This is an appeal from the county court of Polk County, Judge Catherine Mary Green presiding. Appellant, Stephen Fisher, appeals his adjudication of guilt in an animal nuisance case. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c)(1). The ruling of the county court is affirmed.

I.

On November 22, 2000, the appellant received a copy of an animal nuisance affidavit pursuant to Polk County Ordinance 85-01 as amended by 88-24 and 89-04. (V1/R30-31) The affidavit contained a complete recitation of 85-01 as amended by 88-24 and 89-04. (V1/R102) On December 22, 2000, the appellant was cited for violation of that ordinance. (V1/R1) The citation was a result of the two witness affidavits and subsequent complaints regarding the appellant submitted to Polk County Animal Services pursuant to Polk County Ordinance 85-1 as amended by 88-24 and 89-04. A trial was conducted and the appellant was found guilty of the violation.

II.

The appellant raises several issues on appeal, however, only one issue merits discussion. The appellant argues that the citation must be dismissed for insufficiency because the citation alleges that the appellant had custody of dogs that caused a disturbance between the hours of A9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.@ (R 1) Appellant contends that according to the evidence adduced at trial, only one of the witnesses was able to verify that the dogs caused a nuisance between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The appellant contends that since the evidence at trial does not support the allegations in the citation, (emphasis added) there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction. The appellant cites Delk v. Department of Professional Regulation, 595 So.2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5thh DCA 1992)(due process of law requires that the conduct charged in the accusatorial document must be proven at trial).

The appellee contends that the ordinance at issue was amended in 1991, to remove the evening hours required for the offense of animal nuisance. The appellee further contends that the affidavit, which the appellant received prior to the citation, provides the language from the amended ordinance. Appellee argues that since the appellant received the affidavit prior to the citation, he had adequate notice and information of the law and the alleged violation. Furthermore, the appellee argues that the offender is given time to correct a violation after issuance of the affidavits and prior to the issuance of the citation. Finally, the appellee argues that even accepting the appellant=s argument that the law (as amended) was not adequately published, his arguments still fail because Aignorance of the law is not an excuse and does not constitute good cause for failure to comply with the law.@ Reason v. Motorola, Inc., 432 So.2d 644, 645 (Fla. 1^st DCA 1983).

III.

The court, having reviewed the file, the initial brief, the answer brief, the reply brief and the cross reply brief, as well as the applicable law, finds that the citation under which the appellant was noticed for the violation did not violate the appellant=s due process rights since not only did he receive a copy of the amended law with the affidavit, the citation itself referenced a specific section of the Polk County Ordinance which sufficiently sets forth the elements of the violation. See Fulcher v. State, 766 So.2d 243 (Fla. 4^th DCA 2000); McClarock v. State, 374 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Additionally, the court finds that there is competent substantial evidence to support the conviction.