What is the selection criteria for those appointed by councils as Animal Control officers? What training do these people have in the assessment of the adverse effects of uncontrolled barking on human health? It seems they have none at all. The Dog Control Act 2000 in its section 46 deems such barking an offence punishable through the issuance of Infringement Notices for $260. Should a dog owner choose to fight the matter in court then the magistrate may penalise him up to $630. The barking provisions in this Act need a complete overhaul. Neither the Tasmanian government nor Tasmanian councils have ever wised up to the fact that in suburban areas where so many bad owners let their dogs bark without restraint, the accumulated din from multiple dogs breaches s.46 of the Dog Control Act relating to Nuisance ... (3) A dog is a nuisance if – (a) it behaves in a manner that is injurious or dangerous to the health of any person; or (b) it creates a noise, by barking or otherwise, that persistently occurs or continues to such an extent that it unreasonably interferes with the peace, comfort or convenience of any person in any premises or public place. A good council would accept its regulatory role under the good governance provisions of the Local Government Act and set about educating the many recalcitrant and defiant animal keepers in its area. This has never been known to happen. Councils have always been unfit regulatory bodies for the control of barking. Perhaps the task should be taken from them and allocated to security personnel.