It appears that the Glenorchy City Council, as standard practice, does not efficiently implement the barking control provisions of the Dog Control Act 2000. It characteristically indulges offenders for extended periods while seeking their animal management co-operation - rather than by promptly implementing the Act’s disciplinary measures, as provided by law, to terminate distressing offences within hours. This procedure is implemented for the laid-back convenience of council management. The legitimacy of the suffering complainant’s allegation, and his sometimes desperate need for relief from invasive barking, is evidently of negligible importance. The Dog Act’s two main remedial empowerments for council use are - (a) the infringement notice for $260 under section 64, and/or   (b) dog removal under section 73. As a consequence of this perennial featherbedding of offenders the Glenorchy City Council continues to receive many barking complaints, but despite the legislation’s enormous empowerments to immediately protect the victims of barking - and thereby save itself unnecessary and costly involvements - it seems that this council, in common with all the others, simply won’t use them. This is another example of how councils hijack the legislation for their own purposes regardless of the hugely detrimental effect of sometimes endless noxious barking tormenting aggrieved citizens night and day - sometimes for years on end. It seems that council staff generally have no concept of the noxious effects of barking assaults upon the health and welfare of humans - and don’t care. It has also been found that a council’s Animal Control Officers can be poorly trained, if at all, and incredibly ignorant about laws, procedures and dealing with the public. It has also been found that their senior officers perpetuate these inadequacies with the same illicit tools. Case histories in support of the above comments are invited MEMO to all COUNCILS The Dog Control Act 2000 is an Act of Parliament intended for the control of dogs for the protection of human health and welfare It is NOT a Dog Owners’ Management Handbook designed for the indulgent educational benefit of ignorant recalcitrant owners! Mr A.D. of Glenorchy ... About nine years ago Mr A.D. had plenty of cause to lodge formal barking complaints with the Glenorchy City Council and he paid the appropriate Barking Complaint Fees as required to legally compel his council to investigate the matter. Mr A.D. and his wife were subsequently supported by neighbours similarly troubled by the same prolonged barking from up to three dogs across the road and habitually left unattended. The offender was always extremely defiant and repeatedly represented himself in court against the council’s lawyers. The council lost cases because its evidence was faulty. The matter dragged on for years, in fact SEVEN years, before the Glenorchy City Council eventually secured enough evidence using its own rangers and private detectives to force the offender to court  for the last time. Overwhelmed by the amassed evidence, the offender finally pleaded guilty. The council later recovered its claimed accumulated costs of $35,000. The offender’s associated costs, as estimated by the original complainant were around $15,000. This total of $50,000 is the largest penalty for barking and other dog offences that we’ve ever heard about although a recent barking penalty in Tucson, Arizona was for $12,000 with a case in Western Australia going to $8,000. The Dog Control Act 2000 has very simple provisions which, if utilised, could have spared all of the tormented barking victims a huge amount of hurt and suffering. Victim status applies to the offender also, because he too, had a legitimate expectation that the matter would be resolved promptly and efficiently by his council. It wasn’t - and the Glenorchy City Council, its procedures and its relevant staff, are to blame. Has the Glenorchy City Council learned anything from this disgraceful episode in what appears to be its ongoing history of barking control incompetence? It seems not.   GLENORCHY CITY COUNCIL - WHY SO MANY BARKING COMPLAINTS? One of Glenorchy City Council’s tricks for deferring a citizens's urgently needed relief from barking assaults is to bluntly deny the applicant his lawful request for a Barking Complaint Form. This happens when an applicant visits the council's main office where, ordinarily, he should obtain the best attention the council can provide. It's this simple official form with its basic informatory details that may be lodged, together with the Barking Complaint Fee that councils set themselves, which immediately imposes a legal obligation upon each council under s.48 of the Act (see below) to formally investigate the matter, in its own way and in its own time - something it may or may not do regardless of the ongoing suffering being endured, perhaps night and day, by the distressed barking victim. The duration of these investigations varies according to the circumstances of each case but which generally ranges from several days to several weeks. However the lodgement of this form at this time does not suit the council's City Inspector Mr Steve Rigby where office staff have been directed to merely note the details on a green form from information supplied by the complainant present in person, or by phone. Mr Rigby has always had his own ideas about how and when (and if?) barking complaints should be processed, and it's Mr Rigby who dictates policy to his underlings - namely Marc Hoyle, the Senior Animal Control Officer, and the council's two junior ACOs, Craig and James - whose surnames we are not allowed to know. The GCC's office staff, by absolutely refusing to supply the aggrieved citizen with this form while he is right there on the spot and requesting it, thereby blatantly interfere with due process by denying the citizen's immediate right of access to the lawful relief made available by section 47 the Dog Control Act 2000 - as shown below. This irrational and probably illegal behaviour might be somewhat negated if the complainant downloads the prescribed form from the council's website, fills it in at home and then either lodges it at the main office and pays the cashier, or posts the completed form to the GCC with his cheque - a procedure that could defer the form's arrival at the council office, and hence his legitimate access to the procedures which could effect lawful relief, for several days. Whether this green-form procedure immediately motivates GCC’s Animal Control staff staff to investigate the matter is unknown, but it seems most unlikely. Based on experience to date it appears that an Animal Control Officer may eventually be allocated the task of looking into the matter, in ways and at times that suit council staff, and regardless of any time-and-date stamped and sometimes quite lengthy audio-taped evidence of the barking offences made available to the council in support of the complainant’s allegations. It seems that, rather than immediately acting to terminate the barking assaults being endured by the complainant (something that is NEVER any council’s first consideration) the appointed animal control officer will set about educating the offender in the techniques of animal control - an illicit indulgence that permits barking offences to continue indefinitely with ongoing detrimental effects upon the complainant’s health and welfare quite contrary to section 46 of the Act. This pussyfooting around the dog problem is a consequence of this council’s damnable ignorance of sections 64 and 73 of the Act. Section 64 authorises the issuance, on-the-spot, of an infringement notice for $260 on an authorised person’s witnessing the barking offence in progress - and even if he does not witness the offence in progress but is, or becomes, merely “of the opinion” that a prescribed offence has occurred. The attending council officer is also authorised, under section 73, to remove the dog from the premises there and then. This means that a barking offence can be terminated in as little as one hour after its first notification - and that’s often what the victim urgently needs - and how it should be. Many ongoing barking problems in this council’s area may be directly attributable to its refusal to utilise the powerful provisions of the Dog Control Act 2000 as Parliament intended. It’s likely that the same accusation may be levelled at every other council. These provisions are printed hereunder ... Complaints relating to nuisance 46. (2) The occupier of any premises must not permit a dog to be, become or create a nuisance on those premises. Penalty: Fine not exceeding $600. (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. Complaints relating to nuisance 47. (1) A person may make a complaint to the general manager in respect of a dog that is a nuisance. (2) A complaint is to – (a) be in an approved form; and (b) be accompanied by any appropriate fee; and (c) state the nature of the nuisance. Investigation of complaint 48. (1) On receipt of a complaint, the general manager is to investigate the subject matter of the complaint. (2) If the general manager considers that the complaint has substance, the general manager – (a) may institute proceedings for an offence under section 46; and (b) is to refund the fee that accompanied the complaint to the complainant. Service of infringement notice 64. (1) An authorised person may serve an infringement notice on a person if of the opinion that the person has committed a prescribed offence against this Act. Entering land 73. (1) An authorised person who has reason to believe that the owner or person in charge of a dog has committed an offence against this Act may - (a) enter onto land owned or occupied by that owner or person, but not any dwelling on that land; and (b) search for and seize any dog on that land.