McCandless mulls stiffer fines for residents who can't control barking, roaming dogs

McCandless council is poised to consider a steep hike in the fines residents could face if they fail to keep their dogs from running loose or annoying neighbors with constant barking.

The town’s current animal control ordinance calls for a $25 fine for each incident in which a resident is convicted of violating the law.

The fine can be levied for having animals that create offensive odors, habitually bark or howl and scratch, dig or defecate on other peoples’ property.

The proposed increase in fines, which is expected to come up for a vote at council’s Aug. 26 meeting, would increase the penalty for the first offense to $50 and double the amount of subsequent fines. The maximum fine is capped at $500 for the sixth offense.

Just like the current law, failure to pay fines could result in up to 30 days in jail.

The town’s current animal control law is available online.

During council’s Aug. 19 agenda meeting there appeared to be consensus among council members for increasing the penalties to address the problem.

But Councilman Steve Mertz said a poll he conducted on a local social media site resulted in about 87 percent of respondents saying the proposed increase in fines is “way overkill.” About 40 people participated in the poll, he said.

Mertz said residents also took to social media to raise concerns that the ordinance does not provide a “reset” for the number of offenses a property owner can rack up.

He argued that residents who get rid of a dog after being fined five times could end up paying a $500 fine for the first offense if a complaint is filed against their new dog even after a number of years have passed.

“I’m OK with the fines, but I think there needs to be a reset,” he said.

Mertz also raised concern that some residents could use the law to make life difficult for neighbors they don’t like by filing multiple complaints against their dog.

Council President Kim Zachary said she trusted the judgment of the town’s law enforcement officers and the local district justice.

“Our officers are pretty smart,” she said. “I think they would know what a nuisance pet is as opposed to an inappropriate report from a neighbor.”

Zachary said officers also could ask that residents provide some proof when they file a complaint.

“I thing if you had a video taken at 2 a.m. of a dog barking, it would carry some weight,” she said, adding that while the law is designed to regulate the behaviour of animals, the responsibility ultimately rests with their owners.

Mertz suggested that council cut the amount of the proposed fines in half and add a provision that would reset the number of offenses logged against a dog after a year has passed.

But Councilwoman Joan Powers defended the addition of the escalating fines being proposed.

”We did that on purpose because it was $25 before and it didn’t affect anyone,” she said.

The version of the proposed ordinance that council will consider does not contain the recommendations made by Mertz.