The Fight Against Crime: Notes From The Front : Dogged Pursuit of Justice in Barking Feuds

In a law enforcement world that deals with murders, arson, kidnapings and robberies, a barking dog would presumably take a low priority.

But the problem nonetheless affects the quality of life of thousands of Los Angeles residents whose neighbors’ pets destroy their peace of mind.

And so, since 1987, the Los Angeles Department of Animal Regulation has been holding administrative hearings on barking dog problems that could not be handled with informal neighborly complaints or the department’s letters to dog owners.

“It’s a very emotional subject,” said Lt. Marshall Vernon, the West Valley shelter supervisor. “People feel they’re being infringed upon by someone else’s animal.”

The hearings provide a window into neighborhood conflict. People yell, scream and unload a host of complaints that have nothing to do with the dog.

“Most of this stuff comes from neighbors’ disputes and the dog is just a side thing,” Vernon said. “They use departments like us for leverage. But if there’s a violation, there’s a violation.”

James Connelly, an East Valley hearing examiner for the Department of Animal Regulation, said he’s heard it all.

One TV actress conceded that her dog barks, but claimed that it was reasonable because there had been threats on her life. As evidence, she submitted letters from deranged fans, Connelly said.

She was found in violation anyway.

Twice people have asked Connelly how big the hearing room is. Perplexed, he asked why they cared.

“There was already a restraining order that they couldn’t be within a certain number of feet of each other,” Connelly explained. He assured them that the summons to the hearing superseded that order.

Often people attribute human qualities to their dogs, as a way to explain why they’ve been barking. One man told Connelly that the dog was in mourning because the man’s girlfriend had recently moved out.

Connelly wasn’t moved. “Even if dogs did mourn over a girlfriend for months and months, they’re not permitted to keep barking about it,” he said.

In many cases, Connelly must determine which came first, the barking or the harassment. Owners complain that the bothered neighbor yelled at the dog, causing it to bark. Complainants say they yelled at the dog because it was barking.

The official process begins with a resident submitting a letter of complaint, giving their name, address, phone number, the dog’s address and a description of how the dog is bothering them--for example, when the dog barks and for how long, Vernon said.

Animal Regulation responds with a form letter, asking the owner to take care of the problem, Vernon said. If the situation doesn’t improve in 15 days, the department sets up an informal meeting at the shelter with the owner and complainant.

“We hear both sides,” Vernon said. “The officer conducting the meeting tries to find a solution.”

And if no solution is forthcoming, the officer can order one, such as keeping the dog inside during certain hours.

The next level is the administrative hearing, complete with summons and hearing examiners. The only thing left after that is the license revocation hearing, at which the examiner can order that a dog be removed from the city.

If the owner refuses to send the dog away, the city will confiscate it, and give it to a new owner or--after 45 days--destroy it.

“Those people are given a lot of opportunities to correct the problem,” Vernon said.

Often, the barking complaint is just one in a list of problems. One says the other threw paint on his car, the other says a favorite tree was mysteriously cut down. Houses get egged in these disputes and tires get slashed--but none of these things fall under Connelly’s jurisdiction.

He just deals with the barking.

“There’s no ordinance that says dogs can’t bark,” Connelly said. “It says dogs can’t bark excessively.”

Who’s to say what’s excessive? His department, that’s who.