Oh..so it’s “OK” to De-bark..maybe?

So..barking dogs in Oregon cause alleged nuisance, then court says they have to de-bark the dogs due to the nuisance?

..[T]he second time, neighbors Debra and Dale Krein filed a nuisance suit against Szewc and her husband, Jon Updegraff, that claimed the couple had not taken the necessary steps to prevent dogs on their property from “barking incessantly.” Jurors awarded damages of $238,942, and the trial court granted an injunction requiring debarking surgery be performed by a board-certified veterinary surgeon for any mastiffs on the property.

Tapes were admitted in the injunction hearing to show the barking had continued. The trial judge found the injunction was justified because there was no adequate legal remedy to stop continued barking. Citronella and shock collars did not work. Nor did covering portions of the fence in an apparent effort to prevent the dogs from seeing any activity on the neighbor’s property that might provoke barking.

Szewc and Updegraff had claimed the mastiffs were guard dogs for their livestock and it was a “farming practice” protected by statute. The trial judge did not allow Szewc to raise the defense through 2006, because it had been unsuccessfully raised before the county hearing officer, the appeals court said. Szewc and Updegraff did not include the farm-use defense in their answer to the second amended complaint.