JANN HENDRY/Acorn NewspaperNOT-SO-BEST FRIEND—Upset about barking dogs like the one shown above, a group of residents showed up at a City Council meeting earlier this month demanding changes to the current animal nuisance ordinance. Donna Thorne says she can no longer stand the constant yapping and woofing outside her Simi Valley home.

She and her husband have lived in Simi for nine years. For six of those, she said, they've had issues with barking dogs in their neighborhood.

When complaints to Ventura County Animal Regulation did nothing to stop the barking, one of Thorne's neighbors, also fed up with the noise, packed up and left. Thorne didn't get peace and quiet until the homeowner with the offending dog also moved a few years later.

But then another dog began barking, and after 18 months of unsuccessfully trying to work with the neighbor to find a solution, Thorne has decided that moving is the only way to find relief.

"My husband and I are now planning to move out of the city of Simi Valley," she said, "and the main reason is because we have a barking dog issue next door that hasn't been resolved."

A group of about 15 residents addressed the City Council at its May 11 meeting and shared similarly frustrating experiences— though most hope the council can do something to fix the problem before they have to put for-sale signs on their lawns.

Many of the residents said it was difficult to obtain help from animal control or to file a complaint, and they called on the council to make changes to its current animal nuisance ordinance to give it more "teeth"—including fines.

Jules Rabalais, who's written letters to the Acorn on the issue of barking dogs, called the current system "insane and unworkable."

"I don't think any of you are aware of the insurmountable hurdles and hoops you have to jump through to file a complaint against a barking dog," Rabalais told the council.

Larry Sikora said the system pits neighbor against neighbor, and Frank Kolesar agreed, saying that what is worse than putting up with a barking dog is dealing with an owner who doesn't care how their pet is affecting their neighbors.

"They don't care that you have a newborn baby and can't sleep," Kolesar said. "I think the City Council has to understand, it's not just a city issue, it's a quality of life issue."

Kolesar and other residents are asking the city to make an exception to the municipal code, which states that in order for a resident to file a nuisance complaint they must get at least one other neighbor to be a co-complainant.

Kolesar said the ordinance discriminates against people who, like him, live on a cul-de-sac and cannot get another neighbor to join a complaint because they're not bothered by the barking dog.

"If you're at the end of a street, you have no rights," he said.

Mayor Pro Tem Barbra Williamson, who serves as the city's liaison to animal regulation, was surprised by the number of locals dealing with barking dogs but said she's aware there are flaws in the system.

"I know that there has been a problem in the past," the council member said. "I don't think the ordinance that we have now to curtail the problem with barking dogs works at all. I never thought it worked, and I think we're seeing that now."

Changes considered

Monica Nolan, who just started as director of Ventura County Animal Regulation three weeks ago, is working with the city to address the issues raised by residents and make animal control's process easier to understand.

Nolan said the first step for residents dealing with a barking dog is to call animal control—not the city's code enforcement or police department—and report the dog's owner.

Animal control will then send a letter, which is typically handdelivered by an animal control officer, to that address.

If the barking continues for another week or two, a resident can call again and ask for a packet to file for a nuisance hearing. The hearing is a legal process with potential financial penalties.

To file a nuisance complaint, a resident must be willing to have their name on the complaint form, keep a log of the barking for five days and have at least one other neighbor sign the complaint.

"The reason why we want a second person is because the consequences to the owner of the dog can be drastic," said Nolan, who added that most hearings weigh in favor of the complainant. "The code allows us to go as far as seizing the dog and putting the dog down. So we want to make sure we have all the evidence."

Nolan said there are situations where, in certain neighborhoods, it is difficult to get a second person—or third, as required in some other cities—to join the nuisance complaint. She said Camarillo has already made an exception to the rule in its municipal code.

Often, Nolan said, the department doesn't receive a second call about the problem after the initial letter is sent, either because the barking has ceased or the complainant decided not to pursue the matter any further.

According to Nolan, from January to April this year, 76 people countywide called animal control to report a barking dog. Of those, 22 were from Simi Valley. There are 13,717 licensed dogs in Simi, she said.

Of the 76 countywide calls, just 18 people—two of whom were Simi residents—called a second time to ask for a nuisance packet. Six of those nuisance complaints actually went to hearing, including the two from Simi.

Debbie Solomon, director of community services for Simi, said she and Williamson will be meeting with animal regulation and with frustrated residents to look at how barking dog complaints are handled and come up with recommended changes to the city's ordinance.

The goal, she said, is to make the process more accessible and easier to maneuver and to develop an interim step that would allow residents to resolve a barking dog issue without having to go through the formal hearing process.

The city will also look at other local ordinances that are stricter and include fines, Solomon said.

Recommended changes will be brought back to the City Council in the coming months, she added.