New take on barking dogs

LIHUE — Potential rules governing barking dogs on Kauai underwent major renovation Wednesday as the County’s Committee of the Whole took on their current barking dog bill.

The bill approved by the committee on Wednesday was hailed as a simpler version by some committee members, and council member KipuKai Kuali’i, who originally introduced the bill, said he was happy with the way it was changed.

“This simplifies it and makes it stronger and helps us address the more serious problems in a way that will hold up in court,” Kuali’i said.

Defining the offensive action was the first order of business in amending the bill. Ultimately, the committee narrowed the definition of the nuisance to any dog that is noisy for 30 minutes within a 45-minute period of time, or continuously for a period of 15 minutes.

The committee discussed at length what constitutes a reasonable cause for barking and what types of activities would trigger repercussions, but decided that those decisions lie in the hands of the enforcer of the law.

“This body should determine what behavior is acceptable,” Council Chair Mel Rapozo said. “We shouldn’t worry about how this gets investigated (and enforced).”

Either a representative from the Kauai Humane Society or an officer from the Kauai Police Department would be charged with investigating and enforcing the prospective law.

Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura had concerns about the cost of charging an officer or the humane society with the task of personally checking out every incessant barking claim.

“(This bill as amended) will incur unnecessary costs and we can address this without (doing that),” Yukimura said. “This will put an undue burden on the police department.”

She asked that the county contact both the humane society and the police to discuss the impacts the legislation would have on them.

Councilman Mason Chock said he, too, would like to hear the opinions of the two entities to see how much cost would be associated with the plan.

The reason it could incur cost is that’s the only way, under the current amended bill, a person could report the barking dog.

Councilman Gary Hooser said he thought it was a good idea to require an enforcement officer to investigate all barking dog complaints, and if whichever of the entities needs more resources to do it, then the council can go down that road at that time.

Rapozo said he didn’t anticipate the requirement costing much more money for either of the departments.

“It only takes a few minutes to stop by (and check out the situation),” Rapozo said.

The committee removed the previous requirement for the barking to be reported by two different people, who reside at two different addresses, with accompanying logs. Instead, under this amended bill, anyone could report the barking.

They also shot down Yukimura’s idea of allowing video evidence of the barking to suffice as proof of the event. The video, she proposed, would have to be able to stand up in court.

An officer, either from the police or the humane society, would go investigate the complaint, under the amendment. If it is confirmed as a viable complaint, a written warning would be issued to the owner of the dog, as well as educational material and a copy of the compliant.

The dog owner would get 240 hours, 10 days, to remedy the problem.

“This would allow anonymous complaints,” Rapozo said. “I don’t care who reports it.”

If the barking still hasn’t stopped, the next step in the amended bill is to go into alternative dispute resolution, which is an amendment proposed by Chock.

“The citation would move forward if the mediation falls through,” Chock said.

He said the purpose of including alternative dispute resolution is to provide an incentive to work through the problem among neighbors instead of getting a citation and a fine.

The bill will be back in front of the County Council during their regular meeting on Wednesday for further discussion.