Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions. Dog Management Policy and Bylaw Submissions Kaikohe Hearing

Transcription

1 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Kaikohe Hearing Wednesday October 24, 2018

2 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Table of Contents Kaikohe Hearing ID Family name First name Organisation Page DMC18/10 B H 1 DMC18/25 Philson Geoff 3 DMC18/239 C K 5 DMC18/282 Dunlop Anthony 7 DMC18/296 C J 9 DMC18/335 Way Daryl 11 DMC18/447 Name Witheld by request S 13 DMC18/592 Ratepayer Dogtired 15 DMC18/781 Boeror Motton Beryl Wairoro Park 17 DMC18/802 Evans, Krebs and Hurst Yvonne, John and Don Te Wahapu Reserves 19 DMC18/938 Haretuku Ellen 21 DMC18/1150 Anderson Karen 23 DMC18/1151 Nelson Kay 40 DMC18/1175 B G 42 DMC18/1178 Kearney Jillian 53 DMC18/1182 Prentice Arthur 56 DMC18/1186 Exel Leonie BOI Watchdogs 58 DMC18/1207 McKenzie David Russell Landcare Trust 92 DMC18/1211 Bidlake Debbie Federated Farmers of New Zealand 100 DMC18/1214 Mentor Andrew Kiwi Coast 111

3 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID Family name First name Organisation Page DMC18/1261 Thorpe Bruce 115 DMC18/1263 Bate Yvette 117 DMC18/1265 Beatson Trevor 119

4 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/10 Surname B First Name H Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Kaikohe Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? Hihi Beach; Mahinepua Beach; Tapeka Point Beach; Taupo Bay - from the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance to the bluff; Tauranga Bay - east of tractor access point toward the sandspit; Te Haumi Beach - from the public toilets to the bridge; Te Tii Beach - from the roundabout toward Waitangi along the beach behind Te Tii Marae; Waitangi - the beach from Waitangi Bridge to the Waitangi Treaty Grounds What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Cable Bay; Coopers Beach; Paihia Beach; Russell Beach; Taupo Bay - north of the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance, toward the boat ramp; Tauranga Bay - west of tractor access toward the campground; Te Tii Beach - from the roundabout to the bluff Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? This is far too restrictive Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? I question where your team have got this ridiculous proposal from. Page 1

5 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? Beaches (unless specified otherwise); Public footpaths, roads and other public spaces; Pou Herenga Tai - the Twin Coast cycle trail; All other public places not specified If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? Additional Supporting Information Page 2

6 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/25 Surname Philson First Name Geoff Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Taupo Bay Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Taupo Bay - north of the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance, toward the boat ramp Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? Taupo Bay should not be on-leash from 1 April to 30 vember. It is the ONLY beach with this restriction. There is no wild life along the main part of the beach that needs protecting. The beach is far less crowded than other beaches lsisted. What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Visitors come to stay and need to bring their dog with them. Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? Page 3

7 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? Beaches (unless specified otherwise) If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Many beaches are on private land. is council seriously suggesting requiring on-leash dogs on a private beach? Beaches should be off-leash unless specified on-leash. Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? Additional Supporting Information Page 4

8 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/239 Surname C First Name K Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Russell Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: All dogs off the owners property should be on a leash even on the beachs in the permitted time. This would simplify all of the rules and cease all arguments. Owners should carry a spray neutralising agent for when dogs urinate, this would stop Russell from smelling like a public toilet. Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? All beachs, dogs should be on a leash. Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Russell Beach Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? All dogs on a leash at all times, once again this would stop all arguments What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? Page 5

9 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? an area should be made available for an off leash exercise area this should enclosed by a dog proof fence and include a dock gymkana jumps and the like. There should also be a dog drinking fountains along with public seating and shade trees. Dog toileting removal facility's included. Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? All dogs on a leash at all times off the owners property Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? Dogs should not be permitted in food shops at all times the exceptions for working dogs ie blind care dogs and the like. Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? Additional Supporting Information Page 6

10 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/282 Surname Dunlop First Name Anthony Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Russell Shorter time restriction Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: While I do support time and season rules, beaches are largely empty of people prior to Christmas and after the summer school holidays. If you want to show your willingness to accommodate dog owners a shorter period would make sense. Suggestion 10am-6pm 20 December to 31 Jan and public holidays. Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Taupo Bay - north of the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance, toward the boat ramp Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? off leash at Taupo Bay seems draconian. What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? Page 7

11 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? Beaches (unless specified otherwise); All other public places not specified If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? There are many coastal areas where people live which are not generally accessed by the general public. It is ridiculous to make these areas on leash in summer. For example most of the coast of the Te Wahapu penninsular where we live. n residents need to walk a kilometer around a rocky coast at low tide to access our beach. I am concerned that any vexatious person could cause problems applying the letter of this law where it is an unnecessary restriction. Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? I am very concerned that I can find no references to Long Beach Russell in these proposals. I assume it comes under the category of other beaches which I would support. Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? I feel that a balance between the interests of various parties is important. All dog owners need somewhere reasonably local to exercise their dogs off leash. Wildlife needs to be protected. The public needs to be able to safely use public space without fear of or harassment by dogs. If new policies go too far there will be further backlash. The decision needs to be seen as including wins for all parties, no more restrictions that necessary [eg time and season rules shorter] but very clear restrictions where there are valid reasons for them which should be clearly articulated. I feel it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a "beach" or to adjust the rule about "other beaches" to apply only to beaches generally used by the public, or "beaches with public access" or maybe "beaches with public parking". The beach we live on Taiaruru has no public access so time and season rules make no sense. I feel the questionnaire has some problems as I was forced to make choices on the rules for some areas that I know very little about. Additional Supporting Information Page 8

12 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/296 Surname C First Name J Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Omapere Shorter time restriction Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Restrictions to dogs on beaches should be for brief periods, eg. the 2 weeks around Christmas and New Year's Day. Also the restrictions should apply to select beaches only rather than to all beaches, especially if longer restriction periods are considered. Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Cable Bay; Coopers Beach; Paihia Beach; Russell Beach; Taupo Bay - north of the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance, toward the boat ramp; Tauranga Bay - west of tractor access toward the campground Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? Allow dogs on-leash throughout the year and off-leash from 9 February - 10 December Opononi, Omapere, and Waimamaku Beaches, no What other beaches do you recommend be restrictions except Opononi boat ramp to Baker included in the Exceptional Rules? Rd, outside Copthorne, on-leash 10 December - 9 February 10 am - 5 pm, off-leash rest of year. Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Dog size should be taken into consideration. Allow more small dogs per property. Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Page 9

13 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? Beaches (unless specified otherwise); Public footpaths, roads and other public spaces If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Off-leash on rural roads. Beaches without restriction, off-leash, for most west coast beaches year round. Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? The proposed restrictions make it very hard for dog-loving families. With two small children, going to the beach with our dog is one of our main activities. Our dog likes to swim and fetch. She cannot do this on-leash. We do not take our dog into the bush and consider the beach a place where we can have an outing as a family with our dog. Living on the west coast we value the freedom of our lifestyle and this includes how we spend time with our dog. I find it ridiculous that I need even defend something so natural as being in the outdoors, freely, with our family pet. These proposed restrictions punish responsible dog owners. They infringe on our rights and our way of life. Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? Additional Supporting Information Page 10

14 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/335 Surname Way First Name Daryl Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Shorter Shorter Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Dogs should be kept on a leash at all times on all beaches to protect human users, other dogs and wildlife that may be present. Changes to rules on a seasonal basis creates an opportunity for irresponsible dog owners to plead ignorance. A dog is not under control if it is not on a lead. Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? Dogs should not be on beaches unless they are on a leash at all times. What other beaches do you recommend be All our beaches are exceptional and should have included in the Exceptional Rules? restricted access for dogs. Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? Ahipara; Awanui; Coopers Beach; Cable Bay; Haruru Falls; Hihi; Horeke; Houhora; Kaeo; Kaikohe; Kaimaumau; Kaitaia; Kawakawa; Kerikeri; Kohukohu; Manawaora; Mangonui; Matauri Bay; Mitimiti; Moerewa; Ngawha; Ninety Mile Beach (Waipapakauri Ramp); Ohaeawai; Okaihau; Okiato; Omapere; Opito Bay; Opononi; Opua; Orongo; Paihia; Parekura Bay; Point Veronica; Pukenui; Rangiputa; Rangitane; Rawene; Russell; Taipa; Tapeka Point; Taronui; Taupo Bay; Tauranga Bay; Te Hapua; Te Haumi; Te Ngaere; Tokerau Beach; Totara rth; Waimamaku; Waipapa; Whangaroa; Whatuwhiwhi Page 11

15 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Unless there are exceptional circumstances no owner should have more than two dogs. The more dogs there are in a pack the greater the risk for harm to others if the dogs are loose or not under proper control. Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? It should be possible for land owners with properly fenced properties to make them available to dog owners as exercise areas as is the case for commercial kennels. Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? Beaches (unless specified otherwise) If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Beaches should not have off leash dogs on them at any time Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? Beaches should not have off leash dogs on them at any time. Dogs that are off leash represent a danger to human beach users and other dogs and wildlife. Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? The objectives of the bylaw do not include "Protection of rare and endangered wildlife" Additional Supporting Information Page 12

16 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/447 Surname Name Witheld by request First Name S Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Kaikohe Shorter Shorter Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? Ahipara; Awanui; Coopers Beach; Cable Bay; Haruru Falls; Hihi; Horeke; Houhora; Kaeo; Kaikohe; Kaimaumau; Kaitaia; Kawakawa; Kerikeri; Kohukohu; Manawaora; Mangonui; Matauri Bay; Mitimiti; Moerewa; Ngawha; Ninety Mile Beach (Waipapakauri Ramp); Ohaeawai; Okaihau; Okiato; Omapere; Opito Bay; Opononi; Opua; Orongo; Paihia; Parekura Bay; Point Veronica; Pukenui; Taronui What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? Page 13

17 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? Additional Supporting Information Page 14

18 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/592 Surname Ratepayer First Name Dogtired Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Opononi Longer Longer Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Dogs should be on a leash at all times in public places. I'm tired of having my walks on the beach spoiled by out of control dogs. Most dog owners (90% completely ignore existing legislation and common sense as well. There were 14,000 ACC claims for dog attacks last year--wake up! Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Dogs should be prohibited at all times from special areas and nature reserves. Dogs should be on a leash at all times in public and council actually need to police it. More than $3.3 million dollars of ACC dog bite claims last year alone should waken a little common sense. Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? All dogs must be on a leash at all times in public. More than ACC dog bite claims last year alone show that people are unable to train let alone control their dogs. If you are going to allow dogs at beaches then they should be on a leash at all beaches. Until dog What other beaches do you recommend be owners actually take responsibility for their dog's included in the Exceptional Rules? behaviour there should be no option. Dogs charging down the beach towards you or sniffing around your picnic are just unacceptable. Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? The two dog rule should apply to all areas unless you are a farmer. Page 15

19 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? Ahipara; Awanui; Coopers Beach; Cable Bay; Haruru Falls; Hihi; Horeke; Houhora; Kaeo; Kaikohe; Kaimaumau; Kaitaia; Kawakawa; Kerikeri; Kohukohu; Manawaora; Mangonui; Matauri Bay; Mitimiti; Moerewa; Ngawha; Ninety Mile Beach (Waipapakauri Ramp); Ohaeawai; Okaihau; Okiato; Omapere; Opito Bay; Opononi; Opua; Orongo; Paihia; Parekura Bay; Point Veronica; Pukenui; Rangiputa; Rangitane; Rawene; Russell; Taipa; Tapeka Point; Taronui; Taupo Bay; Tauranga Bay; Te Hapua; Te Haumi; Te Ngaere; Tokerau Beach; Totara rth; Waimamaku; Waipapa; Whangaroa; Whatuwhiwhi What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? All dog owners should be registered and licenced just like gun owners. Mandatory attendance and successful completion of dog obedience classes should be a mandatory requirement of dog ownership. $3.3 million for ACC dog attack claims last year--how many times do you need to hear it? Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? All dog owners should be registered and licenced just like gun owners. Mandatory attendance and successful completion of dog obedience classes should be a mandatory requirement of dog ownership for both owner and dog. $3.3 million for ACC dog attack claims last year--how many times do you need to hear it? Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? Additional Supporting Information Page 16

20 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/781 Surname Boeror Motton First Name Beryl Dog owner? Group / Organisation Wairoro Park Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Russell Shorter Shorter Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? Te Tii Beach - from the roundabout toward Waitangi along the beach behind Te Tii Marae; Waitangi - the beach from Waitangi Bridge to the Waitangi Treaty Grounds What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? I have 9 dwellings on my property of 160 acres. Could have many dogs as we do at Xmas Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Page 17

21 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Pipiroa Bay Okiato Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? Beaches (unless specified otherwise) If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? Russell Has many dog owners by responsible owners. Many retired most of the owners walk their dogs on the beach in the day in a reasonable way for their dogs and self exercise. It would be good if the time could be extended i.e on leash 10am-4pm Additional Supporting Information Page 18

22 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/802 Surname Evans, Krebs and Hurst First Name Yvonne, John and Don Dog owner? Group / Organisation Te Wahapu Reserves Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Russell Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Leashes prevent dogs from entering or soiling adjacent private properties (an ongoing problem in summer at Te Wahapu carpark and beach). Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Te Wahapu - to protect adjacent private property rights for approx. 36 properties with the beach as their boundary. Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? Page 19

23 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? All beaches (other than those specified in Section 2) are under the same standard rule - leashes at peak holiday times - good for safety. Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? - As Honorary Wardens we welcome the use of leashes as Te Wahapu area currently as no restriction in Summer. Dogs arrive by car from out of the area, overriding the restrictions of their home area. - All beaches must have appropriate signage at their entr Additional Supporting Information Page 20

24 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/938 Surname Haretuku First Name Ellen Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Kaikohe Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Picking up dog faeces by all dog owners on beaches Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Page 21

25 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? Propose 1. All dog owners need to register their dogs with council. 2. Dogs are tied 24/7. Is there anyway people can be report for (not) keeping dogs tied all the time Additional Supporting Information Page 22

26 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/1150 Surname Anderson First Name Karen Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Dunedin restriction dates at all time restriction Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: # I support reasonable steps implemented in a reasonable way to resolve proven problems. # I do not support blanket restrictions imposed without proof they are required. - Please view the attached written submission for further information. Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? This is a "leading" question because it presumes restrictions are necessary. It is a technique used to influence responses to surveys. It is easily avoided and is not appropriately used by local government. What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? As stated: # I support reasonable steps implemented in a reasonable way to resolve proven problems. # I do not support blanket restrictions imposed without proof they are required. - Please view the attached written submission for further information. Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? As above, this is also a "leading" question and subject to the same flaws. As stated: # I support reasonable steps implemented in a reasonable way to resolve What other beaches do you recommend be proven problems. # I do not support blanket included in the Exceptional Rules? restrictions imposed without proof they are required. - Please view the attached written submission for further information. Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? Page 23

27 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? It is not a two dog limit. The bylaw wording imposes the requirement to obtain permission to have more than two dogs on a property. Quite different. I disagree with because: # justification has been provided for imposing the permission requirement, and Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? As stated I support reasonable steps implemented in a reasonable way to resolve proven problems, but do not support blanket restrictions imposed without proof they are required. - Please view the attached written submission for further information. Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? There is no evidence that the wellbeing and recreational needs of owners of dogs and their dogs requires them to be confined to a fenced area. It appears you may be confusing them with convicted criminals. What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? I can expect this proposal was fully researched. My views accord with that research, especially design and management to avoid negative consequences. Done well these are excellent facilities. They are not a substitute for access to public spaces, especially in NZ where they are generally done badly Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Blanket prohibitions or restrictions confirm this proposal is based on identifying a problem exists or assessing whether the restriction is the appropriate way to resolve it. Although the proposal appears to adopt rules for different types of public spaces it does not: Two types are prohibited, the remainder on-leash. That produces a needlessly lengthy scheme for no useful purpose. It also needlessly introduces the complexity of definitions. For example, a playground may be a playground or merely play equipment in one corner of a public space. A road may be unformed and therefore not commonly known. Physical roads in older areas frequently deviate from the road corridor. Blanket prohibitions frequently prevent desired and functional behaviour: Families often visit play equipment so the children can easily alternate between the equipment and interacting with the dog. The design of many public spaces serves that common and time-honoured tradition very well. Unformed roads are public spaces and are commonly used for day walks into less populated areas. What has been developed so it has the appearance of road may not be a surveyed road. Off-leash public spaces that contain roads require owners to leash and unleash their dogs whenever they cross them. The "road rule" allows access to areas that may have been prohibited for legitimate reasons. The solution is not to try to be more clever than central government and legislation that has been in place for decades by introducing even more fine-grained rules. You will simply reproduce the insurmountable problems other local authorities have produced when insisting on that approach. The solution is to comply with the scheme of the legislation which does not attempt to impose blanket rules and expects local authorities to identify problem areas and implement targeted solutions. Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? See above, and the attached written submission. Page 24

28 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? - Please view the attached written submission for further comment. te this submission has been made at the request of the organising committee of the representative group BOI Watchdogs. As a consequence they may refer to it during this consultatio Additional Supporting Information Page 25

29 Page 26

30 Page 27

31 Page 28

32 Page 29

33 Page 30

34 Page 31

35 Page 32

36 Page 33

37 Page 34

38 Page 35

39 Page 36

40 Page 37

41 Page 38

42 Page 39

43 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/1151 Surname Nelson First Name Kay Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Kaikohe Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? Ahipara; Awanui; Kaikohe; Kaitaia; Kawakawa; Moerewa; Ohaeawai; Okaihau; Rawene What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Generally where there is an identified problem with dog owners and excess dogs. Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? Kaikohe Cemetery If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Cemetery - too far away to walk to. Exercise parks need to accessible, sign posted and SAFE. Page 40

44 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? Pou Herenga Tai - the Twin Coast cycle trail If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? If no one around, off leash should be okay. Put on leash if other users come. Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? Roaming dogs is the major issue in town (Kaikohe). I have a shepherd and a rotti that I used to walk every day around the streets of Kaikohe, but we kept getting attacked by stray dogs. I have had dogs jump their fences to get to me and my dogs! This is very scary. I am now unable to walk my dogs on the streets because of FEAR. And their owners don't pay your vet bills. When I drive around I see dogs roaming every day - there is one outside as I write this. The main problem with dogs is the owners. It's not more rules and regulations (because they CANNOT BE ENFORCED). I believe the problem owners are also the same people who keep getting into other trouble because of lack of money and budgeting skills, disregard for the law, lack of empathy for other people and animals, low community involvement, gang affiliations etc. I would hazard a guess that none of their dogs are even registered. So, all the rules in the world are not going to change these groups because they don't care. Just try talking to them - you get abused. There is always going to be these people around. There always was. We just have different labels for them today. Thanks for trying to be PC. Additional Supporting Information Page 41

45 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/1175 Surname B First Name G Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Kawakawa Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: restriction dates at all time restriction Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? Hihi Beach; Mahinepua Beach; Tapeka Point Beach; Taupo Bay - from the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance to the bluff; Tauranga Bay - east of tractor access point toward the sandspit; Te Haumi Beach - from the public toilets to the bridge; Te Tii Beach - from the roundabout toward Waitangi along the beach behind Te Tii Marae; Waitangi - the beach from Waitangi Bridge to the Waitangi Treaty Grounds What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? ne What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Cable Bay; Coopers Beach; Paihia Beach; Russell Beach; Taupo Bay - north of the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance, toward the boat ramp; Tauranga Bay - west of tractor access toward the campground; Te Tii Beach - from the roundabout to the bluff Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? ne What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? It should be free for an owner to decide. ne of the FNDC's business. Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? There should be no 2 dog limit anywhere in the Far rth District. This proposal is draconian and unfair. Page 42

46 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? Kaikohe Cemetery; Kaikohe, Lindvart Park; Kaitaia, Empire St; Kerikeri, Wiroa Road; Kerikeri, Rolands Wood If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? There are no beaches, large parks fenced for safety. There should be more areas, and you have never sorted this properly. What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? All parks and beaches in my area are suitable. The Far rth District Council must provide 4 on leash and 4 off leash areas in each town in the Far rth District, and two of the four off leash areas must be beaches. There should be a goal of 10 off leash areas in each town in the Far rth over t Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? Children's playgrounds; Public swimming pool areas; Beaches (unless specified otherwise); Parks, sportsgrounds and reserves (unless specified otherwise); Public footpaths, roads and other public spaces; Pou Herenga Tai - the Twin Coast cycle trail; All ot If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? These areas should be shared with dog owners. Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? The submitter has included the form submission provided to members of the Bay of Islands Watchdogs Group. This has already been summarized on submission DMC18/703. The submitter has provided a detailed submission outlining a proposal for the creation of "land arks", their recommendations for requirements for pet-free subdivisions, and their belief the Bylaw process has been taken over by "wildlife eco-facists". Additional Supporting Information Page 43

47 Page 44

48 Page 45

49 Page 46

50 Page 47

51 Page 48

52 Page 49

53 Page 50

54 Page 51

55 Page 52

56 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/1178 Surname Kearney First Name Jillian Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Opua Shorter Shorter Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Date restriction should be tied in with school holidays if rationale is to reserve beaches for holidaymaking families. Most tourists by contrast come from countries which don't limit dogs in this way so don't need "protecting". Time restriction is excessive for remote beaches empty at these times. Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? Mahinepua Beach; Taupo Bay - from the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance to the bluff; Te Haumi Beach - from the public toilets to the bridge What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? Proper study done of conservation-protected beaches to identify nesting times when wildlife need to be protected; proper consultation carried out with iwi to determine areas of genuine cultural value. Logical restrictions arising should then apply. What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Submissions from conservationists/cultural guardians should be called for and checked on a regular basis, so that a list of such special character areas can be updated and revised. Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Paihia Beach; Russell Beach; Taupo Bay - north of the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance, toward the boat ramp Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? In holiday season, should be on-leash 9am - 6pm; otherwise off-leash. See no reason for tighter restrictions to "protect people from dog-related harm"; this way, dogs will be restricted during peak hours, and few people are there outside these hours. Again, beaches should ONLY be classified this way if proof and evidence can be provided that they What other beaches do you recommend be qualify for special consideration. Surveys, included in the Exceptional Rules? statistics, etc., would need to be provided for any change to or increased restriction on current public freedoms. Page 53

57 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? This is yet another across-the-board imposition on individual freedoms. Properties and dog-owners should be individually assessed for such limits, based on individual circumstances and inability to control more than two dogs eg a history of poor control a Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Unacceptably huge broadening of restricted areas! Council's proposals throughout this survey of general default restrictions with application required for exceptions vests too much control in a central authority. Dog limits should be on a case-by-case basis, with bureaucratic accountability required Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? These are all fine in my view. What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Generally a very minimal list! Clearly insufficient areas provided for the number of dogs in the Far rth. eg there is no provision of any off-leash area in the Opua/Paihia area, where many areas are now being proposed as on-leash only. Priority please for investigating further dog park areas. Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? Beaches (unless specified otherwise); Parks, sportsgrounds and reserves (unless specified otherwise); Public footpaths, roads and other public spaces; All other public places not specified If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Nuances again ignored! Beaches should be default off-leash all year unless arguments made and proven otherwise (see my other comments). MOST beaches in the Far rth are in fact empty during summer hours, so daytime on-leash is illogical and pointless. r will it be policeable. Do not see why ALL PARKS are always on-leash, provided dogs are under control. Ditto public footpaths and spaces, which are equally the preserve of dogs and their owners out for a harmless walk. Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? "All public places not specified" should not be default on-leash, not least as it covers a massive category! This is unacceptable except in a dictatorship. Logical arguments should be advanced for any increased restrictions on public freedom, so individual arguments should be made on a caseby-case basis for all public places. If you're going to make rules, be sytematic and thorough. Page 54

58 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? 1. If dogs are to be excluded from any area for the protection of wildlife, there should be reliable scientific data supporting that ban. 2. Council staff need to meet with locals in each area, and work out local solutions with Iwi, dog lovers and wildlife specialists. I support the submissions from the Taupo Bay DOGS, Mary Woodworth from Tauranga Bay, and the Hihi Beach community submission. 3. Council must consult effectively with Iwi on this bylaw and policy, over time, meeting face to face. 4. In every town in Te Tai Tokerau, there need to be places for dogs to run off-lead - parks, reserves, and beaches - within walking distance of people's homes. 5. All parks and reserves should be off leash and under control unless there is logic or a rationale for that not to be the case. Some key areas to include, where there are very limited dog walking options, are Lindvaart Park and the Showgrounds in Kaikohe, and the Domain in Kerikeri. 6. All Reserve Management Plans need to open the door for off leash access, should the community so wish. 7. Council wants to limit dogs on beaches for cultural, wildlife and tourism reasons. Do not prohibit dogs from running off lead under the control of their owner on every other beach in rthland, for no good reason. The default rule, for most beaches, must be off leash. 8. Walking our dogs on the beach, on a lead, harms no one. It is unleashed, out of control, or wandering dogs that are a danger. Do not prohibit us from beaches in tourist areas if our dogs are leashed. 9. The only properties with limits on the number of dogs should be those where there has been a problem with dogs in the past. Don't limit us all for no reason. r should the number of hunting dogs or working dogs be limited, they are tools of the job. 10. Hunting dogs ARE working dogs. Don't change this rule, they put kai on our tables. 11. Add sections on solving the problem of wandering dogs, neutering programmes, education in our communities, and teaching kids about dog safety and dog welfare. 12. Add a section on Council's own responsibilities to the community. 13. Draft the operating procedures on the neutering of dogs, and impounding, so we can be consulted about those. 14. Open the pounds to the public, even if for a short period each day. With all the problems we have had, we have a right to see what is happening. 15. I support the full submission from The Bay of Islands Watchdogs. Additional Supporting Information Page 55

59 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/1182 Surname Prentice First Name Arthur Dog owner? Group / Organisation Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Russell Shorter Shorter Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? Hihi Beach; Mahinepua Beach; Tapeka Point Beach; Taupo Bay - from the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance to the bluff; Tauranga Bay - east of tractor access point toward the sandspit; Te Haumi Beach - from the public toilets to the bridge; Te Tii Beach - from the roundabout toward Waitangi along the beach behind Te Tii Marae; Waitangi - the beach from Waitangi Bridge to the Waitangi Treaty Grounds What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Cable Bay; Coopers Beach; Paihia Beach; Russell Beach; Taupo Bay - north of the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance, toward the boat ramp; Tauranga Bay - west of tractor access toward the campground; Te Tii Beach - from the roundabout to the bluff Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Page 56

60 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? Kaikohe Cemetery; Kaitaia, Empire St; Kerikeri, Wiroa Road; Kerikeri, Rolands Wood If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? Beaches (unless specified otherwise); Parks, sportsgrounds and reserves (unless specified otherwise); All other public places not specified If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? I recommend the following changes to the proposed dog control bylaw and policy: 1. If dogs are to be excluded from any area for the protection of wildlife, there should be reliable scientific data supporting that ban. 2. Council staff need to meet with locals in each area, and work out local solutions with Iwi, dog lovers and wildlife specialists. I support the submissions from the Taupo Bay DOGS, Mary Woodworth from Tauranga Bay, and the Hihi Beach community submission. 3. Council must consult effectively with Iwi on this bylaw and policy, over time, meeting face to face. 4. In every town in Te Tai Tokerau, there need to be places for dogs to run off-lead - parks, reserves, and beaches - within walking distance of people's homes. 5. All parks and reserves should be off leash and under control unless there is logic/a rationale for that not to be the case. Some key areas to include, where there are very limited dog walking options, are Lindvaart Park and the Showgrounds in Kaikohe, and the Domain in Kerikeri. 6. All Reserve Management Plans need to open the door for off leash access, should the community so wish. 7. Council wants to limit dogs on beaches for cultural, wildlife and tourism reasons. Do not prohibit dogs from running off lead under the control of their owner on every other beach in rthland, for no good reason. The default rule, for most beaches, must be off leash. 8. Walking our dogs on the beach, on a lead, harms no one. It is unleashed, out of control, or wandering dogs that are a danger. Do not prohibit us from beaches in tourist areas if our dogs are leashed. 9. The only properties with limits on the number of dogs should be those where there has been a problem with dogs in the past. Don't limit us all for no reason. r should the number of hunting dogs or working dogs be limited, they are tools of the job. 10. Hunting dogs ARE working dogs. Don't change this rule, they put kai on our tables. 11. Add sections on solving the problem of wandering dogs, neutering programmes, education in our communities, and teaching kids about dog safety and dog welfare. 12. Add a section on Council's own responsibilities to the community. 13. Draft the operating procedures on the neutering of dogs, and impounding, so we can be consulted about those. 14. Open the pounds to the public, even if for a short period each day. With all the problems we have had, we have a right to see what is happening. 15. I support the full submission from The Bay of Islands Watchdogs. 16. Listen to locals! You are our Council, elected by us to manage our district. Please don't cave in to pressure from DOC or national lobby groups. Kia kaha our Council! Additional Supporting Information Page 57

61 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/1186 Surname Exel First Name Leonie Dog owner? Group / Organisation BOI Watchdogs Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Russell Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: restriction dates at all time restriction Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? Hihi Beach; Mahinepua Beach; Tapeka Point Beach; Taupo Bay - from the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance to the bluff; Tauranga Bay - east of tractor access point toward the sandspit; Te Haumi Beach - from the public toilets to the bridge; Te Tii Beach - from the roundabout toward Waitangi along the beach behind Te Tii Marae; Waitangi - the beach from Waitangi Bridge to the Waitangi Treaty Grounds What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Cable Bay; Coopers Beach; Paihia Beach; Russell Beach; Taupo Bay - north of the southern Marlin Drive beach entrance, toward the boat ramp; Tauranga Bay - west of tractor access toward the campground; Te Tii Beach - from the roundabout to the bluff Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Page 58

62 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? Kaikohe Cemetery; Kaitaia, Empire St; Kerikeri, Rolands Wood If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? Beaches (unless specified otherwise); Parks, sportsgrounds and reserves (unless specified otherwise); All other public places not specified If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? A detailed written submission has been provided and should be read in full. Additional Supporting Information Page 59

63 Submission to FNDC re Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 24 September, 2018 ~ The Bay of Islands Watchdogs ~ Page 60

64 CONTENTS 1.1 rthland and Dog Demographics 1.2 What do dogs mean to us, and why do they matter? 1.3 Mitigating Risk of Harm to Humans: Education Programmes 1.4 Dogs in Public - On Leash 1.5 Dogs in Public Off leash and Under Control 1.6 Wandering Dogs 1.7 Signs Matter 1.8 Poo 2. Exercise and Dogs 2.1 What are our legal obligations around exercise? 2.2 Council s legal and moral obligations: lack of dog exercise at the pounds 2.3 The BOI Watchdogs Rules of Dog Exercise Areas Playgrounds and Pools Pou Herenga Tai Twin Coast Cycle Trail All other public places not specified, and other public spaces Parks, Sportsgrounds, and Reserves Public Footpaths, and Roads All beaches, unless otherwise specified 2.5 Exceptional Rules for Beaches: Tourist Beaches - Cable Bay, Coopers Beach, and Russell Beach 2.6 Cultural Value Areas - Te Haumi/Te Tii/Paihia/Waitangi Area 2.7 Special Character Rules Areas of Wildlife Protection: General 2.8 Special Character Rules Areas of Wildlife Protection: Specific Beaches Mahinepua Beach Tapeka Point Beach Hihi Beach Taupo Bay Tauranga Bay 2.9 Off leash areas Page 61

65 3. Limiting the number of dogs 3.1 Should there be a limit on the number of dogs per property? 3.2 If yes, what should that limit be? 3.3 If yes, under what conditions should someone be allowed more than x dogs? 3.4 If a dog limit applies, where and to whom should it apply? 4. Other 4.1 Impounding 4.2 Neutering 4.3 Why Omissions Matter 4.4 Council Obligations Omitted 4.5 Hunting Dogs are Working Dogs Page 62

66 1.1 rthland and Dog Demographics Dogs are popular in NZ and particularly so in rthland, where many residents and ratepayers have one or more dogs in the home. Dogs are the second most popular companion animal in New Zealand with 28% of homes having an average of 1.4 dogs i. Of all ethnic groups Maori have the highest proportion of families who own dogs, at 35% ii. The largest proportion of households with dogs are those in rural areas, with almost half (45%) having at least one iii. Given that rthland has a high proportion of Maori residents iv, and also rural residents, this would suggest that somewhere between a third and half our residents have a dog. As Council has a legal obligation under the Local Government Act (2002) to take account of the diversity of the community, and the community s interests, in its decision making v, it needs to take account of the owners of the ~10,000 registered dogs in our district, along with the needs of the community living around those dogs. The Far rth District Council has the third largest land area in New Zealand vi, which if common sense applied, should be useful when trying to find space to walk our dogs. However many people struggle financially in rthland, and we have a lower than average income when compared to the rest of New Zealand vii. Many people cannot afford the petrol in their car to take their dogs for their daily walk. In addition, many older people own and wish to walk dogs, and as an area which is touted as the destination for a forthcoming silver tsunami viii, we need to make sure that we cater for people who have disabilities and/or special needs ix. Recommendation That Council acknowledge that rthland has a higher than average rate of dog ownership, and take this into account in its decision making. That Council review the dog exercise areas it is making available in each town, to ensure that people with disabilities, seniors, and residents from lower socio-economic groups are not inadvertently being disadvantaged. 1.2 What do dogs mean to us, and why do they matter? We love our dogs. They are our best friends, our fur kids, our hunting companions, and our children s playmates. They are our guard dogs keeping us safe, and our farm dogs working alongside us. They are our live-in therapy, and a great joy to very many of us. When Council makes policies and decisions around dogs, it must remember that for many residents, Council is making decisions about an animal who is considered a member of the family. Does Council realise that if my house was burning down, I d run back in to get my dog out? ~ rthland dog owner Research indicates that there are numerous positive benefits to dog ownership for members of our community x. In addition to the long-recognised companionship, caring, sharing and security aspects of having a dog, pet ownership has multiple positive physical and mental health benefits for owners. If Council s stated aspiration is that communities have access to everything that they need to have a good quality of life xi, this means that communities should have the ability to at least support, if not promote, responsible pet ownership. Page 63

67 1.3 Mitigating Risk of Harm to Humans: Education Programmes The fear of a dog causing harm to humans, stock or wildlife drives many complaints and submissions to Council. Without facts, that fear can also drive policy. The vast majority of dog bite incidents occur in people s homes, from the family dog. Those most at risk, and most at risk of bites to the head and neck, are children under the age of nine, those who are Maori, and those who are resident in lower socio-economic areas xii. Common sense thus suggests that if Council wished to reduce the incidence and/or severity of dog harm to humans, programmes should be encouraged and developed closely with schools, kohanga reo, parenting organisations, Iwi and hapu, and social service organisations. Research indicates that a dog s tendency to bite is the result of at least five factors: genetics, early socialisation to people, training for obedience, quality of care and supervision and the behaviour of the victim xiii. In particular Hungarian and US research has shown that dogs which are family dogs and connected to humans, rather than resident dogs such as guard dogs, are vastly less likely to bite humans xiv. These factors in turn can be addressed by encouraging early vaccination so that puppies can be socialised early, supporting puppy and dog obedience training, community education programmes on dog welfare, care, and supervision, and dog safety training. These programmes do not need to be provided directly by Council, however Council could choose to encourage and facilitate others in the community who are already experienced in these areas. Issues around dog welfare and owners responsibilities were prominent in Council s 2006 dog control documents, but have largely been omitted in the latest proposals. The National Canine Research Council in the United States, in studying problems and solutions around dog bites, found that dog bite injuries are rarer, and less severe, than injury from many other means. Tables and chairs, doors, beds, and even slippers, are associated with more accidental injuries. 99% of dog bite injuries treated in hospital are considered to be a level 1 on a severity scale of 1-6 (with 1 being minor and 6 being severe). It has been shown however that adults have an exaggerated perception of the risk of dog bites xv. It is this misperception and fear which can sometimes accidentally misdirect how we choose to minimise the risk of harm to humans from dogs. Choices made by guardians regarding how to live with and supervise their companion animals, however, may provide better indicators of risk for injurious bites, according to the study of dog bite-related fatalities described above. The factors identified related primarily to supervision of interactions between dogs and vulnerable individuals, basics of humane treatment and control, and providing the dog with opportunities to live as a true family dog with regular positive interactions with people. These are choices that are likely to be easily incentivized in the majority of dog guardians who want to foster safe, humane communities, and suggest an educative rather than punitive approach to further decreasing injurious bite incidents. Recommendations To ensure policy decisions are not reactive or populist, Council needs to ensure that proposals and decisions are evidence-based, and that information provided by staff to Council and the community relies on that evidence. Page 64

68 To mitigate risk of injury from dog bites, Council to amend the proposed bylaw/policy to reinstate Councils obligations for community education, whether this be done directly by Council staff, or indirectly by facilitating programmes run by community groups. To mitigate risk of injury from dog bites, Council needs to amend the proposed bylaw/policy to have a greater focus on dog welfare, emphasising owners obligations under the Dog Code of Welfare, and encouraging family dog ownership rather than resident dog ownership. 1.4 Dogs in Public - On Leash A dog on a leash is extremely unlikely to cause harm to others. The definition of on-leash in the proposed bylaw (check, or policy?xx) also includes the fact that the person holding the leash must be able to restrain the dog, which is positive: One European study of dog bites to children found that all of the cases involving bites from dogs unknown to the child that occurred outside a home could have been prevented by simply leashing the dog xvi. This rings true in terms of our members experience. We have recently received information from the Department of Conservation (DOC) on kiwi deaths by dog in the rth Island since In that 28-year period there was no report of a kiwi being killed by a dog on a leash. We have written to them to confirm this. There is often an argument put that because some dog owners disobey regulations, and let their dogs off-leash in areas where they should be on-leash, to be 100% safe dogs should be prohibited from a particular location. This is the logical equivalent of banning all cars from the roadway because some people will choose to speed. It is not fair (and likely not legal) to create unreasonable, more restrictive regulations purely because one expects a few people to break the law. Council has a legal right to ensure that regulations are complied with, and it should do so. Council does not have a right to create unreasonable regulations because to do so might make its job easier. Recommendation Council to amend Exceptional Rules for Beaches (tourism) to require that dogs be on-leash, not prohibited, during the day in busy periods. Council to provide sufficient resources so that signage is clear, the community is educated and advised in advance of the need for dogs to be on leash during those periods, and compliance is well monitored with spot checks at popular, busy beaches. Page 65

69 1.5 Dogs in Public Off leash and Under Control Under the proposed bylaw, a dog who is off leash must be under the control of its owner, as follows: The more dogs who are genuinely under control when off leash and with their owners, the better. This is a key issue for many stakeholders those worried about dog bites, harm to wildlife, and harm to stock. If an owner can ensure that a dog stops and returns when called, the potential for harm is dramatically reduced. Dog owners have an obligation under the Dog Control Act 1996 xvii to keep their dogs under control in public places, and can be fined for not doing so. Council needs to both expect that dog owners will meet their obligations and monitor that they do and encourage greater compliance where it can. Dog owner compliance with this section could be encouraged in a range of ways. Firstly, by expanding the definition of control in the bylaw to explain what is expected of owners, to provide a rationale behind that expectation, as per the example below from another Council: When a dog is under effective control, it means the dog is not creating any sort of nuisance to people, domestic animals or any other wildlife. Nuisance in this sense means things such as barking, rushing at, intimidating, attacking or otherwise causing injury, damage or harm. Going for a walk with your dog unrestrained (not on a leash) is fine in areas where there are no dog restrictions. However, the dog must still be under effective control. This means you can see the dog or you are aware of what it is doing, and you are close enough to prevent issues or quickly bring it to heel. Having your dog under effective control is as much about the safety of your dog as it is about the safety of others. The Dog Control Act requires all dog owners to carry a leash when taking their dog into a public place, whether or not the public place is a leashed area (section 54A). This is because unexpected situations may arise that require a dog to be leashed to keep the dog under control or to keep it safe. Another requirement that is set out in the Dog Control Act is that the legal owner of a dog must be over the age of 16 (section 2). The owner or person in charge of a dog in a public place should also be physically capable of controlling the dog. Council could directly or indirectly support rthlands many dog trainers to help local dog owners learn how to make sure their dog returns when called, and quickly bring it to heel. Publicity around such training would help educate the community about this legal requirement. The only way to encourage change in the dog owner community is to engage with us in a positive way. t tokenism, or consultation which meets bare legal requirements, but a genuine relationship with the community. Hopefully Council will decide to do this, as it can provide a virtual army of volunteer trainers who can assist others to keep their dogs under more effective control. Page 66

70 Recommendations Expand the definition of under control in the bylaw to provide thorough explanation, and underlying rationale. Council to establish a community advisory group, which includes Iwi and hapu representatives, dog owners, veterinarians, dog trainers and others. This group needs to meet regularly to begin to rebuild trust, provide advice and support, and seek co-funding between Council and others. Council to work with the community advisory group to develop programmes which will increase the number of rthland dog owners who have good levels of control over their dogs when off-leash. 1.6 Wandering Dogs One of the most critical issues around dog ownership is that of a dog wandering at large, without an owner. Whilst most dog bites occur in the home from the family dog xviii, it is the wandering dog who conservationists fear, who can cause car accidents, and who can harm stock and humans. Addressing the wandering dog problem is getting to the heart of solving the biggest of everyone s worries. Dogs may wander when they are lost, hungry, or abandoned. They may wander if they are bored, or they may be particularly adept at escape. Farm and hunting dogs can get lost at times. Some people let their dogs wander because they believe that dogs are rightfully owned by a community, not by an individual. Some people don t care about or for their dogs. Some people don t think of the possible consequences of letting a dog wander. If an owner has less money, they are less likely to be able to afford a secure kennel and run, or a sturdy fence. There is a myriad of ways to address the issue of wandering dogs. Most of these could be undertaken by Council directly, or at least encouraged and facilitated by Council. ne of these solutions have been addressed in the proposed documents. They include: Community development of a dog population management strategy; Reducing unwanted litters of puppies by encouraging de-sexing through educational programmes and subsidies; Assisting people from low socio-economic areas with fencing and dog housing; Supporting wildlife experts to teach dog owners about the needs of particular birds and animals and how owners can minimise potential harm; educating children in particular about dog welfare, and dog safety; Working collaboratively with conservation groups to develop effective, force free bird aversion programmes, and linking with universities to encourage research into their efficacy; Developing local programmes to encourage responsible dog ownership; Free de-sexing of all dogs rehomed from the pound; Provision of information on responsible dog ownership to every dog registered at council; Provision of obedience and puppy training; Development of dog parks to provide a focus for educational programmes and dog welfare; Encouraging breeder registration and standards, and; Development and use of local educational materials to encourage community change around responsible dog ownership. The problem of wandering dogs is no more solved by penalties, threats of random visits by animal control officers, and prosecutions, than the problem of drink driving is solved by the imprisonment Page 67

71 of offenders. There is a place for infringements for wandering dogs, particularly for repeat offenders and dogs wandering in sensitive areas, but it should never be the only means by which Council tries to solve this problem. It makes sense to separate educational and compliance functions in dog management, as the community may then be more receptive to Council s advice. Durable community change comes from attitudinal change, through campaigns that make urban memes from ghost chips. The Council needs to encourage the community to get involved in trying to change itself. Recommendations Council to include in the bylaw/policy that it makes a commitment to work with communities to reduce the number of wandering dogs in rthland. Council to work with local communities, and the community advisory group, to develop ways to reduce the number of wandering dogs in general, and in specific areas of concern. Council to include provision and support of educational programmes as one of its key responsibilities in the bylaw/policy. Council to consider separating compliance and educational functions in the animal management department, and funding additional staff in the educational area. 1.7 Signs Matter A key complaint from dog owners and non-dog owners alike is that signs are often absent, or confusing, or conflicting. Poor signage leads to community friction, when people think that others are not obeying the rules. It can also also potentially endanger wildlife, as mixed messages are sometimes ignored in frustration. There are a number of organisations, in addition to FNDC, which post public signs about dogs. This includes DOC, when they are (i) advising whether a dog can be walked or not in a particular DOC area, and (ii) posting Any Dog Can Kill Kiwi signs. The first is welcome; the second is a recipe for community ill will. In many dog owners views, the Any Dog Can Kill Kiwi campaign is seen as an unfair, invalid demonisation of our dogs. Recent information released by DOC under the Official Information Act (OIA) has shed light on the degree to which dogs are accountable for kiwi deaths in the rth Island. The figures, as below, are far less than media attention, and DOC rhetoric, would have you believe. Page 68

72 Table 1: Total number of tagged and un-tagged kiwi in rthland, suspected and confirmed as having been killed by dogs, 1990 current, by area. As ed to Dr Lloyd Jerome under Official Information Act, 21 September, 2018, OIA 18-E-0516 DOC The data from DOC includes tracked and un-tracked kiwi, and suspected and confirmed kiwi deaths by dog. To err on the side of caution we have included suspected deaths in these figures, which were analysed by one of our members, David Schoffam. The DOC website tells us that there are approximately 25,000 kiwi in the rth Island (excluding Kapiti Island), of which around 8,000 are in rthland. Over the last 28 years, an average of 15 kiwi each year were believed to have been killed by wandering dogs, in the entire rth Island. Whilst it is important for the safety of wildlife, dogs, humans, and stock that fewer dogs in rthland wander, these figures provide some sorely needed perspective. Other conservation groups post signs suggesting that locals put dogs on a leash, such as Kiwis for Kiwi. This means that people walking their dogs off leash, legally, can be subject to anger from fellow beach walkers, who mistakenly think they are breaching the rules. This creates more unnecessary ill will. In the last 28 years on the Russell Peninsula, just seven kiwi have been killed by dogs. This is astonishingly low, given that just a year ago, Council was suggesting that in order to preserve kiwi in particular, Russell Peninsula should become dog free within 10 years, and a one dog town in the meantime. Instead of a Welcome sign as people drive into Russell, there is a large wooden Any Dog Can Kill Kiwi sign at the town s entrance. This has recently been vandalised. Conservationists need to work with dog owners to encourage compliance, and discourage owners from letting their dogs wander. By demonising dogs through these kinds of signs, DOC and other conservation groups risk alienating 40% of the community, and that 40% are known animal lovers. This is not good for our communities, our dogs, or our wildlife. We must somehow learn to work together, better. Page 69

73 A more positive approach to signage is to have very clear, friendly signs, such as recommended in a recent report, supported by DOC, which looked at ways in which risks to coastal wildlife from interactions with dogs could be reduced xix. In addition, educational display signs/boards which inform people about wildlife are a positive way to encourage compliance, and educate the community. Recommendations That Council include a section on clear signage in the policy, and stipulate that Council (and DOC in terms of DOC land) should be the only authorities posting signs about dog prohibitions in our community. That Council change its signage relating to dog access to beaches and parks to make them crystal clear, and consistent across beaches/parks etc. Please consider involving representatives from the dog walking community in the initial broad design process, as they are the people who need to understand and abide by them. That Council discuss with DOC the negative impact the Any Dog Can Kill Kiwi campaign has in our community, and how it is alienating pro-wildlife community members needlessly. That the sign at the entrance to Russell Township be removed. 1.8 Poo Even a cursory review of social media will show that dog poo, and those who avoid their legal obligation to pick it up, is of concern to many. We have asked previously if Council will provide poo bins, at least in popular dog walking spots. The community raised money for a dog poo bin in Te Haumi, which was part funded by Council. This has disappeared. More recently, our members researched options for environmentally healthy ways to dispose of dog poo. We looked at policies around New Zealand and even internationally to try to inform the bylaw and policy around this sticky issue. ne of this has been used or included in the proposed bylaw/policy. One of our members, Jillian Kearney, recently started up a Poo Fairy operation, where dog walkers collect dog poo much as Bay Bush Action gathers general litter. She hopes to use the publicity to remind dog owners of their obligations, and is GPS locating her treasure to work out where poo bins might be best placed. Many councils in New Zealand and Australia provide poo bags alongside poo bins, at popular locations. This is a low cost opportunity for Council to do something which can be amusing, reduce complaints, and show good will. Recommendations Include in S8 of the proposed bylaw that Council will encourage the environmentally friendly disposal of dog faeces by the provision and emptying of poo bins, in locations frequented by dog walkers. Page 70

74 2. Exercise and Dogs Dogs need to be exercised both on, and off, leash. Research indicates that dogs need to learn acceptable behaviour when in public and need to be socialised properly to prevent aggression. This is achievable by owners training their dog while out of the home (Hart 1990) xx and through play with the owner and other dogs (Bradshaw and Brown 1990) xxi and through socialisation with other people when out in the community xxii. Dogs need more than just initial socialisation; they need on-going exposure to people, and to other dogs, to be genuinely safe. In addition, some dog breeds need more exercise than others xxiii. When there are too many dogs being exercised in one small area, aggression can occur, and smaller dogs need to be able to be exercised away from larger dogs at times. If dogs are exercised in too small an area, it can create behavioural problems. Recommendation That Council include reference in the bylaw/policy that dogs need to be exercised daily to maintain health, and refer to the Dog Code of Welfare, to encourage community awareness of those obligations. 2.1 What are our legal obligations around exercise? As individual dog owners we have a legal responsibility to exercise our dogs adequately and we can be prosecuted if we do not do so. xxiv Council is required under S10 (4)(d) of the Dog Control Act (1996) to have regard to the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners, which means that Council needs to respect and acknowledge those needs. The exercise needs of dogs are further clarified in the (Dogs) Code of Welfare 2010 which derives from the Animal Welfare Act (1999). That Code states in Minimum Standard 13 that dogs must receive daily exercise sufficient to maintain their health and well-being. Thirty minutes a day is the absolute minimum, and 60 minutes a day is ideal. Under the Resource Management Act 1991, alongside other obligations, Council has an obligation to enable people and communities to provide for their social well-being and health. xxv Research has shown that the bond between people and their pets can increase fitness, lower stress, and bring happiness to their owners. Some of the other health benefits of having a pet include decreased blood pressure, cholesterol levels, triglyceride levels, and feelings of loneliness. Pets also provide increased opportunities for exercise and outdoor activities, and for socialisation xxvi. To operate within the spirit of that legislation, Council needs to open the door so that communities can access spaces where they can walk their dogs. Recommendation Prior to Council finalising the bylaw and policy, that staff provide Councillors and Mayor with a summary outline of their legal obligations to dog owners, so that they understand what is required to meet those obligations. This should include a summary of the legal requirements for Council itself to exercise dogs in its pounds; there are additional obligations under the Temporary Housing for Companion Animals Code of Welfare (October 1, 2018) for those dogs. 2.2 Council s legal and moral obligations: lack of dog exercise at the pounds In its role as a pound keeper, Council (along with other organisations which operate dog shelters) has a legal obligation to exercise dogs in its care. To choose not to exercise, not to provide Page 71

75 stimulation, and not to meet the behavioural needs of a dog, is to not meet legislative expectations. The obligation around exercise has been in place since 1996 with the implementation of the Dog Control Act, and was further emphasised with the issue of the (Dogs) Code of Welfare in Obligations to exercise dogs have now been further reiterated in the Code of Welfare for the Temporary Shelter of Companion Animals (2018) xxvii which becomes law on October 1, Council also has a legal obligation under S10 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 as follows: Despite these legal obligations, and despite substantial negative publicity around FNDC s October 2017 infringement notice under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, Council continues to not provide adequate exercise for the dogs in both of its pounds. Council has breached its obligations to exercise the dogs in its own care, despite legal and moral obligation to do so, and despite the fact that scientific knowledge and good practice demands it. As a result, community perception of Council s moral authority vis a vis dogs has been sorely weakened. Council needs to address this urgently, to rebuild trust, and to ensure that animal management staff can be taken seriously when trying to encourage bylaw compliance from residents. Recommendations That Council demand that the Chief Executive ensure that all dogs will be exercised at Council pounds, for at least 30 minutes a day, as per legislative requirements, by end October, Where a pound dog cannot be exercised due to aggression, this needs to be evidenced. Time for mental stimulation for those dogs, outside their kennels, needs to be provided daily. 2.3 The BOI Watchdogs Rules of Dog Exercise Areas The following basic rules have guided our view on where dogs should be exercised in rthland: Dog owners need to be able to walk their dogs, daily. Dogs need to be walked both on, and off, leash. Dogs are diverse. There needs to be a choice of areas where dogs can go, so that smaller dogs are safer, and each particular area needs to large enough so that there is no chance of congestion. Dog owners are diverse. Exercise areas need to account for those who are seniors or disabled, and those from lower socio-economic groups. Dog owners need to be able to walk their dog to areas where they can run the dog off leash, not have to drive to somewhere to run their dog. Local people best understand where dogs can and should be exercised. Local people know broadly how many dogs there are in their area, and thus have an idea of how much space is needed, and what the issues might be. If local people have sufficient, safe, appropriate places to walk their dogs, they will encourage others to use those places. Page 72

76 Dogs are family and to limit their movements is to limit the movements of 40% of the population. Council needs to consult with the community when it wishes to limit dogs, and provide evidence, the source of that evidence, and justification, for the community to consider. Recommendations That Council measure its own policy proposals against the rules above, to determine which areas fail to meet these criteria. That wherever Council wishes to limit dog access, they listen to local people, and work collaboratively to find practical solutions, in that area. That should include Iwi and hapu, dog walkers, animal welfare experts, wildlife lovers, farmers, pig hunters, veterinarians, and others. That Council establish a Community Advisory Group, which includes Iwi and hapu representatives, to focus on issues and solutions around dogs and exercise in rthland. That Council amend the layout in Schedule 1 of the proposed dog control policy to cite relevant research, explanation, and/or evidence where restrictions are proposed, in each of those areas (see also S xx below) 2.4 District-wide rules Playgrounds and Pools We accept that dogs be prohibited from children s playgrounds and public swimming pool areas, due to the number of children likely to be in those areas, and the strong public perception (despite evidence) that even dogs on a lead can be a danger to children. Recommendation We accept that dogs be prohibited from children s playgrounds and public swimming pools Pou Herenga Tai Twin Coast Cycle Trail Our members have a difference of opinion on whether dogs should be allowed off leash on the cycle trail, particularly when the trails are often deserted. On leash is supported to err on the side of caution. The Hamilton Council signage to Share with Care may be of interest to those designing Council s dog related signage xxviii. Recommendation We accept that dogs be on leash on the Pou Herenga Tai - Twin Coast Cycle Trail That Council consider signage which encourages cyclists and dog walkers to better share the trail All other public places not specified, and other public spaces There is a typographical error in this table, with other public spaces and public places not specified being mentioned twice. We do not agree that dogs should be on leash everywhere that Council has not specified, for no apparent reason. Council has provided literally no rationale, argument, or scientific evidence, to support limiting dogs off leash and under control EVERYWHERE. Such a gross limitation on dogs requires sound rationale and the opportunity for the community to be consulted on that rationale. Recommendations Page 73

77 Council to fix error - public spaces/places has been duplicated. Council to designate all other places otherwise not specified as off leash and under control. If Council wishes to ban off-leash dogs from all other places, further formal community consultation, with rationale, needs to be sought Parks, Sportsgrounds, and Reserves We do not agree that dogs should be on leash at all parks, sportsgrounds and reserves that Council has not specified, for no apparent reason. Council has provided literally no rationale, argument, or scientific evidence, to support limiting dogs off leash and under control, in every single park in the district. Such a gross limitation on dogs requires Council to provide sound logic as to why that limitation should occur. For towns in central rthland in particular, where dog owners have limited or no access to beaches, parks and sportsgrounds are critical for them to be able to exercise their dogs as per legislative requirements. This is not a standard rule that Council is trying to implement. Auckland Council is facing backlash from residents at the moment on this issue xxix for attempting to partially reverse a district-wide off leash rule. Recommendation Council to designate all parks, sportsgrounds and reserves as off leash and under control, unless they come back to the community for further consultation justifying limiting dogs, on a park by park basis Public Footpaths, and Roads Cars pose a risk to dogs, and to drivers. Whilst we recognise that some dog owners have very compliant dogs who can walk at heel without incident, this cannot be assured. We agree with Council s position. As per 2.4.3, the phrase other public spaces has been duplicated and this needs fixing. Recommendations We agree that all public footpaths and roads be on leash. Council to delete the phrase and other public spaces be deleted from this item All beaches, unless otherwise specified The current (2006) default rule for rthland s 1,800 km of coastline is off-leash, all year, at all times. This 2018 proposal to ban dogs from being off leash on the entire coastline, during the day, for 1/3 rd of the year is unfair, scientifically unfounded, unwelcome, illogical, and unenforceable. It is liable to lead to widespread civil disobedience, and a further loss of trust in Council. This proposal is absolutely unacceptable to our members, as follows: In limiting our access to so much coastline, this proposal potentially thwarts dog owners capacity to meet their own legal requirement to adequately exercise their dog. This proposal is an infringement of our rights as New Zealanders to have access to our public land, for ourselves and our families. For around 40 % of us living in rthland, this family Page 74

78 includes one or more dogs xxx. We 40% need somewhere to swim and run off leash in the hot months of the year, too. Under the Special Characters Rules and Exceptional Rules for Beaches, Council has specified beaches which may need to have limited dog access for cultural, conservation, or tourism reasons. Why then would ALL other beaches be limited in some way, when there is absolutely no rationale given for this? Many of rthland s beaches are near empty, even during holiday periods. Please see 2016 submissions from the Paihia area, where photographs of beaches at peak periods showed minimal people, and Taupo Bay photographs in this submission process showing likewise. And those are beaches which are meant to be the busiest. This proposal is unenforceable, given that we have around 1,800 km of coastline, with 6 Animal Management Officers for the entire district. Why suggest something which so clearly cannot be enforced? In October, 2017 many of our members attended the Strategy Committee meeting at Council Chambers in Kaikohe. The Mayor stated clearly at that meeting that the default rule for beaches would remain off-leash. Please refer to the submission on legal matters from Karen Anderson, one of our members, in relation to the potential legal pitfalls for Council should this proposal move forward. Recommendation That all beaches unless specified elsewhere be off-leash 2.5 Exceptional Rules for Beaches: Tourist Beaches - Cable Bay, Coopers Beach, and Russell Beach We do not agree with Council s proposal to prohibit residents access to these three rthland beaches, for four months every year, during the majority of the daylight hours. Council states that these particular rules have been proposed for the purposes of ensuring the safety of the public and reducing the risk of any dog-related harm. We do not know of any evidence that shows that dog related harm occurs when a dog is on a leash and under the control of its owner. Dogs should thus always be allowed on the beach, on a leash, during any restricted periods on tourist-popular beaches. Around 40% of rthland households own dogs. Those residents rights do not disappear when tourists appear. We are lucky in rthland to have beautiful beaches, which tourists and holiday makers and swallows like to enjoy with us in their holidays. For dog owners whether resident or transient going to the beach very often involves taking the family dog. If dogs are prohibited on popular beaches, there is a far greater likelihood that dogs will be left in cars at the car parks of those beaches, when holiday makers discover that their dog cannot join them at the beach. It is important to note that many tourists (and swallows ) bring their dogs on holidays, and they, too, want to go to the beach with their family member. rthland is fast getting a reputation as an unfriendly place for dogs and dog owners, and this is likely to have an impact on tourism. Council s proposals are completely unworkable in Paihia and surrounds (see xx below). We do not know the section of the Dog Control Act 1996 legal basis on which Council is choosing to regulate dogs for the purposes of tourism? Page 75

79 The Council has proposed that rthland s busy period be defined as 1 December to 31 March each year, along with public holidays. Again, Council has provided no justification or evidence for the proposed date range. Anecdotal evidence, and information provided to Council in the 2016 submission period, suggests that the key periods for tourists on beaches are the school holiday period of December and January, and public holidays. The greatest expenditure by tourists in rthland is in December and January, although this data is not town or beach specific. A non-dog owner, resident or otherwise, has 24-hour access to every beach in rthland. The proposed time restrictions on tourism-based beaches should be 10am to 5pm, so that residents dogs can be walked off leash morning and night, before and after work. Other beach users would still have every daylight hour to be on the beach, 7 hours of which will be free of off-leash dogs. Recommendations That the rules for Exceptional Rules for Beaches be renamed Rules for Popular Tourist Beaches, to reduce confusion That dogs be allowed on Cable Bay, Coopers Beach and Russell Beach as follows: o on leash between 10am to 5pm in December, January, and public holidays o off leash thereafter at all times 2.6 Cultural Value Areas - Te Haumi/Te Tii/Paihia/Waitangi Area The only beaches where culturally related prohibitions are proposed are in Te Haumi, part of Te Tii and Waitangi. In this locality, there are also tourism-related limitations proposed for Paihia beach and part of Te Tii beach. The net result of the proposed restrictions is to limit dog walkers access to beaches so severely as to be completely unworkable for this area. Historically, dog walkers have used Te Haumi and the furthermost end of Te Tii beach, along with Sullivan s beach, to walk their dogs off leash, as these are the beaches with the fewest people present. If these beaches become prohibited, or on-leash, dog walkers will need to go elsewhere, which in turn could mean too many dogs on, for example, Opua beach and Sullivans Beach. This can cause problems. We also have several objections to the consultation process around these beaches, which have impacted upon our capacity to propose workable solutions. They are: (i) Potentially limited/unrepresentative consultation with Iwi and Hapu Council s consultation with Iwi and hapu about all these beaches appears to have been very limited. Given the gravity of what is being proposed, and the fact that these rules could set a district wide precedent, this needs to be done properly. We wrote to Council to find out how thorough consultation with Iwi had been and were advised: We have written to iwi about these proposals and we will consider any feedback they provide before finalising the draft policy and bylaw. Effective consultation with such an important group involves more than a letter. We do not know which particular hapu and Iwi should be consulted about the cultural matters in this locality, and nor do we know which formal procedures for consultation should have been followed, and whether they were. We seek Council s assurance that this has occurred. Page 76

80 (ii) Council reliance on certain 2016 submissions over others Council told us that in developing the dog restrictions in this locality, it relied upon 2016 submissions and/or participation in 2016 focus groups. However Council appears to have completely ignored a substantive 2016 submission from Kaye Vezey and team, which included a petition with over 500 signatories, a thorough research project on beach usage at various times of day, and a number of proposals which had been agreed with local Iwi and conservationists. (iii) Legal issues We have been advised that there is no mandate under the Dog Control Act 1996 to limit dog access to beaches on the basis of cultural considerations, and that to do so could potentially open Council to costly legal action. (iv) The need for wildlife preservation The current proposals are so restrictive they are likely to lead to non-compliance, which is counterproductive. This is especially the case given this locality s proximity to sensitive wildlife/nesting areas, for dotterels in particular. We ed Brad Windust from Bay Bush Action, who is a local dotterel expert, to find out where dotterels nested, and where we should keep away from. He advised that they nest from the roundabout towards Waitangi as per the map below. However Council has specified this area as being of high cultural value, not of protected wildlife value. Why? Council needs thorough information here on dotterels as this is apparently a large, important colony. Illustration from Brad Windust, Bay Bush Action, on primary dotterel location in Waitangi/Te Tii (v) We asked Council for the background justifications for this locality, so that we could work out solutions. We were given conflicting and/or troubling answers as follows: We were advised by Suzanne Duncan on 27 August, 2018, that it was the Ngati Manu Hapu who advised that the pipi bed at Te Haumi is traditional for pipi gathering for people within the Taumarere area. We were referred by the generic Council reply to the report submitted by Neil Miller in relation to this locality. That document said that submissions from Waitangi and Karetu Marae Page 77

81 representatives, and conservationists from Bay Bush Action, had led to the proposal for dog prohibition on Waitangi and Te Tii beaches. We asked a Councillor about these areas and were advised that there was a very powerful spoken submission made in the 2016 consultation process about Te Haumi and the sanctity of the pipi beds. The 2016 submissions were again referred to by Council in response to a query we made on 19 July. We thus asked Council for a copy of the 2016 submissions on Sunday September 9 th, and again on Tuesday September 11 th, as they had been removed from the FNDC website. Council wrote back on Thursday September 20 th (four days before the closing date) stating: Council were made aware, that following the publication of the submissions, some submitters were subjected to a campaign of harassment by those who had opposing points of view. Council went on to say that they had considered redacting the submissions but this would take too much time, and that if we wished to ask for a particular submission, we could do so. We have multiple issues with this quite extraordinary response. Firstly, we remain without anything but the broadest information on the cultural considerations in the Te Haumi area, and thus have been given no capacity to respond fairly. We cannot support or not support - what we do not know. Secondly, that Council would decide that there was a campaign of harassment without even discussing the matter with us, or even qualifying its statement with the word alleged, is unprofessional, inappropriate, inaccurate, and evidence of serious bias. Thirdly, public submissions are public documents. Council cannot use such documents as a justification for banning dogs, then hide them on the basis of allegations from one party or another. Recommendations That Council rename Special Character Rules to be descriptive, for example Areas of High Cultural Value (or similar), to reduce confusion. That Council review the 2016 submissions from Kaye Vezey and her team, to better understand the issues and possible compromise solutions in this locality. That council seek legal advice on whether cultural considerations are legal under the Dog Control Act 1996, and if not, whether respect for cultural considerations could be applied under alternative legislation. That Council meet further with local Iwi and hapu, dog walkers, and wildlife experts to find practical solutions in this district. That Council check with formal Iwi consultation structures that they have consulted all those who should have been consulted about cultural considerations in this locality. That Council be informed by the BOI Watchdog Rules of Exercise Areas in S 2.3 above in choosing areas where residents can walk their dogs in this locality That Council acknowledge the importance of the endangered dotterels in this locality and consult with experts on the best way to limit harm, not only from dogs, but from human, vehicle and other forms of disturbance. Page 78

82 That Council come back to the community with workable solutions for this location, having fixed the problems as above. When it does so, it should provide us with copies of the relevant documents to support those solutions, so that we can provide informed comment. That Council send a formal apology for its accusatory of 20 th September, Special Character Rules Areas of Wildlife Protection: General The issue of wildlife protection as it relates to the Dog Control Act, and FNDC s proposed bylaw and policy, is extremely sensitive. On the one hand, the vast majority of we dog lovers are also wildlife lovers. Many of us belong to both The BOI Watchdogs, and wildlife protection groups. We believe it is important to protect and nurture endangered wildlife. We warn each other of protected birds in dog walking locations. When we see a wandering dog, we take it to our homes and post on Facebook to find its owner, to keep the dog away from wildlife, and cars, and people. On the other hand, the Dog Control Act 1996 was not created for the benefit of DOC, or for conservation groups, and nor should it be used as a lateral means for them to extend their reach. We have felt that we and our dogs have been targeted and demonised by some of those organisations, and our trust in them has largely evaporated. As a voluntary group of dog owners, we are having to take on the might of the Department of Conservation, which has a formal mandate to lobby our Council to apply anti-dog covenants across our district. More recently, Forest and Bird sent out a petition to its 80,000 members asking them to submit to FNDC about these proposals. We believe that the FNDC dog control bylaw and policy are potentially going to be used by these groups as precedent setting around New Zealand. We fear and mistrust that, but do not want politics to get in the way of looking after wildlife. We believe that the Department of Conservation, and other wildlife groups, are inflating the dangers of dogs, and the risk that dogs pose to wildlife xxxi. We understand that they are doing this with a noble end in mind. However, in their zeal to protect native wildlife from wandering dogs, they are lobbying our local Council to over-regulate compliant dog walkers. With this in mind, we provide the following principles: Our members agree with the need to protect endangered wildlife, in appropriate, local community driven ways. As responsible dog owners, we do not want our dogs to harm wildlife. Where there is scientific evidence that endangered birds are nesting in an area, we need to protect that area for the necessary period of time. That time will tend to fluctuate and the rules have to accommodate the birds, not vice versa. Banning dogs under the remit of the Dog Control Act 1996, as a means to protect wildlife, will not work without banning everyone - humans, and cars, and other disturbance - for particular periods of time. This could work if developed and owned by the community, so that it is voluntarily enforced. This is the only way to truly safeguard wildlife. This needs to be driven not by legislation, but by community choice. Education of the community is critical to gaining voluntary acceptance of wildlife and dog interaction rules. We need a means to have fair, justifiable application of temporary restrictions, outside the bylaw, (e.g. fencing and signage, maybe Facebook posts which inform communities) if an endangered bird colony is suddenly found in a dog walking area. A good definition from another bylaw is: Temporary Restrictions from time to time it may be necessary to restrict Page 79

83 access to certain areas because of protected wildlife needing temporary protection, or promotional events. Prohibition for dogs on particular beaches is something which has serious implications for dog owners. Many of our members have discussed leaving rthland, or specific areas in rthland, as a result of a perceived anti-dog bias, or where prohibitions seem likely on their home beach. Others in our group have chosen to buy land elsewhere. One moved to Australia. Thus any prohibition of dog access to land needs to have robust, solid evidence to support it. Council has a responsibility to cite the source of the research used so that the community is able to view that information openly. Only by citing the rationale for these prohibitions can Council be considered reasonable and fair. The community should have had an opportunity to have a say about that evidence, particularly where it might be contentious, or there may be scientific debate about that evidence. Council has not presented evidence to explain why dog walker s rights should be limited in any of the specified locations, other than very general comments in response to questions from the public as part of this consultation process. We cannot be consulted effectively on what is unknown. Council stated on its website: Feedback from the 2016 consultation contributed to identifying the proposed special character areas. Feedback identified these sites as having a high conservation and/or cultural value, because of the presence of, or proximity to, protected wildlife or sites of cultural importance Our first concern about this statement is that Council is inferring that proximity to protected wildlife warrants dog prohibition or limits. DOC gazetted areas in rthland cover a huge land mass. If Council extends its remit to prohibit dogs on the basis of proximity, that would warrant further consultation, as it would limit dog walkers severely. Our second concern about that statement is that Council specifically sent us the Department of Conservation s submission from 2016, implying that Council relied more heavily on the DOC submission than others. There were multiple statements in that submission around dogs which were emotive and/or not supported by evidence that we are aware of. For example, the statement that of concern is the large number of ongoing incidents where dogs either attack or kill kiwi or other native wildlife in the Far rth District (P1) is subjective. Given the data provided by DOC recently which shows that an average of 15 kiwi per year are killed by dogs in the rth Island, this seems an exaggeration. In addition, there is no scholarly evidence that we are aware of which supports the statement that the smell of kiwi is peculiarly irresistible to dogs (P2). Anecdotal evidence among dog lovers suggests that when in the bush dogs are far more strongly attracted to possums. It is also stated that Kiwi have been killed by dogs being walked on public roads when the dog finds a bird close to the roadside (P4). We cannot find evidence of this being the case and have written to DOC asking for evidence of this. Recommendations We recommend that Council meet with a small group of representatives from Iwi and hapu, dog walkers, and wildlife experts, to develop a set of general principles (such as the above) to guide us. The representatives should comprise the less strident, most patient of us to increase our chances of success. Page 80

84 Once we have a set of agreed principles, we need to use principles to meet with Council in small community areas, to work out local, manageable, consensus solutions. Council needs to walk these beaches and see what happens now in those areas. One size does not fit all, given the individual quirks of our many small communities, and the individual quirks of our endangered wildlife. Council should alter the information they collect, and the way it is presented in the bylaw, broadly as per this example: Protection of Endangered Dotterels on Russell Beach Beach area defined From x road to y roundabout Protected wildlife Dotterels x 50. This location of represents one of the largest nesting colonies in New Zealand. Nesting period August February Evidence provided by Bay Bush Action, , see Document Number Agreed restrictions Voluntary requests to locals not to walk in this area Ban on all quad bikes and helicopters during nesting Total prohibition on dogs during nesting, on leash only outside those periods Dates Implemented , for review in 1 year, data collection by Bay Bush Action 2.8 Special Character Rules Areas of Wildlife Protection: Specific Beaches As mentioned above, further work needs to be done before this schedule can safely be finalised. In the event that Council chooses to ignore our recommendation to do that further work, we have made recommendations below on the basis of comments from dog walkers about those specific beaches. As stated earlier, there is no evidence to suggest that dogs who are on a lead represent a threat to wildlife, or to humans Mahinepua Beach We do not understand the rationale for Mahinepua becoming prohibited to dogs. Signage on the Kiwis for Kiwi website indicates that dogs are allowed there on lead currently. In addition, some of our members have enjoyed staying in the camping grounds there as dogs are permitted, and it is a good option for families who want a low cost holiday with their dogs. Other members asked why, when attacks on kiwi have not occurred by dogs on a lead, ever, they would be banned from this beach. We wrote to Council to find out more were advised: Page 81

85 The 2016 submission from DOC however stated that the Mahinepua Reserve, not the beach, is a breeding site. And it did not state that blue penguins were present, it stated they were likely. We would like the above information clarified in order to be able to comment further. Recommendations We recommend that this beach remain as on leash at all times. We recommend that Council seeks clarification of information as above Tapeka Point Beach Tapeka Point Track is one of the very few DOC tracks where dogs are allowed on leash, which is seen as really valuable by local dog owners. This has been confirmed recently and DOC altered the signage to make sure dog walkers knew they are allowed there. It seems illogical that DOC (who we would assume would be more stringent about dog access) allows leashed dogs, but the Council has proposed that dogs be prohibited at some points in time. Please see The Council proposal to prohibit dogs during the day at Tapeka, but allow them on leash at night, would suggest it is a popular tourist beach. However, it has been listed under Special Character Rules. We do not know if this is an error? Recommendation We recommend that this beach be excluded from the Special Character list, until evidence of the necessity for its inclusion, and the source information, is provided for further consultation Hihi Beach In our recommendation for Hihi Beach we have been guided entirely by the local community, as represented by Mr Bryan Staff. Mr Staff is both a dog lover and member of the Whakaangi Land Care trust which manages trapping, poisoning and the conservation of kiwi at both ends of the Hihi peninsula. There are 55 local dogs in this community (including regular swallows ), and 200 households. He advised that the community believes that further council restrictions will alienate the community and lead responsible dog owners to stop registering their animals. We recommend for Hihi Beach: In Summer: (defined as December and January, and public holidays). Off leash and under control, between 5pm to 10am. On leash, 10am to 5pm Rest of year: Off leash and under control, all the time Taupo Bay In our recommendation for Taupo Bay we are guided by local group Taupo Bay Dog Owners Group (DOGS) who have worked tirelessly trying to find compromise solutions in an extremely difficult environment. For some reason Council has proposed under the Exceptional Rules that Taupo Bay be the only beach in the whole of rthland which must be on-leash in winter, due to tourists. Taupo Bay DOGS Page 82

86 have submitted photographs to support the fact that this is completely illogical, and we think it must be an error. We recommend for Taupo Bay: From the boat ramp to the western end of beach: off leash, all year. The middle part of the beach (between the boat ramp and the surfie car park): off-leash before 10.00am and after 5.00pm, and on-leash in between 1 December 31 January. Off leash 1st February 31st vember. Sand spit (eastern/estuary end of beach): a dog prohibited area with clear signage showing the bird nesting area. We recommend that Taupo Bay not appear in the Exceptional Rules section at all Tauranga Bay In our recommendations for Tauranga Bay we are guided by local dog walkers/conservationists who have, previously, requested dog prohibitions in areas where dotterels are nesting. They love both dogs and dotterels. We propose the following for Tauranga Bay: From East of the tractor access to sandspit - dogs on leash all year round From West of tractor access to campground: o Feb 1 to 30 vember - off leash o From 1 December to Jan 31 and public holidays - on leash from 10am to 5pm, off leash thereafter 2.9 Off leash areas The section on off-leash areas states: we have recognised the wellbeing and recreational needs of dogs and their owners It then lists areas which make it clear that Council has not recognised the wellbeing and recreational needs of dogs and their owners, at all. Kaikohe Cemetery is not within walking distance for anyone, and Kaikohe is a lower socioeconomic area where residents are unlikely to be able to afford the petrol to drive to get to a dog walking area. Empire St in Kaitaia is flood prone, on uneven ground, unmown, unsafe, and unfenced. Wiroa Rd in Kerikeri has cattle living on it, is uneven ground, and the signs are in the wrong place. Rolands Wood is not Council s land to propose, and should not be in this list. The old rugby league park at Lindvaart Reserve in Kaikohe is relevant, and is under consideration for a dog park. Council needs to research, consult on, and develop a list of off-leash areas that are realistic, that cater to seniors and people with disabilities, and that recognise the socio-economic background of those living in the district. In the online survey, we were then asked Are there any other fenced areas in our District that you think could be suitable as all year, off leash or dog exercise areas? This question is bizarre. By Page 83

87 demanding that residents can only suggest areas that are already fenced, Council has effectively halted any suggestions from the community. Recommendations As mentioned previously, we recommend that all parks and reserves should be off leash and under control for dogs, unless there is sound rationale for that not to be the case for a specific park. Please include Lindvaart Park and the Showgrounds in Kaikohe, and the Domain in Kerikeri as part of this list. All Reserve Management Plans need to open the door for off leash access, should the community so wish. Council needs to work with the community to expand this list, and genuinely provide for the recreational needs of dogs and dog owners. 3. Limiting the number of dogs This proposal raises four key questions, which we address below: Should there be a limit on dogs at all? If yes, what should that limit be? If yes, under what conditions should someone be allowed more than x dogs? If yes, where should that limit apply? 3.1 Should there be a limit on the number of dogs per property?. Council is not legally bound to specify limits on the number of dogs in any property this is a choice under the Act. xxxii Under S 14.4 of the proposed bylaw, Council can require a dog owner to reduce the number of dogs kept on their premises if they cause a nuisance, disturbance, or are injurious to health. The dog limits for everyone else, as proposed in Section 6, are thus redundant. The proposal to limit dogs in every home in the district is an example of Council harming responsible dog owners, for the easier management of those who have many unregistered, noisy, unhappy, poorly cared for dogs. Council already has the responsibility, and the legislative power, to police homes where there are noisy, unregistered, unhappy, poorly cared for dogs. xxxiii It is not fair to create irrational, unsupported-by-evidence dog limits on the whole community just because Council has not succeeded in managing recalcitrant dog owners. Dogs are often almost children in people homes and this proposal literally limits the number of children that a resident can own. This is an intrusion on an individual s human rights that should only occur with powerful reasoning behind it. The rationale for the proposal to limit the number of dogs per property is not stated in the policy or bylaw, or in the covering brochure, or on Council s website. How can we be consulted on a proposal where the rationale is not even stated? As such we need to attempt a guess as to why Council might want to limit dogs per household. Given that the bylaw is driven by the Dog Control Act 1996, we would imagine that Council believes that limiting the number of dogs per premises may assist in those Objects, which are: Page 84

88 Council needs to advise the community if there is any research which suggests that limiting the number of dogs per household, without doing so in response to specific complaints or concerns, causes a reduction in the number of times that dogs (i) cause a nuisance or injure, endanger or distress any person, or (i) injure, endanger or distress any stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife, or (iii) cause damage. We are not aware of any such research. There is also no research to suggest that the behaviour of an irresponsible dog owner will change as a result of Council placing a limit on the number of dogs allowed per premises. Dogs who live with other dogs are better socialised and less aggressive to humans and dogs xxxiv. In our experience within our membership, dog owners who are very experienced and capable are likely to own more dogs. There are currently around 10,000 registered dogs in rthland. Council needs to carefully consider the additional workload required in establishing and enforcing dog limits across multiple areas in the district. This includes formal appeal processes. How would Council ensure that dog limits are policed effectively? Council may wish to limit dogs to reduce risk of harm from dog bites. However Swedish research indicates that any such benefits from reduced number of dogs in a community are greatly outweighed by an increased risk of allergic diseases and cardiovascular disease xxxv. 3.2 If yes, what should that limit be? We do not wish to specify a dog limit, as we do not think one should apply. However, if Council chooses to implement a limit, please note that many of our members have more than two dogs. rthland is an unusual district with many farmers and hunters, most of whom would have more than two dogs. Farms and households with many family members are often able to cope with additional dogs, as there are multiple family members who take care of those dogs. How will this be accommodated? What was Council s rationale and evidence for choosing two as the recommended maximum number of dogs per premises? This is not stated and thus we cannot argue for or against the rationale. Many other Councils have no dog limit, or greater than two dogs allowed per premises. This indicates that there is at the very least argument over the usefulness of such a limit. Our neighbouring Whangarei Council is one of those with no limits. Examples of Councils which have greater than two dog limits are Buller District, Hurunui District, Kapiti Coast, Tasman District, Waimakariri District, Waimate District, and Wellington city. Page 85

89 Please clarify in the definition of a premises as to whether this includes Papakaianga as one premises, or multiple premises. 3.3 If yes, under what conditions should someone be allowed more than x dogs? Council has not proposed/published the operational procedures which state the basis upon which additional dogs would or would not be approved. We wrote to Council about this and the response, now posted on the Council s website, was: Our Animal Management Officers will process the requests. The procedures for the bylaw will be developed as part of implementation planning. This is of concern from several perspectives: Council has said it will develop these procedures after this bylaw consultation process, which means that the community will not have a chance to have input into them. We are again being consulted on something without having the information in front of us to be able to argue for or against the proposal. The community lacks confidence that Council will develop dog-limit procedures in a timely manner. This is on the basis that Council has a history of poor performance in this area, as the following example illustrates. As you are aware, there has been much anger in the community around the state of Council s pounds. In the investigations into those pounds, it was discovered that Council s Animal Control Department did not have any written operational procedures. Council has been operating pounds for around 30 years. It is a requirement under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 that written procedures exist. In addition, Council was issued in October 2017 with a S130 under the Animal Welfare Act for various failures around the pounds, including the absence of response protocols around disease control, injury, dog fights, dog attacks etc. Even with all that legislative power and pressure, we continue to be advised in LGOIMA requests that Council STILL does not have written operational procedures relating to the pounds. There is a community perception that rules are not applied consistently within the Animal Control Department, and that there are poor internal mechanisms for reviewing whether this is the case. Given this perception, the community does not support giving Council even more leeway to develop and administer such impactful rules, without even seeing the procedures which should accompany those rules. The wording on the FNDC website about this policy proposal states: If you already have more than two dogs, or want more than two dogs, you would need to apply for written permission from the Council. If those who already have more than two dogs need to apply to Council for permission, the inference is that they may be refused that permission (otherwise, why would they need to apply?). This implies retroactive application of this bylaw, which is illogical if not also illegal. For some members, this proposal has led to sleepless nights and fears that Council may require them to make a Sophie s Choice about their dogs. Council needs to recognise that policies such as these have a profound impact on many community members. We wrote to Council to see comfort on this for those members, and received a reply which, in its effort to not be specific, did not give that comfort: It is not the intention of the bylaw to disadvantage anyone, so a pragmatic approach will be taken for dog owners who currently have more than two dogs and live in any of the newly identified restricted areas. 3.4 If a dog limit applies, where and to whom should it apply? Page 86

90 We wrote to Council to find out about holiday makers, tourists and swallows and how the dog limit would apply to them. The answer is posted on the Council s website and is: Clause 6 of the proposed bylaw provides for dog owners to seek written permission from the Council to keep more than two dogs in the identified areas. Clause 6.2 outlines that permission would be required whether or not the dogs are registered and whether or not the owner/occupier is the registered owner of the dogs. We do not understand whether the landlord, or the traveller, is meant to apply to Council to have their extra dogs with them over the holidays. Either way, this proposal is ludicrous, unenforceable, and unnecessary. Holiday home owners in rthland, and tourists, would need to be excluded from any limits set, so that tourism is not discouraged by this proposal. Working dogs and pig/hunting dogs should be excluded from these limits. Working dogs are often excluded from dog limits in other districts, and we do not know why Council has chosen otherwise. Given that we believe that the notion of limiting dogs is unreasonable, not evidence based, and will not have positive effects, the increase in areas where this irrational limit will apply is also irrational. In correspondence with Council in 2017, we were advised that the rationale for choosing the 12 areas in the last bylaw was that they were busy urban areas. This has increased to 52 areas without the Council specifying why this is desirable. Council has described the areas, but not justified them. Recommendation Delete Section 6 Limitation on Number of Dogs from the bylaw 4. Other 4.1 Impounding Under the proposed section on Impounding (S 10.2), it states that Council s Operating Procedures will apply. Repeated LGOIMA responses from Council have indicated that these procedures do not exist. Given the continuing issues with dog welfare breaches at the pound, these procedures need to be given to the community for consultation. We cannot be consulted on what we have not seen. In the 2006 documents, it stated that the pound was open to the public for periods of time. Council has omitted this from the proposal. This is critical for rebuilding community trust, given Council s history of failure to meet its obligations to pound dogs. Recommendation That Council come back to the community with the pound Operating Procedures for consultation, and include that the pounds will be open to the public for periods of time. 4.2 Neutering We do not agree with the proposals in S 10.3 and 11 of the bylaw, and Policy 2 on neutering. Neutering can kill a dog with a heart condition. It can completely devalue an expensive farm or breeding dog. Council needs to research and develop the proposed operating procedures upon which it will base decisions on neutering, and then come back to the community with them for consultation. Page 87

91 Recommendation That Council come back to the community for consultation on the Operating Procedures for neutering menacing, and/or wandering dogs. We do not support the automatic neutering of dogs without consultation with the dogs owner, and without leeway for special circumstances. 4.3 Why Omissions Matter We have made repeated pleas to Council to reconsider the wording of these documents, so that they would have a positive focus. We asked if the rationale for policies could be provided. We asked if Council s obligations could be included, and operating procedures if they were referenced. This has been to no avail. That net result is that Council has proposed a dog policy which, outside half a page of objectives and background, is literally three sentences long. This is treating the Act, its objectives, and the community, with contempt. It is the shortest policy in the country. Here is the FNDC Policy on Dogs, after which Schedules are attached. The community fears this brevity from FNDC in relation to matters of dog control, because it does not trust Council in this regard. The degree to which this is so is not normal; FNDC in particular has failed to perform effectively in the area of dog control, generating friction well beyond the norm that ordinarily exists between a Council and residents around dog control. Community mistrust has come from seeing Council fall short for many years in the care of the dogs in its pounds, in particular. If Council cares so little for its own dogs, why would it have the best interests of dogs generally at heart? Remember for many of us, emotionally, our dogs are like our children. Lost and wandering dogs are other peoples abused children. The way in which Council deals with those dogs will be viewed from that perspective. Council needs to choose to lead by example, and be models for our community, rather than dragging its heels, only fixing problems when community cacophony reaches a peak. In addition, there is a perception that the animal control department is not overseen effectively, and decisions made by senior staff can be arbitrary, and/or conflicted. This may or may not be the case. Until there are thorough operating procedures, quality assurance processes, and checks and balances on staff use of their power vis a vis dogs, the perception will likely remain. Recommendation That Council direct the Chief Executive to ensure that the next iteration of the policy/bylaw is thorough, and includes the rationale behind policy statements. Page 88

92 That Council direct the Chief Executive to review the quality assurance processes and operating procedures in the animal control department, and report back to Council. 4.4 Council Obligations Omitted The Council has chosen to include the most minimal of obligations upon itself in the proposed bylaw and policy. In doing so it has chosen to exclude options which were already part of the 2006 bylaw and policy, and those which are readily available to it via the Dog Control Act Below are some of the functions that Council could have included, but chose not to, from the Act (highlights are ours): Section 6 (2) In addition to any power conferred on a territorial authority by this Act, any territorial authority may (a) either singly or jointly with any other territorial authority or any other organisation or group or body of persons (whether incorporated or not) undertake, promote, and encourage the development of such services and programmes as it considers desirable to promote responsible dog ownership and the welfare of dogs: (b) make grants to any organisation or group or body of persons (whether incorporated or not) whose objects include the care, custody, training, or welfare of dogs or the instruction or education of persons concerning such care, custody, training, or welfare: (c) engage in publicity for the purposes of this Act. (S 6 (2)) Section 10 (3) (f) shall include such other details of the policy as the territorial authority thinks fit including, but not limited to, details of the policy in relation to (i) fees or proposed fees; and (ii) owner education programmes; and (iii) dog obedience courses; and (iv) the classification of owners; and (v) the disqualification of owners; and (vi) the issuing of infringement notices. In the 2006 policy and bylaw, Council had an entire section on its own obligations. This has been deleted. Recommendations That Council consider philosophically whether it wishes to do the very least possible under the Act, and the implications of doing so in terms of community commitment to the Council, in return. That Council add back the above highlighted obligations to the Policy, to show a commitment to dog welfare, care, owner education, dog obedience, and responsible dog ownership. That Council develop operational procedures in relation to the missing sections, as above, and present those to the community for consultation. 4.5 Hunting Dogs are Working Dogs Page 89

93 There is no explanation for why hunting dogs are now excluded from the definition of a working dog. Hunting dogs are important in our community, and help to feed families. They get rid of pests from our forests and are valued highly by many. Those who own hunting dogs are often from lower socio-economic groups. They too should be afforded the lower registration rates that apply to working dogs. Recommendation Include hunting dogs in the definition of working dog in the bylaw. i p 21 ii Ibid, P15 iii Ibid, P12 iv v Local Government Act (2002) S 14 (1) (c) (1) vi vii viii ix x xi FNDC Long Term Plan 2018, draft issued for community consultation, 2018 xii xiii As cited in xiv P 24, Solutions-2nd-Edition_0.pdf xv P 8, Ibid xvi P 22, Ibid xvii S53(1), Dog Control Act 1996 xviii Page 90

94 xix xx Hart, B.L (1990) 'Pets and Behavior:Problems and Solutions' in Burger, I.H. (ed) Pets Benefits and Practice, Waltham Symposium 20, 18-24, BVA pub xxi Bradshaw, J.W and Brown, S.L. (1990) Behavioural Adaptations of Dogs to Domestication in Burger, I.H (ed) Pets, Benefits and Practice, 'Waltham Symposium 20, 18-24, BVA pub xxii xxiii xxiv Animal Welfare Act 1999, Dogs Code of Welfare 2010 xxv See S 5, Resource Management Act 1991: Purpose (1) The purpose of this Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. (2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being and for their health and safety while (a) sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and (b) safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil, and ecosystems; and (c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. xxvi xxviii xxix xxx p 21 xxxi fact-or-myth-and-misinformation xxxii See S 20 (1) f, Dog Control Act 1996 xxxiii See Dog Control Act 1996, and Animal Welfare Act 1999 xxxiv xxxv As cited in P19-20, Problems-and-Solutions-2nd-Edition_0.pdf Page 91

95 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/1207 Surname McKenzie First Name David Dog owner? Group / Organisation Russell Landcare Trust Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Nearest Town Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Russell Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Oneroa/Long Beach on-leash rules should be reinstated. Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Russell Peninsula is acknowledged as a Kiwi Concentration Zone. And a limit of two dogs per household to extend across the Russell Peninsula to at least a line between Clendon Cove and Man'O War Creek Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? Page 92

96 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? A defined off-leash area near Russell. Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? A detailed submission has been received from the Russell Landcare Trust, which they have summarized below. The submission should be read in full. Summary of Russell Landcare Trust submission: 1 FNDC to reinstate two objectives from the 2017 bylaw proposal: - Promote responsible dog ownership - Protect native wildlife, natural habitats and property. 2 Russell Peninsula is acknowledged as a Kiwi Concentration Zone. And a limit of two dogs per household to extend across the Russell Peninsula to a least a line between Clendon Cove and Man'O War Creek. 3 A defined off-leash area near Russell. 4 Enforcement of rules regarding roaming dogs. 5 All dogs on a leash when in Council reserves including when on walking tracks. 6 Enforcement of owner collecting of dog faeces. 7 That owners whose dog has been removed by council be barred from owning a dog for two years. 8 That the Oneroa/Long Beach on-leash rules be reinstated. 9 Enforcement of no dog covenants' and where new subdivisions are created in areas with kiwi they are designated as no dog covenant' subdivisions. Additional Supporting Information Page 93

97 Russell Landcare Trust C/o 13 Baker Street Russell 0202 Aotearoa New Zealand 23 September 2018 Far rth District Council Private Bag 752 Memorial Ave Kaikohe Submission on: Proposed Dog Management Policy and Bylaw Dear Mayor, Councillors, Community Boards and FNDC staff, Thank you for inviting us to submit on the proposed policy and bylaw. Please note: Russell Landcare Trust wishes to be heard at any submission hearing. Russell Landcare Trust The Russell Landcare Trust was established in 2003 to increase the population of threatened native species on the Russell Peninsula, including kiwi, and to educate the public about kiwi and other threatened species on the peninsula. It has since been involved in native plant restoration, kiwi and other bird monitoring, rth Island Weka translocation, construction of kiwi boxes, facilitating Kiwi Aversion Training for dogs, pest control and pest control workshops, weed removal and ecological advocacy on the Russell Peninsula. Introduction: Uncontrolled dogs are a proven threat to kiwi survival throughout rthland. Research has convincingly proven that dogs are the main killers of adult kiwi in rthland (Pierce & Sporle : Synopsis. In an analysis of 5 ½ years of kiwi deaths 70% of reported kiwi deaths in rthland were caused by dogs). Uncontrolled dogs are the main killers of kiwi in rthland. Department of Conservation. 2 nd July Dogs have been the cause of rapid catastrophic declines in local kiwi populations. (Taborsky : Synopsis. The Waitangi Forest dog incident, where an estimated 500 kiwi out of a population of 900 were killed by a single dog within a few months). Every dog regardless of its size is a potential threat to kiwi. Kiwis For Kiwis. Predator control has been carried out on the Russell Peninsula since 2002 by Laurence Gordon/ New Zealand Kiwi Foundation and more recently also by Russell Landcare Trust. As a result of these efforts there has been 1 Causes of Kiwi Mortality in rthland. Pierce RJ & Sporle W. Department of Conservation ISSN Kiwi and Dog Predation: Observations in Waitangi State Forest. Taborsky M. tornis Vol. 35 September 1988 pp Page 94 1

98 a significant increase in kiwi numbers on the Russell peninsula (DoC Kiwi Call Counts. Russell Peninsula ). This is contrary to a national decline in kiwi and to the predicted extinction of kiwi on the New Zealand mainland within 50 years. The Russell Peninsula is an exemplar of the effectiveness of pest control in increasing kiwi numbers within local areas. These hard-won gains, both in effort and monies (including funds from FNDC) can be rapidly undone by uncontrolled dogs. The loss of kiwi killed by dogs reduces the capability of kiwi to survive as a species. In rthland kiwi productivity is not a problem. Mortality is. Russell Landcare Trust acknowledges the many dog owners who are responsible owners: we do not wish to demonise them. Many of our menbers are dog lovers after all. It is the careless owners and their dogs which spoil the pitch for all. A badly behaved dog is a badly trained dog. It is these uncaring and inconsiderate owners and the resulting behaviour of their dogs that the Policy and Bylaw needs to consider and rule for. We acknowledge too that there are political and societal issues for Council in formulating this bylaw however uncotrolled dogs are a problem and there must be effective legal means to control them. Section 4(a)(1v) of the Dog Control Act 196 states that one of the objectives of the Act is " to impose on owners of dogs obligations designed to ensure that dogs do not injure, endanger, or cause distress to any stock, poultry, animal, or protected wildlife." All the wildlife referred to in this submission is protected. Therefore unless the FNDC takes steps to meet that obligation it is failing to comply with the Act. Summary of Russell Landcare Trust submission: 1 FNDC to reinstate two objectives from the 2017 bylaw proposal: - Promote responsible dog ownership - Protect native wildlife, natural habitats and property. 2 Russell Peninsula is acknowledged as a Kiwi Concentration Zone. And a limit of two dogs per household to extend across the Russell Peninsula to a least a line between Clendon Cove and Man O War Creek. 3 A defined off-leash area near Russell. 4 Enforcement of rules regarding roaming dogs. 5 All dogs on a leash when in Council reserves including when on walking tracks. 6 Enforcement of owner collecting of dog faeces. 7 That owners whose dog has been removed by council be barred from owning a dog for two years. 8 That the Oneroa/Long Beach on-leash rules be reinstated. 9 Enforcement of no dog covenants and where new subdivisions are created in areas with kiwi they are designated as no dog covenant subdivisions. te: We will endeavour to supply copies of all the reference sources quoted in our submission. Submission: 1 Objectives of the Bylaw The current proposed objectives are: 1 Prevent injury, stress and nuisance from dogs. 2 Identify Dog Access areas. 3 Provide for the neutering of menacing dogs. 3 Call Count Monitoring of rthland Brown Kiwi Craig E., Department of Conservation p8. Page 95

99 Russell Landcare Trust C/o 13 Baker Street Russell 0202 Aotearoa New Zealand mention is made in these objectives of the threat of dogs to the internationally unique fauna, especially rth Island Brown Kiwi, New Zealand Dotterel, rth Island Weka and Patiki/Brown Teal, present within the FNDC rohe. The Far rth District is unique in New Zealand (and the world) in having kiwi living in close proximity to urban areas. Under Section 4(a)(1v) of the Dog Control Act 1996 Council (see above) is obliged to protect native wildlife. As such Russell Landcare Trust proposes that objective four of the Draft 2017 Dog Policy must be reinstated: > Protect native wildlife, natural habitats and property. One of the objectives from the 2017 bylaw proposal - Promote responsible dog ownership - has been removed from this 2018 draft bylaw. This seems contrary to council s wish, as we understand it, for education to be a tool in encouraging good dog control. Suely the whole purpose of the Bylaw must be to encourage responsible dog ownership the benefits of which are manifold. We request that this objective also be reinstated: > Promote responsible dog ownership Thus the bylaw objectives should be: 1 Promote responsible dog ownership 2 Prevent injury, stress and nuisance from dogs. 3 Identify Dog Access areas. 4 Provide for the neutering of menacing dogs 5 Protect native wildlife, natural habitats and property 2 Special Character Rules and limits on number of dogs per household on the Russell peninsula: We request that Council acknowledges that the Russell Peninsula is a Kiwi Concentration Zone i.e. a highdensity kiwi area. The Russell Landcare Trust initiated The Russell Kiwi Protection Project in 2016 to put in place intensive pest control within the Russell Peninsula with the aim of tripling kiwi numbers on the peninsula from an estimated 500 birds to 1500 (equivalent to 500 pairs, the minimum number for a genetically viable population of rthland Brown Kiwi.) 4, in 10 years, the same timespan as the proposed dog bylaw. An essential component of this vision is dog control. Without control of roaming dogs i.e. dogs not under control and given that dogs are the main killers of kiwi in rthland, then there will be an inevitable increase in kiwi killed by dogs within those areas where kiwi are increasing. It is essential for the success of the Russell Landcare Trust Kiwi Protection Project (to which FNDC has contributed funds via Community Board Grants to Living Waters BoI), that the limit on dog numbers on the Russell Peninsula of two per household, excluding working dogs, apply not just to the urban areas of Russell town and Okiato but also across the whole peninsula to at least the Clendon Cove-Man O War Creek boundary. It makes no sense to have no limit on dog numbers per household in those peri-urban and rural areas where kiwi are present and where they are projected to substantially increase in numbers within the next decade. Two endangered flightless native birds live on the Russell peninsula. These are the Brown Kiwi and the rth Island Weka. Both are very vulnerable to dog predation. 4 Taxon Plan for rthland Brown Kiwi. Strategic Plan for rthland Brown Kiwi 2019 and Beyond. Craig E., Gardener C., Renwick C., Sporle W. Department of Conservation. Whangarei Section Population Recovery; p24. Page 96 3

100 3 Defined Off-leash Dog exercise areas There should be a defined off-leash area within the Russell town area. Any such area could be fenced to prevent runaway dogs. One possibility is the Council reserve between Hope and Florence Avenues or a fenced area on Council land near the sports ground. A potential off leash area for Okiato residents is the James Clendon Place Reserve at the corner of Pipiroa Road, Okiato. 4 Rules regarding roaming dogs - That the roaming dog rules are enforced, especially in areas with known kiwi populations. - Enforcement of dogs to be tied up or otherwise confined at night (Section 20 (1g) of the Dog Control Act 1996). That dogs roaming at night when they are a greater threat to kiwi, within areas with known kiwi populations, is specifically mentioned and given priority to be acted upon. This may require an extra Dog Ranger or warden, possibly part funded by council and other interested groups such as Kiwi for Kiwis, Forest and Bird, Department of Conservation or other conservation groups. 5 Dog Control within Council Reserves We understand that Council proposes that dogs are to be on a leash at all times in all Council reserves and on roads and footpaths. We support this, but Council must provide appropriate signage and enforcement. Currently, where reserves and other Council lands (including unformed legal roads) are natural areas, there is no signage to say an area is reserve or an unformed legal road and so the public does not know that all dogs are to be on a leash at all times. The BOI Walkways Trust has erected Dogs on a leash signs on the popular Russell - Okiato walkway but because they have no legal authority i.e. they are not official FNDC or DoC signs, it is left to locals to try to persuade recalcitrant dog owners to keep their dog on a leash. Dogs from nearby properties also sometimes roam into the reserves. The Russell Landcare Trust Kiwi Protection area (which will eventually cover the entire Russell Peninsula) includes a smaller area with intensive multi-species animal pest control covering about 250ha in the Pipiroa and Te Wahapu Catchments. We would like to see Council make a special effort to prevent dogs roaming in the following Council Reserves within this area: Pipiroa Scenic and Recreation Reserves and the Pipiroa accessway at Okiato; and the 66ha Te Wahapu Scenic Reserve plus the associated coastal public land. If Council is unable to enforce the "dogs must be on a leash at all times" rule, then they should become prohibited no dog areas. The need for signage is particularly important at Pipiroa Beach as this is currently used as an informal dog off-leash area. This beach immediately adjoins an important wetland (Pipiroa Recreation Reserve) which contains rthland's most threatened native bird species- the Australasian bittern. Other threatened wetland bird species in this wetland include spotless crake, marsh crake and fernbird. Brown kiwi and rth Island weka are also present. Dogs on the beach also chase wading birds at low tides. Given the proximity of highly significant wildlife Pipiroa beach should be added to the list of specified beaches where dogs must be on a leash at all times area. Waitata/Donkey Bay to the north of Oneroa/Long Beach, Russell should be a prohibited no dog area. Blue Penguin frequent this area throughout the year and the endangered New Zealand Dotterel has been nesting on this beach in recent years during srping-mid summer. In summary: - all dogs must be on a leash when in Council controlled bush reserves and on walking tracks including at Pipiroa Scenic Reserve and Te Wahapu Scenic Reserve - That there is FNDC signage erected to inform of this requirement. - Piproa Beach to be an on-leash area at all times. - Waitata Bay (north of Long Beach Russell) be a no-dogs zone. 6 Hygiene issues: That the requirement for dog faeces be immediately removed by the dog owner be enforced. (Section 20 (1h) of the Dog Control Act). Page 97 4

101 Russell Landcare Trust C/o 13 Baker Street Russell 0202 Aotearoa New Zealand 7 Removal of a dog from an owner - That when a dog owner has had a dog removed because of contravention of and a conviction under the Dog Control Act 1996, they cannot then own another dog for a minimum period of at least two years as per Section 25 (3) of the Dog Control Act The Act provides for Councils to do this and we urge the FNDC to do so. 8. Oneroa/Long Beach Russell Special Character Rules. - That the on-leash rules for dogs on Oneroa/Long Beach to be re-instated, to run from Labour Day to 2400 hours Easter Monday. Oneroa is an increasingly popular beach during summer. In such a situation a dog offleash can quickly become a dog not under control. As such it can cause annoyance and distress for beach goers, particularly children, who can feel threatened by dogs off leash. It can be also more difficult for owners of dogs off leash to recognize when their dog has defecated and to subsequently clean-up faeces in an area frequented by the public. See 9. Dog Covenant subdivisions We are aware that dog protection covenants on resource consents may be outside the parameters of the Dog Control Bylaw but we raise this issue as they should be an essential part of council s overall policy on dogs and the preservation of protected wildlife. - That any new subdivision in an area within the FNDC jurisdiction and where it is known kiwi are present, be by default covenanted as a dog covenanted subdivision *. - That areas in close proximity to known kiwi populations have dog control measures put in place. With increasing kiwi numbers within areas undergoing pest control and increasing areas across the FNDC jurisdiction having pest control, kiwi will be recolonising areas where they were formerly present. - That the Council take note that rth Island Weka, which are rarer and more threatened than Brown Kiwi, are extending their range from the Russell peninsula and recolonising former habitat. Small populations have been observed at Opua, Opua Forest, Otiria (near Kawakawa), near Puketotara Road and to the east of Kerikeri. Weka are particularly susceptible to dog predation. - That in subdivisions where no dog covenants already exist; those covenants be enforced by Council. Conversely - That dogs should not be registered to addresses where there is a no dog covenant. - That Council should not return dogs to an address where there is a no dog covenant. *There has been recent publicity claiming that Kiwi Aversion Training for dogs would replace the need for Dog Covenants. This is incorrect. Kiwi Aversion Training on badly trained dogs, such as many domestic household dogs, does not necessarily translate to the avoidance of live birds. If it does work, it is often only for a limited time (Kiwi Aversion Training. Dale ). Conclusion As stated earlier Russell Landcare Trust acknowledges the many dog owners who are responsible owners: we do not wish to demonise them. It is the badly trained dogs and their careless and inconsiderate owners that the dog management policy and bylaw needs to consider and rule for. 5 Does Kiwi Aversion Training reduce canine (Canis familiaris) predation on kiwi (Apteryx sp.)? Dale AJ. PhD thesis. University of Auckland Page 98

102 The Russell Landcare Trust advocates for wildlife and for a greater understanding of the impact of people upon our unique wildlife and ecology. The proposed Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 is primarily designed to be favourable for people, not wildlife. It is important to state that the mere presence of a dog, on a leash or not, is enough to disturb and distress wildlife, especially on the coast at low tide where significant interruption of feeding can occur to shorebirds, including the endangered New Zealand Dotterel. The Proposed Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 is not favourable to New Zealand s threatened wildlife, especially our native flightless birds. The proposed controls, which have been loosened compared to the 2017 proposals, with no mention of native wildlife in the objectives, no limit to dog ownership numbers in rural areas of the Russell peninsula and no seasonal restrictions on Oneroa/Long Beach, are all counterproductive to and undermine recent conservation initiatives on the Russell peninsula and other in areas, some funded by the FNDC. These omissions in the proposed bylaws are out of step with the vision of a predator free New Zealand by And do not meet the obligations on Council under Section 4(a)(1v) of the Dog Control Act By its new proposals, the FNDC has further polarised the dog issue between dog and kiwi advocates. This is not a situation that those who advocate for kiwi wish to see, but any kiwi deaths that almost certainly will result from roaming dogs, will undoubtedly be used by the media as an adverse reflection on the bylaw and the FNDC. A kiwi killed by a dog is a tragedy and a public relations disaster. Finally, to Mayor Carter, Councillors, Community Boards, and FNDC staff, our thanks for inviting us to submit on the draft Dog Management Policy and Bylaw Russell Landcare Trust looks forward to a final version which properly protects our precious native wildlife. Kia kah Your sincerely Russell Landcare Trust Page 99 6

103 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions ID DMC18/1211 Surname Bidlake First Name Debbie Dog owner? Nearest Town Group / Organisation Federated Farmers of New Zealand Agree with Date Restriction? Agree with Time Restriction? Restriction Preference? Restriction Preference? Comments regarding date and time restrictions of dogs on beaches: Do you agree with the proposed Special Character restrictions? What special character areas do you disagree with? What are you preferred Special Character restrictions? What other areas do you think should be defined as Special Character? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional beaches? What exceptional beaches do you disagree with? Do you agree with the proposed Exceptional Restrictions? What are your preferred Exceptional Restrictions? What other beaches do you recommend be included in the Exceptional Rules? Do you agree with a 2 dog limit in certain areas? If you disagree with the 2 dog limit, why? Which areas do you think should have the 2 dog restriction apply? What other areas do you think should be included and do you have any further comments? Clause 6 Limitation on Dogs 6.1 more than two dogs over the age of three months may be kept on any premises within the areas identified in the schedule of this Bylaw without the written permission of Council. Federated Farmers supports the application of rule 6.1 to urban areas. For clarity, we would prefer that the word urban was reinstated. It can be defined at the beginning of the bylaw if required. Most sheep and beef farmers work with a team of three to four dogs. It is very difficult to run a large farm operation with a smaller dog team than this. Our members wouldn't want to see unnecessary restrictions placed on farmers to deal with what we believe is essentially an urban dog control issue. Page 100

104 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions Do you agree with the proposed off-leash areas? If you disagree with the proposed areas, which ones do you disagree with? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? What other sites can you recommend as possible off-leash areas? We support FNDC providing dedicated, fenced, dog exercise areas. Do you agree with the proposed district-wide access rules? Which areas do you disagree district-wide rules should apply to? If you disagree with the proposed areas, why do you disagree? Do you have any other comments to make about the proposed District-Wide rules? We applaud FNDC for tightening the rules around menacing dogs and for trying to protect the public by restricting dog access to public spaces such as playgrounds and swimming pools. We do not support dog access on cycle ways through farmland because not all owners are responsible and have them leashed. Even gentle-natured dogs retain their natural predatory instinct and can lose their calm around stock, particularly energetic lambs. Do you have any other comments you would like us to consider as part of this consultation? A detailed submission has been received and is summarized below: Policy 2: All dogs registered within the district and classified as menacing by Council or any other territorial authority must be neutered. Federated Farmers supports the neutering of dogs classified as menacing. This approach is consistent with s 32 and s 33E of the Dog Control Act Policy 3: Council will regulate through a bylaw dog access in public places, and specific owner obligations to minimise dog aggression and nuisance not already covered in legislation. In our view, this policy and the nuisance provisions in the draft bylaw need to be tweaked to more explicitly deal with dog attacks on livestock. We discuss this issue further below. Schedule 1 Prohibited on-leash and off-leash areas Federated Farmers supports the new rules restricting dog access in public spaces, particularly playgrounds and swimming pools. A zero tolerance approach to risk is appropriate given the vulnerability of children. We also support the practical and limited exemption for working dogs. These dogs are professionally managed and are unlikely to pose a risk to the community. Definition of Nuisance NUISANCE has the same meaning as section 29(k) of the Health Act Section 29k of the Health Act states that a nuisance shall be deemed to have been created: where any animal, or any carcass or part of a carcass, is so kept or allowed to remain as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health. One of the stated aims of the Policy and Bylaw is to minimise injury and distress to stock. In our view, nuisance should be more broadly defined in the bylaw so as to better protect life and property on farms. Clause 3 Exemptions 3.2 Working Dogs are exempt from restrictions and prohibitions on Dog Access Areas, if they are being used for the purpose for which they are kept. Federated Farmers supports the practical and limited exemption for working dogs in 3.2 in relation to dog access areas. Working dogs serve an essential purpose, are professionally managed and are unlikely to pose a risk to the community. Clause 7 Confinement of Dogs 7.1 The person in charge of a dog shall, from half an hour after sunset until half an hour before sunrise, keep the dog tied up or otherwise confined, unless the dog is on a leash or under continuous control. Federated Farmers supports the application of this rule to urban areas, but for clarity we would prefer there to be an exemption for working dogs as on farms as they often work outside these times. It isn't practical to keep them confined (as defined in this bylaw) while the farmer is dealing with stock. In such situations, the dogs are on standby and able to assist if required does this qualify as continuous control? Federated Farmers supports the neutering of dogs classified as dangerous Page 101

105 Dog Management Policy and Bylaw 2018 Submissions or menacing as this is consistent with sections 32 and s 33EB of the DCA. We also support the neutering of repeat offenders in However, FNDC may wish to retain some discretion (i.e. use may rather than will in 11.2) as neutering might not always address the problem. Dogs wander for a variety of reasons: anxiety, curiosity, boredom, hunger, lack of exercise or training, changes in routine (i.e. a new home).3 In some situations, to address the problem a different response might be required. Federated Farmers strongly supports the restrictions in clause 9 as dogs can travel great distances to find a mate and bitches can be more aggressive/agitated when they are on heat. Federated Farmers supports the retention of Rule 12.2 for farm dogs. Farmers often need to transport dogs on and between farm properties and into town for vet checks and while running other farm errands. As these are working animals, it is not always practical to have them inside vehicles. Federated Farmers generally supports Rule 12.1, but there are plenty of situations where people have been bitten (or snapped at) through wide open car open windows. In our view, Rule 12.1(a) needs to state that person takes measures to render it impossible for the dog to leave the vehicle or cause a nuisance to the public.. This wording would be consistent with Rule 12.2 regarding dogs in open trays. We are not sure what the policy rationale is for allowing the double standard. 13 Diseased Dogs 13.1 dog infected with a contagious disease can be exercised in any public place Every person in charge of a dog must ensure that any dog infected with a contagious disease is contained on their land or premises in such a manner that it cannot leave the land or premises, other than when being transported to a registered veterinary clinic for treatment. Federated Farmers strongly supports the inclusion of this rule. Foreign dogs are a biosecurity risk on farms as they can spread diseases such as Ovis and neosporosis. While farmers are keenly aware of these issues, the same cannot be said for urban dog owners. We would like to see educational material about the risk stray dogs pose to livestock accompany this bylaw. 14 Nuisance Federated Farmers supports the intention of this rule. Dog attacks have a horrendous impact on their victims, their families and the community such that a zero tolerance approach is appropriate. However, we consider that the wording needs refinement. This bylaw limits the scope of the term nuisance to the definition in s 29k of the Public Health Act i.e. a nuisance will occur where: where any animal, or any carcass or part of a carcass, is so kept or allowed to remain as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health. Rule 14.2 and 14.4 then go on to talk about a dog being injurious to health. Are we still talking about human health? If so, the rules appear repetitious. Dog registration fees: While the policy and bylaw do not directly address dog fees, Federated Farmers would like to take the opportunity to comment on the Council's registration scheme. We support tiered user pays registration fee structure and the price break for working dogs i.e. $40 - $50 (depending on whether your dog is de-sexed) compared with $52-$62 for normal pets. Farm dogs have a lower impact than other dogs on Council resources and facilities as they are domiciled and work well away from urban areas (where dog control is an issue). Farmers are also responsible and professional dog owners. We are a little confused as to why pig dogs receive the same price break as a working dog given they are used for a recreational purpose and typically include aggressive breeds such as: staffordshires, American Bull Dogs and Bull Mastiffs. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many dog attacks on stock are from pig dogs such that stricter controls are required. Most farmers own multiple working dogs (i.e. farm dogs generally work in teams of three or four). We encourage FNDC to introduce a useful registration fee rebate for teams (i.e. more than two) of working dogs. A 50% rebate would be in line with the approach taken by other councils. Federated Farmers congratulates FNDC on it's the engaging nature of some of its consultation material. We also appreciate the simple and easy to read language used. The use of Plain English in local government is essential for transparency and effective participation. Additional Supporting Information Page 102

106 Submission TELEPHONE I WEBSITE To: Submission on: Far rth District Council Draft Dog Management Bylaw and Policy. Date: 24 September 2018 Contact: Address for Service: NORTHLAND PROVINCE OF FEDERATED FARMERS JOHN BLACKWELL PROVINCIAL PRESIDENT Federated Farmers of New Zealand P (09) M E northlandfedfarmpresident@gmail.com DEBBIE BIDLAKE SENIOR REGIONAL POLICY ADVISOR Federated Farmers of New Zealand Level 6, 154 Featherston street, PO Box 715, Wellington 6140 M E DBidlake@fedfarm.org.nz Federated Farmers thanks the Far rth District Council ( FNDC ) for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Dog Management Policy ( the Policy ) and Draft Dog Management Bylaw ( the Bylaw ). We acknowledge and support any feedback provided by individual members of Federated Farmers. Federated Farmers could not gain an advantage in trade competition through this submission. We wish to be heard in support of this submission. Page 103

107 Working dogs essential to faming operations and much loved pets. Photo by John Blackwell. INTRODUCTION Dogs are often an essential part of farming operations and they are much loved family pets. Farm dogs are bred for their agility, obedience, intelligence and calm temperament. They are professionally managed and well cared for. We appreciate the care that FNDC has taken in drafting the Bylaw and Policy to avoid placing unnecessary restrictions on farm dogs. The Far rth District does have a serious urban dog control problem. In 2015, one of our members lost 300 pregnant ewes to urban dog attacks. Unfortunately, this wasn t an isolated incident. Most farmers that live near urban settlements in the Far rth report having to shoot stray dogs to protect stock. Dog attacks have a huge financial and emotional impact on farmers. Most sheep attacks are fatal or require euthanasia. Ewes that are disturbed by dogs, can also abort their young, which is traumatic for both the sheep and the farmer. Stray urban dogs are also a biosecurity and animal welfare risk on farms as they spread diseases such as Ovis and Neoporosis to livestock. Ovis causes blemishes in sheep and goat meat which can result in downgrading or condemning of carcasses. 1 Neosporosis causes abortions/stillborn calves. The Dog Control Act is concerned about protecting people and preventing injury, danger and distress to stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife. We appreciate that the Dog Control Act has its limitations, but urge FNDC to use its full powers/discretion to protect life and property on farms. Finally, farmers are parents of vulnerable children, they are children of elderly parents, and they are potential victims of dog attacks. We applaud FNDC for tightening the rules around menacing dogs and for trying to protect the public by restricting dog access to public spaces such as playgrounds and swimming pools. 1 For more information, please refer to: Page 104

108 DRAFT DOG MANAGEMENT POLICY Policy 2: All dogs registered within the district and classified as menacing by Council or any other territorial authority must be neutered. Federated Farmers supports the neutering of dogs classified as menacing. This approach is consistent with s 32 and s 33E of the Dog Control Act Policy 3: Council will regulate through a bylaw dog access in public places, and specific owner obligations to minimise dog aggression and nuisance not already covered in legislation. In our view, this policy and the nuisance provisions in the draft bylaw need to be tweaked to more explicitly deal with dog attacks on livestock. We discuss this issue further below. Schedule 1 Prohibited on-leash and off-leash areas Federated Farmers supports the new rules restricting dog access in public spaces, particularly playgrounds and swimming pools. A zero tolerance approach to risk is appropriate given the vulnerability of children. We also support the practical and limited exemption for working dogs. These dogs are professionally managed and are unlikely to pose a risk to the community. We do not support dog access on cycle ways through farmland because not all owners are responsible and have them leashed. Even gentle-natured dogs retain their natural predatory instinct and can lose their calm around stock, particularly energetic lambs. Springtime is a particularly vulnerable time for livestock. In setting the restrictions in Schedule 1, we ask that FNDC consider the welfare of nearby livestock. Currently, the permitted off-leash times coincide with lambing and calving, as the focus is solely on protecting people. We note that boredom and lack of exercise is one of the reasons dogs roam. 2 To offset any impact of the above restrictions, we support FNDC providing dedicated, fenced, dog exercise areas. DRAFT DOG MANAGEMENT BYLAW 2018 Definition of Nuisance NUISANCE has the same meaning as section 29(k) of the Health Act Section 29k of the Health Act states that a nuisance shall be deemed to have been created: where any animal, or any carcass or part of a carcass, is so kept or allowed to remain as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health. One of the stated aims of the Policy and Bylaw is to minimise injury and distress to stock. In our view, nuisance should be more broadly defined in the bylaw so as to better protect life and property on farms. 2 Refer: Index!OpenDocument Page 105

109 Clause 3 Exemptions 3.2 Working Dogs are exempt from restrictions and prohibitions on Dog Access Areas, if they are being used for the purpose for which they are kept. Federated Farmers supports the practical and limited exemption for working dogs in 3.2 in relation to dog access areas. Working dogs serve an essential purpose, are professionally managed and are unlikely to pose a risk to the community. Clause 6 Limitation on Dogs 6.1 more than two dogs over the age of three months may be kept on any premises within the areas identified in the schedule of this Bylaw without the written permission of Council. Federated Farmers supports the application of rule 6.1 to urban areas. For clarity, we would prefer that the word urban was reinstated. It can be defined at the beginning of the bylaw if required. Most sheep and beef farmers work with a team of three to four dogs. It is very difficult to run a large farm operation with a smaller dog team than this. Our members wouldn t want to see unnecessary restrictions placed on farmers to deal with what we believe is essentially an urban dog control issue. Clause 7 Confinement of Dogs 7.1 The person in charge of a dog shall, from half an hour after sunset until half an hour before sunrise, keep the dog tied up or otherwise confined, unless the dog is on a leash or under continuous control. Federated Farmers supports the application of this rule to urban areas, but for clarity we would prefer there to be an exemption for working dogs as on farms as they often work outside these times. It isn t practical to keep them confined (as defined in this bylaw) while the farmer is dealing with stock. In such situations, the dogs are on standby and able to assist if required does this qualify as continuous control? 11.1 Any dog of an owner classified as Probationary under the Dog Control Act 1996 must be neutered Where any dog has been impounded more than two times throughout its life, Council will require the neutering of that dog prior to the dog s release from the pound. Federated Farmers supports the neutering of dogs classified as dangerous or menacing as this is consistent with sections 32 and s 33EB of the DCA. We also support the neutering of repeat offenders in However, FNDC may wish to retain some discretion (i.e. use may rather than will in 11.2) as neutering might not always address the problem. Dogs wander for a variety of reasons: anxiety, curiosity, boredom, hunger, lack of exercise or training, changes in routine (i.e. a new home). 3 In some situations, to address the problem a different response might be required. 9 Bitches in Season 9.1 bitch in season can be exercised in any public place. 9.2 Every person in charge of a dog must ensure that every bitch in season is contained and exercised on private land or premises. 3 Refer: Index!OpenDocument Page 106

110 Federated Farmers strongly supports the restrictions in clause 9 as dogs can travel great distances to find a mate and bitches can be more aggressive/agitated when they are on heat. 12 Dogs In or On Vehicles 12.1 person shall take a dog onto any public place in a motor vehicle or leave a dog in any unattended motor vehicle unless: a) that person takes measures to render it impossible for the dog to leave the vehicle; and b) the conditions in or on the vehicle do not endanger the wellbeing of the dog Any person allowing a dog to ride on the open tray of a vehicle shall ensure that it is under control by a chain or any other suitable tether that is sufficiently short in length as to prevent the dog from leaving the tray or causing a nuisance to the public. Federated Farmers supports the retention of Rule 12.2 for farm dogs. Farmers often need to transport dogs on and between farm properties and into town for vet checks and while running other farm errands. As these are working animals, it is not always practical to have them inside vehicles. Federated Farmers generally supports Rule 12.1, but there are plenty of situations where people have been bitten (or snapped at) through wide open car open windows. In our view, Rule 12.1(a) needs to state that person takes measures to render it impossible for the dog to leave the vehicle or cause a nuisance to the public.. This wording would be consistent with Rule 12.2 regarding dogs in open trays. We are not sure what the policy rationale is for allowing the double standard. 13 Diseased Dogs 13.1 dog infected with a contagious disease can be exercised in any public place Every person in charge of a dog must ensure that any dog infected with a contagious disease is contained on their land or premises in such a manner that it cannot leave the land or premises, other than when being transported to a registered veterinary clinic for treatment. Federated Farmers strongly supports the inclusion of this rule. Foreign dogs are a biosecurity risk on farms as they can spread diseases such as Ovis and neosporosis. While farmers are keenly aware of these issues, the same cannot be said for urban dog owners. We would like to see educational material about the risk stray dogs pose to livestock accompany this bylaw. 14 Nuisance 14.1 person shall cause any dog to become unmanageable or aggressive A person must not keep a dog on any land or premises if the dog causes any nuisance or disturbance, is injurious to health, or prevents lawful access to land or premises A person must ensure that their dog is accommodated and/or confined in a manner that restricts its ability to enter into or onto any adjoining land If any dog causes any nuisance or disturbance or is injurious to health, an Authorised Officer may, by notice in writing, require within a specified time the owner or occupier of the premises to: a) reduce the number of dogs kept on the premises; Page 107

111 b) construct, reconstruct, alter or otherwise improve the kennels or other accommodation used to house, contain or restrain the dog; c) require the dog to be tied up or otherwise confined during specified periods; d) take action to minimise or resolve the nuisance. Federated Farmers supports the intention of this rule. Dog attacks have a horrendous impact on their victims, their families and the community such that a zero tolerance approach is appropriate. However, we consider that the wording needs refinement. This bylaw limits the scope of the term nuisance to the definition in s 29k of the Public Health Act i.e. a nuisance will occur where: where any animal, or any carcass or part of a carcass, is so kept or allowed to remain as to be offensive or likely to be injurious to health. Rule 14.2 and 14.4 then go on to talk about a dog being injurious to health. Are we still talking about human health? If so, the rules appear repetitious. Stray dogs can worry, injure and kill farm animals. Are these occurrences supposed to be classified in the above rules as a disturbance? In our view, the nuisance provisions should explicitly refer to injuring, endangering or causing distress to stock. The Dog Control Act is not just concerned with human health, it is also concerned about injury, danger and distress to stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife. 4 We note that both s 10 and s 20 of the Dog Control Act gives local authorities broad regulatory discretion. The Far rth has a dog control problem such that it is appropriate to include provisions that directly protect stock. Included below are pictures of the damage that stay dogs can do on a farm. We make no apologies for the confronting nature of the images. This is the awful reality a farmer faces in the aftermath of stray dog attack. We hope these images remain firmly in the minds of councillors as they consider the application of bylaw and any submissions requesting more lenient rules. In this same incident, pet goats were killed and the dogs threatened the farmer s young children and elderly parents. 4 Refer to the objectives of the Dog Control Act in s 4 and the obligations of dog owners in s 5. Page 108

112 Lambs don t stand a chance against a dog. These sheep suffered through the night before being found and put down. Dog registration fees: While the policy and bylaw do not directly address dog fees, Federated Farmers would like to take the opportunity to comment on the Council s registration scheme. We support tiered user pays registration fee structure and the price break for working dogs i.e. $40 - $50 (depending on whether your dog is de-sexed) compared with $52-$62 for normal pets. Farm dogs have a lower impact than other dogs on Council resources and facilities as they are domiciled and work well away from urban areas (where dog control is an issue). Farmers are also responsible and professional dog owners. We are a little confused as to why pig dogs receive the same price break as a working dog given they are used for a recreational purpose and typically include aggressive breeds such as: staffordshires, American Bull Dogs and Bull Mastiffs. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many dog attacks on stock are from pig dogs such that stricter controls are required. Most farmers own multiple working dogs (i.e. farm dogs generally work in teams of three or four). We encourage FNDC to introduce a useful registration fee rebate for teams (i.e. more than two) of working dogs. A 50% rebate would be in line with the approach taken by other councils. Consultation Federated Farmers congratulates FNDC on it s the engaging nature of some of its consultation material. Page 109

113 We also appreciate the simple and easy to read language used. The use of Plain English in local government is essential for transparency and effective participation. Federated Farmers is a not-for-profit primary sector policy and advocacy organisation that represents the majority of farming businesses in New Zealand. Federated Farmers has a long and proud history of representing the interests of New Zealand s farmers. The Federation aims to add value to its members farming businesses. Our key strategic outcomes include the need for New Zealand to provide an economic and social environment within which: Our members may operate their business in a fair and flexible commercial environment; Our members families and their staff have access to services essential to the needs of the rural community; and Our members adopt responsible management and environmental practices. This feedback represents the views of our members and reflects the fact that resource management and governance decisions have a daily impact on our member s lives, both as farmers and members of their local communities. Federated Farmers thanks the Far rth District Council for considering our submission. Page 110