Navigating Noise and Nuance in Maine’s New Dog Barking Bill
Here at Noise Whisperers, we try to keep our finger on the pulse of global policy discourse and innovation related to neighborhood noise. In recent months, Senator Rick Bennett has stepped up to address a longstanding concern among Mainers: the disruptive noise of excessive dog barking. For many residents, what was once seen as an inevitable quirk of dog ownership has become a quality-of-life issue that demands legislative attention. As Theresa Sol of Livermore poignantly shared,
"We are unable to enjoy ourselves and relax on our property, have a peaceful dinner on our patio with family and friends. We are also unable to sleep without hearing the out-of-control barking dogs at all hours of the day and night, especially at two in the morning."
Her words echo the genuine concerns of countless constituents, and it’s this direct feedback that has inspired Senator Bennett to push forward with a bill aimed at curbing excessive dog barking statewide.
Yet, as with many issues that tap into both cultural and practical concerns, dog barking remains a highly contentious topic. The familiar refrain, “dogs will be dogs,” often minimizes the legitimate noise pollution concerns many citizens face. It’s precisely this cultural complexity that keeps the Noise Whisperers deeply engaged with the issue. We recognize that while the sound of a dog’s bark is natural, the collective impact on a community’s soundscape is not—and that protecting the peace of everyday life is no trivial matter.
A significant challenge with the proposed legislation lies in its vagueness. Matt Fournier, President of the Maine Sporting Dog Association, has expressed concerns that the bill’s imprecise language may lead to a wide range of interpretations. Noise pollution is inherently subjective, and perceptions of what is “excessive” can vary dramatically from one person to the next, and one context to the next. However, this subjectivity should not justify loose regulations that fail to safeguard residents’ rights to a healthy soundscape.
A closer look at the bill reveals that its broad application across the state does not account for the stark differences in housing density—from the sprawling wilderness of Aroostook County to the charming small towns and coastal villages. While every Mainers’ right to peace is vital, effective prevention of noise pollution issues may require more nuanced mechanisms. For example, municipalities might consider using local metrics, such as housing density, or dog-related metrics, such as dog-density and dog management, to determine when issuing a dog permit is appropriate. Without such proactive measures, enforcement staff may find themselves drowning in a sea of disputed complaints, unable to prioritize the most disruptive cases from those that are simply minor irritations.
In our studies of global dog policies, we’ve tentatively outlined some general policy principles that could help balance the reasonable right to a peaceful environment with the rights of responsible dog owners, in the context of cities, towns, villages, or any dense housing cluster - including housing clusters in otherwise 'rural' regions:
- Quiet Hours: Between 8 pm and 8 am, residents should expect quiet from neighborhood dogs. Rare, brief barking sessions (less than one minute, occurring less than once per month) might be exempt.
- Barking Thresholds: A threshold of 5 minutes of consecutive barking, or 10 minutes of total barking per dog per day, should trigger a review. In neighborhoods where households are impacted by three or more barking dogs, a cumulative threshold of 30 minutes per day (total, across all audible dogs, consecutive or not) could prevent an overwhelming chorus from disturbing the piece, one bark at time.
- High-Risk Considerations: High-risk dogs—determined by housing density, dog density, breed and owner management history—should have stricter proximity restrictions to other residences.
- Prevention and Enforcement Paid by Dog-Owners: These policies require resources, and the public should not subsidize private interests that significantly impact the public interest in healthy soundscapes.
- Local Support: The state should empower municipalities with proactive, preventative, and effective remediation strategies tailored to their unique circumstances.
This last point may be worth repeating - as some critics of the bill have suggested this issue should be dealt with at the local, rather than state level. While we agree that local municipalities should have significant degrees of freedom in the specifics standards and mechanisms of their local noise policies, we believe it is the State's responsibility to provide the best of science-based supports, and minimal mechanisms for the real victims of neighborhood noise pollution to be helped - through prevention, mediation, and repercussions, when warranted.
While the bill as it stands may not be a comprehensive solution, its introduction is a crucial first step. It is rare for politicians to wade into the murky waters of dog barking policy, and so we at Noise Whisperers applaud Senator Rick Bennett for listening to the real concerns of his constituents and taking decisive action. We encourage a deeper dive into the nuances of this policy space—refining it to be more effective, democratic, and equitable for all Mainers.
Maine has long been a leader in innovative state and local governance. We are thrilled to see that the people of Maine have a “dog in this fight,” and we stand ready to help navigate these complex challenges. Please reach out if you have thoughts or questions—Noise Whisperers is here to ensure that every voice is heard, every bark is accounted for, and every resident’s right to a healthy soundscape is protected.
Join the conversation. Share your insights and experiences with us as we work together to shape a quieter, more harmonious world.
Sources:
Comments
Post a Comment