LIHUE — Barking dogs beware: the law could soon have some teeth when it comes to you, and your owners will be getting a notice from the Humane Society if you’re too noisy. The Kauai County Council voted to approve
LIHUE — Barking dogs beware: the law could soon have some teeth when it comes to you, and your owners will be getting a notice from the Humane Society if you’re too noisy.
The Kauai County Council voted to approve the second reading of a barking dog bill Wednesday that will provide a way for residents to address chronic barking without a civil lawsuit.
Councilman KipuKai Kuali’i, who introduced the bill in October after the county’s barking dog law was repealed, said he’s happy with the final version of the legislation.
“This new bill is our best attempt at making this law fair and enforceable,” Kuali’i said.
The bill was passed 5-2, with councilmembers Arryl Kaneshiro and Ross Kagawa voting in the dissent.
Kaneshiro said he has a few “gripes” with the legislation. In his view, the two main problems are enforceability and redundancy.
“This is going to cost us more money and it’s a redundant law,” Kaneshiro said. “There is already a system in place and that is a private nuisance lawsuit.”
Kagawa said he’s in support of having a law on the books that addresses the “serious cases” of animal abuse and chronic barking, but he didn’t support the bill because “there is already a process and it’s a civil suit process” to settle a barking dog dispute.
Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura pointed out that a private nuisance lawsuit is expensive and most people who have problems with a neighbor’s noisy canine don’t have the resources to file a civil suit.
As the council hashed out the final details of the bill before passing it, the debate centered around two things — enforcement and evidence.
Enforcement will fall on the shoulders of the Kauai Humane Society, which currently has three officers who work 40 hours a week and one that works 32 hours a week.
Those officers are available 24/7, said Penny Cistaro, executive director of the Kauai Humane Society, including for emergencies like dangerous animal reports, dangers to animals, and to assist the Kauai Police Department if needed.
To enforce the ordinance, Cistaro said the organization will need to hire someone for 16 hours a week who will be devoted solely to handling barking dog reports.
The organization will also need a vehicle.
Cistaro said the anticipated cost of the position would be about $18,000 a year and the anticipated one-time cost of the vehicle would be between $20,000 and $36,000.
Where that money is coming from is something that’s going to be decided later.
“It’s going to take some money to put this bill into action,” said Council Chairman Mel Rapozo. “We will pay for the enforcement of the barking dog ordinance.”
Evidence took up the rest of the barking dog debate, with Yukimura advocating for the addition of video evidence in the bill as proof that a violation occurred, instead of requiring only an enforcement officer to witness the event.
Councilmember Gary Hooser said he thought the idea had some merit, because it’s difficult to get video evidence to pass the requirements needed to stand up in court. With the bar set so high, not just any video evidence would suffice to prove a barking dog problem.
Rapozo, however, said he was concerned that the addition would encourage residents to videotape their neighbors and that could be a violation of privacy.
“There’s a fine line of when we can say it’s OK to tape your neighbor’s house,” Rapozo said.
Ultimately, the council decided not to include video evidence in the wording of the bill. However, Cistaro said that type of evidence would be considered if it was submitted to the Humane Society for review.
The process, she said, wouldn’t be too different from the last time the Humane Society took up barking dog enforcement.
A call would come into the office reporting a barking dog nuisance and the Humane Society would send letters and educational material to the owner of the dog, informing them of the nuisance and the ways to remedy the problem.
The dog owner would have 10 days to quiet their canine. If the owner failed to do so, at the end of 10 days, the complainer could then start a log of when the dog is barking and submit that to KHS.
At that point, the officer would review the log to find out the optimal time for surveillance, and then go to the house and witness the dog barking.
Then the complainer and the dog owner would have a chance to go through dispute resolution which the Humane Society would set up with a different organization, not conduct itself.
If the dog owner refuses to go to dispute resolution, or if it fails, a citation would be issued at that time, and the matter could go to the court.
The bill is on its way to Mayor Bernardo Carvalho Jr., who will have to sign it before it is officially made law.
•••
Jessica Else, county reporter, can be reached at 245-0452 or jelse@thegardenisland.com.
