ALTAMONT — The Altamont Board of Trustees on June 4 held a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the village’s dog law but took no action.

The proposed amendment has generated frustration and confusion on social media.

In addition to a number of snide and low-information opinions, many commenters on the Altamont Community Facebook page appeared not to understand that the entire law isn’t being introduced, only some 70 words would be added to the village’s existing statute, most of which has been in effect for 50 years. 

During the village board’s May 7 meeting Mayor Kerry Dineen said, “We got four letters about this subject because … in one area where I thought the leash law was a leash law — personally, I always thought that — we actually don’t have it, a  leash is not necessarily required on dogs outside of private property.

“And so the question has come up and we’ve had some people ask about it and ask if we could look at that. And so the law that was written, the amendment, it’s really just a couple words that changes it actually. It is modeled after Guilderland and some other communities, but it is something we’ll talk about in June.”

The current code, article 1 of chapter 124, titled “Dog Control,” states, “It shall be unlawful for any owner of or any person harboring any dog in the Village of Altamont to permit or allow such dog to”:

— Roam freely unless it is on a leash or accompanied by its owner or a responsible person who can control it;

— Engage in frequent loud howling or barking, or behave in a way that habitually annoys anyone other than the owner or caretaker;

— Cause damage to property or create a nuisance on someone else’s property;

— Chase or harass people in a way that causes reasonable fear of harm or injury;

— Chase or bark at motor vehicles; or

— Leave feces on any of Altamont’s public roads, gutters, sidewalks, parks, other public areas, or private property without the property owner’s consent.

Also unlawful: Allowing a female dog in heat to run free in the village. 

The proposed amendment takes the second provision, which says specifically: “Engage in habitual loud howling or barking or to conduct itself in such manner so as to habitually annoy any person other than the owner or person harboring such dog,” and adds “crying or whining” following “barking.” And also adds “that lasts continually for a period of 10 minutes or intermittently for a period of 30 minutes” after “such dog.”

The complaint process, Dineen told The Enterprise by email, would be, “If a resident has a complaint about excessive barking, they call our Village Police Department.  The department has a conversation with the residence that the complaint is about.  If the issue persists,  and an official report with the APD would be made by the complainant - the APD would contact the Town Animal Officer.” 

Dineen added that, to her knowledge, “this has only happened one time in my tenure with the Village.”

The current fine for a first violation is $25 and up to $100 for subsequent violations.

The other addition the board is looking to add to the village’s dog law is a provision allowing it to curtail the presence of dogs on village property:

“The Village Board may adopt rules and regulations to prohibit or restrict the days or times when dogs may be permitted on Village Property, including specified Village Parks, to ensure the presence of dogs does not conflict or interfere with scheduled or planned programming or permitted activities taking place on the premises.”