Dogs and noise
barking yappping howling dogs day and night - all day - dogs locked out side - never taken indoors
it has been so bad this last few days - cant even hear the tv with the windows closed AC and a fan
- Living in Cyprus: the expat guide - Guide
- Dog owners be aware of this in Cyprus - 2 Replies
- Dog daycare - 1 Reply
- Advice on flying dog to Paphos - 4 Replies
- Walking dog in peyia paphos - 6 Replies
- Curtailment of Photo Voltaics - 26 Replies
- Retiree Visa application clarification or help. - 19 Replies
so anyone who comes here - please take note of any tin huts or wooden sheds that are close by or within earshot of your future home as they probably house hunting dogs - if you see them move on walk away - police and municipality seem to be powerless to do anything or just dont, wont or dont want to do do anything,...... so be warned
It's a worldwide problem and one that is most prominent in developing nations. I can assure you that if you're having problems coping with it there in the EU then don't ever dream of coming to Brazil, you'll be ready to jump off the tallest bridge you can find in a matter of days. All Central and South American, Asian, Middle Eastern and African countries also share this problem,
You may want to check your local bylaws (municipal) to see if there is any possibility of finding some relief there. Perhaps your municipality may have an anti-noise bylaw (remote possibility) or a bylaw limiting the number of dogs that one may own without having a kennel or breeder's license. I once lived right across the street from a family that had no less than 6 dogs, despite a bylaw limiting ownership to 3 without a kennel license or breeders permit. They barked 24/7 non-stop.
Other than that you're pretty much going to have to suffer through it, use industrial earplugs as much as possible and crank up the volume on the old tele (but for your neighbors' sakes not too loud please, because they're probably suffering just like you are).
If you think you've got it bad, well read this following topic thread and take consolation from it, no matter how bad things are they could always be worse:
https://www.expat.com/forum/viewtopic.p … 765#823194
Cheers,
William James Woodward, Expat-blog Experts Team
It's really a big problem since the locals have grown up in this culture and have become immune over many years to the barking. They don't even notice it anymore, much less consider that it might be extremely annoying for people who come for other countries that take respect for one's neighbors and their rights to peace and quiet seriously. They somehow can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that their rights end where they interfere with the rights of others.
Funny, I've never seen a bad dog, just a whole lot of bad dog owners, people that should never be permitted to have animals in the first place.
i also know for sure now that the laws are being bent to suit the hunters requirements.... and of course as is usual we are simply foreigners interfering with their own own country's pastimes etc....
cest la vie
See you when we get there.

Strange to tell, I don’t recall ever being kept awake at night by barking dogs in the weeks after Ivan. Our neighbours were responsible enough to keep their dogs quiet; that’s what neighbours should do, after all. Barking-dogs are the bane of my life, and I can’t be the only person in Cayman who hates being kept awake by them, or woken up by them. There is a strong whiff of sociopathy about people who allow their dogs to bark during the night or early morning. (Sociopaths are defined as people who don’t give a damn about other people.) I don’t blame the dogs. Dogs are social creatures, and get lonely when left alone for hours in a confined space. Indeed, there is a strong whiff of cruelty in doing that to one’s dogs. Humane Society, are you listening?
I don’t kill dogs, even barking-dogs. However, plenty of people do kill barking-dogs. You read about dogs being poisoned in their yards and beyond, and why else would they be killed except to shut them up? Poison might well account for the silence of the dogs after Ivan. If so, we can probably expect more of the same after the next hurricane. Responsible owners’ dogs will be okay: sociopaths’, perhaps not.
what is cultural is the organised ignoring of complaints from nearby residents against the inconsiderate owners for lack of control over them - I do not for one moment blame a dog for acting the way they do when theyre really not at fault.. the media generally say there is a cat problem or a dog probelm when really it is solely a people problem
To this end I have been forced to start a website for it and facebook pages too... its ridiculous and nobody in authority seems to want to know, thus it seems to be eminating as a fear factor as locals with the issue are afraid to complain in case of reprisals.
http://peyiabarkingdogsnuisance.simplesite.com/
Toon wrote:i dont believe for one moment its a cultural thing at all.....
We are going to have to differ about the "cultural thing", Toon! three years ago I wrote a piece on my personal blog that tackled this point: There has always been a huge cultural difference between the customs of towns and countrysides. What counts as good, practical sense in rural settings is often frowned upon in urban ones, and vice versa. (The whole piece can be Googled at "Barlows Cayman Town and Country" - including the quotation marks.)
I gave examples of the different interpretation of the term "cruelty to animals"; I have been a country-dweller and a townie, so I can see both points of view. I detest barking dogs, and their owners, but I do understand them. In your village, it may well be that the custom of allowing dogs to bark incessantly existed before you moved there. If so, the native villagers might well have a definition of "cruelty" than you do.
I will never understand why or how anyone can keep and treat animal this way . sorry.
OMG. What an awful thing...the cruelty and the barking!Complaint has been acknowledged now and a formal complaint number issued - currently being assessed for actions.... so we shall see what happens
and new website as the original didnt have the safety security features required to protect the members identities
http://peyiabarkingdogsnuisanceprotestgroup.webs.com/
Have now, moved house incurring financial losses, after 7 months of hell and an abject failure of the Peyia Municipality, Police, Warden, and Ombudsman to act accordingly in applying THEIR laws regarding annoyance caused by dogs....
Now we have silence except birdsong and the rustle of leaves in the wind. We can start with peaceful enjoyment of our home......its oh so quiet and lovely to be able to sit outside with friends and have a meal and drink.
SO A BIG THANK YOU TO PEYIA MUNICIPALITY FOR FORCING ME TO INCUR AND ACCEPT FURTHER COSTS UNNECESSARILY......
Toon wrote:Further update to situation in Peyia.....
Have now, moved house incurring financial losses, after 7 months of hell and an abject failure of the Peyia Municipality, Police, Warden, and Ombudsman to act accordingly in applying THEIR laws regarding annoyance caused by dogs....
Now we have silence except birdsong and the rustle of leaves in the wind. We can start with peaceful enjoyment of our home......its oh so quiet and lovely to be able to sit outside with friends and have a meal and drink.
SO A BIG THANK YOU TO PEYIA MUNICIPALITY FOR FORCING ME TO INCUR AND ACCEPT FURTHER COSTS UNNECESSARILY......
Sorry to hear that... where did you end up moving to?
COURTESY OF THE APC - THANKS
ANOTHER IMPORTANT COURT DECISION
Hard to prove of the continuous and nuisance of a dog barking
A decision of the Judge Mrs Stella Messiou (District Court of Nicosia)
in case 23073/13 dated. 01.09.2015.
NOT GUILTY THE ACCUSED OWNER OF THE ANIMAL
Δύσκολη η απόδειξη οχληρίας από συνεχές γάβγισμα σκύλου
Από την απόφαση της δικαστού του Επαρχιακού Δικαστηρίου Λευκωσίας,
Στέλλας Μέσσιου στην υπόθεση 23073/13, ημερ. 9/1/2015
ΑΘΩΩΘΗΚΕ Ο ΚΑΤΗΓΟΡΟΥΜΕΝΟΣ
Α) Τι σημαίνει ο όρος «σκύλος»
Β) ΟΙ διαφορές μεταξύ δημόσιας και ιδιωτικής οχληρίας.
Γ) Να αποδειχθεί κατά πόσο ο κατηγορούμενος επιτρέπει ή ανέχεται όπως ο σκύλος του προκαλεί θόρυβο με ηχηρό και συνεχές γάβγισμα που προκαλεί οχληρία στο κοινό
Οποιοδήποτε πρόσωπο επιτρέπει ή ανέχεται όπως ο σκύλος, του οποίου είναι ιδιοκτήτης ή τον οποίο έχει κάτω από τη φροντίδα του, προξενεί θόρυβο με ηχηρό και συνεχές γάβγισμα που προκαλεί οχληρία στο κοινό είναι ένοχο αδικήματος.
Τα παραπάνω υπέδειξε η Δικαστής του Επαρχιακού Δικαστηρίου Λευκωσίας Στέλλα Μέσσιου εκδίδοντας την απόφασή της στην υπόθεση αρ.: 23073/13 ημερ. 9 Ιανουαρίου 2015. Επίσης η Δικαστής επικαλέστηκε το άρθρο 2 του Ν. 184(Ι)/2002 προκειμένου να αναλύσει τον όρο «σκύλος» που περιλαμβάνει κάθε σκύλο φυλής και γένους ηλικίας άνω των τριών μηνών.
Α) Επομένως το πρώτο πράγμα που θα πρέπει να διερευνηθεί σε μια υπόθεση οχληρίας από σκύλο είναι η ηλικία του.
Β) Στη συνέχεια εκείνο που θα πρέπει να διαπιστωθεί είναι κατά πόσον ο κατηγορούμενος επιτρέπει ή ανέχεται όπως ο σκύλος του προκαλεί θόρυβο με ηχηρό και συνεχές γάβγισμα που προκαλεί οχληρία στο κοινό.
Στην υπόθεση Σάββας Κωνσταντίνου ν. Αστυνομίας (1998) 2 Α.Α.Δ. 216 υιοθετήθηκε στη σελίδα 222 το πιο κάτω απόσπασμα από το σύγγραμμα Russell on Crime 12η έκδοση, τόμος 2 σελ. 1.387: «Η οχληρία ή η ενόχληση σημαίνει οτιδήποτε το οποίο προκαλεί βλάβη, στενοχώρια ή ζημιά. Οι οχληρίες είναι δύο ειδών: Δημόσια ή κοινή οχληρία, η οποία επηρεάζει ουσιωδώς το κοινό, και αποτελεί ουσιώδη ενόχληση για όλους τους υπηκόους […] και ιδιωτική οχληρία, η οποία μπορεί να προσδιοριστεί σαν οτιδήποτε το οποίο προκαλεί ουσιαστική ανησυχία και ενόχληση, σε οποιοδήποτε άτομο κατά τη χρήση για συνηθισμένους σκοπούς της κατοικίας του ή της περιουσίας του».
Η ίδια διάκριση, σύμφωνα με την κ. Μέσσιου, γίνεται στο σύγγραμμα Blackstone's Criminal Practice (2003) σελ. 528 παρ. Β 11.96. «Η βασική διαφορά, λοιπόν, της δημόσιας από την ιδιωτική οχληρία είναι ότι η πρώτη επηρεάζει το κοινό σε αντίθεση με τη δεύτερη που περιορίζεται στην ενόχληση που προκαλείται στον γείτονα κατά τη χρήση της περιουσίας του»
Συνεπώς η οχληρία από γάβγισμα σκύλου αποτελεί δημόσια οχληρία, αφού ρητά αναφέρεται ότι ο θόρυβος από το γάβγισμα θα πρέπει να προκαλεί ενόχληση στο κοινό.
Απόδειξη αρκετών σημείων χρειάζεται το άρθρο 18(ε) του Ν. 184(Ι) 2002 που προνοεί ότι «οποιοδήποτε πρόσωπο επιτρέπει ή ανέχεται όπως ο σκύλος του οποίου είναι ιδιοκτήτης ή τον οποίο έχει κάτω από τη φροντίδα του προξενεί θόρυβο με ηχηρό και συνεχές γάβγισμα που προκαλεί οχληρία στο κοινό είναι ένοχο αδικήματος».
Η δικαστής προσθέτει. Για να αποδειχθεί η οχληρία από γάβγισμα σκύλου, δεν αρκεί η μεμονωμένη μαρτυρία του παραπονούμενου αλλά χρειάζεται μαρτυρία που να καταδεικνύει την δημόσια έκταση της οχληρίας.
Στο σύγγραμμα Blackstone’s Criminal Practice (2003) παράγραφος Β11.102 αναφέρεται «προκειμένου να στοιχειοθετηθεί πως διαπράχθηκε το αδίκημα, είναι απαραίτητο να καταδειχθεί η ουσιαστική δημόσια φύση της οχληρίας. Είναι σαφές ότι δεν χρειάζεται να αποδειχθεί ότι επηρεάζεται το σύνολο του κοινού. Αλλά πρέπει να στοιχειοθετηθεί ότι η πράξη ή παράλειψη ήταν αρκετά διαδεδομένη ή άνευ διακρίσεων ώστε να θεωρείται δημόσια παρά ιδιωτική οχληρία».
Περαιτέρω επισημαίνει η δικαστής, το καθοριστικό και ουσιαστικό στοιχείο του αδικήματος είναι η απόδειξη ότι ο ιδιοκτήτης του σκύλου «επιτρέπει ή ανέχεται να γαβγίζει συνεχώς ο σκύλος του κατά τρόπο που να προκαλεί οχληρία στο κοινό. Στην προκειμένη περίπτωση το παραπονούμενο πρόσωπο είχε καταθέσει στο δικαστήριο ότι όσο ο ιδιοκτήτης του σκύλου όσο και άλλα μέλη της οικογένειας του προσπαθούσαν να ελέγξουν τον σκύλο τους όταν αυτός γάβγιζε και έκανε σχετική αναφορά στον ίδιο τον κατηγορούμενο, στην γυναίκα του αλλά και στον γιό του, χωρίς όμως να το κατορθώνουν.
Επομένως σύμφωνα με την κατάληξη της κο Μέσσιου, οι ενέργειες του κατηγορουμένου να ελέγξει τον σκύλο του δείχνουν ότι αυτός ούτε επέτρεπε ούτε και ανεχόταν τον σκύλο του να γαβγίζει. Κάτω από την εξέλιξη εύρημα-εύρημα έγινε δυνατή η αθώωση του κατηγορουμένου ιδιοκτήτη του ζώου.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT COURT DECISION
Hard to prove of the continuous and nuisance of a dog barking
A decision of the Judge Mrs Stella Messiou (District Court of Nicosia)
in case 23073/13 dated. 01.09.2015.
NOT GUILTY THE ACCUSED OWNER OF THE ANIMAL
Difficult proof of intrusive sounds from continuous dog barking
By the decision of a judge of the District Court of Nicosia,
Stella Messios in case 23073/13, date. 9/1/2015
ATHWWTHIKE THE KATIGOROYMENOS
(A)) What is meant by the term "dog"
B) differences between public and private intrusive sounds.
(C)) to establish whether the accused allows or tolerates as the dog causes noise with strong and constant barking that causes ochliria to the public
Any person who permits or tolerates as the dog, which owns or has under his care, causes noise with strong and constant barking that causes ochliria in public is guilty of an offence.
The above indicated by the Judge of the District Court of Nicosia Stella Messios by issuing its decision in case No.: 23073/13 date. 9 January 2015. The Judge also invoked article 2 of law No. 184 (I)/2002 in order to analyze the term "dog" that includes each dog breed and race over the age of three months.
(A)) So the first thing that should be investigated on a case of intrusive sounds from the age of the dog.
B) then what should determine whether the accused allows or tolerates as the dog causes noise with strong and constant barking that causes ochliria in public.
In case Savvas Konstantinou n. police (1998) 2 adopted on page 216 A.A.D. 222 the below excerpt from the book Russell on Crime 12th Edition, volume 2 pp. 1,387: «the ochliria or discomfort means anything which causes harm, heartache or damage. The residents concerning nuisance is of two types: public or common ochliria, which materially affects the public, and is a significant nuisance for all nationals [...] and private ochliria, which can be defined as anything which causes substantial worry and annoyance to any person during use for ordinary purposes of residence or of his property ".
The same distinction, according to Mrs Messios, becomes in Blackstone's Criminal Practice textbook (2003) pp. 528 Fri. (B) 11.96. "The basic difference, well, public private ochliria is that the first affects the public unlike the second limited to nuisance caused to the neighbor during the use of his property"
So the dog is barking ochliria of public ochliria, having explicitly stated that noise from barking should be causing nuisance to the public.
Several points need proof article 18 (e) of s. 184 (I) 2002, which provides that "any person who permits or tolerates as the dog which owns or has under his care causes noise with strong and constant barking that causes ochliria in public is guilty of an offence".
The judge adds. To demonstrate the ochliria of dog barking, not just the individual testimony of paraponoymenoy but we need evidence to demonstrate the public land of intrusive sounds.
In Blackstone's Criminal Practice textbook (2003), paragraph (b) 11.102 refers ' in order to establish that the offence was committed, it is necessary to demonstrate the essential public nature of intrusive sounds. It is clear that you do not need to prove that influenced the whole together. But you have to establish that the Act or omission was quite widespread or indiscriminate as to be considered public rather than private ochliria ".
Further notes the judge, the vital and essential element of the offence is proof that the dog owner "allows or tolerates constantly barks to his dog in a way that causes ochliria in public. In this case the person complaining had testified in court that as the owner of the dog and other family members were trying to control their dog when he barked and made reference to the accused, to his wife and his son, but without realising.
Therefore in accordance with the conclusion of Mr. Messios, actions of the accused to control his dog show that he neither allow nor tolerate his dog barking. Under evolution finding-finding was possible acquittal of the accused the owner of the animal.
so we shall see what the mayor will do
i can understand it though
Toon wrote:some how i doubt it Jess... it seems that efforts to get things rolling are being met with a lot of anger from the animal welfare peeps...
i can understand it though
Unfortunately this is exactly what happens in any developing nation where the government caters to the "bunny huggers", always expats who are the vocal minority, over the needs and wishes of the local population.
Look at the Mauritius Forum for example. The island is overrun by feral dogs that present a significant danger of attack and disease, especially to children and the elderly. The animal activists on the island (almost exclusively your fellow countrymen) scream long and loud whenever the local government tries to do anything to rectify the problem. They've virtually stifled the catch and kill program, insisting that catch, sterilize and release program is the only solution. Simple math proves that it would take at least 8 years doing sterilizations 24/7 for this to have any effect. Yet they manage to block the government at every turn. Anyone who has the courage to speak in favor of the government policy is branded a pariah.
It's probably exactly the same way there in Cyprus too, I'm sure if you dig deeper you'll find that it's the small expat population that's stirring the pot and preventing any action toward resolving the problem. Sad to say, in many cases we move to a country and end up making things much worse for the locals.
Cheers,
James
i can understand the animal welfare worries if the authorities did actually apply the existing laws as most local nationals who own these dogs would simply destroy the animals in front of any complainer... then go and get new ones....
same can be said to be true of the authorities as they themselves are not exactly sympathetic towards animals either = maybe its a med thing and these animals are simply tools and a means to an end... to be disposed of when their use is no longer required or important...
its a sad indictment indeed....in the modern world.
Trouble is people will not complain - they just move away.
if the authority dont act then the last port of call is the ombudsman
good luck
I had the most dreadful experience today 16/08/2015 I've already posted this on Cyprus living. Please see below:
Well I've just experienced the most dreadful experience 16/08/2015 I went to the neibours with the barking dogs and they have 6 dogs, he actuly breeds the dogs, this person who owns the dogs works for Peyia Municapality and I note he was mentioned in the Cyprus Mail as the main culprit of the issues in peyia regarding the dog barking.
As I say I went to his home and he polity turned his garden hose on me, and his wife gave,me verbal abuse from a distance.
Myself and my husband had been awake all night again listening to 6 dogs barking, it goes on for hours during the day also.
Are being soaked by the hose myself and my husband then went to Peyia police station and they said they were going to go up and speak to them then fine them. We were at the police station for around 30 minutes.
Then as we were returning to our home from the police station the said neibours shouted out his car window that he was going to the police.
So myself and my husband followed them back to the police station.
When we got there his wife was there in the police station saying that I had attacked her and she was showing the police red marks round her neck. Well to say the least I was astonished, I was never near his wife, how low will these people go.
I'm still in a state of shock and a complete reck, thankfully the police took no notice of them and new there statement was false.
To cut a long story short myself and my husband have been back and forth over 2 years to the Municapality spoken to the dog warden/ community officer and the police regarding the dogs.
Been given countless phone numbers to call when the dogs bark to the stage we have lost count we have lost count.
There is never ever a week goes by when we are not up at the Municapality.
I'm one of the people who also wrote to the Ombusman and received a letter dated June 2015. The police now have a copy of this along with the municapality mayor.
We have been given the following phone numbers again to contact the police when the dogs bark, but the police have said the they must hear the barking if the case goes to court they would then be a witness.
Here is the contact numbers that are to be called 26806360 policemans name Bambos. If that fails call 199 make sure you have the street name of the owners of the dogs that are causing trouble to give this information to the police.
What I really really want is to meet up with the other peyia residents that have the same problem. Please email me Louise2001@hotmail.com I would like to get together as the more people the more they will have to listen to the residents of peyia.
I'm now feeling very very intimidated and frightened, what is happening in this village is a disgrace, these dogs deserve a better life not stuck in a bloody boiling cage being sprayed with a hose now and again and living in tempatures reaching 50 c it disgusting.
I understand that we live in a village and there will be dog barking but when it affecting mine and my husbands health that we cannot sleep all because inconsiderate dog owners something has to be done.
So please get in touch with me as the more people we have behind this the more will be done. I'm going to again write to the Ombusnman, to advise nothing has been done.
Essential services for your expat journey




- Registered dental hygienists
- UK and USA on smart TV
- Disconnection of PV by EAC
- MUKW3 Appointment
- Previous criminal conviction
- New members of the Cyprus forum, introduce yourselves here - 2024
- Advice on Peyia, Kissonerga, Chlorakas or Kato Paphos
- New requirements for residency as of 1st Jan 2023
- Cost of Fly Screens
- Immigration Appointment
- Cost to install Air Conditioning
- Cost to replace liner with tiles in swimming pool
- Fire stick
- Lost my original yellow slip
- Tax Advice
- Renting out my property for holiday lets
- GESY / GHS - conflicting info on eligibility
- Cockroaches - how to get rid
