The Oro Valley Town Council approved a more stringent excessive pet noise ordinance at last week's town Council meeting.
“This suggested amendment to the Animal Control Code is intended to address a need to redefine and enforce excessive noise caused by animals or birds, “ (Source).
Under the ordinance, pets could be impounded. Owners could be subject to a felony conviction, face possible jail time and pay a stiff fine. This would occur the third time excessive pet noise had to be dealt with.
Class one misdemeanor most common among towns surveyed by town legal staff
According to Town Attorney Tobin Sidles, the penalties are more stringent than some other towns in Pima County. Town legal staff "...surveyed twenty-six different Arizona agencies (Cities, Towns and Counties) and that a Class One misdemeanor, (which this statute created for a third offense) was the most common penalty in the State of Arizona for repeated animal noise offenses." Specifically, out of twenty six jurisdictions surveyed, there were twelve first class misdemeanors, six class two misdemeanors, one class three misdemeanor, one with a criminal petty offense, and six jurisdictions with civil violations.
Town Attorney Sidles: Excessive pet noise is the owner's fault
Per the Town’s Legal Services Director:
“Per the town's legal services director, you need an ordinance that focuses attention on the actual behavior that is the problem when you go to a hearing or trial, not what is used to measure the problem. For example, on the barking dogs, the problem isn’t that dogs bark, often loudly. The problem is the human owner who is not being considerate of their neighbors by addressing the issue after a reasonable amount of time. It isn’t ever the dogs fault, it is the owners fault, and the trial needs to focus on that.” (Source: Communication from Jessica Hynd, Town or Oro Valley Constituent Services Coordinator).Change addressed a problem of a very stubborn pet owner
According to Town Council member Joyce Jones-Ivey, "Given the circumstance surrounding the issue that brought this to our attention; indeed some changes were warranted." Thus, the unanimous 7-0 vote in favor of adopting the revised and new ordinances.
The issue occurred in 2017-2018
A resident in a high density residential area refused to quiet four barking dogs. The refusal continued for some time. At one point, the owner fed the pets at 2 am, causing quite a ruckus. According to three people who appeared in support of the ordinance change, the noises were repeated and unbearable over a sustained time frame. They alleged that four residents sold their homes because of this. The case was eventually adjudicated last year.
Sidles: Town can now "deal with the problem"
The new excessive pet noise ordinances may or may not encourage a pet owner to control pet noise; but the ordinances will give the town some "teeth" in making the problem go away. According to Sidles, "The neighborhood also needs to be assured that after three times we can deal with the problem."
