Better method now to locate menacing dogs

But it takes a $1 concession to achieve it.

But it takes a $1 concession to achieve it.

Having menacing dogs registered for just $1 allows Gisborne District Council to know where they are and better control them, the environmental planning and regulation committee was told.

The quarterly report from the animal control section said last year’s campaign for $1 registration would be repeated this year.

Rehette Stoltz asked why the council was encouraging owners of menacing dogs to register for $1.

Her understanding was that everybody was responsible for registering their dogs . . . “full stop.”

People might say her ‘‘big fat” Labrador was menacing and she would be charged only $1.

Animal control team leader Ross Hannam said the campaign was about getting to the dogs that were not in the council’s system “so we know where they are.”

“We are talking about menacing dogs. Don’t we all want to know where a menacing dog that rushes in to you or your children came from?

“I am sure if you ring us up you will want us to know where it is.”

There had been people last year who rang in to say their dog was menacing when, according to his records, it was not. Unless it was identified by breed or action, it was not a menacing dog.

“It is really about getting to know where those dogs, are, where they live, who do we come down on, where will we be able to find the dog.”

Mrs Stoltz said she could not agree more with what they were doing — it was exactly what the council was trying to achieve.

But in the context of other dog owners, “don’t you think it is a little bit unfair that the dogs that usually will not cause any trouble like my big, fat brown Labrador pay the full fee?”

She thought this was a disincentive to regular dog owners to register their dogs for the full cost.

“I hear what you are saying — you are trying to find out where those people are who will not pay to register their dogs, but it appears to me as a little bit unfair.”

Environmental services and protection director Nick Zaman said it looked like it needed a bit more definition of what a menacing dog was, and what an incident should be.

Committee chairwoman Pat Seymour asked how many menacing dogs that the council did not know about were flushed out by the process last year. She was told 76.

“It just shows you,” she said.

All 76 dogs last year were desexed as well.

Josh Wharehinga said it would be interesting for the committee to get more information on the punitive measures taken regarding menacing dogs. Registration was only one part of what the council did in addition to the definition of menacing dogs.

Mrs Seymour said that would be in the dog policy.

The committee was told that dog registrations were up on last year’s figures — 97.9 percent of all known dogs in the district were now registered.

The Enterprise Cars donations project for dog desexing was going well, with just over 200 vouchers handed out. There was now a bit of a wait for the vet because they could not keep up.

Having menacing dogs registered for just $1 allows Gisborne District Council to know where they are and better control them, the environmental planning and regulation committee was told.

The quarterly report from the animal control section said last year’s campaign for $1 registration would be repeated this year.

Rehette Stoltz asked why the council was encouraging owners of menacing dogs to register for $1.

Her understanding was that everybody was responsible for registering their dogs . . . “full stop.”

People might say her ‘‘big fat” Labrador was menacing and she would be charged only $1.

Animal control team leader Ross Hannam said the campaign was about getting to the dogs that were not in the council’s system “so we know where they are.”

“We are talking about menacing dogs. Don’t we all want to know where a menacing dog that rushes in to you or your children came from?

“I am sure if you ring us up you will want us to know where it is.”

There had been people last year who rang in to say their dog was menacing when, according to his records, it was not. Unless it was identified by breed or action, it was not a menacing dog.

“It is really about getting to know where those dogs, are, where they live, who do we come down on, where will we be able to find the dog.”

Mrs Stoltz said she could not agree more with what they were doing — it was exactly what the council was trying to achieve.

But in the context of other dog owners, “don’t you think it is a little bit unfair that the dogs that usually will not cause any trouble like my big, fat brown Labrador pay the full fee?”

She thought this was a disincentive to regular dog owners to register their dogs for the full cost.

“I hear what you are saying — you are trying to find out where those people are who will not pay to register their dogs, but it appears to me as a little bit unfair.”

Environmental services and protection director Nick Zaman said it looked like it needed a bit more definition of what a menacing dog was, and what an incident should be.

Committee chairwoman Pat Seymour asked how many menacing dogs that the council did not know about were flushed out by the process last year. She was told 76.

“It just shows you,” she said.

All 76 dogs last year were desexed as well.

Josh Wharehinga said it would be interesting for the committee to get more information on the punitive measures taken regarding menacing dogs. Registration was only one part of what the council did in addition to the definition of menacing dogs.

Mrs Seymour said that would be in the dog policy.

The committee was told that dog registrations were up on last year’s figures — 97.9 percent of all known dogs in the district were now registered.

The Enterprise Cars donations project for dog desexing was going well, with just over 200 vouchers handed out. There was now a bit of a wait for the vet because they could not keep up.

Your email address will not be published. Comments will display after being approved by a staff member. Comments may be edited for clarity.

Megan Kelso - 1 month ago
I was interested in the logic behind finding and identifying where menacing dogs were. It is also interesting that responsible dog owners who have dogs chipped and registered and housed properly are the ones having to pay for the Dog Rangers to run around after roaming dogs. I doubt that paying $1 registration is having these menacing dogs restrained on their sections, and does giving out vouchers to have them de-sexed stop them being menacing? It probably just has them roaming for a different reason. It is commendable what the $1 registration is trying to achieve - but it gets increasingly bloody annoying when once again the responsible are paying for the irresponsible.

Poll

  • Voting please wait...
    Your vote has been cast. Reloading page...
    ​​If the council does proceed with an online voting option for the 2019 election, will you likely vote online or by ballot paper?