POLAND – After chewing on the town’s barking dog ordinance for nearly a year, selectmen still lack one with any teeth. They directed the town’s attorney this week to come up with yet another version.

“I would like an actual final, final copy,” Selectman David Corcoran said.

Numerous attempts to rewrite the town’s currently unenforceable ordinance have resulted in a growing list of vague terms and more hypothetical situations.

“Where is it going to stop?” said Corcoran. “Are we going to have to write an ordinance for lawn mowers?”

Attorney Paul Crowley of Linnell, Choate & Webber advised selectmen that their latest draft would likely meet a repeat of last year’s court case, which was thrown out on technicalities.

The selectmen’s effort to protect kennels by adding the word “supervised,” raised questions of the word’s definition and whether the condition would actually stop annoying barking.

“Theoretically, a dog playing with its owner at 9 o’clock at night for two hours would still be the annoyance and nuisance that you’re trying to prevent,” said Crowley. “And that word is unclear. Now you’ve posed a different problem.”

However, Corcoran maintained that the condition of supervised dogs needed to be included in the new ordinance. The board agreed that Crowley could further define the term.

The current ordinance calls for a complaint to be “signed and sworn to” before a law officer gives warning to the dog’s owner. The same ordinance also calls for the warning to be made part of the complaint, which would put the ordinance chasing its own tail.

In addition, the original draft refers to barking “unnecessarily” without providing any definitions or parameters.

Crowley went to court for the town in August 2003 to prosecute a resident’s complaint about his neighbor’s dog. The case was dismissed and cost the town about $2,000.

Crowley also urged selectmen to make provisions for recouping legal costs from dog owners found guilty of violating the ordinance.

“The biggest problem I have is that for the individual who complains, the town of Poland picks up the tab,” Selectman Bud Jordan said. “The person complaining could go to court 10 times and never pay a dime. But the individual we’re going after has to pick up his own attorney fees to fight it.”

Jordan had previously suggested eliminating the provision for paying court costs on the first offense.

Crowley suggested that including legal fees, in addition to fines, would discourage a complaint from going to court.

“It will make someone think long and hard before they take someone to court,” said Crowley. “None of these should go to court. What we want is for the neighbors to work it out.”

However, last year’s case involved the complaining neighbor forcing the issue to court. The latest draft of a new barking dog ordinance would only recoup legal fees from the offending dog owner if found in violation. There is no mention of who pays legal fees should the town lose again.