Dog Barking Case Ends With 30 Day Jail Sentence

Controversial Dog Barking Case Ends With 30 Day Jail Sentence

After 33 months, our highly controversial dog barking case has come to a close. On June 29th Recorders Court Judge Patricia Muise revoked the remaining two months of a twenty four month term sentencing me to serve 30 days in the Gwinnett Detention Center for failure to pay $473 in probation fees.

While I have complied with the court’s order of “bringing my property in compliance with all zoning issues that alone did not satisfy the judge. This case has long drifted from a case of barking dogs to an issue of inflicting punishment for what the court found was an isolated “three minute” incident of barking close to three years ago.

Citizens should be concerned why our court system saw fit to hold seven pretrial hearings, a full trial and six hearings attempting to revoke my probation. During the process the court awarded (and the taxpayers funded) three court appointed attorney’s including one who was assigned in an attempt by Sentinel Offender Services to collect $129 in “late probation fees”.

Obviously, the court fails to understand that there are citizens in our community who have been effected by the economic downturn. Judge Muise seems confused not only on interpreting the constitution but the real concerns about crime in our community.

In an era where citizens are being threatened loss of police, fire and emergency services our court found fit to expend thousands and thousands of dollars to force me into surrendering dogs to our local shelter where they would be greeted by employees all to ready to kill them. Do we really feel safer knowing the county was able to lock up a retired senior citizen who was found guilty of providing a safe haven for some old hound dogs that otherwise would be dead?

I always said I would go to jail before I would allow the county the county to kill even one of my hounds – so NOW I’ve served my time. The leash is off – no more threats – no more intimidation.

Those of us in rescue have long been the last line of defense for the senseless killing of our companion friends. We speak out for the voiceless suffering and silent screams that kills far too many innocent creatures in our county funded kill shelter. Each life lost is sacred and I will continue to speak out against the planned slaughter of our county's homeless pets.

Unfortunately for everyone who was involved in passing the draconian ordinance in the first place one of my beloved beagles, Bam-Bam was killed while I was being held prisoner by the county of Gwinnett. Had these "leaders" in our animal; welfare movement been diligent in their duty to protect pet owners from repressive laws that threaten our pets Bam-Bam would still be alive today.

In passing the 2007 Draconian Ordinance which granted the county solicitor with broad powers to threaten and intimidate pet owners and in granting false hearted judges like Muise with the power to punish any pet owner who opposed this senseless slaughter of our family pets the wheel was set in motion that lead to Bam-Bam's death.

I always said “you kill one of my dogs and that changes everything….” That changes everything – the muzzle comes off too.

Gwinnett County can NEVER give me back what the county has taken from me and the hounds. The loss of Bam-Bam was not only senseless but avoidable.

Gwinnett AAC Meeting - April 21st - Dog Barking & Tethering Ordinance

The Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council will be meeting April 21st (Tuesday) at 7:00 PM to discuss proposed changes in the county animal ordinance that addresses tethering and nuisance "dog barking". The meeting will be held at the Gwinnett Animal Shelter located at 884 Winder Hwy in Lawrenceville. The public is welcome and encouraged to attend.

The agenda is available at the following link:

http://www.gwinnettcounty.com/departments/police/pdf/GAACAgendaApr21_2009.pdf

A group of concerned pet owners (We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett) offer the following revisions for discussion. Both changes would be enforced as "civil" violations rather then the current practice of being handled as criminal violations. The purpose of the revised law would be to seek compliance through a system of warnings and escalating fines while removing all sentencing provisions which include jail/probation and court ordered loss of pets.

We propose the following:

Changes in restraint/tethering language:

Section 10-29 (b-4) Effective it will be unlawful to tether (chain) your pet unless you are present. Supervised tethering is limited to no more then one hour on/one hour off during daylight hours or thirty minutes during evening hours. In the event a pet is illegally tethered (chained), the pet owner will receive a warning. Failure to take corrective action will result in a civil penalty for cruelty of $100 and a $500 civil penalty for additional offenses.

Changes in public nuisance barking language

Section 10-51 (b) ?? Anyone who keeps or maintains an animal that unreasonably disturbs the comfort or repose of any of any person which are plainly audible to a person of normal hearing ability not located on the same property of the animal or animals because the animal is emitting frequent or long continued sound or noise during the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM shall be deemed in violation of this section when.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any animal to make, continue or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual sound or noise which unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others in the county, and which is audible to a person of normal hearing ability more than 50 feet from the property of origin of this sound or noise.

(2) That the person keeping or maintaining the animal has been first notified in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested, by the complaining party that this animal bird being kept by the addressee is unreasonably disturbing his or her comfort or repose. This section shall be liberally construed to accomplish the objective of the section, and the person making this written notification need not use the exact words of this section to the addressee so long as the notification sufficiently informs the addressee of the nature and times of the disturbing noise emitted by the animal.

(3) Upon receipt of a certified letter notifying the person keeping or maintaining such animal, such person shall be required to comply with this section within 72 hours of such notification.

(4) Upon notification of failure to comply with certified notification of noise complaint concerning such animal noise violations, the owner or individual in possession of the property upon which the animal or animals are located will be given a written notice/warning from Animal Control Unit indicating that such animal or animals are creating a disturbance and advising the owner or individual in possession of the property of some possible solutions to rectify the nuisance. The complainant must provide the officer with a copy of the certified letter sent out that includes the address and where the animals are located along with the time(s) of the offense before any written warning/notice shall be issued.. The owner or individual in possession of the property shall then have ten (10) days to resolve the disturbance.

(5) If the disturbance is not resolved within ten (10) 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 documenting the violations. The original complainant will also be required to obtain a sworn statement from another individual of the disturbance. The statements must be from individuals residing at different addresses located near and within hearing distance of the animal or animals creating the disturbance. Upon receipt of the sworn statements, the Animal Control Unit may issue a citation in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance.

(6) Or if the disturbance is not resolved within ten (10) days and the Animal Control Unit receives another complaint from another individual residing at a different address located near and within normal hearing distance of the animal or animals creating the disturbance, both complainants will be asked to provide a sworn statement provided the second complainant has complied with sending a certified letter notifying the person keeping or maintaining such animal. Upon receipt of the sworn statements, the Animal Control Unit may issue a citation in accordance with the requirements of this ordinance.

(7) Animal control officers investigating and enforcing this subsection are not required to measure the noise levels with use of a sound level meter.

(8) The original complaint will remain on file and active for a period of sixty (60) days following the ten (10) day resolution period. If no further complaints are made during the sixty (60) day period, the complaint shall expire and the process begin again.

(9) Upon issuance of a citation, the Animal Control Unit may refer the complainant(s) and the owner or individual in possession of the property upon which the animal or animals creating the disturbance are located to private mediation in an effort to resolve their dispute.

(10) Further complaints or failure to comply with mediation recommendations will result in a citation being issued for owner or individual in possession upon which the animal or animals creating the disturbance to appear in court.

(11) Animal noise complaint will be limited to ONE citation being issued. Penalties for violations under this section 10-27 would be fines of up to $250 for first conviction and up to $500 for any further conviction. Court could order removal of any animal or animals found guilty of a second violation.

Conclusion

These changes are needed to shift the focus to using an educational approach in helping pet owners understand the requirements of being responsible pet owners in the community. Enforcement is shifted to focusing on animal issues that clearly present a danger or adds significantly to the cost of administering animal control. If implemented there will also be a significant reduction in case load through the courts and a reduction in adjudication costs as well.

Rather then tossing a net over all pet owners these changes would focus on enforcing and punishing irresponsible pet owners in the county. Ultimately, the goal of any proactive animal ordinance should seek to reduce the number of pets that enter our shelter and not add to those intake numbers.

Your comments, of course are welcome.

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?