COW ELECTION 2014

LIVE CAM HWY 97 @ WESTSIDE RD

CHBC TV News

Carr's Landing

Joe Rich Community

Trepanier

Kelowna Capital News
Issuu

Kelowna Daily Courier

Penticton Herald

Penticton Western

Summerland Review

Sumrlnd.myezrock

Vernon Morning Star
Issuu

Vernon Daily Courier

Castanet.net

Bennett Bridge Cam

Interior Highway Cams

Kelowna Airport

Regional District of Central Okanagan

RDCO's Facebook

Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen

District of Lake Country

District of Peachland

City of Penticton

District of Summerland

City of Vernon

District of West Kelowna

--------


Kelowna's Best Rock

RDCO Board Calender
RDCO Meeting Schedule

RDCO Board Reports

RDCO Board Agenda

RDCO Board Minutes

Gov Service Agenda

Gov Service Minutes

NWCA Minutes

SILGA - Board

UBCM

RDCO GIS Map

For sprinkling and watering days, click here.

-------

Westside Rd. Maps

C.O.W. Links

NW Ratepayers

Edgson News

NWCA

Westside Rd Interchange

Westside Road Updates

Westside Rd COMPLAINT FORM

Westside Residents Association

Jobs in Vernon

Jobs in Kelowna

Report Email Spam here.

Report Bad Links Here

Food Action Society

JOKES

WolframAlpha
Calculator/Answers

WikiLeaks.org

Datadotgc.ca

OpenDataBC

ProactiveDisclosure

BCGov FOI form

BC Forest Fire Info
Twitter
Facebook

BC Wildfires of Note
EmergencyInfoGovBC
Sound Cloud

Scan BC

Kelowna Yacht Club Wind Direction/Speed

MissingKids.ca

Follow okanaganlakebc.ca on Twitter

Follow OkanaganLakeBC on Twitter

Okanagan Lake community directory; okanaganlakebc.ca; okanagan community directory for kelowna, vernon, westbank, westside, winfield, kaleden, naramata, summerland, peachland, penticton, and oyama.

Regional District of Central Okanagan

HOW RDCO's DOG CONTROL DOES NOT WORK

This is not the official website of the Regional District of Central Okanagan (RDCO)

WARNING Since this page was designed RDCO adopted a new Dog Bylaw on Feb 24, 2014 which is at the following 3 links).  This page is only staying here for historical purposes.

NEW .pdf icon RDCO's NEW RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP BYLAW ADOPTED FEB 24, 2014

NEW .pdf icon Item 8.2 and 8.3 RDCO Ticket Information And Utilization And Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaws (shows fine amounts)

NEW .pdf icon 2014 RDCO Bylaw Enforcement Notice Amendment Bylaw #1346
(explains fine amounts if you pay the fine early or you pay the fine late)

In the Regional District of Central Okanagan the only way you can complain about a barking dog is to also have another neighbor complain.  If you yourself complain, the dog owner may get a talking to, but will not receive a ticket.  Please listen to this audio clip of the Regional District of Central Okanagan to fully understand why.

Click this Windows Media Audio icon for help with audio files January 16, 2014 audio of RDCO Board meeting only about Mueller - RDCO needs to involve your neighbors about the barking - .wma (900 KB)

Blue Divider Line

Why are taxpayers paying to have RDCO dog control attend to delinquent dog owners? $25 first impound fee doesn't cut it.

If there are 20 dogs in your subdivision, did you know that the dogs are permitted to bark for 4 1/2 minutes every 15 minutes 24 hours per day forever!

And did you know that RDCO Animal Control bylaw #880 permits 5 peacocks, or 5 roosters, or 5 birds of just about any type (excluding banned birds) on each 1/2 acre lot in a subdivision?  If the peacocks are abandoned, nobody will collect them.  Not RDCO and not the SPCA.  Peacocks do not fall under Agricultural legislation the SPCA said and RDCO only collects dogs and cats.  That is most likely the reason why there was a bunny problem in Kelowna.

Why did RDCO dog control not issue a ticket for a noisy dog for so long?

COMMENT FORM BELOW

Last update January 26, 2015

Blue Divider Line

Below is a story is about A SINGLE BARKING DOG.  Many complaints were made to the Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Control about this one noisy barking dog, but RDCO dog control failed to control this one noisy dog with more than 20 complaints lodged.

We are not only upset about RDCO's response, but we are also upset that delinquent dog owners in the Regional District of Central Okanagan are not paying for delinquent dog visits, taxpayers are!  Plus Dog Control Officers are working overtime and being paid Double Time.

One reason RDCO failed to control the owner of this dog is because RDCO did not issue one fine out of visiting the dog at least 6 times and 20 instances where the dog barked in violation of RDCO's dog bylaw.  Its no wonder RDCO don't have time to attend until weeks later, because they attend to the same dog over and over again, never issuing a fine.  Now RDCO have sent a letter saying to the person complaining, that RDCO will not investigate anymore complaints made about this dog.  The person complaining about all the barking will be taking RDCO and this dog owner to court over this.

This dog owner has pulled up at 6:30am and 7:00am spinning out on the road trying to wake up the person who complained about their dog. They have done this three times so far.

The complainant first tried sending letters to the dog owner about the barking.  Then the complainant tried yelling at the dog owner from their property when the dog was outside barking, but the complainant was only yelled back at.  One time the complainant tried to play loud music all day long for 5 days straight to see if that would do anything, but then the dog owner turned their music up just as loud, plus one of the people from the barking dogs property came up the driveway with their quad and spun out longer than what you see in this photo below which is part of the spin out.  We phoned RDCO after we turned the music off and RDCO said they were on their way out to see the complainant due to a noise complaint.  RDCO thanked the complainant for turning the music off before RDCO arrived.  Nothing seemed to be working, not even RDCO Dog Control.

Photo showing spin-out marks in the driveway.
August 2010

Blue Divider Line

//^ ^\\
(/(_•_)\)
_/''*''\_
(,,,)^(,,,)
I am Against Animal Cruelty

Blue Divider Line

The Right to Quiet Society for Soundscape Awareness and Protection

Under specific circumstances, the Right to Quiet Society (RQS) offers loans or grants of up to $1,000 toward the cost of a legal action against a party(s) responsible for a noise nuisance, where all reasonable alternatives have failed. To apply, fill out the attached application form and send it to RQS.

Blue Divider Line

We don't see anywhere in the dog bylaw that says more than one person has to complain about a barking dog, so why did the Regional District of Central Okanagan go around to all the complainants neighbours to see if the dog's barking was bothering them??

RDCO Dog Bylaw #366

21.2 No person being the owner or occupant of any private premises shall permit, allow or suffer the noise of barking, yelping or howling sounds from a dog(s) to be caused or made at the private premises owned or occupied by that person, in a manner that can easily be heard or otherwise perceived by an individual who is not at the same private premises.

Blue Divider Line

.pdf icon January 10, 2008 Governance & Services Committee Meeting Minutes (Pg. 4)

5. Development Services
5.1 Hobby Kennels
Staff reviewed the report of October 3rd regarding hobby kennels and a complaint which was received in 2007. Staff noted that the noise bylaw would have been in affect for this complaint but was never followed through. Staff confirmed that up to 20 dogs can be in a hobby kennel. Beyond this it would be considered a service kennel. The individual that was operating the facility was a dog breeder with 30 years experience but has since relocated. It was noted that the 15 meter setback has no affect with a hobby kennel.
Director Hanson noted her support for the recommendation.
HANSON/EDGSON
THAT no change be made to the Joe Rich Rural Land Use Bylaw and the RDCO Dog Regulation and Impounding Bylaw regarding dog kennel facilities.
CARRIED

Blue Divider Line

The Consecutive Disruption Laws

The consecutive-disruption laws really just barely make a pretense of trying to prevent chronic barking. Their goal seems to be simply to make it illegal for a dog to bark all the time, without letup.

Under a consecutive-disruption law a dog can bark habitually, as long as he does not continue on for more than a certain number of minutes in a row. For example, allowing one's dog to bark is only deemed to be illegal if he does it for more than twenty-minutes consecutively. However, if the dog falls quiet for more than sixty-seconds during that twenty minute period, then the clock resets, and the dog can bark on nonstop for yet another twenty minutes without violating the law. Under that kind of ordinance, if you have two or three neighbors who each keep a highly vocal canine, you can have the sound of somebody else's barking dog going off inside your house once every forty-five seconds, 24-hours a day, and legally there still isn't anything you can do to stop it.

The Impact Upon the Public

The real effect of both of those types of ordinances is to legalize chronic barking, since they make it next to impossible for the victimized neighbors to do anything about it.

For a better understanding of our fraudulent "anti-barking" laws, see The Barking Laws, Law Enforcement, and the Courts or, for news stories that exemplify the system, go to The Usual Legal Runaround.

For a better understanding of how those phony laws are slowly killing people in their homes, go to The Deleterious Impact of Exposing People to Noise.

Read about a model bylaw that may quiet your neighborhood

Source - BarkingDogs.net

Blue Divider Line

October 8, 2010 RDCO denied delegation request in regards to dog control.

click the letter to read a larger copy

 

November 9, 2010 still denied.

RDCO's delegation policy

RDCO's delegation policy states that you may appear in front of the Regional Board to be a delegate if you ask using the correct form, and the subject is not a subject that you appeared at RDCO board meetings about in the past.  This was our first time asking to be a delegate in regards to dogs.

 

November 30, 2010 denied delegation request in regards to barking dogs, and we were still denied.  So its not like we didn't try!  So we just kept trying to make barking dog complaints.

click the letter to read a larger copy

 

This letter dated January 18, 2011 is from RDCO Chief Administrative Officer Harold Reay and it states that RDCO will no longer investigate barking dog complaints unless its a different dog.


click the letter to read a larger copy

 

This letter dated March 31, 2011 below is from RDCO Chief Bylaw Enforcement Officer Rhoda Mueller in reply to many concerns including bylaw officers not issuing fines to barking dog owners.  Rhoda Mueller says, "At this time there are no amendments being considered for changes to the barking section of the dog bylaw or to the zoning bylaw".
page 1 of 2
Reply letter from RDCO dog control chief bylaw enforcement officer Rhoda Mueller dated March 31, 2011.  Page 1 of 2

page 2 of 2
Reply letter from RDCO dog control chief bylaw enforcement officer Rhoda Mueller dated March 31, 2011.  Page 2 of 2
click the letter to read a larger copy

Blue Divider Line

ONE DOGS BARK LOG

DATES BARKING COMPLAINTS WERE MADE HOW LONG THE DOG BARKED FOR
We asked for dog incident records from RDCO through Freedom of Information, and did not receive any records of dog control officers attending in August, Sept, Oct. so RDCO must not have attended during those months although complaints were made.
May 2, 2010 97 minutes
May 4, 2010 46 minutes
May 13, 2010 40 minutes
May 25, 2010 Dog Control Attended Residence
June 26, 2010 Dog Control Attended Residence
July 14, 2010 Dog Control Attended Residence to ask dog owner to purchase a dog license
July 28, 2010 Dog Control Attended Residence to sell dog owner a dog license
Sept 3, 2010 over 10 minutes
Sept 5, 2010 24 minutes
Sept 6, 2010 1 hour
Sept 7, 2010 13 minutes
Sept 8, 2010 9 minutes
Sept 9, 2010 27 minutes
Sept 10, 2010 7 minutes
Sept 11, 2010 48 minutes
Sept 18, 2010 Comp. asked to be a delegate about the dog bylaw but was denied.
Sept 19, 2010 15 minutes
Oct 15, 2010 Comp. asked to be a delegate about barking dogs but was denied.
Oct 26, 2010 15 minutes
Oct 29, 2010 40 minutes 
Nov 1, 2010 Dog Control Attended Residence.  We received no records from RDCO, of Dog Control attending in August, September or October 2010?
Nov 12, 2010 Dog Control Unable to Attend Residence due to shortage of staff
dog control officer 1 not working that day and officer 2 worked 10 hrs
Nov 19, 2010 50 minutes 
Nov 20, 2010 13 minutes
Nov 25, 2010 12 minutes
Dec 4, 2010 Dog Control Attended Residence, and complainants residence too.
although two officers attended, only one was paid? officer 1 and 2
Dec 4, 2010 12 minutes
Dec 7, 2010 30 minutes (made a mistake on bark log and dog barked for 13 minutes not 30)
Dec 14, 2010 11 minutes
Jan 4, 2011 Dog Control Attended Residence
Jan 5, 2011 Dog Control said they have still not given out one fine??
Jan 14, 2011 Dog Control Attended Residence - Incident Report
Jan 18, 2011 Letter from RDCO saying they won't investigate any further complaints about this dog or other dogs that complainant complained about before.
Feb 18, 2011 Complainant went to dog owners house at 7:30am to complain about dog barking at 7:00am in the morning and the owner laughed in the complainants face.
Mar 28, 2011 Complainant watched RDCO drive by.
Apr 12, 2011 Complainant attended Dog Advisory Committee Meeting and was permitted to make a presentation.  A long 12 page letter and a DVD of the barking was submitted.
Apr 18, 2011 Dog Control Attended Residence and the dog owner was finally issued a fine today the dog control officer said on the phone.
April 26, 2011 12 minutes
May 27, 2011 Another dog control officer came out to speak to the noisy dog owners and the complainant and said that on April 18, 2011 the dog only received a fine for NO DOG LICENSE, and that RDCO cannot issue a fine because the complainant needs to see the dog barking On April 18, 2011 the complainant received a phone call from RDCO saying that RDCO issued a fine, but RDCO failed to mention that the fine was for a dog license and had nothing to do with barking.  Was RDCO trying to pull a fast one?  We think so.
May 28, 2011 The day after dog control talked to more than one noisy dog owner, the barking was worse than ever and all the dogs in the neighbourhood were barking out of hand most of the day.

NOT ONE FINE WAS ISSUED TO THIS DOG OWNER ABOUT THEIR DOG BARKING

April 18, 2011 after RDCO Dog Control Officer phoned and said RDCO issued a fine to this dog.  This dog barked for about 30 seconds, or a bark or two at each of these times below, except in one instance the dog barked for 3 minutes, all in less than one hour.

7:27pm
7:32pm
7:34pm
7:41pm almost 3 minutes
7:49pm
7:51pm
7:54pm
8:02pm
8:04pm
8:05pm
8:06pm
8:07pm
8:08pm
8:09pm

Do you think this is too much barking?  Would you call this animal cruelty?  Do you think this dog owner should be issued a huge fine?

Blue Divider Line

Audio of this dogs barking was submitted to the Regional District.

This dog barks at 6am, 7am, 8am in the mornings, and it doesn't matter if its a weekend or not.

This one dog barks at every car or person that goes by on the main road that runs in front of their house.  Usually it didn't bark for long periods of time but barked for 30 seconds each time which is also disturbing.  Sometimes it barked sporadic for longer than 5 minutes at a time when it was a bit windy.  Usually it couldn't keep quiet in any 15 minute period because it was left in its yard tied to a run from dusk till dawn 7 days per week.  This dog had the runs in their house a few times.  The owners were that well trained that they would get down on all 4's just like the dog and clean up the mess after they poured baking soda all over the stink and let it dry sticking to their floor.  I don't know about you, but I wouldn't let that stink dry on my floor in my house no matter how bad I didn't want to clean it up!  And why was the dog doing his thing in the house anyway?  Obviously the owner needs some training.

 

Date Time dog started barking in the
morning
Tues. Oct. 26, 2010 7:28am
Fri. Sep. 3, 2010 6:00am
Mon. Nov. 8, 2010 7:13am
Tues. Nov. 9, 2010 7:35am
Wed. Nov. 17, 2010 7:22am
Sat. Nov. 20, 2010 7:01am
Fri. Dec. 3, 2010 7:43am
Sat. Dec. 4, 2010 7:45am
Sun. Dec. 5, 2010 8:09am
Tues. Dec. 14, 2010 6:05am and caught in the act
Sat. Dec. 25, 2010 7:45am

This dog hasn't been barking as early since Feb 18, 2011 when the complainant drove over to the dog owners at about 7:30am to complain about the dog barking at 7:00am again, but the dog is still barking from about 9:00am till 11pm and usually while the noon news is on pretty much everyday, which isn't much better for the poor dog.  The dog is still barking at walkers and vehicles driving by on the road whenever its outside.  It doesn't matter what time it is, or how long the dog has been outside.  It's not like the owner wasn't asked before, why they let their dog out so early in the morning either.  It took a long time and many complaints for this dog to stop barking so early in the mornings. 

May 20, 2011 this dog is now barking at 8:30am at cars driving by.  Why should a dog be out barking at 8:30am.  Most people (at least the ones that have respect for other peoples sleep) don't usually start making phone calls until after 9am so why do people let their dogs bark so early.  People who live in subdivisions are not farmers who have to get up at the crack of dawn no matter if they live in a rural area on a 1/2 acre lot or not.

Blue Divider Line

JAN 5, 2011 AFTER THE COMPLAINANT ASKED RDCO ON THE PHONE, RDCO DOG CONTROL (officer L.G.) TELLS THE COMPLAINANT, THAT RDCO DOG CONTROL (officer L.G.) HAS NOT GIVEN OUT ONE NOISY DOG FINE TO THIS DOG OWNER.

Apparently the dog control officer attended the residence but the dog owner was not home.  The dog owners relative was there so the relative was handed only a warning ticket.  When the complainant talked to the dog control officer she said she will have to come back.  The complainant asked who would be receiving a ticket and her words were, "I don't know if I will be giving out any tickets."

Blue Divider Line

THIS IS THE ONLY TICKET THE BARKING DOG OWNER RECEIVED AFTER MANY COMPLAINTS ... A WARNING TICKET??

Regional District of Central Okanagan Dog Bylaw Violation Warning - Noisy dog $100 fine, and no dog license $100 fine.
click warning ticket for larger view

Blue Divider Line

This dog was caught without a license and was only charged $20.00 for a license and not fined.

$20.00 receipt for owner to buy a dog license after being caught without a license.
for larger view click the $20.00 receipt for a dog with no license

Blue Divider Line

The complainant asked RDCO through Freedom of Information what happened with the complaints made about the barking dog because RDCO did not follow up with the complainant.  Below is a run down of the reports that the complainant received from RDCO through Freedom of Information.

RDCO's INCIDENT REPORT DATE DOG CONTROL ATTENDED PRIORITY NUMBER WHAT HAPPENED
May 25, 2010 June 26, 2010 5 Dog Control (officer L.G.) attended residence and whoever answered the door told dog control they are house sitting.  Dog Control left a copy of the dog bylaw.  The owner was given a WARNING ticket showing a fine of $100 for a noisy dog, and $100.00 for no dog license but was not fined.
May 25, 2010 July 14, 2010 5 Dog Control (officer L.G.) tells the dog owner that dog control will drop a dog licence off when Dog Control is in the neighbourhood next time, and that the late fee will be waived.  Just important to get the dog licensed.  The dog owner was very happy.
May 25, 2010 July 28, 2010 5 Dog Control (officer L.G.) attends residence and sells a dog license to the dog owner for $20.00
Oct 22, 2010 Nov 1, 2010 5 Dog Control (officers LG/SF) sat at the corner for 10 minutes to listen and heard one dog bark in the distance.  Dog Control (officers LG/SF) drove by the dog owners yard and the dog barked twice.  Dog Control (officers LG/SF) canvassed the neighbourhood (3 addresses) to see if there was concensus in the neighbourhood about the barking dog.  The report says barking is not a problem and that people are concerned for the safety of their animals, and that all dogs are brought in at night.  The dog had broken his hip a year earlier and is not left outside for long periods of time, he is too old, has a difficult time with stairs, sleeps in at night. (Yeh right, the dog is left outside tied to its run from daybreak until bedtime, so that was a PLAIN OUTRIGHT LIE). Dog Control (officers LG/SF) attend residence and the dog owner says something needs to be done about the complainant and is becoming concerned about the neighbourhoods safety the report states.  Dog Control did not write a ticket but did tell the dog owner to abide by the bylaws.  Dog Control advised the dog owner that if a ticket was written the dog owner would then have 14 days to dispute.
Nov 9, 2010 Nov 12, 2010 5 Officer was unable to attend, due to shortage of staff.
Nov 9, 2010 Nov 17, 2010 5 Dog Control (officer L.G.) tells the complainant to be patient and that Dog Control would be in the neighbourhood Friday or Saturday and because of hostility in the neighbourhood, dog control needs two officers to attend.
This is all the information we have so far.  When more information is available we will post it here.

Blue Divider Line

These are four of RDCO's barking dog incident reports for just one dog.

 

RDCO Barking Dog Incident Report dated May 25, 2010
Barking dog in the Regional District of Central Okanagan - Response by Dog Control
click report for larger view

 

RDCO Barking Dog Incident Report dated Oct 22, 2010
RDCO Barking Dog Incident Report dated October 22, 2010
click report for larger view

 

RDCO Barking Dog Incident Report dated November 9, 2010
November 9, 2010 still no noisy dog ticket was issued?  The officer attended several times and taxpayers not noisy dog owners paid for it!
click report for larger view

 

RDCO Barking Dog Incident Report dated Jan 14, 2011
Dog Control Incident Report Jan 14, 2010
click report for larger view

 

Here is some proof that the complainant never submitted a water system petition to RDCO, as the dog incident report above states.  The fact is that the complainant never asked anyone to sign a water system petition.  The complainant did send everyone a water system survey asking them questions about what they may prefer about a water system.  The Regional District should know what the truth is about the statements made in the dog incident report dated Jan 12, 2011 above.
Proof that the complainant never asked residents to sign a water system petition.
click report for larger view
 

The truth is that this dog had previously been outside all day long, but it is not so much outside lately since the complainant started walking the subdivision and showing up outside their yard at 7am to complain to them again and ask them why they let their dog outside at 7am in the morning to bark.  Now that the weather 2011 is getting warmer the complainant hears more barking again.

April 18, 2011 NO DOG LICENSE FINE $100

click the ticket to see a larger view of the "NO DOG LICENSE" fine

 

WHO IS PAYING FOR DOG CONTROL TO ATTEND TO A NOISY DOG, THE DELINQUENT DOG OWNER OR TAXPAYERS?

IT SURE AIN'T THE NOISY DOG OWNER IS IT?

Blue Divider Line

HOW TO STOP THE BARKING

If the barking occurs in the presence of "intruders," which may include the mail carrier, children walking to school and other dogs or neighbors in adjacent yards this is a good read.

Blue Divider Line

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

SHOULD THE COMPLAINANT TAKE THE DOG OWNER TO SMALL CLAIMS COURT FOR FAILING TO CONTROL THEIR DOGS BARKING?

SHOULD THE COMPLAINANT TAKE RDCO TO SMALL CLAIMS COURT FOR FAILING TO CONTROL DOGS?

FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW WITH ANY COMMENT

FYI:  okanaganlakebc.ca thinks RDCO should be taken to BC Small Claims Court along with the Dog Owner!  There should be some compensation for disruption of ones life over noise  Also a judge should require the dog take their owner in for some training.

NO WONDER TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING SO MUCH FOR DOG CONTROL!
DELINQUENT DOG OWNERS PAY NOTHING!

 

Here is another WARNING TICKET for a DIFFERENT NOISY DOG.
Noisy dog WARNING TICKET in the Regional District of Central Okanagan (RDCO)
click warning ticket for larger view

 

Ticket Information and Utilization Amendment Bylaw No. 1266, 2009 - Amends Bylaw No. 435
Click image to read larger print.

Blue Divider Line

okanaganlakebc.ca SOLUTIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
As we come up with solutions we will post them here.

  • After the first warning for whatever the offence, a fine should be automatic because the dog was probably in violation for a while before RDCO were called.

  • 5 minutes of barking in a 15 minute period twice in a 72 hour period is too long for a dog to be barking, Langley BC only permits 3 minutes of barking, and 2 minutes is plenty long enough to have time to attend to your barking dog.  How about changing the dog bylaw to say 3 minutes of barking in a 15 minute period and twice in 72 hours is a violation.

  • If the dog bylaw states that dog waste has to be picked up immediately upon a dog leaving a deposit, nobody can say they picked up the dog waste later.

  • If there is such a huge problem about people picking up their pets waste in a busy park, charge a fee to dog owners that enter the park with a dog, and hire a kid to keep the park clean... say 2 or 3 or 4 times a day the kid goes around and picks up dog waste.  Bylaw enforcement could check every so often to see if dog owners bought a dog waste ticket, like people buy parking tickets or skytrain tickets from a ticket dispenser.  When people enter the park, the dog waste ticket dispenser is at the entrance to the park.  RDCO could charge $.25 per walk or thereabouts, which is $7.50 per month to walk your dog once per day for 30 days.  RDCO could post a sign threatening the charge first, to see if that made people think .. do they want to pick up their dogs waste, or do they want to pay.  Depending on the dog waste still remaining after the sign went up, would be the solution for that park and the people that use that park.  Do that for each park, because maybe not all the parks will be the same.  It may depend on the type of surrounding neighborhood that would use the park.  A dog waste bag could be dispensed at the same time as the dog owner buys a ticket to induce dog owners to pick up their own waste so maybe the kid wouldn't have such a big job.  Some people would probably choose to pay a kid to pick up the waste than do it them self.  Do parks staff pick up litter, or are there waste bins for people to use?  How about dog waste bins in the park?  Parks staff could empty the dog waste bins.

  • There should be a section in the dog bylaw that states dogs are not permitted to bark at every vehicle that drives by on the road in front of their owners property.

  • There should be a section in the dog bylaw that states dogs are not permitted to bark  at every person that walks by on the road in front of their owners property.

  • The dog bylaw should say that dogs cannot be kept on a clothesline run for longer than 3 hours in a 24 hour period.  At one time, RDCO's previous dog bylaw said a dog couldn't be tied up for longer than 3 hours, but then that section was removed.

  • Use a stencil and bright yellow spray paint to paint a pick up dog waste sign where pavement is available and in strategic places where waste is usually left stating that leaving dog waste is illegal and its a fine of $250 or more.  $500 is a lot of money for a senior for instance, so not sure the fine should be that high as discussed by the Dog Advisory Committee at the April 12, 2011 meeting?  The fine has to be affordable for all, or the money will be hard to collect if the dog owner doesn't have that kind of money.  Time should be given to dog owners to pay large fines in increments.

  • If dog bylaw enforcement officers don't believe they can issue a fine, why are they giving out a warning then?  That is like saying the dog owner is not guilty, but giving them a warning anyway.

  • Maybe RDCO could look at having a lawyer draw up guidelines to be posted on RDCO's website, that describe what proof someone would need to provide to RDCO to be able to issue a fine??  Audio, video, picture, the persons word, or what.  Right now there are no guidelines on RDCO's website.

  • If revenue needs to be raised, why not make delinquent dog owners pay for the real cost of the service they receive?  A first impoundment fee of $25.00 could not possibly cover the real cost.

  • Instead of RDCO paying double time to dog control officers for overtime, how about RDCO hire some part-time help?

  • RDCO Dog Control Officers should be working dayshift and nightshift.  Dayshift starts at 5:00am or 6:00am and night shift starts at 2:30pm or 3:00pm, or something to that effect.  This would permit dog control officers to attend when most dog complaints occur.. like before people go to work and after people get off work.

  • Here is an interesting concept of how to deal with dog owners who do not comply from Los Angeles California http://www.ci.la.ca.us/ani/serv_barkingdog.htm

  • Unlike Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville has a specific law against barking and howling dogs, according to Lisa Miller in the City Attorney's office. A conviction can result in a fine of up to $250, and three convictions in one year can result in a court order to remove the dog.
    http://www.readthehook.com/81804/tough-customer-barking-dogs-there-ought-be-law

  • http://www.obediencedoggytraining.com/stop-siberian-husky-barking/

  • Maybe RDCO's dog bylaw should state that a dog may only bark so many times in a 24 hour period?

  • For stubborn dog owners, if RDCO Dog Control has had to visit due to a violation more than two or three times, the fine should increment each time to a higher fee so that the dog owner does not waste RDCO Dog Control's limited resources as explained in RDCO Chief Administrative Officers letter dated Jan 18, 2011.

  • If RDCO has to continually attend to a barking dog, then the dog officer should have some training to be able to take time out to teach the dog owner how to control barking or order the owner to sign up for training.

  • In barking dog cases, very often, there is disagreement between the parties involved as to whether or not the offending canine is, in fact, barking, with the neighbor saying that he is and the dog owner saying that he is not. For that reason, every jurisdiction should have in place a network of readily available Noise Monitors, who can quickly come out to establish with certainty the dimensions of any barking infractions (or other noise problems) that are reported to the authorities.
     

  • 6) Keep a radio on near your house at night if you are having predator problems. No wild predator will come near human voices.

 

One hour bark log April 14, 2011

 9:17am
 9:27am
 9:35am
 9:47am
 9:53am
10:02am
10:09am

This dog only barked a couple of barks each of these 7 occurrences, which the dog bylaw does not address.  Whenever the dog is outside it will bark often.  How often is too often?

If the dog is barking at everything that passes by your yard, there is something that can be done, but the owner will have to want to do something.

Ceasar Milan the "Dog Whisperer" says, "Stake your claim! Is your dog barking over and over again at the same object, person, situation, or place? Then you need to step up and claim that stimulus as your own. Use your body, your mind, and your calm-assertive energy to create an invisible wall that your dog is not allowed to cross. Do it with 100% dedication and focus, and the results may surprise you."

Blue Divider Line

MOST OF ALL, IT SHOULDN'T BE SO DIFFICULT FOR SOMEONE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT A BARKING DOG!

IT IS NO WONDER THERE ARE SO MANY BARKING COMPLAINTS!

417 Barking dog complaints in 2010

WONDER HOW MANY OF RDCO's BARKING COMPLAINTS ARE REPEAT OFFENDERS???

254 fines issued in 2010
401 fines issued in 2009
401 fines issued in 2008
338 fines issued in 2007

Here are the statistics

Blue Divider Line

The Typical Process and Sequence of Events

If you're thinking about pressing your recalcitrant neighbor to take responsibility for his dog, you need to know going in that there is a characteristic way in which those events almost always play-out.

You are likely to find that 95% of the time when you approach the owner of a chronically barking dog to negotiate the abatement of a barking problem, your first visit simply does not produce results. They do not quiet the animal, and the barking continues. You can explain the hardship you're suffering, ask the owner nicely to take responsibility for the animal, and provide him with all the information he needs to get the job done. However, regardless of what he may or may not say in that first meeting, 95% of the time, the barking will continue on as before.

So your first polite visit with the neighbor usually will not produce results. I'm sorry to say that if you are dealing with a hardcore specimen, neither will your second, or your third or your fourth or your fifth, because friendly, cooperative behavior is simply not in the nature of malicious and recalcitrant people.

Once it becomes apparent that you are dealing with that kind of person, then unless you have an effective, enforceable anti-barking law in place in your town, you have only two choices: Either you stop calling on the dog owner and accept the abuse, or you begin the process of wearing him down. If you decide to pursue the second option, you will be moving onto treacherous ground, and successfully negotiating that terrain will require some serious self-discipline and careful, strategic planning, if undesirable consequences are to be avoided.

Here's the first pitfall that you need to watch out for. If you repeatedly approach a malicious or recalcitrant dog owner, to ask him to take responsibility for his dog, you can absolutely count on him portraying you as the bad guy and himself as your innocent victim; that is something that, from his perspective, he must do.

That's because, almost always, when you encounter an intractably obstinate person keeping a chronically barking dog, you are dealing with a diagnosable personality disorder, (usually a Borderline, or a Narcissistic, or a Paranoid, or an Anti-Social Personality Disorder) who is incapable of participating in mutually respectful relationships.

To the perception of such a person, everyone they encounter is either their superior or their inferior, which is very much the same phenomenon we find in the way dogs view themselves. However, unlike dogs who can be perfectly happy living their lives in the inferior position, predatory personality disorders can only feel worthwhile if they view themselves as dominant. To really grasp what those people are about, you have to understand that their joy in life comes not from joining with those around them in harmonious cooperation, but from conquering their acquaintances in conflict.

If indeed you are dealing with one of the predatory personality disorders then, more likely than not, your neighbor's decision to fill your home with the sound of his barking dog was an expression of his dominant one up-manship to begin with. So when you show up asking him to quiet the animal, he is going to view your request as an attempt to unseat him and assume the throne of dominance yourself. That means that, while for you the whole thing is about whether or not you are going to have a quiet place to live, from his point of view it is all part of a contest that will determine who is to be triumphant and who is to be humiliated.

To the perception of a person like that, the act of quieting his dog would amount to surrendering his control of your home to you, which is something they simply will not do because, to their perception, unless you dominate, you automatically move into the role of an inferior.

Therefore, with his perceived social position and sense of self-worth on the line, there is no possibility that such an owner will quickly and cheerfully comply with your request that he quiet his dog. Given the nature of his personality, he can't comply, and that leaves him with a serious problem, which is that he can't defend not complying.

Imagine that someone says to the recalcitrant dog owner: "I hear you're having trouble with your neighbor. What's that all about?"

If the owner comes out and describes what is really happening, he's going to have to say, "I keep an untrained dog a few yards from my neighbor's house and the constant barking has devastated the quality of his life and is causing him and his family to suffer terribly. He wants me to take responsibility for the animal and, thereby, bring their suffering to an end. But I refuse, and that's why we're feuding." He can't just come out and tell the truth like that, because it would leave him looking like the despicable bully that he is.

Therefore, at least to his way of thinking, the dog owner can't comply with your request that he quiet his dog, and he can't defend not complying. So always, such people respond to that situation by manufacturing a new scenario, one in which you are victimizing them, and they are merely standing up to your tyranny. You can count on the pathological dog owner trying to put that spin on things as he attempts to convince all concerned that the true essence of the problem is that you are an evil person who is out to get him. And if you're not very careful, he will succeed in that effort.

Here's the nature of your vulnerability: By repeatedly calling on your neighbor to discuss the problem he has created, you set yourself up to be portrayed as a villain, and you can see how it might appear that way to many outside observers. After all, people who don't know that the "anti-barking" laws are unenforceable are going to wonder why you continually raise the issue with the neighbor instead of just having the authorities handle it. And those who don't know that dogs can be easily bark trained or otherwise silenced are going to believe that by demanding that your neighbor quiet his dog, you are insisting that he accomplish the impossible. Then you also have to factor in all the people who honestly believe that a person has an inviolate right to keep a barking dog, even in a residential neighborhood. Not to mention all those fortunate souls who succeed in going through life oblivious to everything around them, who are not bothered by any type of noise and find it impossible to believe that anyone else would be vexed by it either. Those people will certainly view your behavior as totally outrageous.

So you see, with all of that already going against you, it's not hard for the intractable owner to convince all concerned that he is your victim, and that the only reason you keep raising the issue of the dog is because you are a belligerent person who is out on a vendetta, for reasons that supposedly have nothing to do with the fact that he placed a screaming animal a few yards from where your family is trying to carry on the essential activities of daily life.

That's the dilemma. If you turn to the authorities nothing will happen, and if all you do is make a polite request or two of the dog owner then, likewise, the noise will just roll on unabated. On the other hand, if you go back repeatedly to address the issue with the owner, you will be vilified as a combative aggressor who is out looking for trouble. It's a tough situation for sure, but there is a narrow crevice between the rock and the hard place, from which you may be able to find enough purchase to take effective action.

One thing you can do is to get the dog owner's telephone number in your first meeting and then, after that, as much as possible, deal with him over the telephone. Sometimes the situation is such that you just have to go over to visit with the neighbor in person, but to the extent possible, handle it over the phone. That will reduce the chances that the dog owner will do you harm and also makes it more difficult for him to portray you as being threateningly aggressive.

Something else you might want to try at that point is to offer to purchase an electronic collar for the dog owner. I can tell you from bitter experience that it is immeasurably easier to just cough up the money than it is to engage in a protracted struggle with a truly obstinate owner. If he will agree to accept the collar and place it on the dog, count yourself lucky -- very lucky.

If he refuses your offer, which is what most do, at that point you will in all probability be down to two choices, each of them even worse than the other. At that point you either have to accept the never-ending stress of the status quo, or you have to begin the process of making repeated contact with the dog owner.

---------------------------------

Making Arrangements with Malicious and Recalcitrant Dog Owners

A truly pathological dog owner will almost always adopt a strategy of attempting to provoke you into behaving like the belligerent aggressor he wants everybody to believe you are. He will belittle you, insult you, and do everything he can think of to upset, incite, and draw you into an ugly battle of personalities in which you alternately lash-out at one another in angry conflict. That's what he wants

click here to keep reading

-----------------------------------

Total Nut Jobs

People who keep barking dogs tend to be disturbed -- sometimes deeply disturbed. When you begin pushing the buttons of that kind of person, you never know what will happen.

A 21-year-old Houston man was arrested for taking seven people hostage and torturing them with red-hot forks, electrical cords and scalding grease in a dispute over his dogs. In Marin County, just down the road from me, a man was arrested after he attempted to hire a neighborhood teenager to burn down the home of one of the people who complained about his dog. I had similar neighbors in the county of Sonoma. They responded to telephone complaints about their dogs by immediately stepping outside and letting loose a burst of gunfire.

Nut jobs. There are a lot of 'em out there. People who abuse animals are very strongly inclined toward violent behavior, and folks get killed in disputes over dogs every day. Those are good things to keep in mind as you approach the owner of a barking dog.

Having seen my share of canine-owning nut jobs, I can tell you there are a few key phrases you need to listen for. In my experience, if any of the following occur it likely means that you are dealing with a seriously disturbed person:


the owner denies that the dog is barking and insists that it must be your imagination or some other dog you are hearing.

they admit the dog is barking but say that it doesn't really bother you -- that you only pretend it bothers you because you are out to get them.

they insist that barking doesn't bother normal people and it only bothers you because you are somehow flawed or defective.

they tell you they know you are working in concert with others or that they know you are trying to turn others against them. (This perception, by the way, is greatly exacerbated by the Multiple Household laws that mandate that the victim must call on the other neighbors and recruit them to join in the legal action.)

they receive complaints about their vicious dog behaving in a menacing fashion and respond by insisting that the dog "just wants to play" or "just wants some loving," or otherwise refuse to acknowledge the dog's threatening behavior.
Requesting a Police Escort

In the vast majority of jurisdictions, the police do not handle animal control complaints, so they will not go out to speak to your neighbor about his barking dog. You are still entitled to police protection, however. So if you feel threatened by the owner of a barking dog, you can ask the police to accompany you to ensure your safety when you call on the neighbor with your latest request that he quiet his dog. Taking the police with you may be an especially good idea when you suspect heavy alcohol or methamphetamine use.

For whatever reason, many people are extremely uneasy with the prospect of the police showing up unannounced at their doorstep. Even if the officer is just there to keep you company while you ask them to take responsibility for their dog, or make arrangements with them so you can once again use the inside of your home, it doesn't matter. There are some people who don't want cops around under any circumstance, and they will gladly train their dogs rather than face the prospect of future police visits.

click here to keep reading

Blue Divider Line

2 Steps to Avoid

1. Don't shoot the dog.

I'm serious. There was such a case. Do not get to the point that you poison or harm the dog or the owner or the owner's home.

Yes, you know better but lack of sleep can distort your thinking. Your reputation, credit rating and bank accounts may be seriously damaged if you react violently - no matter how provoked.

2. Don't confront the owner.

Sometimes people recommend that you tape the dog and play it over and over on a loud speaker. Or, they recommend calling the dog's owner at 2 a.m. when the dog is barking. This can prove embarrassing if your neighbor has caller id.

These things probably worked in the non-litigious past, but they are apt to get you into trouble today. You can be sued or you can be reported as a stalker for too often or too vigorously contacting the dog's owner.

Some nutty dog owners will try to provoke you so you look like the trouble maker to authorities. Do not play into their hands.

Keep your contact with the dog owner to a minimum. You should rely on written contact and the authorities and avoid situations where it is just you and the dog's owner.

Unfortunately, there are many violent people in the world and you don't want to get in their line of fire.

Good luck.

Blue Divider Line

My neighbor is videotaping my yard

Is it legal for my neighbors to videotape our backyard without our knowledge? Apparently our puppy was keeping them awake which we were unaware of and instead of coming to us to let us know they decided to videotape our yard and our dog. My 4 daughters swim in our pool in the same area he was videotaping and I am very uncomfortable to take them out there now. My husband confronted our neighbor after we caught him videotaping our yard and that is when we were told that our dog was bothering them and they stated they are "trying to make a case against us" We absolutely do not want our dog to disturb anyone but we were not aware it was an issue until the videotaping.

Paramedic

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry I don't have the answer to your question but I just can't let this go without a reply.

My neighbour has insanely barking dogs. They are always out between 5 and 7am. In my city there is a by-law that prohibits that kind of noise between 11PM and 7AM. I DID tell her, she didn’t care. She says 'dog are going to bark'. To make a long story short, I've complained to our property management company, the police and the city. They have all warned her, but it continues.

The police recommended that I keep a log of the barking. I went one step further and started a video log. I don't care if it may be considered legal or not. She's breaking the law, I've reported it, nothing is being done so I am building a case.

In your case, I think you are completely insane. Your neighbour shouldn't have to tell you that your dogs are causing a nuisance. You are an adult (apparently)... you and ONLY you are responsible for your animals. But here's a tip...If your dogs are barking, they are disturbing someone. PERIOD. Dogs don't just bark for no reason at all. Do a little research on barking dogs and you will find ALL the reasons for the behaviour.

I especially resent that you are now so concerned for your 4 daughters swimming. What a cop out. That's just bs. That's you, deflecting from the real problem here. Your children aren't doing anything differently when they are on video, as opposed to when they are not. Your neighbour is not a pedophile because he's got inconsiderate neighbours. You brought this upon yourself.

Stop being childish...stop your dogs from barking, apologize to the neighbour and in a short time, he will take his camera down... that is, if you can control your dogs.

I don't want to spend ANY time videotapping my neighbour, it's a PAIN in the ASS. I do it because I am forced to.

Atomicben

Blue Divider Line

These are only snippetts of a court case involving a Dog Kennel

[28] The validity of a municipal bylaw may be challenged on several grounds, including vagueness or uncertainty, overbreadth, bias, bad faith, and discrimination.

[39] In R v. Bell, 1979 CanLII 36 (S.C.C.), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 212, at 222, 98 D.L.R. (3d) 255, the Supreme Court of Canada, citing the English case of Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q.B. 91, clarified that a municipal by-law may be declared invalid due to unreasonableness:

[40] The declaration set out in Bell has given rise to a number of cases where bylaws have been held invalid due to the behaviour of those enacting the legislation. This principle has been variously referred to in the case law as bias, bad faith, conflict of interest and discrimination, and has given rise to several legal tests. Those that are most relevant to the case at bar are bias, bad faith and discrimination.

[60] All parties here have to take a step back, analyze this uncomfortable neighbourhood situation and deal with it rationally. Each party must realize that some neighbours have the right to operate a kennel, while other neighbours have the right to expect peace and quiet in their neighbourhood.

[61] As a result of these Reasons, the defendants must not operate their kennel in the one building which encroaches on the 15 metre setback requirement of the Zoning Bylaw and they must move the dog runs so that they are located no less than 15 metres from the property line. I grant them seven days from the date of these Reasons to bring the building in question into conformity with the Zoning Bylaw and I grant them three months from the date of these Reasons to bring the dog runs into conformity with the Zoning Bylaw.

[62] Although not part of the court order, I offer some suggestions for the various parties residing in this neighbourhood.

[63] The defendants must know that the plaintiffs could easily bring a similar action with better evidence as to noise disturbance. Some reasonable additional measures should be taken by the defendants to avoid this possibility. Firstly, the defendants should commit to maintaining the dogs in kennel buildings from the hours of 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM.

[64] Additionally, the kennel structures should be enhanced to prevent sound emanating from them. This is clearly possible to do. Such limited restrictions would allow the neighbours a reasonable period of quiet time to use and enjoy their properties. Additionally, further steps should be taken by the defendants to monitor the dogs while they are outside in the dog runs. It is simply not acceptable to let dogs bark with only limited verbal commands being given for them to be quiet.

[65] Finally, the defendants should remove or refocus the yard lights so that they do not purposely shine into the properties of their neighbours. This is a hostile action directed at the neighbours which does not in any way enhance friendly neighbourhood relations. I would also suggest that the plaintiff use the services of Ms. Barbara Rice, the animal control officer, to make further recommendations to the defendant to assist him in reducing noise generated by his dogs in his kennel operations.

[66] The defendants must know that although these Reasons can be viewed as a victory for them, this is clearly not the end of the matter. If the recommendations set out in these Reasons are not adopted, the defendants very likely face further litigation in the near future.

http://www.canlii.org/

Blue Divider Line

These are only snippetts of a court case involving a dog kennel.

[57] In respect to the charges in Informations 2 and 3, I find that the Crown has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the barking heard by the complainant came from the defendant’s property. The RM police officers who attended to investigate on the dates referred to in these informations heard no barking. There was evidence presented that there were several dogs owned by other residents in the area. The evidence of the complainant was that he heard dogs barking which he assumed were located on the defendant’s property but that he did not specifically see the dogs or confirm that they were located on the defendant’s property.

(c) Was the barking unreasonably loud or excessive?

[58] Sections 4(2) and 4(3) of the noise bylaw deal specifically with this issue and provide as follows:

4. ...

(2) For the purpose of this Bylaw, a noise will be considered to be unreasonably loud or excessive if it unreasonably disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity in the vicinity.

(3) Factors for determining whether a sound is unreasonably loud or excessive include, but are not limited to, the following:

a) the proximity of the sound to sleeping facilities, whether residential or commercial;

b) the land use, nature and zoning of the area from which the sound emanates and the area where it is received or perceived;

c) the time of day or night the sound occurs;

d) the duration of the sound;

e) the volume of the sound;

f) the nature of the sound;

g) whether the sound is recurrent, intermittent or constant; and the nature of the event or activity from which the sound emanates.

Source: http://www.canlii.org/

Blue Divider Line

From Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development copied word for word on October 16, 2011

Municipal Ticketing

The Municipal Ticket Information (MTI or municipal ticketing) was introduced in 1989 to simplify the prosecution of minor local government bylaw matters.

In its design, the MTI system resembles a Provincial Violation Ticket, which allows an enforcement officer to certify the allegation and deliver the ticket to the alleged offender without first visiting a Provincial Court justice to swear the Information and obtain a Summons, and the alleged offender to admit the offence and pay the penalty without appearing in court.

Note that although this form of prosecution is referred to as “municipal” ticketing, under the Local Government Act and Islands Trust Act, the provisions of the Community Charter that authorize municipal ticketing also apply to regional districts and local trust committees of the Islands Trust. While the provisions are not identical, the City of Vancouver is also authorized to use a form of municipal ticketing provided in Part XXII of the Vancouver Charter.

In order to make use of municipal ticketing, a local government must first adopt a bylaw that lays out the key elements of how ticketing will work in that jurisdiction. This is usually done in a comprehensive bylaw that identifies:
•which offences are subject to municipal ticketing;
•who can issue the municipal ticket for each offence; and
•what penalties may be imposed for each offence.

The Community Charter Bylaw Enforcement Ticket Regulation provides some limitations on the authority to designate offences that are subject to ticketing, the classes of individuals who may issue tickets, and the maximum penalties that may be imposed by a ticket.

Under the regulation, municipalities may not enforce bylaws establishing motor vehicle speed limits or regulating the discharge of firearms through the MTI process. In the case of speed limits, police may issue a provincial Violation Ticket, which ensures that penalty points associated with this infraction are applied. In the case of the discharge of firearms, prosecution under the Offence Act ensures that the alleged offender must appear before a judge in order to resolve the charge.

A municipal council may allow one or several classes of persons, such as police officers, bylaw enforcement officers, local assistants to the Fire Commissioner, to issue tickets for any given offence. In this way, individuals with specialized knowledge of the bylaw at question may be authorized to apply that knowledge in the investigation and laying of a ticket.

The penalty established for any contravention may not exceed $1,000, which is the maximum penalty permitted under the Community Charter Bylaw Enforcement Ticket Regulation. This penalty is the “face value” of the ticket, the amount that must be paid to avoid an appearance in court or a deemed conviction. If the ticket is disputed, the justice hearing the case may impose a lesser fine if there are mitigating circumstances.

The formats for municipal tickets are prescribed. For a general ticket, Form A (PDF, 26KB)provides the face of all copies of the ticket, Form A.1 provides the back of the copy that the local government will provide to the court, and Form A.2 provides the back of the alleged offender’s copy. For a motor vehicle-related ticket, Form B (PDF, 126KB) provides the face of all copies of the ticket, Form B.1 provides the back of the copy that the local government will provide to the court, and Form B.2 provides the back of the alleged offender’s copy. Forms B.3 and B.4 provide both sides of the demand notice that may be left on the windshield of a vehicle and later completed with the details of the registered owner of the vehicle.

Upon being served with a ticket, which may be personally delivered or left at the person’s residence with someone who appears to be at least sixteen years of age, a person has 14 days in which to pay the fine amount specified on the ticket, and accept liability for the offence, or notify the local government that the person wishes to dispute the ticket. Instructions for how to provide this notice must be printed on the ticket (Form A.2 or B.2). The local government may establish an incentive for early payment by specifying one fine amount if the ticket fine is paid within 30 days, and another fine amount if the ticket fine is paid after.

Disputed municipal tickets are referred to the Provincial Court for hearing by the local government. Upon referral, the clerk of the court issues a notice of a hearing, setting the time and place for the hearing and notifies both the local government and the disputant. As the penalties associated with an MTI do not place the alleged offender in jeopardy of imprisonment and the fine amounts are relatively small, the presiding justice has some flexibility to hear a wider range of relevant, credible and trustworthy testimony as evidence and to adopt procedures that speed the fair conclusion of the hearing.

If a person has indicated that he or she wishes to dispute the allegation but fails to attend the hearing, the justice must review the ticket and convict the person in his or her absence and impose the penalty if the ticket appears to be in order. A person so convicted, who was not at fault for missing the hearing, may apply to the court for a time extension under limited circumstances. This appearance may be in writing, based on an Affidavit (Form C ) (PDF, 23KB) submitted attesting to the reasons for failing to respond or appear.

If a person fails to respond to the ticket at all, neither paying the fine nor notifying the local government that he or she want to dispute the charge, the local government may submit the ticket to the court for consideration of a justice. As when a person fails to appear for a hearing, the justice must review the ticket and convict the person in his or her absence and impose the penalty if the ticket appears to be in order.

Blue Divider Line

If you want to complain about a dog in the Regional District of Central Okanagan, you may as well consider yourself the dog control officer!

Blue Divider Line

Comment Form

If you fill out this form, your comments will be posted here on this website.

NAME

You can remain anonymous if you like!
None of the options are mandatory except your community.

PHONE

EMAIL ADDRESS

disguise your email address like this for spam protection
name "at" hotmail.com

COMMUNITY
  *required

OTHER COMMUNITY NOT LISTED
 

COMMENTS

 

 

Blue Divider Line

READ PEOPLES COMMENTS ABOUT RDCO DOG CONTROL COMPLAINTS

Blue Divider Line

CONTACT RDCO

.pdf icon RDCO Development Services Director Dan Plamondon is responsible for the following:
Inspection Section
Responsibility Areas
Business Licenses
Building Inspection & Permits
Paid On-call Fire Departments
Regional Rescue
Dog Control
Noise Bylaw
Smoke Control Bylaw
Untidy Premises
Insect & Weed Control
Sign Bylaw
General Bylaw Enforcement

.pdf icon 2011 List of RDCO Committee Appointments

.pdf icon Regional District of Central Okanagan Organization and Responsibilities

Blue Divider Line

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DOG TO BE A WATCHDOG

The current animal control system - how and why it is failing

Noise-related information provided by the World Health Organization

Explanation of why some people are traumatized by noise while others are not

Proving your case in court

UBC Law Students Legal Advice Manual

BC's Trespass Act - Why are dogs not trespassing on my land if their bark comes over my fence?

From Click Law - Neighbour Law
Many of us have had occasional problems with neighbours involving noise, untidy premises, dogs, fences, trees and hedges, secondhand smoke, water damage, or trespass. This script describes the laws that deal with these types of problems and what you can do.

On CanLII website - Court cases about Barking Dogs

Blue Divider Line

You see dogs barking constantly isn't really a dog problem! It's a people problem. Dog owners are irresponsible and will not discipline their dogs to deal with the barking. The knowledge is available to help people learn to train the dogs to control the dog noise. The will is what is lacking.

And it is very difficult for you to stop your neighbors dog from barking without trespassing or offending your neighbors. So this is really a problem of society.  How do people live together in peace and harmony?

NO NEED TO GET EVEN, JUST TAKEM TO BC SMALL CLAIMS COURT (DO IT YOURSELF COURT)!

That is what the complainant will be doing in this case due to all the complainant has been through, especially since a fine was never given out.

Blue Divider Line

Make a Comment

RDCO Barking Dog Bylaw | DOUBLE TIME PAYDog Bylaws in Various Cities | Concerns about RDCO's Dog Bylaw | RDCO Dog Control Comments | RDCO Dog Control Complaint | RDCO Staff Collective Agreement 2007 - 2010 | RDCO Dog Control Statistics | Barking Dog Solutions | RDCO Sold 9 Dog Licenses to 1 Property | Dog Control DID NOT ISSUE A FINE | Dog Training Tips | RDCO Dog Control Minutes | RDCO Dog Control Minutes prior to 2012 | RDCO Dog Advisory Committee Minutes | Unwarranted ticket | BC Dog Legislation | Bark Log | Actual Costs | Dog Consultant Costs 2012 -2013 | Bark Log of 2 Farm Dogs | Denied Delegation Requests | Dog Bylaw Officer Appointments | Another Barking Dog Complaint

Read others Comments

RDCO Barking Dog Bylaw | DOUBLE TIME PAYDog Bylaws in Various Cities | Concerns about RDCO's Dog Bylaw | RDCO Dog Control Comments | RDCO Dog Control Complaint | RDCO Staff Collective Agreement 2007 - 2010 | RDCO Dog Control Statistics | Barking Dog Solutions | RDCO Sold 9 Dog Licenses to 1 Property | Dog Control DID NOT ISSUE A FINE | Dog Training Tips | RDCO Dog Control Minutes | RDCO Dog Control Minutes prior to 2012 | RDCO Dog Advisory Committee Minutes | Unwarranted ticket | BC Dog Legislation | Bark Log | Actual Costs | Dog Consultant Costs 2012 - 2013 | Bark Log of 2 Farm Dogs | Denied Delegation Requests | Dog Bylaw Officer Appointments | Another Barking Dog Complaint

Blue Divider Line

Gossip for All
Make a Comment

INDEX ALL ] Air Quality ] Agriculture ] Barking Bylaw ] BC Election 09 ] BC Gov ] BC Human Rights ] BC Hydro ] BC Laws ] BC Native Land Claim ] BC Rivers ] Boating ] Building Inspection ] Building Laws ] Building Laws RDCO ] Bullying ] Bylaw Enforcement ] Canada Post ] Canadian Gov. ] Carbon Tax ] Democracy ] Denied Delegates ] Dictatorship ] [ Dog Complaints ] Drugs ] EDC ] Food ] Garbage Law ] Gas Prices ] Global Warming ] Gov. Spending ] Great Ideas ] Health Care ] Homelessness ] ICBC ] Inland Port ] Legal System ] Library ] Missing Pets ] New Government ] Petition to Parl. ] Planning ] RDCO Agreement ] RDCO Policy ] RDCO Policy Manual ] RDCO Spending ] Road Rage ] Robin Hood ] School Tax ] Security ] Smoking ] Sewer ] Suicide ] Tasers ] Telus Cell ] Telus TV ] Telus Wireless ] Tourism ] Tussock Moth ] Wage Inequality ] Water Board ] Western Budworm ] Westside T. Station ] WFN ] Wind Power ] Wrong ]

Blue Divider Line

Gossip for All
Read others Comments

Air Quality ] Agriculture ] Barking Bylaw ] BC Election 09 ] BC Gov. ] BC Human Rights ] BC Hydro ] BC Laws ] BC Native Land Claim ] BC Rivers ] Boating ] Building Inspection ] Buidling Laws ] Building Laws RDCO ] Bullying ] Bylaw Enforcement ] Canada Post ] Canadian Gov. ] Carbon Tax ] Democracy ] Denied Delegates ] Dictatorship ] [ Dog Complaints ] Drugs ] EDC ] Food ] Garbage Laws ] Gas Prices ] Global Warming ] Gov. Spending ] Great Ideas ] Health Care ] Homelessness ] ICBC ] Inland Port ] Legal System ] Missing Pets ] New Government ] Petition to Parl. ] Planning Minutes ] RDCO Agreement ] RDCO Policy ] RDCO Policy Manual ] Road Rage ] RDCO Spending ] Robin Hood ] School Tax ] Secure Prosperity ] Sewer ] Smoking ] Suicide ] Tasers ] Telus Cell ] Telus TV ] Telus Wireless ] Tourism ] Tussock Moth ] Wage Inequality ] Water Board ] Western Budworm ] Westside T. Station ] WFN ] Wind Power ] Wrong ]

Blue Divider Line

Gossip
In Other Towns

INDEX ALL ] Boucherie Rd ] Kaleden ] Kelowna ] Naramata ] Oyama ] Peachland ] Penticton ] Summerland ] Vernon ] West Kelowna ] Westside Road ] Winfield ]

Blue Divider Line

Index

Boucherie Road ] Kaleden ] Kelowna ] Naramata ] Oyama ] Peachland ] Pentiction ] Summerland ] Vernon ] West Kelowna ] Westside Road ] Winfield ]

Blue Divider Line

Westside Road Gossip
Make a Comment

INDEX WR ] INDEX ALL ] Advis. Plan Comm ] Alt Approval ] Ambulance ] Argo Road Maint. ] BC Hydro ] Budget 2010 ] Budget 2011 ] Budget 2012 ] Budget 2013 ] Budget 2014 ] Budget 2015 ] Building Inspect ] Build Laws - BC ] Build Laws - RDCO ] Building Violations ] Bylaw Anon ] COW Elect. 08 ] COW Elect. 11 ] Director Edgson ] Dogs ] Easement Rds ] EDC ] Elect. Boundary ] Environ. Advisory ] ESS ] Finances ] Fintry Develop ] Fintry Park ] Fire Anon ] Fire Boat ] Fire Bylaws ] Fire Dept. ] Fire Dept FOI ] Fire Hydrants ] Fire Minutes ] Fires  House ] FOI Act ] Friends Fintry ] Garbage ] Garbage Area ] Garbage Bylaws ] Garbage Com 08 ] Garbage Contracts ] Garbage Finance ] Garbage FOI ] Garbage FOI ] Garbage LaCasa ] Garbage Locker ] Garbage Minutes ] Garbage NOWESI ] Garbage Ombudsman ] Garbage Prob ] Garbage Secret ] Garbage Solution ] Garbage Survey ] Garbage Traders ] Governance Wide ] Government ] Grants-in-aid ] Helicopters ] History ] Killiney Beach Park ] Killiney Hall ] LaCasa ] Motorized Rec. ] NWCA ] NWCA FOI ] NW OCP ] NW Parks ] OKIB ] OKIB Logging ] OKIB Road ] OKIB Tax ] Peacocks ] Police Tax ] Property Tax ] RDCO ] RDCO Dog Minutes ] RDCO Jokes ] RDCO Policy ] RDCO Regs ] Report Animals ] Residents Network ] Septic Systems ] Subdiv. History ] T. Mnt After Fire ] Terrace Mount. Fire ] Trench Burner ] Vote Boxes ] Water Budget 08 ] Water Budget 09 ] Water Budget 10 ] Water Bylaws ] Water Construct ] Water FOI ] Water Grants ] Water Judgement ] Water L Fintry ] Water Laws ] Water Meters ] Water Minutes ] Water Rates ] Water Right-of-Way ] Water Survey ] Water System ] Water Systems ] Water VOS ] Water VOS Pics ] Water Wells ] Water Well Data ] Westshore Playgrnd ] Westshore Sports ] Westside Rd. ] WR Development ] WR Incorporation ] WR Overpass ] WRIC ] Zoning Bylaw 66 ] Zoning Bylaw 81 ] Zoning Bylaw 871 ]

Blue Divider Line

Westside Road Gossip
Read Comments

Adv. Plan Comm. ] Alt. Approval ] Ambulance ] Argo Road ] BC Hydro ] Budget 2010 ] Budget 2011 ] Budget 2012 ] Budget 2013 ] Budget 2014 ] Budget 2015 ] Building Inspection ] Build Laws - BC ] Build Laws - RDCO ] Building Violations ] COW Elect 08 ] COW Elect. 11 ] Director Edgson ] Dogs ] Easement Roads ] EDC ] Elect. Boundary ] Environ. Advisory ] ESS ] Finance ] Fintry Develop ] Fintry Park ] Fire Boat ] Fire Bylaws ] Fire Dept. ] Fire Dept FOI ] Fire Hydrants ] Fire Minutes ] Fires House ] FOI Act ] Friends Fintry ] Garbage ] Garbage Area ] Garbage Bylaws ] Garb Comment 08 ] Garbage Contract ] Garbage Finance ] Garbage FOI ] Garbage FOI ] Garbage La Casa ] Garbage Locker ] Garbage Minutes ] Garbage NOWESI ] Garbage Ombudsman ] Garbage Questionaire ] Garbage Secret ] Garbage Solution ] Garbage Survey ] Garbage Traders ] Governance Wide ] Government ] Helicopters ] History ] Killiney Hall ] Killiney Park ] La Casa ] Motorized Rec. ] NW OCP ] NWCA ] NWCA FOI ] NW Parks ] OKIB ] OKIB Logging ] OKIB Road ] OKIB Tax ] Peacocks ] Police Tax ] Property Tax ] RDCO ] RDCO Dog Minutes ] RDCO Jokes ] RDCO Policy ] RDCO Regs ] Report Animals ] Septic Systems ] Subdiv. History ] T. Mtn After Fire ] Terrace Mnt. Fire ] Trench Burner ] Vote Box ] Water Budget 08 ] Water Budget 09 ] Water Budget 10 ] Water Bylaws ] Water Construct ] Water FOI ] Water Grants ] Water Judgements ] Water Laws ] Water Meters ] Water Minutes ] Water Rates ] Water Right-of-Way ] Water Survey ] Water System ] Water VOS ] Water VOS Pics ] Water Well Data ] Water Wells ] Westside Road ] WR Development ] WR Incorporation ] WR Overpass ] WRIC ] Zoning Bylaw 66 ] Zoning Bylaw 1981 ] Zoning Bylaw 871 ]

You will find Okanagan B.C. businesses, services, classifieds, local arts and crafts, vacation rentals, plus much more located in communities around Okanagan Lake.  We will be adding to this site, so come back and check it often.  Lots of gossip, photos, and much more.

Blue Divider Line

Disclaimer: Information posted on this website may not always necessarily be true, but is based on the best ability of the publisher to this website to decipher (under the basis that nobody's perfect).  Please be warned by this disclaimer that the publisher at okanaganlakebc.ca has been known to make mistakes before.  Please let the publisher know if you do notice any mistakes by filling out the feedback form, and mistakes will be corrected immediately.

2006-2015 okanaganlakebc.ca