RIVERSIDE
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors today approved an anti-nuisance measure aimed at silencing noisy dogs by slapping their owners with fines that can go as high as $500.
The ordinance, which takes effect in 30 days, will change the way dog nuisance complaints are handled in unincorporated communities by delegating authority to administrative hearing officers to determine whether a nuisance gripe is justified and how to remedy the problem.
Under current county law, when a resident complains about a barking, howling, or an otherwise noisy canine, an Animal Services officer investigates the matter, generally by visiting the location where the disturbance has been reported, according to Riverside County Animal Services Field Commander Rita Gutierrez.
Because officers are busy and cannot wait around some place to document the disturbance first-hand, investigations can drag on for months as the residents affected by the nuisance collect their own evidence, she said.
Often, the result is a $100 to $150 fine imposed on the owner of the nuisance animal, but Gutierrez said that does not consistently solve the problem.
"We can write ticket after ticket on somebody, and they can go down and pay it at the courthouse, but there's no abatement order," Gutierrez said in a recent interview.
Matters are further complicated when the infraction is challenged in court, and a busy judge is forced to get to the bottom of the complaint, sometimes dismissing the case -- and the fine -- out of frustration, according to Gutierrez.
Under the new ordinance, an administrative hearing officer -- sometimes a practicing attorney with expertise in arbitration -- will hear nuisance complaints and make a decision within days.
According to the measure, once Animal Services receives a nuisance complaint, the agency will issue a warning letter to the owner of the noisy dog. If the nuisance is reported again within 12 months of the warning, Animal Services will set a time for a hearing, involving a hearing officer, the owner of the problem animal, the complainant and any witnesses.
If the hearing officer determines an animal is a nuisance, an order will be issued telling the owner to abate the problem, according to the new law.
Remedies might include obedience training, containing the dog within an enclosed space, such as a garage, restricting the amount of time the animal is allowed outside -- or debarking the dog so it doesn't vocalize beyond a whisper.
If an owner fails to follow the county's order within 10 days, civil penalties can be imposed, according to the ordinance. Fines will start at $100. A second violation of the abatement order within 12 months would result in a $200 fine, and for every subsequent violation, dog owners would be fined $500.
"People start to stop and take notice at that point," Gutierrez said.
Supervisor Bob Buster questioned the latitude that Animal Services officers would have in writing citations under the new ordinance, worrying that nuisances would not always have to be personally verified an officer.
But Animal Services Deputy Director Frank Corvino told the board the city of Riverside has had a nearly identical measure on its books for years, with great success, which satisfied Buster.
sucks to live n that county.....
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors today approved an anti-nuisance measure aimed at silencing noisy dogs by slapping their owners with fines that can go as high as $500.
The ordinance, which takes effect in 30 days, will change the way dog nuisance complaints are handled in unincorporated communities by delegating authority to administrative hearing officers to determine whether a nuisance gripe is justified and how to remedy the problem.
Under current county law, when a resident complains about a barking, howling, or an otherwise noisy canine, an Animal Services officer investigates the matter, generally by visiting the location where the disturbance has been reported, according to Riverside County Animal Services Field Commander Rita Gutierrez.
Because officers are busy and cannot wait around some place to document the disturbance first-hand, investigations can drag on for months as the residents affected by the nuisance collect their own evidence, she said.
Often, the result is a $100 to $150 fine imposed on the owner of the nuisance animal, but Gutierrez said that does not consistently solve the problem.
"We can write ticket after ticket on somebody, and they can go down and pay it at the courthouse, but there's no abatement order," Gutierrez said in a recent interview.
Matters are further complicated when the infraction is challenged in court, and a busy judge is forced to get to the bottom of the complaint, sometimes dismissing the case -- and the fine -- out of frustration, according to Gutierrez.
Under the new ordinance, an administrative hearing officer -- sometimes a practicing attorney with expertise in arbitration -- will hear nuisance complaints and make a decision within days.
According to the measure, once Animal Services receives a nuisance complaint, the agency will issue a warning letter to the owner of the noisy dog. If the nuisance is reported again within 12 months of the warning, Animal Services will set a time for a hearing, involving a hearing officer, the owner of the problem animal, the complainant and any witnesses.
If the hearing officer determines an animal is a nuisance, an order will be issued telling the owner to abate the problem, according to the new law.
Remedies might include obedience training, containing the dog within an enclosed space, such as a garage, restricting the amount of time the animal is allowed outside -- or debarking the dog so it doesn't vocalize beyond a whisper.
If an owner fails to follow the county's order within 10 days, civil penalties can be imposed, according to the ordinance. Fines will start at $100. A second violation of the abatement order within 12 months would result in a $200 fine, and for every subsequent violation, dog owners would be fined $500.
"People start to stop and take notice at that point," Gutierrez said.
Supervisor Bob Buster questioned the latitude that Animal Services officers would have in writing citations under the new ordinance, worrying that nuisances would not always have to be personally verified an officer.
But Animal Services Deputy Director Frank Corvino told the board the city of Riverside has had a nearly identical measure on its books for years, with great success, which satisfied Buster.
sucks to live n that county.....
