The Tasmanian Parliament debated the new Dog Control Amendment Bill 2009 in the Spring session of 2009. This bill mainly deals with matters unrelated to barking, however the Dog Control Act 2000 may be modified in its Nuisance provisions. It is proposed that the issuance of Infringement Notices for nuisances will cease, and that the issuance of Abatement Notices will be used instead. It seems that poorer Tasmanians, a somewhat lawless lot, don’t pay infringement notices if they don’t want to - or can’t. The courts can deal with such recalcitrance to some extent but if the fine still remains unpaid then its intended correctional effect fails. However fines are now being strictly enforced under the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act. This means that there’s no pressing need to abandon Infringement Notices. The maximum penalty for non-compliance with an Abatement Notice will be $2400. This is a four-fold increase on the current maximum penalty for letting a dog bark excessively. In the event of non-compliance with an issued Abatement Notice, an authorised person may enter the premises containing the dog and remove it. It will be treated as if it was a dog at large and may be impounded for up to five days - after which it may be disposed of or killed. Definition of barking 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. But what is the definition of “injurious” and “ health” and “persistently” and “continues” and “unreasonably” and “comfort” and “convenience”? Until the legal meaning of each of these words is made abundantly clear, nobody knows what they mean. This is unfair to all parties - dog owners, barking victims, animal control officers, councils - and the legal system itself