General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCourt Rules Dogs Must Be Debarked Because Neighbors Have to Turn Up Their TV
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/dogs-debarked-because-of-neighbor-complaint/We are really shaking our heads at this one an Oregon Court recently ruled that Karen Szewc and John Updegraff must DEBARK their Tibetan and Pyrenean Mastiffs like remove their vocal chords because their neighbors are tired of hearing the dogs bark. WHAT!? But barking is how dogs communicate!
For the owners of the property, the dogs are a means to protect their sheep from predators, like cougars and bears. We do not have the dogs to harass the neighbors, property owner, Karen Szwec told Oregon Live. After a four-day trial in April 2015, a jury ruled that property owners, Karen and John had to pay the Kreins $238,000.
But for the Kreins, who have lived next to Karen and John for more than 20 years, the money wasnt enough and didnt solve the problem of the barking. The barking apparently, forced the Kreins to turn up the volume of their TV to watch shows. (WHAT?!?!?!?!?!) Now, simply because of normal canine behavior at no fault of their own, the dogs will have to have their vocal cords removed. We honestly cant even wrap our heads around how insane this is.
Warpy
(110,913 posts)Those are working dogs and sheep have to know they're around. Hence, the bark.
I can see it in close suburban quarters with big houses on postage stamp lots and clod neighbors who leave a poor, bored dog outside by itself 24/7. I'd rather see the dog removed and given to an owner who knows what social animals like dogs require rather than see it mutilated, but I could understand the ruling in that case.
This case, no way. If the dogs bark at night, it's to alert people that predators are at the sheep. They need to bark.
still_one
(91,968 posts)fleur-de-lisa
(14,616 posts)do live on a farm.
procon
(15,805 posts)of the flock. I have a similar breed, the Great Pyrenees, and they largely nocturnal and extremely territorial, marking their domains with urine and feces. They frequently sound out warnings by barking to keep predators away from their flock.
I have owned magnificent Pyrs since the 70's, they have literally saved my life on 2 occasions. They were working dogs and I always took some measure of comfort hearing them bark on a cold dark night, knowing they were on guard duty when coyotes were howling and there were new lambs and baby kids in the barn.
This is instinctive behavior, and although it might vary somewhat between individuals, it is breed specific and can't be eliminated. Who is advocating for the poor dogs who cannot help but be what they were intended to be?
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Not a farm.
ileus
(15,396 posts)my front neighbor another 125 feet.
However.com the neighbor to my back is 800 feet away.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)More likely city-folk moved to what they perceived as a quaint rural area, and fundamentally misunderstand what farm life is like.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)Some of which (the livestock) had previously been lost to predators.
SethH
(170 posts)my guess is that the neighbors and the judge don't hate dogs, but that the dog owners have refused to cooperate.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)tymorial
(3,433 posts)Hmm?
Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)BUT as someone who finds dog barking to be extremely annoying and has had more than one neighbor who let their dogs bark virtually nonstop day and night, I can't really feel for the owners. Had to go to the office about the people in the apartment next door because their loud dog woke my toddler up several times.
There's no excuse for that bullshit. Train your dog or don't bitch when people take you to court.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)The couple lives on a farm, and has dogs to protect their livestock from predators. (They have previously lost several animals a a time overnight.)
How about city-folk don't move to farnms ane expect city rules to apply (streetlights, absence of farm noises and smells, etc.)
(I grew up on a farm, and intentionally moved to a rural area that included working farms, and have no patience for city folk who want the charm of rural living with none of the inconveniences.)
Blue_Adept
(6,384 posts)"But for the Kreins, who have lived next to Karen and John for more than 20 years"
Doesn't sound like they're newly arrived city folk.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)and they still show up at local political meetings demanding street lighting and an end to the smell of manure being spread on the fields for fertilizer.
Length of time isn't the issue. It is moving to a rural area and expecting (whether 1 year, or 20 years later) the rural area to change to suit their city sensibilities - rather than moving to the rural area and accepting the rural way of life.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Everyone still has an obligation to comply or move somewhere else. The other side to that coin is people who move from the city and think they can do whatever the hell they want because they now live in a rural area.
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)(which are enacted by municipalities), and when there are rules governing rural areas they generally don't involve restrictions on animal noises or smells.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Perhaps there are some, but every one I've seen still have county ordinances and zoning rules. Since the dog owners were cited multiple times, it's clear they existed where they lived and they had the responsibility of compliance.
Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)The last paragraph of this article nicely summarizes the issue. Szewc and Updegraff are just bad neighbors who have been repeatedly cited for their dogs.
http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20150410/NEWS/150419878
Ms. Toad
(33,915 posts)expect rural sounds - including barking dogs.
The point I was making is that rural areas are romanticized by people from the city, who move there and then try to change the parts of rural living they don't like to make them more like living in a city. Doesn't matter which family was there first, it appears to be a rural area.
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)were the ones who moved in back in 1997, a few years later they began to BREED Mastiffs and do nothing to quiet the dogs, Mastiffs which are not suitable for the purpose they claim to be using them for.
At a superficial glance it sounds like it's the pet dogs of a reasonable couple who are going to be "debarked" but that doesn't seem to be the case. They have the option of choosing a breed that better does what they claim they need these dogs to do.
It sounds like the city folks are the ones trying to do the changing, they thought they could do some dog breeding on a small plot and not have to deal with respecting neighbors in a "rural" area as they might have to in an urban surrounding.
It appears the issue is with the city folk not doing a damn thing to quiet their dogs or respect their neighbors.
Not a urban v rural thing, but a unruly neighbor not willing to be stop being jackasses.
ileus
(15,396 posts)all night long...and all day long....
It's really not that hard to get barking under control. This comes from a current 3 dog owner, that has also had on occasion or 3 had to train neighbors and their barking dogs.
Flaleftist
(3,473 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Had they fixed the problem back then they wouldn't be looking at a six figure settlement today. Ignoring an ongoing problem is seldom the best solution.
Shrike47
(6,913 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)It's not as if their dogs barked and they were handed a six figure settlement. This went on for many years and they had ample opportunity to address it. Instead they ignored judgments and got more dogs.
csziggy
(34,120 posts)The couple has six dogs on a 3.4 acre parcel. The dogs do protect against predators:
Thats $3,000 of income, Szewc said.
http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2017/08/owners_must_surgically_debark.html
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)The couple lost multiple lawsuits and simply ignored them. Debarking wasn't the only option as they could simply remove the dogs. The also had other options available to them which they refused. They simply got it into their minds that they had some kind of right to do whatever they wanted regardless of the impact it had on their neighbors and they lost, unsurprisingly.
I don't have sympathy for them. If your dogs are creating a public nuisance you have a responsibility to correct the situation. They could have fixed the problem 10 years ago when they were handed a $400 judgement against them. Instead they not only ignored the court ruling, but got more dogs.
Not everyone deserves to keep dogs or any animals for that matter.
csziggy
(34,120 posts)If the couple really cared about their animals, they would re-home the dogs and find some other way to protect their livestock. I would never mutilate a dog by debarking it!
Ninsianna
(1,349 posts)breeding were not suitable for the purpose they claim to be using them for. It's either debarking or replacing with a more suitable breed. (someone pasted a link that explained a bit more)
They seem to have mutilated dogs before, instead of training or choosing a different breed.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)The Kreins complaint says Szewc and Updegraff moved into their home, a little over 300 feet from the Kreins, in 1997 and began breeding the dogs at their home around 2002. The Kreins claimed the dogs would often begin barking at 5 a.m. and would continue throughout the day. They also claimed the couple did nothing to quiet their dogs even after being cited by Jackson County Animal Control in 2002 and 2004 for violating public nuisance codes.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Shrike47
(6,913 posts)It didn't really generate money from farming (sounds like a hobby farm) and there were apparently zoning issues. The dog owners were ordered to shut the dogs up.
After a jury heard the evidence many years of continuous barking later, the jury gave the plaintiffs more than $230,000. The dog owners still let them bark. The trial judge finally ordered debarking (or removal) wnen the plaintiffs demonstrated that the problem hadn't been ameliorated and continued. The money judgment did not change the dog owners' behavior; they still maintained a nuisance.
If you think a Jackson County Oregon jury would hand out $230,000 in damages over a little barking, you are wrong. That is big money in Southern Oregon. I suspect the plaintiffs came over as really obnoxious.
Warpy
(110,913 posts)wherein the McMansions have to be on at least an acre of land.
Offhand, I'd suggest the farmers keep the dogs in at night and invest in a young llama or two to stay with the sheep. They are very protective, their kicks making short work of deterring predators, and if somebody they don't like gets too close, they spit. In addition, there's a big market for their winter coats.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)The judge for allowing this inhumane cure, the neighbors who pushed for it, and the shittty owners who don't care properly for their pets.
RhodeIslandOne
(5,042 posts)Like splitting the baby in a sense.
tableturner
(1,676 posts)radius777
(3,624 posts)Imagine if you suddenly tried to speak but no words were coming out and you didnt understand why.
Pet owners/breeders altogether are usually the issue, not the animals involved.
I personally can't stand ongoing dog barking (or any repetitive noise). There should be laws that prevent people from owning dogs (especially breeds know to be 'barkers') whenever it is too close to another residence.