rights to perennially live in quiet surroundings.

I'll be happy to forward a copy of my 22 page submission to any interested person. It's in PDF.

Please send your request to: [email protected]

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Audrey Robb (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-25 17:41

Dogs and Noise

As I said before, we live in a user pays (i.e. capitalist society). Therefore, if you cannot afford something you can't have it. For instance, I can't afford a decent car, so I have to go without. I'm driving a 40-year- old Toyota Corona. I feel having a car is a necessity for me, as I have serious mobility problems. But keeping a dog is not a necessity. Therefore, it's just too bad if people can't afford the desexing, training, vet fees, etc. It is not right that ratepayers (pensioners and other low-income people) should be required to subsidise them. Re poker machines in pubs curtailing live music. Right now, I'm in mortal combat with Liquor Licensing because we have one dive in town which blasts the entire town with amplified "music" up until 2 a.m. at least one night a week. So thousands of people in this town don't get much sleep on these nights. Liquor Licensing don't want it stopped because they get income from Licences and a tax on every drink! Now we have another hotel which wants to extend its hours to 3:00 a.m. every night of the week. That means noise, noise, noise the entire time. Do you know that Maryborough, population 26,000, has the title of having the World's Biggest Pub Crawl? This Crawl, and all the loud music, is encouraging boozers and louts to the CBD, and we have police crawling over the place every night because of vandalism and crime. The Transit Centre is very dangerous. Our closest contenders for the Crawl title are London and New York - both very populous cities. I don't support poker machines either. Bring back 6:00 o'clock closing! Audrey

Quiet Tasmania

Wed, 2009-05-27 08:16

Anthropomorphic madness

Your views typify those of many owners, however it's inconsistent to decry human population pressures while condoning and supporting rapidly rising dog population pressures.

I reckon Australia's dog population is twice that of the official four million and that it has been allowed by reckless default to become a plague that's now tormenting citizens everywhere.

Quiet-loving citizens tormented by barking nearly always find that councils won't enforce the laws for control, so the bullying emanates from owners foisting their selfish anthropomorphic stupidity onto peaceful folk rather than from those of us who simply want, or need, to live in a quiet and peaceful environment.

I have a saying: "It's the responsibility of those who introduce the disturbance (of whatever kind) to remove it."

Unfortunately, the police, in recommending that dogs be used as burglar alarms, are exacerbating the environmental degradation being imposed on the innocent. If there are burglars in your area then the police are not doing their job.

The Tasmanian government is proposing to illegitimise car alarm din exceeding 45 seconds. That's good, because it means that if car-alarm din can be outlawed like that, then then so can bark-alarm din. Both are examples of very loud impulse noise used to attract attention.

I have addressed the subject here at www.pebri.net/index_13.htm

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2009-05-27 10:06

Canine communication & other species

You seem to perceive dogs, not as creatures, but as things and possessions. You don't seem to take into account that the human and the dog have a valuable relationship and that, punishing a dog or a human is not like removing a car that makes a noise or telling a teenager to turn down loud music. Your comments seem to me to demonstrate a lack of empathy for the creatures involved, human or animal. It is incredibly distressing to have to deal with a neighbour who takes a dislike to your dog. The feelings aroused are similar to those of protecting any member of one's tribe, adult or child, but without the same rights. Whilst it is preferable to interact freely with wild creatures, I believe it is exceedingly damaging to live only with one's own kind. I think that our cities are built to make us virtual psychotics, deprived of normal intercourse with natural surroundings. We must resist this truncation of our world. It is true that many humans do not know how to interact with dogs or other animals including other humans. That is what needs intervention, education and sensitising. But many humans do know how to interact and the animals they have adopted have good lives. It is sad that those animals are often deprived of contact with their own species, which would be ideal. I think that one should always have at least two of any species. My personal reason for keeping dogs is that my mother got two to protect her when there was a rapist operating locally. I didn't approve of coopting a couple of juvenile canines for this task, but unfortunately I fell in love with these dogs, and the survivor is now 17 years old and a fully-fledged household member. Now that I am responsible for them - or the one that remains - it is my highest priority to give her the best of lives, as it would be my priority with any other living responsibility. I am very much aware of the terrible treatment we mete out to animals in our industrial farming and our expansion into their habitats. Whilst I suffer intensely to hear of the imminent extinction of tigers, the killing of masses of kangaroos, the evil treatment of birds in cages etc., I comfort myself by doing my absolute best to make up for these horrors as I can by the best regard for the other creatures whose lives I can affect - from providing a nice garden for birds, a home for possums, the best of environments, food and lifestyle for a dog, and trying to fight to preserve habitat. I also work part-time with psychiatric patients, another group which gets the rough end of life. I have noticed how concerned most of those people are with other creatures, how they identify with them. Their living conditions are frequently awful but many have excellent relationships with their 'companion' animals. How we interact with other species is complex and fraught in our industrialised and decaying society, but those creatures have rights which should be respected. If they bark then neighbours should work together to ensure that their needs are met. Neighbours should help the dog 'owner' to find a way, perhaps by sharing responsibility for the dog. Society should not have the right to just abandon or euthanase animals once it has taken them into its structure at some point, anymore than it should have the right to abandon children, old people, or teenagers - all of whom can be a nuisance and a burden if you do not have a direct relationship with them. I must say that once I did not know what it was like to live with a dog and dogs struck me as rather noisy, slobbery, bumptious individuals. I would never, however, have condoned treating them as objects. Now that I have lived with dogs for years I cannot regard them as anything but exciting and delightful creatures. When I meet a new dog or just cross its path briefly, I acknowledge its presence with due respect and I find that my attitude is mirrored by the dog. Dogs are sufficiently social to be benefit from all kinds of encounters. They seek these from a distance when they cannot get them close at hand. They have some habits that are often misconstrued. For instance, they hang out at garden gates, waiting to bark and make passersby jump. Often humans think the dogs are being threatening because they cannot see their tails wagging because this is a great joke. We have one dog-neighbour who sobs when his 'owner's' mother goes out (he spends part of the week with her). All the neighbours within hearing know why he does that and they address him over their fences in an understanding way. He gets over this quickly. My own dogs used to sing in an earshattering way, but then, I would sing along with them. There are no other persistent dog noises in my neighbourhood. I think that if there were I would definitely go and see the people concerned, but I would not threaten them or the dog. I would try to solve the problem. The worst noises in my area are lawn-mowing, screeching tires, revving engines, breaking glass, and occasional loud parties. The scariest animals are the hoons on Friday and Saturday nights, on foot and in cars as I walk home from work. The most charming sounds are magpie songs and the magpies are also charming, although a lot of people make a big problem out of these birds and make their lives hell as well. Some people are irritated by other people talking in languages they cannot understand, "jabbering". I think that this is part of the challenged response to dogs communicating loudly across distance. I do find the sound of persistent whimpering horrifying. That isn't very noisy, but I will always investigate. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

James Sinnamon

Wed, 2009-05-27 13:19

Canine communication argument somewhat misses the point

A lot of what Sheila writes I emphatically agree with.

However, much of what Sheila writes is also beside the point.

I have also had to put up with unwanted noise, including dog barking as well as all those others described on many occasions in my own life so I know, from my own direct experience, how it can completely destroy one's concentration.

I can put a number of my own fail grades at University down to the fact that the noise of barking dogs as well as car horns prevented me from being able to study.

As Menkit pointed out, many, although not all, dog owners are irresponsible and have little concern at the misery that their own animals inflict on the lives of others. Sometimes they even go out of their way to make circumstances worse.

If we lived in less dysfunctional communities, we could find ways to curb dogs from barking as excessively as they often do in our increasingly crowded urban slums,

However, we don't and means to respect the rights of people bothered by excessive barking, including myself, need to be found, until such time as we do.

I believe it is possible, for owners with the will to do so, to curb excessive barking and they must be encouraged to do so with inducements, if possible, as I have argued before, or else made to do so.

Pluto (not verified)

Thu, 2009-05-28 22:46

Earplugs & firecracker nights

You may all be hypersensitive. Earplugs could be the answer. Dogs have much more sensitive hearing than humans, so think how most of them must suffer from all the noise we make. Cracker nights are an example. Pluto

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2009-05-29 01:41

Earplugs are no solution

I can assure you that people who object to the noise of dogs barking would be far less likely to be the cause of noise distressing to dogs than those who are not. Pluto wrote, "Earplugs could be the answer." In my experience, earplugs are no solution. By the time one one has fumbled around in order find the earplugs and plugged them in, the damage is already done and even then, they can only possibly work if they block out nearly all noise including sounds we need to hear. The alternative for many would be to spend much of every day with their ears plugged. Anyhow, clearly you have adopted the attitude that people who are bothered by the sound of dogs barking are, in some way abnormal and a small minority and therefore don't deserve to have their grievances taken seriously. Whether or not we are a minority, I certainly hope that those who are fighting for our right to be protected against aural assault are not deterred by such attitudes even if I disagree with them in regard to some details.

Tigerquoll

Fri, 2009-05-29 13:54

1080 over the counter

One option to address recalicitrant barking dogs may be to apply a Three Strikes Law akin to that applied to a batter in baseball, which was a concept extended in the 1990s in the US to apply mandatory incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. Such could apply to dog owners, where upon a third statutory declaration by an affected neighbour to local council the dog owner is hit with a mandatory fine of say $1000. The revenue would go to the lost dogs home (RSPCA). A more hard line stance would be to make 1080 available over the counter, but I fear this would be misused, beyond the target species. 1080 is sodium fluoroacetate - a vertebrate poison used for the control of feral animals including rabbits, foxes, wild dogs, pigs. A right to noise nuisance is no different to demanding a right to smell nuisance - like setting up a tannery next door.

Ernie Dingo (not verified)

Fri, 2009-05-29 23:43

Public execution

1080 is too soft. oNLY useful for indignous animals in Tassie. Public execution of the recallicent dog owners is the only solution to ensure no repeat offences. Not sure wat to do about the dogs, though. Shoudl they be exacuted with there owners? Scuze typing, plez. Only have four toes each paw.

Quiet Tasmania

Sat, 2009-05-30 06:49

Ghastly suggestion has merit

What an absolutely ghastly suggestion!

Hmmmmn. But now that you mention it ...

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Quiet Tasmania

Fri, 2009-06-05 11:00

Enforcement needs sufficient proof

Statutory Declarations on their own offer insufficient inducement for an enforcement body to enforce, although in my 15 detailed barking control recommendations to the Tasmanian government I've sought to have them utilised much more than they are now. A sworn oath should carry an appropriate level of gravity and should be better respected by the judiciary.

Magistrates like to have witnesses in the witness box so their integrity may be directly evaluated and their statements more readily challenged.

Those of us who detest barking and the hellishly miserable life forced upon us by innumerable reckless neighbours, many of whom are entirely unsuited to dog ownership. eventually realise that our torment is not in any way the dog's fault. The dog itself is a victim of its selfishly moronic owner.

This means that, despite our original tortured feeling that the dog should be killed, and the sooner the better, it would be wrong to inflict any hurt at all onto an innocent party.

You mention that 1080 poison is for the control of feral animals, so I assume it would be much more fairly applied to dog owners than the poor, unfortunate, incarcerated creatures held perennially captive in their so-called care.

The Tasmanian government has recently proposed that the din from car alarms be restricted to 45 seconds, this being a sufficient indicator that something is wrong. Our government copied the NSW law that originally specified a 90 second limit.

Seizing on this splendid proposal, I've recommended in Quiet Tasmania's submission that the same 45 second time limit be imposed for barking. More and more people are however, demanding a zero tolerance threshold, and I support that.

Car alarms and dog alarms are both examples of loud, invasive, impulse noise deliberately designed to attract attention and their message is the same .. something is urgently wrong.

You can read more about this on my developmental website, Quiet Tasmania News, at

http://www.pebri.net/index_13.htm

Peter Bright
http://www.quietas.net

Quiet Tasmania

Sat, 2009-05-30 06:47

Retreat advances nothing

James is right. Earplugs are not the answer. Neither is moving house. Neither is building a soundproofed room for when the din becomes too much.

The use of earplugs is a common suggestion from those not fully aware of the principles involved. My brother posted me some of his imported Fimo clay that he used for modelling birds and advised me to mold it and insert it in my ears. Against my better judgement, I did. It melted into a gluggy mass and I had a hell of a job getting it out. No help there.

Relocation is often the police suggestion. This also evades the issues involved. The police don't see barking in particular and Noise in general as crime, and they don't want to be bothered with what the legal system calls nuisances. No help there.

Modifying one room of the house as a retreat for when invasive din becomes maddening was a recent suggestion to a Hobart pensioner by a senior Tasmanian politician who, in common with every other politician, has no understanding whatever of the damage done to helpless victims of invasive neighbourhood did. No help there.

When I was a kid in suburban Sydney, long long ago, all neighbours intuitively respected the rights of others to live night and day in peace and quiet.

To society's great torment and the increasing damage to its health, those natural considerations of decent, caring people have gone. We now have the common attitude: "Bugger you mate, I'll do what I bloodywell want - and if you don't like it then piss off!"

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Quiet Tasmania

Thu, 2009-05-28 21:36

No common ground

Each of us quietists in the anti-barking movement eventually realised the utter futility of trying to reason with besotted canophiles - so we don't.

Instead, I invite any interested persons to access the last dozen or so posts on the popular (300 member) US Yahoo discussion group, barkingdogs. It's at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/barkingdogs/

Here's today's post from Aldo:

A challenge for Members - my 2 cents - Aldo

I agree completely, and I think that the problem of barking dogs is really
much more profound and serious than a problem related only with noise,
and in itself, it is a real torture, that causes a kind of deep and
sometimes permanent brain and nervous system damage.

After sometime, it is like a brain washing, that makes who is sensitive to the
barking totally mad, and even can lead this same people to do really nasty,
unreasonable and crazy things, ruining their lives totally, it is a very
dangerous thing not only for the family who is subjected to such abuses, but
also for other people around too, who causes it, due to possible
retaliations.

It is like a dangerous drug, i think. No difference between a continuous
barking for months and months and a heavy use of cocaine, after all,
considering the bad effects over our mind.

Both can kill and damage deeply people's minds , sometimes without return,
causing permanent traumas.

It is a really crazy experience, and I remember that when we ( me and my
family) were submitted to that torture of an intense barking for many hours,
every day, during months, we used to quarrel every day without any
reasonable motive, without control, even without perceiving why, we could not
sleep, rest, eat, study, work or talk in peace, and after a period our hands
and members shaked, we lost our concentration, hapiness, and our son also
suffered a real lot, traumas, with all that disturbances happening around
him.

In fact, during months we lived in a hell !!!

I think that the continuous barking of one or more dogs is like that old
chinese torture, like a drop of water in our forehead all day and night
long, without stopping, we tied up, till finally becaming totally crazy,
loosing our mind.

Such torture creates a kind of permanent fear and a deep sensation of
insecurity and trauma that never more goes way, forever, coming back
whenever you hear a dog barking again ( at least for me and my family).

So, does not matter if the sound of the barking itself is or is not above or
below the noise limits, because, after acertain time you start to reject the
noise with all your soul, you start to hate it ( and the people that allow
it), and you know that it's continuity is damaging your mind, family, is the
real cause of your disturbance, unhapiness, and not only the intensity of the
sound itself, because you know that it will happen again and again, and there
is nothing that you can do can stop it, after all, and nobody will protect
you !!!

The lack confidence in the law, in justice, in any action really capable to
stop it, unless you act with your own hands, the sensation of being tortured
all the time for months and months in total impotence, have your life
destroyed, that is what is more dangerous for our mental health.

It is like a rape (mental) that never ends....

Very sad !!

So, the continuous repeating of the barking is sometimes much more destructive
than the intensity of the sound, imho.

Aldo

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-06-14 00:00

Part of the noise problem

Below is an example of a comment we would normally not publish. Although it is tame by comparison with the abuse encountered on some parts of the Internet, it is, nevertheless, a personal attack and adds nothing to the discussion at hand. Also, it would help if people making comments would include an e-mail address in the appropriate so that they can be contacted. (Comment was originally posted at 2009-06-07 01:41 +1000.) - JS Without doubt Sheila is part of the noise problem.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-06-14 12:41

Barking dogs.

Although being a member of this courteous forum, I haven't been on the site since making a comment on someone else's well-considered opinion about the human health damage from unwanted noise from dogs. Actually, I didn't learn how to initiate a new post, apart from simply using the "reply" button, as is the case with this. Whoever briefly opined about Sheila's contributions, might have said, "Sheila's attitude is typical of the wider problem". Having said that, whoever made that brief observation on Sheila's views, echoed my own thoughts on her post which I found to be personally upsetting on behalf of the many distressed people (such as my 82 yr. old mother) who are pushed into very serious conditions of anxiety and depression due to force-fed noise from dogs. Possibly the reason I didn't learn how to re-visit the forum was because respect (or lack of it) for the serious human health matter of noise-induced anxiety and depression is not something I am not interested in reading, particularly from tertiary-educated contributors. Any person who supplies comments and opinions without medical or first-hand experience pertaining to the psychological damage of noise from barking dogs, simultaneously (and/or conveniently) ignoring what receptors sadly describe as their human rights to quiet inside their homes, is not only part of the problem, but directly contributes to deteriorating feelings of worthlessness and perpetuated personal abuse. Not only do receptors feel harmed by the dog noise, their feelings of worthlessness and abuse are sorrowfully compounded when fellow human beings indicate through wordy and sometimes biased, uninformed writings, that their intellectual support is by choice limited, and therefore not available. Experience has shown that the rightful academics who are expertly trained to comment accurately on the commonly documented human health damage from dog noise, are qualified health professionals.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-06-14 14:31

Personal attacks versus discussing issues at hand

I agree that the opinion about Sheila's contributions should have been put as "Sheila's attitude is typical of the wider problem". That way, it will not be seen as a personal attack upon a contributor to this forum, but, instead, an attempt to address the wider issues at hand.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2009-06-14 15:45

Look at it this way

It could also be written this way: Any person who supplies comments and opinions without medical or first-hand experience pertaining to the psychological damage of people with unreasonable expectations of owners and dogs, simultaneously (and/or conveniently) ignoring what receptors sadly describe as their human rights to live with a member of another species and the dogs' rights to reasonable expression and communication with other dogs, is not only part of the problem, but directly contributes to deteriorating feelings of worthlessness and perpetuated personal abuse. Whilst I can understand that a continuously barking dog is problematic, I have not experienced such a problem in any place where I have lived or with any dog I have known, although I have experienced exhuberant dogs barking horribly loudly for short periods of time and I know how nervous that makes me that the dog may become the target of local protest. I do expect people to put up with noise from dogs that are communicating excitedly for the following reasons: ball chasing, intruders, social occasions, communication with other dogs. I think it is unreasonable and cruel to expect people to impose total silence on healthy animals. Does Quiet Tasmania permit dogs to engage in social communication or does it expect almost total silence? What does Quiet Tasmania have to say when an elderly or gormless person is not able to find the money, time or transport to attend 'dog training' sessions? What do they have to say when pressure exerted on the owner means that the dog finishes up being euthanised? Sheila Newman

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-06-14 18:39

Unreasonable expectations and human rights.

It's really very simple. Trans-boundary barking is unacceptable if it is not wanted, and there can be no justification for it. For those who do not wish to have it inside their homes, certain laws have been promulgated that reflect earlier science decreeing dog noise as injurious, unhealthy, toxic pollution. There is no reasonable amount of cigarette smoke (despite smokers enjoying a social puff together, which is a form of quiet communication) that has to be accepted by the unwilling. There is no reasonable amount of oil pollution that has to be accepted by the unwilling. There is no reasonable amount of amplified music pollution. None of it can be justified. If someone wants to produce or live with the source of a pollutant, then that is their choice, no-one wants to deny them that choice, but they must 100% respect their neighbours, and contain their dog's noise so that it does not harm others. All we are asking for is choice. The choice whether we are subjected to the barking of someone else's dog, or whether we prefer a peaceful interior of our homes. We want our babies and infants to have their sleep, whenever nature intends. We want our sick and dying not to be cruelly distressed by the perceived "rights" of dog-owners and their animals to inhabit our personal space. We are entitled to live without dogs barking inside our homes, if that is our choice, and we certainly do not want to inflict harm on others by forcing our noise on them. I wonder how proponents of intrusive dog noise would feel, if someone parked a barking dog outside their bedroom window while they were dying of motor neurone disease, and the patient didn't have the muscle strength to ask for it to be quietened? Really. Those who do not want to listen to the social communication of barking dogs (contagious barking) are not bad people. Those who justify or permit uninvited barking against the will of receptors are increasingly being categorised as bullies. There are some highly reputable studies by qualified behavioural psychologists that confirm this type of human behaviour. Wouldn't it be much, much nicer, so much less shameful, in the short time that we all have to enjoy each other's support and friendship on this earth, to say "yes, we can do better", we can be considerate, we can be kind to each other. In this life I have met kind people, and I have met clever people. Kind has always been much, much better.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2009-06-14 19:43

Correct me if I am wrong,

Correct me if I am wrong, but the last post gives me the impression that the complainant believes it is reasonable to insist that barking NEVER be heard. I find that unreasonable. If there are laws that really ban all barking then, in my opinion, those laws ought to be changed. If such laws exist then I can see why they are not enforced. Bad laws are rarely enforced at this level because it creates too much bad feeling. If people are super-sensitive to barking then provisions should be made to protect them, but it is not fair on anyone to make it impossible for a dog to bark. That is an unreasonable demand. If dogs enjoy enormous popularity and preponderance, they must have something going for them. It would be an unwise law-maker who would ban any dog that barked within hearing of anyone who might complain. If I saw that complainers about dog barking demonstrated tolerance of a reasonable amount of barking, I would have plenty of time for them. But, if there are people out there who really think that their perceived need for total conformity to their demands should be met, no matter what the cost to the dog or its owner, then I would tend to describe their need as neurotic. If someone suffers from a hypersensitivity to barking per se, that is unfortunate. They really need sound-proofed homes and I would be supportive to the community paying for measures to soundproof for persons suffering a hypersensitivity. For a persons suffering from motor neurone disease, obviously one would expect the owner of a dog to go out of their way to stop some remarkable loud and and lengthily sustained nearby barking. However, people in the community are actually expected all the time to put up with problems they would not choose. Night shift workers have no right to stop builders and roadmakers from using drills and jack hammers, even if they go for days without sleep. Respectfully, I think a bit of perspective is lacking here and the reluctance to demand better engineering or reparations, makes me suspect the complainants simply don't have any feeling for dogs as living sentient creatures. The lack of kindness seems to be on the part of the people who want to stop dogs barking on all occasions rather than soundproof their environment or learn to live with a bit of noise from other creatures. By the way, I feel the same way about possums. Live and let live. I also find it extremely difficult to believe that dogs barking is the most common complaint. Where? Could you find and post the evidence for this assertion. In the ACT I have heard that the most common complaint is cruelty to animals. Sheila Newman - responsible for two dogs over 17 years with no complaints from any neighbour.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-06-14 22:05

Choice.

Local Government authorities can readily confirm that their most complained about environmental noise source is barking dogs. Running a close second (police records) - amplified music. Yes, agreed, most definitely - live and let live. The application of the super-sensitive argument as a justification for force-fed barking indicates a lack of kindness for those in our communities who are only asking for choice. It matters not who owns dogs, or who doesn't. What matters is the owners' intelligence, their unwillingness to let their pet impact adversely on neighbours, their unwillingness to permit their animal(s) to inadvertently force its way into the personal space of those who don't want it. Cigarettes once were the focus of enormous popularity and preponderance, but in the end, that didn't make tobacco consumption healthy or right. If dog folk aren't sensible enough to accept modern health research and warnings - then they might find themselves as unpopular as cigarette smokers. Edifying is the miniscule and qualified concession on lengthily sustained barking (in bold print too) for the motor neurone patient. Goodness, that's harsh. To round off, I don't want someone else's dog barking inside my house: no negotiation, no argument, and no amount of offender justification. And we don't want other people's damned amplified music, or any other uninvited scientifically designated pollution. The exclusion zone for dog noise, depending on the local topography, is several kilometres. I'm certainly not going to sound-proof our home to facilitate law-breakers. They can take their dogs and vamoose. If I wanted to live in a dog kennel, I'd pitch a tent at the local dogs' home, where the poor over-populated species are kindly "sheltered" until a bit further down the track they are "kindly" gassed. That says everything about the dog-loving community. The motor neurone patient couldn't even get the courtesy of a peaceful exit. (Well, not any degree of domestic quiet that would qualify as "sustained and lengthy").

Audrey (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-25 11:55

Dog owners should not be subsidised by ratepayers

James writes very well on this subject. I have just one problem. I have never thought subsidising people for keeping dogs a very good idea. I am referring to subsidising the cost of training or dog-sitting, or dog-walking. Many people also want councils (the ratepayers) to pay for desexing, and even feeding their pets! While we live in a capitalist society, then it has to be : if you can't afford these indulgences, then you shouldn't have them. And keeping a dog is really an indulgence.

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2009-05-25 13:32

Solutions acceptable to people of good will in both camps

If we are to hope to arrive at solutions that are acceptable to people of good will in both camps, then there needs to be some understanding of the needs of those in the other camp on the part of those in each of the respective camps.

What may make it difficult for many dog owners to train their dogs or desex them may be the lack of money and high price for the services.

The high price of many services is probably largely due to the excessive red tape needed by anyone who wants to set up a 'for profit' business. If people who are able to provide such services as dog walking or dog training were able to work directly for local councils and if the Federal Government were to waive the idiotic requirements of Professor Frederick Hilmer's Competition Policy imposed by the Keating 'Labor' Government in 1993, it would be possible for local governments to provide such services far cheaper than would be possible on a 'for profit' basis.

Whether the costs of providing such services should always be fully, or even partially recovered from those receiving the services should be a matter for rate payers as a whole to decide. The advantage of providing services for free and not requiring cost recovery is that the red tape and administrative costs could be reduced still further. Does anyone here remember how simple life was when doctor's properly bulk-billed?

If this helps create more harmonious and pleasant neighbourhoods, then perhaps the cost subsidy on the part of non-dog owners would be well worth the price.

Conversely those who do not take advantage of such services and thereby allow their dogs to bark excessively would get very little sympathy from the rest of the community when they are consequently fined.

Menkit Prince

Mon, 2009-05-25 15:39

There are responsible dog owners, but they are not the norm

Let's face it, sentimental reasons set aside, any dog other than a dingo is a feral animal and as such causes death to native animals at every opportunity. Barking dogs are definitely an irritation, perhaps more so to some people than others, and strike terror in the heart of our wildlife. At the rate we are going with overpopulation, by the year 3000 every person will have only 1 sq. meter of space. Now if every one of them has a barking dog imagine how unbearable that would be? It just is not practical to keep domesticated animals. They should be wild as nature intended - and not introduced as are dogs, cats and the rest. Anyone who cares about native animals should not keep them strictly speaking. Having said that there are responsible people who train their dogs properly, don't let them loose and give them time, proper food and exercise - but I fear they are not the norm. "It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products” ~ Steve Irwin Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangaroos.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2009-06-06 10:12

Barking dogs

Barking dogs are kept by bullies. The decline of social cohesion has facilitated increased levels of bullying wherever the opportunity presents itself. Bullying is not confined to school grounds. Neighbourhoods are now governed by adult bullies who use their dogs not as companions, but as means to control the happiness and comfort of surrounding residents. But this cannot last much longer, because receptors of barking ---- whatever amount of it is regarded as objectionable ---- are fighting back. We are no longer prepared to accept the delivery of someone else's noise into our sleeping and living rooms. We are putting the bullies on notice. Shut your dog up, or we will see you in court.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2009-06-14 17:38

attribution of motive faulty

Hi, Quiet Tasmania, Just looking at your first post again. Here is a statement I find problematic: "Dog owners have the legal obligation of keeping their dogs quiet yet they refuse to do it, Why? Because they don't want to." For me this is problematic because it attributes motive, where usually motive could not be known and where, I would have thought, the motive you attribute is unlikely. I think that the motive is far more likely to be that the dog owners (a) are unable to keep their dogs quiet at all times (b) may not think it reasonable to keep their dogs absolutely quiet I think that you can establish that dog owners do not always keep their dogs quiet, but I don't think that you attribute a motive in the absence of individual cases and careful dialogue. You make a further attribution of motive which I believe is also faulty: "Councils have the legal obligation of enforcing the barking control laws yet they refuse to do it. Why? Because they don't want to." I think that you would find that you got a different answer if you actually asked them. I think you should be capable of thinking through a number of problems which might diminish council ability and willingness to enforce laws to the letter. How quiet are dogs supposed to be? Are humans also supposed to be as quiet or is it just the dogs? Sheila Newman

Quiet Tasmania

Mon, 2009-06-15 10:39

Australian anti-Noise websites

I'm aware of only three Australian anti-Noise, anti-barking websites.

These are my own comprehensive and sometimes updated website Quiet Tasmania at http://www.quietas.net and its supplementary and much shorter associated and regularly updated website Quiet Tasmania News at http://www.pebri.net

There is an associated Yahoo discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quiet_Tasmania/ where membership is immediate and posts are not moderated.

---o0o---

Mr Matthew Ridgeway of Melbourne has VODAAN (Victims of Domestic Animal Attacks and Noise) at http://www.geocities.com/vodaan/ however this is currently not maintained and enquirers are referred to Quiet Tasmania. Matthew's family was forced to relocate because his council refused to control neighbourhood barking.

Matty has an associated Yahoo discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vodaan/ which is currently maintained by Quiet Tasmania.

I'd welcome knowledge of any other Australian websites.

Peter Bright
Hobart

www.quietas.net

Quiet Tasmania

Mon, 2009-06-15 10:53

More Australian anti-Noise websites

Australian anti-Noise websites generally inactive or not maintained are as follows:

1. Quiet Australia at http://quietaus.blogspot.com/ and its associated Yahoo discussion group at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuietAus/

2. Noise Tasmania at http://www.geocities.com/noisetas/

Peter Bright
Quiet Tasmania

www.quietas.net

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2009-06-14 17:48

noise - parallax perspective

This comment is intended to show sympathy for your case but to suggest an entirely different approach to the fault/punishment one you appear to be suggesting. According to my analysis, the problem is not 'barking' but 'noise'. The problem is caused by faulty building and planning which puts people close together but does not protect them from noise by building. I would suggest that the planners and builders should be made to adequately soundproof buildings and, where that is impossible, they should not build them so close. Where buildings are already up and occupied, then sound-proofing should be done remedially by the council in cases where people cannot stand various forms of noise. This puts the onus onto the architects and planners to adhere to a rigorous standard which would include protection for people who are particularly sensitive to particular kinds of noise. The other approach, which puts neighbours in conflict and sometimes helpless dogs' lives and social expression in jeopardy - whatever the reasonableness of the complainant or the defendant - is stressful and it sounds as if it is a no-win in most cases. I wish you luck in your pursuit of a noise-free existence, but not if it means that people will be even more removed from association with other creatures. My reason for preferencing association with other creatures is that I think humans who live only with humans become insensitive to the other creatures in the world and allow the built environment to exclude them and to engulf more and more of the natural environment. I don't think it is normal or rational to live in isolation from other creatures, although I realise it happens more and more. Sheila Newman

Quiet Tasmania

Mon, 2009-06-15 07:54

World's best website about barking

Those struggling for knowledge and understanding of dog barking can do no better than explore the world's most comprehensive website on the subject. It's called barkingdogs and the address is http://www.barkingdogs.net/

There is an associated Yahoo discussion group at http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/barkingdogs/

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2009-06-15 10:36

World's most informative website on the human health hazards of

On noticing today's Quiet Tasmania post, anyone who is interested in browsing the recommended professional site could be particularly educated by absorbing the section: "The Harm Done". While on the site, anyone open to learning could also click on the Barking Dogs Forum, where true accounts of lives stolen by unwanted noise from dogs, and the resultant trail of family and human carnage, are posted for public information.

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2009-06-15 10:07

Not impressed

As far as I can see, you seem to equate a dog with a cigarette. You appear to completely lack empathy for a fellow creature and you use your example of motor neurone disease as a reason to dominate all creatures except humans into silence and submission in the way you would expect a cigarette to be snuffed. I therefore cannot take your position seriously and I can imagine that your local council cannot either. You are not prepared to make any compromises but expect everyone and every other thing to do so. You are unwilling to call for better engineering or to militate against planners cramming us all in so close together that soon we will all require earmuffs to put up with our neighbours brushing their teeth. I fear that, in a world without dogs, you would simply shift your target to parrots or wind tunnels or vibrant colours. There may indeed be people who suffer from hypersensitivity to particular pitches and tones, but I think it takes a real neurotic to expect the rest of the world to be completely silent. You will, however, fit in well with the kinds of people who squash us all in together, who expect us to modify our behaviour to ludicrous extents. Give me a dog any day over an unreasonable human quoting the law. By the way, you can buy industrial ear plugs that don't melt in your ears or cause problems. I have used them in noisy situations myself. It is no big deal. Sheila Newman

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2009-06-15 15:48

Courtesy.

The rules of courteous debate include avoidance of personal attack and accurate interpretation of a differing point of view, which I believe Mr Sinnamon encourages on this forum. Firstly there has been no equation whatsoever between dogs and cigarettes. The equation is between dog noise (a scientifically acknowledged toxic pollutant) and another scientifically acknowledged human health hazard: second-hand cigarette smoke. Our local council is highly supportive about the matter of sleep deprivation from barking dogs and I understand their policy is moving towards zero tolerance as health claims are regularly reaching litigation. The road accident risks from drowsy driving by workers who are sleep-disturbed by noisy dogs are very real. This awareness is a good thing, and their intelligent attention to this important human health and safety subject is very much appreciated. The sound of neighbours brushing their teeth would not be a problem, because it is possible to mask low-level noise emissions with background music, or television. When a noise competes with the quiet enjoyment of someone's television, radio or family communications, or disturbs their sleep, then it is generally too loud and intrusive. The comment about parrots and other creatures is tedious and boring. I would never contend that dogs or any other animals have no right to exist. Sniffer dogs, police dogs, quiet house dogs that provide company for lonely people, and the well-trained dogs that assist sight-impaired are harmless creatures. It is the disgraceful lack of bark training, in tandem with the epidemic of children being bitten and torn to shreds by uncontrolled dogs, that is increasingly being debated. The comment about parrots, wind tunnels and vibrant colours would be hilarious if it wasn't so spiteful. Further, compressed foam industrial earplugs can and do cause tinnitus, particularly if the inner ear begins to sweat. If the writer of the above post has no formal ENT qualifications, then it is extremely unwise to post audiological advice. If someone follows that advice, and incorrectly applies such devices to their ears, the outcomes can be very serious. Tinnitus, and bleeding of the inner are just two complications. Provision of unqualified audiological advice on a public forum is most unwise. The repetitive, accusative application of the word "you" contained in the above post is unnecessarily hostile. I browsed Mr Sinnamon's site to learn about many interesting subjects. There's a "Sheila" theme to Mr Sinnamon's website. Does this mean that alternative opinions on all subjects, no matter how valid, or how life-impacting, will be responded with similar venom? With regard to the example of the motor neurone patient who was subjected to the cruelty of uncontrolled dog noise, the surviving spouse had one sad comment after reading the above post: what goes around comes around. The above post unfortunately carries an aggressive tone. It is unnecessarily cruel, it contains nothing that I understand to represent the best side of humanity, and is not at all in the spirit of intellectual debate.

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2009-06-16 02:00

Discussion may be going around in circles

I think this already lengthy discussion may be starting to go around in circles. If I am to be labeled hypersensitive because I am traumatised by the prolonged sound of dogs barking, then at least two other established contributors to this web site must also be labeled as such. What is also clear is that if those on either or both sides of the discussion adopt extreme positions, then a satisfactory resolution for all sides is unlikely to be achieved. I think in the circumstances we have found ourselves, it is reasonable to expect dogs to be trained to bark only intermittently and not for lengthy periods, except where there is good cause. I have heard of dogs being trained not to bark more than three times on any single occasion. That's less than ideal for me, but I think I could cope with that. Of course, this still may not be satisfactory for others troubled by dog barking. And, as I have said before, I think it is reasonable for the broader community to help those with dogs by subsidising training or other services that could mitigate the barking problem.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2009-06-16 14:48

Barking Dogs.

Indeed dogs can be very successfully trained not to bark. A professional, experienced canine-trainer can help a dog and its owner, in less than 2 hours, and everyone within hearing distance will reap the benefits. The cost of training has to be borne by the owners. I don't believe that the wider community would respond well to subsidising dog management, particularly if their choice is to keep domestic cats. Most of us are flat out prioritising our disposable income to absolute necessities like health insurance, house insurance, rates, (incidentally, all of us already subsidise dog management through our rates), food, electricity, rent/mortgages. Many budget conscious people wisely forego luxuries, so they can meet their daily financial commitments. It's just like anything else. If people want to keep dogs, run a car, go to the gymnasium, etc., then they must budget accordingly, or refrain from the indulgence. Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts on what has been a life and soul-destroying family health issue. Whilst I am sympathetic to the rights of people to keep a pet, the major consideration must be public health, duty of care, and personal responsibility.

Quiet Tasmania

Wed, 2009-06-17 13:38

No, never. Never ever ...

ANY form of subsidy to dog owners is RIGHT OFF the radar screen. It must NEVER happen!

Australia's dog plague and all the suffering that goes with it is significantly out of control as it is - and it's FAR worse in America, the nation which habitually abuses its freedoms more than any other.

Instead, the reverse should happen - that dog owners be FORCED, not only to pay for EVERY expense associated with keeping their animals cruelly incarcerated, but to pay EVERY expense incurred as a consequence of their ignorant, reckless stupidity. I refer, for example, to ALL the costs incurred, and for the fullest possible recompense to the family whose head was killed when he ran off the road on his way to work because of the tiredness brought about by the previous night's barking of his neighbour's dog. This is just ONE ghastly example of the innumerable invisible tragedies and suffering associated with the keeping of dogs. There's millions of lesser examples - EVERY DAY!

Shall I speak now of the maulings, the disfigurations, the DEATHS - of those attacked by the so-called domestic dog? Even when a local dog killed his little girl her father said "Oh, it was just an accident!" Like hell it was. Because of his ignorant, selfish, mindless stupidity, the dog owner had SET IT UP!

Dog ownership is nearly always an indulgence, and an extremely selfish one at that. I don't expect anyone else to subsidise any of my few INESSENTIAL indulgences such as chocolate, and I'm not going to subsidise the cost of my neighbour's backyard swimming pool, either. If he wants such indulgences, then HE can pay for them! Fully!

Those dependent on their dog for their irrational source of narcissistic supply should pay all the costs associated with their damned fool drug addiction. Don't look to me for one cent of those costs - I've managed my life for 70 years without having needed a dog for even one second.

Except in quite rare circumstances, dogs are NOT ESSENTIAL.

I admire a well-trained farm dog's ability to herd sheep, and I'm awed by the astounding sensitivity of a customs' dog to sniff illicit drugs, and I recognise that the salary of a dog that keeps its vision-impaired owner less helpless is low, and I can accept the desire of the elderly for live-in companionship that's therapeutic - but beyond this, NO.

The reality is that dogs, by their nature, are unsuitable creatures for city and suburban conditions.

Our society will eventually realise this, but in the meantime it's as loopy as a hula hoop.

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Tigerquoll

Wed, 2009-06-17 14:33

Maplewood 'Noise Control' solution applied to Barking Dogs

A quick Google of 'Noise Control' finds an ordnance all the way from Maplewood Planning Department, in Minnesota, mid-west USA. It relates to noise, which is at the crux of this dog barking debate. Check the link: http://mn-maplewood.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=345 Some key features which I like are notably: 1. It is comprehensive..."(a) No person shall make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety or welfare of any person or precludes their enjoyment of property or affects their property's value." 2. It covers the period 7pm to 7am Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday. 3. It sets a proximity limit of 350 feet (100 odd metres) - I think that would allow for a distance of 4 standard house blocks from the barking dog so as to reduce the volume of the barking to a tolerable background level. Nearer neighbours would be affected. 4. It is enforced by the police. This would in itself cause angst because it wouldn't take long for the police to get frustrated by the number of call outs as to force politicians to change the legislation to make owning a dog onerous. 5. It attracts criminal penalties - US$700 (very close to the AUD$1000 I previously espoused), and..bonus...even imprisonment! The best part is: "(d) Each act of violation and each day a violation occurs or continues constitute a separate offense." The barking problem will be solved in weeks - many owners will be financially forced to put down their barking pooch.

Quiet Tasmania

Wed, 2009-06-17 15:48

A good find

Thankyou Tigerquoll, for a good find. I appreciate your interest and I'm grateful for your comments.

The catch with this legislation lies in that seemingly innocuous word "unreasonably." This damned word, along with others elsewhere like it such as "excessively" - is undefined.

This means that nobody knows what the boundaries of tolerance are. It leaves the so-called "enforcement authorities" floundering for actionable standards. It leaves the complainant without firm criteria. An eventual standard can be set by a particular court in a particular matter - but by then it's prettymuch too late. It's all way too sloppy by far.

The impact of Noise is extremely subjective person-to-person, so setting actionable boundaries is problematic. What annoys me tonight when I'm lying in bed unable to sleep won't annoy me tomorrow night when I'm so tired I sleep right through it.

When I was a kid in Suburban Sydney everyone intuitively respected his neighbours' rights to live in peace and quiet.

That consideration has substantially dissolved nowadays, hence all the troubles.

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

James Sinnamon

Wed, 2009-06-17 17:22

Discussion still going around in circles.

I think it may time to wind down this discussion. I am the last person to want to stop discussion on any question, particularly one that so that affects the lives of so many amongst us, however the discussion seems to have turned into one that is largely one between too intractable extremes, in which neither side is listening to the other. In normal life, it is accepted that if we want to resolve conflicts, both sides need to be prepared to consider the other point of view and be willing to make compromises to accommodate the needs of the other side, but that seems to have been lost on many participants in this discussion. Whilst I am also very bothered by dog barking, I am disappointed that some amongst us are so ready to dismiss proposals that I think could go a long way towards solving the proposal. That proposal was that Governments or Councils set up free or subsidised programs to train dogs or walk them during the day. That is just on of many possible suggestions I could have offered. However, this suggestion has been dismissed on the grounds that essentially accept the free market 'every man for himself' dogma that determines nearly all of our policy agendas these days. One purpose of this site is to challenge the dysfunctional political and economic system we now live under, not just to try to deal with its symptoms, of which I believe the widespread incidence of dog barking is. This web site is also not the place for who want the needs of other members of society to be entirely disregarded so that their own (or their pets) can be met. I still think that dog barking is an important issue and I would encourage constructive discussion that aims to arrive at solutions, but that does not seem to be happening.

Tigerquoll

Wed, 2009-06-17 18:10

You're not trying to stop the barking?

I think winding up the barking on barking would be to turn the boat around across Bass Strait just as you've laid sight on the Tasy coast! The discussion has drawn out some good issues. One anecdote I can offer for the 'RIGHT TO QUIET ENJOYMENT' case is that as a victim of a neighbour's dog barking (6 months) , I have gone legal and look like having the second fine imposed that will finally send the tenant with her three barking dogs over the back fence, packing. A final article I found in the paper for the 'RIGHT TO BARKING' case: Two jailed over 'barking dog murder' ======================== SOURCE: AAP, June 10, 2009 'A SYDNEY woman who stabbed to death a man who complained about her barking dog will spend at least 10 years behind bars for his murder. Joseph Henry Durrant, 47, was returning home from alcohol-fuelled Australia Day celebrations in the early hours of January 27, 2007, when he made a comment about a noisy dog in Phyllis Street, Mt Pritchard. The father of three was then fatally attacked with a knife. In April this year, Katrina Megan Whitmore, 26, was found guilty of Mr Durrant's murder, with a New South Wales Supreme Court jury concluding she caused the fatal stab wound. Her brother Frederick Whitmore, 35 - who was due to face a separate murder trial - pleaded guilty to manslaughter. In the NSW Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams sentenced Katrina Whitmore to a maximum of 14 years and Frederick Whitmore to a maximum of seven years. With time already served, Katrina Whitmore will be eligible for parole on February 21, 2019, with Frederick Whitmore first eligible for release on September 14, 2011.' Dogged justice. Woof woof!

Quiet Tasmania

Wed, 2009-06-17 21:31

Going legal - sending a bad dog owner packing?

Tigerquoll, there's a limit throughout the land of two dogs per suburban dwelling. More than two requires the issuance of a kennel licence which may be denied if anyone within 200 metres of the proposed kennel objects. This distance should be raised to two kilometres.

I'd welcome details of your success. It's usually the tormented victim of barking who has to move out.

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Quiet Tasmania

Wed, 2009-06-17 21:37

Constructive discussion invited

There's plenty of constructive ideas at http://www.quietas.net/Page51.html where there's also an invitation to comment by email.

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

Menkit Prince

Thu, 2009-06-18 03:37

Phew!

Lots of interesting, intelligent, ridiculous, funny, thought-provoking comments here. On the one hand I can understand the side of dog guardians that Sheila appears to be the only advocate for. Her suggestion to simply go to the owner of the barking dog and enquire as to the problem and offer help in a neighbourly way is good however some people are not reasonable, as we know. Then what? I think the kind of dog barking everyone is talking about here Sheila is the kind of incessant, neurotic, repetitive barking that does drive people mad. A happy dog doesn't need to bark at all, unless there is a strange sound and that shouldn't be for more than a short time. If a dog is distressed from being alone, or not having needs met, that anxiety is transmitted through the sound and picked up by anyone in the vicinity and is a stressor to all. Animals in the wild hardly make any sound at all except when they are trying to find each other, alert each other to danger, or to a good food find. I live in the rainforest and it's very quiet here even though I am surrounded by lots of species. Dogs shouldn't need to bark hardly at all. Domesticating dogs and cats (feral animals) is a totally unnatural activity but that is what we have done, along with wrecking the country with cows and sheep overgrazing and deforesting our land. So much of our life is totally unnatural. Look at what we eat for crying out loud. Locking a dog that is designed to be running free inside a house is totally unnatural. No wonder they bark. They are bored. It's true that people have different levels of sensitivity to sound - any sound. I fall into the ultra-sensitive camp, unfortunately, being particularly sensitive to traffic noise (having spent my entire childhood raised on the Princes Highway in Sydney with my bedroom at the front of the house), loud music (especially that mind-numbing, stupefying dorff music that people around here like to play on the weekend till 4am) and dog barking. I also don't like the sound of television, radio, people whistling or singing songs to themselves in supermarkets or music in general. Having said that I am also an animal-lover. A dog would not be my choice of a companion because of the damage they do to wildlife in this area - same with a cat. Quiet Tasmania you seem to hate dogs and this may be pushing Sheila's buttons. To describe dog guardians as being selfishly indulgent is extreme. If you were to try and understand where she was coming from in terms of the emotional benefits that dogs bring to their guardians you may be a little less intolerant of what appears to you to be perhaps sentimentality? She did after all only take the dogs on because her mother could no longer care for them. In so doing, she saved their lives most likely. These animals wanted to live and not be killed in a shelter. I would probably do the same even though I'm not a 'dog' person. Not only that but dogs are wonderful beings who love to play, love to make others happy in general and just love to love. What about their redeeming qualities such as saving lives? So to have the motivation of wanting to help the dog FIRST and foremost may lead to a solution with your neighbours faster than feeling selfishly irritated and wanting to help your own needs first and foremost. However, failing that there are a number of steps you can take. As for councils not being willing to act, it depends on your location. My son lives in the Tweed Shire and he has a dog who barks when left alone. A neighbour has complained twice to the council resulting in a fine to my son of $1000. I spoke to the neighbour and feel compassion for him. He told me that my son had gone away for a whole weekend and left the dog outside. As a result the dog barked non-stop day and night and the neighbour could not sleep. Being a reasonable person he didn't want to be unfair to the dog or my son but what to do? The thought occurred to him to open the gate which would have resulted in the dog's death for sure. A less reasonable person would have thrown a poisoned bone to him. My advice to my son was to find the dog a home where she could be free to run since she is a kelpie/rhodesian ridgeback hunting dog, not meant to be couped up inside a tiny yard or worse, inside a house with blinds drawn all day while my son was at work! (kids!!???!!) Sheila you have to understand how desperate people can become when deprived of sleep and a life. That is what this thread is about and something needs to be done. It's not about needing a totally noise-free existence and being incapable of associating with other creatures. I don't think the solution is to build expensive sound-proof dwellings either because dogs need access to fresh air and as soon as you close windows and doors you create a totally unnatural existence for them. So much for allowing natural behaviours. The suggestion to use 1080 on barking dogs was tactless and provocative. Where is the concern for the dog? 1080 is a gruesome way for any animal to die and I am dead against (excuse the pun) using it on indigenous animals. What is wrong with humans that we can't leave native animals enough space to have a life anyway? Why are we so fascinated with the use of toxic chemicals as a solution to any problem? The whole problem is caused by humans, as James said, who refuse to train their dogs. A mere 2 hours with a trainer and poof! problem gone. It may be worth your peace of mind to pay for that for your neighbour if they don't have the funds. Certainly a lot easier and cheaper than moving house. In the event of the guardian refusing even training for the dog, in the worst case scenario, instead of having the dog killed I'd say the lesser of two evils would be to take out it's vocal chords. I'm not in favour of removing organs in general but if it was me I'd rather be alive without a voice than not alive. So accusing peace-lovers of causing the death of a barking dogs by euthanisation is not right. I hope that the two main antagonists of this thread can give a little leeway to each other and learn something here. Thanks James for allowing this thread. I think it may help many people. We should always try to find solutions that are loving and not come from a place of anger if possible. "It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products” ~ Steve Irwin Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2009-06-18 11:44

A courteous summary

That's a courteous summary, Menkit Prince. Here's a case study. A mature-age lady of considerable intelligence, who likes to read and enjoy her grandchildren when they visit, was intermittently harrassed by the noise of two dogs over her back fence. After one year complaining to her local authority, the dogs were eventually de-barked. The woman had been prescribed anti-depressants for depression and anticipatory anxiety that set in from the stresses arising from wondering when and if something negative was going to emanate from the yard next door. After the dogs were de-barked, she was gradually taken off the medication, but her health didn't improve. She had been delivered too much stress, for too long. It was prognosticated that her psychological damage might be reversed in 3-4 years, if she could be spared the dogs, but perhaps the scars would never heal. To make matters worse, two years later, a Rottweiler took a 2" x 2" piece out of her leg when she was out walking. She was hospitalised, the wound became infected. These days, this lovely, kind and gentle woman cannot stand to hear one bark. I understand this case is not at the extreme end of the scale. This type of example is not limited to this woman's experiences. Psychological damage from force-fed noise from barking dogs is a recognised medical condition. Sydney's Garvan Institute is very clear: stress causes many irreversible medical conditions, including cancer. The World Health Organisation is also very clear: community noise, including "impulse" noise from dogs, causes high levels of human stress. This has been proven by dose response studies, measuring human cortisol levels. Impulse noise is known to elevate blood pressure and cortisol levels for half an hour following every emission. The point of this post is: prevention is better than cure. Some people become incurable to illnesses, if the causes are not attended soon enough. To advocate in favour of "tolerance" and advocate against "extremism" when human health and non-implementation of protection laws are a large part of the subject matter, is to justify wrongdoing. I do not have any views on how other people should think. Everyone is entitled to their own choices. But those of us who have been forced to put up with someone else's choice to ignore or deliver their racket to unwilling receptors, are fed up. It's all over, red rover. We've had enough, and we're not taking it any more.

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2009-06-18 15:48

Discussion closed. Thank you for your participation

The issues entailed in this forum have touched on some raw nerves. It is my judgment that it is necessary for this discussion to end in order to preserve harmony and goodwill. I everyone to continue the discussion elsewhere such as on the site www.quietas.net or on the Yahoo Group Quiet Tasmania at groups.yahoo.com/group/Quiet_Tasmania. We will inform people of any other forum sites related to this issue. I thank everyone for their interest and participation.