Two animal shelters in the Athabasca area are left with more questions than answers after being served $100 tickets because they allegedly ìpermit dogs to become public nuisance by barking and howling excessively.î
Second Chance Animal Rescue Society (SCARS) and Sammyís Pet Boarding were both issued $100 tickets within the week of Dec. 10 by Athabasca County peace officer Ryan Alice.
The tickets cited bylaw C(3) (iii) of the Athabasca County Dog Control Bylaw for ìpublic nuisance by barking and howling excessively.î
Sylvia Christiansen, the operator of SCARS, and Vicki Stafford, operator of Sammyís Pet Boarding, said they have cumulatively spent $80,000 on noise suppression around their properties.
Staffordís response to the tickets has been one of bewilderment. In a written statement, she notes that all of her facilityís enclosures are double-gated, chain linked and screened and a solid wood wall has been installed for sound abatement. These measures were taken in response to an April 7 phone call Stafford said she received from a neighbour, complaining of excessive noise. When that individual brought their complaint before council, Stafford was given until early June to take whatever noise-suppression measures they could take.
ìIt makes me feel harassed. Iím doing the best I can,î said Stafford. ìIf weíre not in compliance, theyíd better tell us what weíre not in compliance of so we can fix it,î she said.
ìIf I was in non-compliance, they have not told me that.î
According to the county, the effectiveness of the noise suppression cannot be gauged by any dollar value; only that the tickets were issued as a result of non-compliance with the County Dog Bylaw under which kennels and animal shelters are no exception.
ìOne of the conditions of approval was that the barking does not become excessive in annoyance to their neighbours,î said county manager Gary Buchanan. ìThey are to control that. To date, there were complaints from neighbours that that had not been the case. An investigation showed that there is evidence of that, and hence the fine.î
For years, SCARS has faced one hurdle after another as it worked to settle a dispute with Athabasca County on allegations of excessive noise from its animal shelter.
While the county stands by its bylaw enforcement procedures and the policies enacted upon by bylaw code, it remains unclear why the tickets were issued after two years ago SCARS received a favourable report from Terry G. Jordan, a community peace officer for Athabasca County Enforcement Services.
On July 27, 2010, Buchanan asked Jordan to generate a ìreport of all enforcement action/dealings that Enforcement Services has had with SCARS.î
Jordan consulted with Dan Visser, a Community Peace Officer from the Town of Athabasca who was contracted to the County of Athabasca as a bylaw officer in 2007. Visser reported that ìduring this time, I did not receive any calls or complaints regarding Second Chance Animal Rescue.î
Visser added that he looked into his records and could ìsee no documentation of any kind pertaining to complaints against Second Chance Animal Rescue.î
Jordan then found a barking dog noise complaint, packaged with a development permit issue complaint, from county councillor Mike Demko lodged Nov. 7, 2008. Included with it was a petition to corroborate the noise complaint.
According to his report, Jordan said that on numerous occasions in November and once in December of 2008, he would approach SCARS from various directions, ìwould get out of my vehicle to listen for the dogs barking, honk my horn. At a distance 800 metres (half a mile), I could not hear any dogs from SCARS when I was there.
ìWhen I pulled up directly in front of the SCARS site the dogs would bark but settle down within four minutes,î said Jordan.
Jordan found in 2008 that SCARS did in fact have an inadequate sound barrier system in place, as the facility was using hay bales to block the view of the dogs from the road and help suppress the noise until a more permanent arrangement could be made.
SCARS later contracted a fencing company to install 6-foot fencing around the property but the firm pulled out of the contract, and SCARS began planting trees as a barrier of noise suppression around the property ñ a slow solution to a more immediate problem, according to Jordanís report.
The year 2009 was relatively uneventful for SCARS with regards to noise complaints. After Demko approached Jordan in 2010 informing him that he had recorded the SCARS dogs barking ó recordings which he later gave Jordan ó Jordan provided Demko with a ìbarking dog packageî to fill out and return to him, which Jordan described as ìin use by other enforcement agencies (and) accepted by the Provincial Courts as the preferred method of dealing with barking dog complaints.î
Demko declined to complete the package at that time, but the recording remained on file in the event he wished to act on it.
ìAt this point in time, it is my professional opinion based upon 29 years-plus of policing experience, that there is insufficient evidence to support or pursue charges for barking dogs/noise complaintsí against SCARS,î reported Jordan in 2010.
ìAs this is a bylaw matter, the county will be responsible to provide a lawyer to prosecute this matter and a successful prosecution is unlikely. From my dealings with SCARS, they appear to be trying to meet with and comply with all of the conditions of their development permit that had been previously approved,î according to Jordan.
Stafford alleges that one or more county councillors continue to sway council to penalize Sammyís Pet Boarding and SCARS, although Stafford claims no councillors have paid them a visit to investigate the nature of the noise and alleges they are basing their facts on hearsay.
After spending tens of thousands of dollars on noise suppression measures around their property, and having moved their entire operation to the back of their property, Stafford claims they have asked the county ìseveral timesî over the past six months to provide a letter that they are now in compliance with permits and that the noise is not an issue.
On Sept. 28, Sammyís Pet Boarding asked the county for all reports, investigations and recordings that were filed to the county from neighbours that allegedly recorded either audio and possibly video footage of the dogs barking. Since then, they have only received in return six documents, all of which were simply development permits they already had in their possession.
Stafford filed a formal complaint of her own with the Privacy Commission at the end of November, against the county. Stafford says the commission followed up with the county, which claimed it had provided Stafford with all of the information she had requested.
ìI know their goal is to shut me down, and they still havenít been able to, so obviously I am in compliance,î claims Stafford.
