Make sure you get the ordinance that they say you violated and read it.
Just because the city sent it doesnt mean that someone in the city
isn't reading the ordinance incorrectly. This happens all the time. Its
best to know your rights.
Sam

The City Attorney attach it to the letter, and it mentions "animals" not
pets and the word "harboring" which I guess would be having a place for
said animals to hang out and make noise. Course I wonder if this
"harboring" would also include the evergreen trees the noisy magpies so
love to make nests in and they can be very early risers in the AM. Would
people have to harass the magpies to leave, or chop down their trees, if
someone complained?

To give an update on my situation. I delivered, as one friend said, a
tactful, yet educational letter, to my neighbors within ear shot of the
pond. Since it went out I have heard from 4 neighbors in positive support.
One of which sent me such a wonderfully worded E-mail I ask, and he
consented, to let me send it to the City Attorney's office. I would really
like to see them reconsider taking the time & money to bother people about
native species when the complainers haven't done all they could to alieve
the situation without involving the authorities. The results would have
been the same whether it was a simple note on my door or an official letter
from the CA's office. I would have removed frogs to lower the volume.

Course I am one who is going to take it to the limit, as far as keeping as
many as I can before peopled are "bothered". That "magic" number I will
work towards next year. Since I removed 9 of 12, I'm hoping I could at
least keep 6, since 3 hardly croak enough, most likely because they are too
"busy". But dang, I bet I've made them the happiest frogs on the planet
this summer. beg ~ jan

~Power to the Porg, Flow On!~