Agenda of Extraordinary Council

Extraordinary Council

3 August 2015

Description: sdclogo

Dog Control Policy 2015 and Dog Control Bylaw 2015

Record No: R/15/5/9008

Author: Michael Sarfaiti, Environmental Health Manager

Approved by: Bruce Halligan, GM - Environment and Community

☒ Decision ☐ Recommendation ☐ Information

Purpose

1 To hear submissions on the Draft Dog Control Policy 2015 and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 and to deliberate on those submissions.

Executive Summary

On 18 March 2015, Council adopted the draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, and publicly notified and invited submissions on the proposal closing at 5.00 pm on Thursday,
30 April 2015. Some Community Board submissions proposed significant changes to the local dog access rules in the draft Statement of Proposal, and as a result the consultation period was extended to 6 July 2015. A total of 136 submissions were received and of these, 30 submitters have asked to be heard.

Recommendation

That the Council:

a) Receives the report titled “Dog Control Policy 2015 and Dog Control Bylaw 2015” dated 21 July 2015.

b) Determines that this matter or decision be recognised as not significant in terms of Section 76 of the Local Government Act 2002.

c) Determines that it has complied with the decision-making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 to the extent necessary in relation to this decision; and in accordance with Section 79 of the Act determines that it does not require further information, further assessment of options or further analysis of costs and benefits or advantages and disadvantages prior to making a decision on this matter.

d) Receives the submissions on the proposed Dog Control Policy 2015 and
Dog Control Bylaw 2015.

e) Deliberates on the draft Dog Control Policy 2015 and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015.

f) Instructs staff to make any changes to the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw as required.

Content

Abbreviations and definitions:

· The Act: Dog Control Act 1996.

· CB and CDA: Community Board and Community Development Area Subcommittee.

· Schedule 4 Dog: The breeds and type of dog subject to a ban on importation and muzzling listed in Schedule 4 of the Act, being the American Pit Bull Terrier type, and the breeds Brazilian Fila, Dogo Argentino, Japanese Tosa, and Perro de Presa Canario.

Background

4 On 18 March 2015 Council adopted the draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, and publicly notified and invited submissions on the proposal closing at 5.00 pm on Thursday,
30 April 2015. Some Community Board submissions proposed significant changes to the local dog access rules in the draft Statement of Proposal, and as a result the consultation period was extended to 6 July 2015.

5 A booklet of all submissions received is in Attachment C.

6 It is now necessary to complete the process by considering the submissions received and adopting the proposed policy and bylaw having regard to the submission received.

7 The proposed Dog Control Policy 2015 and Dog Control Bylaw 2015, that incorporate staff recommendations as a result of the consultation process up to the time of writing this report, is in Attachments A and B.

Issues

Issue 1 - Overall submitter support for the new direction

8 Submitters were overall supportive of the proposed new direction:

· Retention of the default dog access rule that dogs may be off-leash but must be under control at all times remains unchanged. This rule applies to public areas that are not designated as prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas (62% support and 13% oppose).

· New on-leash required rule for roadsides and footpaths (57% support and 32% oppose).

· Introduction of discounts into the registration fee (82% support and 10% oppose).

· Introduction of multiple dogs licensing (61% support and 22% oppose).

· Transitional arrangements (53% support and 13% oppose).

· Neutering of classified menacing dogs on the grounds of observed behaviour (74% support and 14% oppose).

· Neutering of classified menacing dogs on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type (51% support and 33% oppose).

· Neutering of classified menacing dogs on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 (55% support and 25% oppose).

· New rule that may require the owner of a dog to cause that dog to be neutered if that dog has not been kept under control on more than one occasion within a 12 month period (67% support and 15% oppose).

9 A printout of all responses with graphs is in Attachment D.

Issue 2 - Local dog access rules

10 Many of the comments made by submitters related to the proposed changes to the local dog access rules, particularly in Riverton, Te Anau, and Winton.

11 A table of sample submissions relating to the local dog access rules, and staff comments, is in Attachment E.

12 In any community there will be a number of people who want more dog control restrictions and others who will want less. A number of dog owners have submitted that Council should retain certain off-leash rules, but with the small sample sizes from each community Council cannot statistically draw conclusions about overall community feelings from these submissions and therefore changes based on these submissions alone is not warranted.

13 Staff have been guided by the CBs and CDAs who represent the views of their communities, and are considered to be relatively neutral. During the extended period of the consultative process, a number of CBs recommended amendments to the dog access rules in the Statement of Proposal. These amendments have been incorporated into the proposed policy and bylaw in Attachments A and B, and are summarised here:

· Otautau - whole of Arboretum to be on-leash only.

· Riverton - Riverton Rocks beaches situated from the Coastguard Building to the Navigation Light at the river mouth and from the Sound Shell to roads end at Taramea (Howells Point) to be on-leash only.

· Te Anau - Ivon Wilson Park to be undesignated (and therefore subject to the default access rule of under control off-leash permitted).

· Winton - delete ANZAC Oval as a dog exercise area, as this was a second preference that the Community Board was seeking public feedback on.

Fiordland College

14 The Principal of Fiordland College, Ms Lynlee Smith, has requested that the school grounds are designated by Council as dogs prohibited. This has been incorporated into the draft policy and bylaw.

New dog exercise areas

15 Some CDAs have recommended new dog exercise areas in their townships, that were not included in the Statement of Proposal. The CDAs have sought the approval of adjacent landowners of all the new exercise areas, and Council’s solicitor is satisfied that these changes do not warrant further consultation. These have been incorporated into the proposed policy and bylaw.

16 The new exercise areas are in Athol, Limehills/Centre Bush, Mossburn, and Waikaia.

Orepuki on-leash area extensions

17 Orepuki CDA members recommend extending the leash only areas at both the
Gemstone Beach carpark and the Monkey Island camping area on to the beach adjacent to these two areas. The purpose is to maintain safety for the many recreational users of these two beach areas. Members advise that this rule should only apply to the beach area reasonably adjacent to both the carpark and camping areas with the remainder of beach being off leash permitted.

Issue 3 - Submission from Federated Farmers of New Zealand

18 Staff agree with much of the contents of the submission and the proposed policy and bylaw has been updated accordingly.

19 The issues that have not been accepted are (using the paragraph numbering in the submission):

· 2.6 - This is already a requirement in the Act (Section 52A).

· 2.22 - This is accepted, though Council should recognise that responsible owners of non-working dogs also are low demand on Dog Control services.

· 2.33 - Clause 8.2 in the proposed policy expands on what Council will need to be satisfied of when issuing a multiple dog licence. The details of the licensing system do not legally need to be in the consultation documents.

· 3.3 - It is agreed that there is some subjectivity in the proposed welfare rules, but this does not mean that they should not be in the bylaw. Having these welfare rules in the bylaw makes the dog welfare expectations of Council clear, and any action by an officer of Council concerning non-compliance with these standards will need to be backed up with evidence.

· 3.10 - The Act requires dogs to be under control (or contained) at all times everywhere. Note also that the default rule in the proposed bylaw is that roads are on-leash required. The proposed rule by Federated Farmers is vague and would be difficult to implement, and I believe the Act and the proposed bylaw satisfactorily protect farmers from uncontrolled dogs.

· 3.19 - Refer to my comments in 2.33 above.

· 4.12 - The Council should recognise that responsible owners of non-working dogs also are low demand users of Dog Control services, and the fee for each type should be the same because of this.

The proportion of working dogs to non-working dogs is about 50:50 in the District.

It is recognised that working dogs are generally well trained and controlled, and this is reflected in the proposed fees and charges, that do not introduce discounts and sets a flat fee which is the same as the fully discounted fee for non-working dogs.

There are concerns about working dogs. Comments were raised in the public survey about the welfare of some working dogs such as being kept in unsuitable accommodation, and staff would share that concern. Also historically property visits by Dog Control Officers have discovered unregistered dogs on farms including Schedule 4 dogs, and non-working dogs being registered as working dogs.

As Council has recognised, so also the Government has recognised in the tax system that working dogs are a tool of the trade, as working dog owners can:

• Claim 100% of the GST of all working dog costs including registration.

• Deduct the GST exclusive cost of registration from their income tax return.

Any further discounting of working dog fees would result in an equivalent increase in
non-working dog fees.

· 4.13 - This arrangement would mean that non-rural dog owners would have to pay more to balance these proposed discounts. The comments in 4.12 above also apply.

4.14 - This view misinterprets the funding model. The purpose of Dog Control services are largely to protect the public, and Council has resolved that dog owners are to fund this service (as opposed to the ratepayer). Therefore the benefits to the dog owner in paying the registration fee are the same as the benefits of any member of the public - the protection from dogs.

Nevertheless there are some user-pay mechanisms, being infringement fines and certain fees and charges.

· 4.17 - Responsible owners who are not in a rural area may object to Council showing partiality to rural dog owners in having a separate fee structure. Also, the categories of discounts all have application to rural non-working dogs.

Issue 4 - Submissions from the New Zealand Kennel Club (NZKC) and members

20 The NZKC and a number of members (locally of the Southland Kennel Association) have made submissions. Members have some opposition to Council’s direction.

21 In my view, the NZKC has not provided sufficient justification as to why Council should have different rules for their members.

22 In particular:

· NZKC members are a subset of the larger group of responsible owners.

· Responsible owners who are not NZKC members may object to Council showing partiality to members of a club, for example having a different fee structure for club members. Many dog owners who are not members of the NZKC wish to breed their dogs, or simply choose not to neuter their dogs, this is individual choice.

· Registration costs can be recovered through the sale price of the dog.

23 Members also support the capping of registration fees as Invercargill City Council has done, where a dog owner pays fees for a maximum of say five dogs, regardless of the number of dogs owned (the ICC multiple dog registration fee is $315). The keeping of a larger number of dogs is a choice, and the costs of this choice has to be considered and weighed up by the dog owner.

24 A car enthusiast who owns a number of cars accepts that he/she has to pay multiple vehicle registration fees. Ultimately such a cap would mean that dog owners with less than five dogs would have to pay more to balance those who have more than five dogs.

Issue 5 - Effect of the irresponsible minority

25 A number of submitters commented that they felt responsible owners are being punished because of the actions of an irresponsible minority. This is a common thread of concern in regulatory issues that Council has come across recently, e.g. the introduction of the sinking lid gambling policy, the new local alcohol policy, and also the freedom camping survey.

26 There is a need to protect the public from irresponsible people, and this includes protection from harm and also reducing the costs on tax/ratepayers associated with irresponsibility. A balance is therefore required between the extremes of total prohibition and total freedom, and the views of the public will follow a bell curve (of sorts) with regard to these extremes in all these issues.

Issue 6 - The effectiveness of education

27 A number of submitters commented that education is the answer, not more regulation. With any regulatory issue education plays an important role; and rules, monitoring, incentives/penalties, and enforcement are also essential components of any regulatory authority that wishes to protect the public from the harmful effects from an activity. The reason for this is explained in Issue 5 above.

Issue 7 - Recognition of the NZKC Canine Good Citizen National Certification programme

28 Some submitters suggest that a further discount should be added for holders of a NZKC Canine Good Citizen certificate.

29 The proposed fee discounts do recognise responsible ownership, with discounts for containment, microchipping and good behaviour (and de-sexing).

30 There are a number of other matters that could be incentivised in the proposed discounts, such as:

· Secure access to a door of the house.

· Breed/weight discounts.

· Avian awareness and avoidance training (especially relevant to dogs on Stewart Island).

· Puppy Preschool training.

31 All of the above would have support from some members of the public.

32 Problems with adding more incentives are:

· How far do you go, or what are reasonable expectations to place on our dog owners.

· The large group of responsible owners that do not qualify for such discounts end up subsidising those who do, and both groups control their dogs well.

· The cost/time burden on dog owners to achieve some of these discounts, such as a course of training or new fencing.

33 Overall submitters were supportive of the proposed discounts, as were the general public in Council’s recent dog control survey.

Factors to Consider

Legal and Statutory Requirements

34 When deliberating, Section 10(4) of the Act requires of Council:

“In adopting a policy under this section, the territorial authority must have regard to—

(a) the need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

(b) the need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

(c) the importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

(d) the exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.”

Community Views

35 Council conducted a public survey prior to drafting the policy and bylaw. The drafts were subject to the special consultative procedure, and the author also consulted with CBs and CDAs.

36 From the Department of Internal Affairs:

“The development of a Council’s dog policy is an opportunity to discuss and debate dog control issues with the community (including both dog owners and non-dog owners). It will confirm the mandate or level of support for the Council’s approach”.

Costs and Funding

37 The new and expanded services, and licensing systems, will add to the costs of the
Dog Control business unit. The new fees proposed will add to the cost of dog ownership.

38 Council has already resolved that Dog Control is to be funded fully from registration fees, infringement fines, and other user charges.

Policy Implications

39 The proposed Dog Control Policy 2015 will replace Council’s current Dog Control Policy.

Analysis

Options Considered

40 The options are whether to hear the submissions on the draft Dog Control Policy 2015 and draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 and to continue, or to hear the submissions and decide to stop the process.

Analysis of Options

41 Option 1 - To hear the submissions on the draft Dog Control Policy 2015 and draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 and to continue

Advantages

Disadvantages

· The new policy and bylaw will reflect community expectations, which are not currently met in the existing policy and bylaw.

· Recent publicity of dog attacks has raised awareness of the terror of dog attacks; and the new policy and bylaw are an effective response to these concerns.

· Expected to result in the reduced incidence of wandering and dog aggression in the District, less unwanted dogs, and less Schedule 4 dogs.

· Negative feedback from both dog owners and non-dog owners.
Dog control is an emotive, polarising community issue.

· Costs of implementation.

42 Option 2 - To hear the submissions and stop the process

Advantages	Disadvantages
· A review is legally not required.	· Existing Dog Control Policy 2010 and draft Dog Control Bylaw 2010 do not meet current community expectations.

Assessment of Significance

43 This review is considered to be not significant in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Recommended Option

44 To hear the submissions and to continue with the process.

Next Steps

45 Council will make recommendations on the draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 and draft Dog Control Policy 2015 and will make a final decision on 26 August.

Attachments

a Southland District Council Policy on Dogs 2015 View

b Southland District Council Bylaw 2015 View

c Submissions Booklet View

d Dog Control Submissions Summary Data View

e Sample submissions on dog access rules and staff comments View

Council

03 August 2015

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Council recognises that the keeping of dogs is a positive part of the life of many Southlanders. Whether as working dogs or companions, dogs under responsible ownership can have a positive role in society and provide assistance, enjoyment and health benefits to many individuals and families.

1.2 The Council is also mindful of the need to minimise the adverse impacts dogs can have on communities.

The Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) requires that the Council have a dog control policy in its district. In adopting the policy the Council must have regard to.

(a) The need to minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally; and

(b) The need to avoid the inherent danger in allowing dogs to have uncontrolled access to public places that are frequented by children, whether or not the children are accompanied by adults; and

(c) The importance of enabling, to the extent that is practicable, the public (including families) to use streets and public amenities without fear of attack or intimidation by dogs; and

(d) The exercise and recreational needs of dogs and their owners.

1.3 The intention of this policy is to strike the proper balance between the need to control dogs and the recognition of the overall benefits of responsible dog ownership.

1.4 Any word used in this policy document that is defined in the Act has the meaning given to it by that Act.

2. OBJECTIVE

The Council’s objective is to encourage responsible dog ownership that allows dog owners to enjoy their dogs without impinging on the enjoyment and safety of others. Responsible dog owners will:

(a) Register and microchip their dogs.

(b) Ensure that the dogs always wear a current registration tag.

(d) Make sure that their dogs do not become a nuisance or danger to people or animals.

(e) Comply with the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Council’s Dog Control Bylaws.

3. DOG CONTROL BYLAWS

3.1 The Council must have bylaws to give effect to its Dog Control Policy. It is intended that the Dog Control Bylaw 2015 be enacted to reflect the contents of this policy document.

3.2 The Act specifies matters for which bylaws may be made. The bylaws apply to all dog owners in the District and will be enforced using the full range of enforcement mechanisms available to the Council.

3.3 The following issues have been identified which will be dealt with by the bylaws:

(a) Minimum standards of accommodation for dogs.

(b) Prohibiting dogs from specified public places.

(d) Requiring the removal of dog faeces from public places.

(e) Prohibiting female dogs in season and diseased dogs from public places unless confined or permission granted.

(f) Regulating the number of dogs that may be kept on any premises.

(g) Requiring the neutering of uncontrolled and menacing dogs.

4. DOGS IN PUBLIC PLACES

4.1 This policy identifies public places in the Southland District where dogs are prohibited or must be controlled on a leash. It also designates dog exercise areas where dogs may be exercised off the leash, provided they are under control.

4.2 No person may take a dog (not including a dog confined in a vehicle or cage) into any public place specified in Schedule 1 or 2 as prohibited unless –

(i) any working dog while it is under the control of its owner or handler; or

(ii) a public place not under the control of the Council where the person in charge of that place has given permission for the dog to be there and the presence of the dog is in accordance with the conditions (if any) of that permission.

4.3 No person shall take any female dog in season or a diseased dog into any public place unless –

(i) that dog is completely confined in a vehicle or cage for the purposes of transportation; or

(ii) the occupier or person controlling the public place has given permission for the entry or presence of the dog.

4.4 No person shall take a dog into any public place specified in Schedule 1 or 2 as an on-leash only area unless the dog is controlled on a leash unless –

(i) any dog confined in a vehicle or cage; or

(ii) any working dog while it is under the control of its owner or handler.

4.5 The owner of any dog (including a dog classified as a menacing or dangerous dog that is muzzled) may take that dog in any public place specified in Schedules 1 or 2 as a designated dog exercise area provided that dog is kept under control.

4.6 Except as provided for in Schedules 1 and 2, dogs must be under control at all times and may be off a leash.

4.7 The Council may from time to time by public notice prohibit or impose additional conditions on the taking of dogs to any of the areas in Schedules 1 and 2 or walking tracks and picnic areas under the control of the Council and those conditions shall apply accordingly as if they are conditions specified in the Schedules.

The Council may from time to time by public notice make temporary changes to Schedules 1 and 2 in relation to leisure and culture events (including dog friendly events), dog training, threatened or ‘at risk’ protected wildlife vulnerable to dogs, and pest control. Those changes shall apply as if they are conditions specified in the Schedules.

In this clause, public notice means one or more clearly legible notices affixed in one or more conspicuous places on, or adjacent to, the area to which the notice relates.

4.8 The Fiordland and Rakiura National Parks are within the Southland District.
The Parks comprise large areas of Fiordland and Stewart Island respectively.
The boundaries of both parks can be ascertained by referring to the maps on the website of the Department of Conservation at www.doc.govt.nz.

Dogs are not allowed to be in national parks and the National Parks Act 1980 makes it an offence for any owner or person in charge of a dog to have it in a national park except in the circumstances and subject to the conditions specified in that Act.

There are some exceptions to the general rule prohibiting dogs from being in a National Park. For example, in the context of Fiordland National Park, there are small areas at Supply Bay, Frasers Beach, Upper Waiau River, Ewe Burn and
Te Anau Downs where access by dogs may be available by a permit issued by the Department of Conservation. All inquiries about the extent of permitted dog access in both National Parks should be made to the Department of Conservation offices at Invercargill, Te Anau or Oban.

4.9 In addition to the two National Parks there are areas of conservation land in the Southland District administered by the Department of Conservation where access by dogs is controlled (by permit issued by the Department) or open (under control everywhere and on a leash in any camping areas and at hut sites).

The Department of Conservation has published a map on its website www.doc.govt.nz showing the boundaries of the open and controlled access areas.

It is important that a person considering taking a dog on to any conservation land first make inquiries of the Department of Conservation about the permit and control requirements.

5. REGISTRATION AND OTHER FEES

5.1 The Council has adopted a registration fee structure which recognises non-working dogs and working dogs.

5.2 As recognition of responsible dog ownership and to encourage neutering and fenced containment, the Council will set fees for non-working dogs that may take into account the following factors:

• Whether there is fencing or a fenced enclosure sufficient to contain the dog on the premises.

• Whether the dog is neutered or spayed.

• Whether there has been a written warning, barking abatement notice, seizure or infringement under the Dog Control Act 1996 within the previous two years relating to any dog owned by the person applying for the registration.

• Whether the dog has been microchipped.

• A fee for late registration.

5.3 The Dog Control Act 1996 requires that all money received from dog registration fees or other charges levied are to be applied for dog control purposes. The intention of Council is that dog control in the District is on a user pay basis of fees and charges will be set at a level to give effect to that intention.

6. BARKING DOGS

6.1 Section 55 of the Dog Control Act 1996 authorises Council’s Dog Control Officers to issue an abatement notice to any person who owns a dog which the Officer considers is causing a nuisance by persistent and loud barking or howling.
Non-compliance with this notice will result in enforcement action.

6.2 Section 56 authorises the Officer to remove the dog from the premises if the owner takes no action, or the nuisance is continuing and causing distress to any person.

6.3 The Council will implement these provisions on substantiated complaint.

7. MENACING AND DANGEROUS DOGS

7.1 The Dog Control Act 1996 contains provisions which enable the Council to require specific control action be taken in respect of menacing or dangerous dogs.

7.2 A menacing dog is one that has not been classified as dangerous but which the Council considers may pose a threat to people, stock, poultry, domestic animal or protected wildlife because of any observed or reported behaviour of the dog, or any characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type, or belongs wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

7.3 A dangerous dog is one which the Council has on sworn evidence attesting to the aggressive behaviour by the dog, reasonable grounds to believe that it constitutes a threat to the safety of any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal or protected wildlife or where the owner has admitted in writing that the dog constitutes such a threat or has been convicted of an offence relating to the dog attacking a person or animal.

7.4 The Council:

• Will enforce all of the provisions of the Dog Control Act 1996 relating to dangerous and menacing dogs.

• Require all dogs classified as menacing by the Council or any other Council to be neutered and the owner provide a veterinary certificate showing the dog has been neutered within one month of classification.

8. NUMBER OF DOGS

8.1 No more than two dogs can be kept on any premises without a multiple dog licence. This requirement does not apply to:

• Dogs up to three months old.

• Working dogs kept on a premises that is not in an urban area where the numbers are reasonably necessary for carrying out the function for which they have been trained.

• Any dogs kept on premises over 50 hectares.

• Dogs kept temporarily on veterinary clinic premises.

• A pound established under Section 67 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

8.2 The Council will issue multiple dog licences only when it is satisfied that:

• The premises concerned is suitable in all respects for the keeping of the number of dogs applied for.

• The arrangements relating to the feeding shelter and exercise of the dogs are adequate.

• The keeping of the number of dogs applied for will not be a nuisance or pose an undue risk to neighbours.

8.3 A licence issued may impose any conditions that Council officers consider are reasonably necessary taking into account the matters referred to in paragraph 8.2.

8.4 A multiple dog licence will not be transferable.

8.5 A fee will be charged for the issue and administration of a multiple dog licence.

9. ENFORCEMENT

9.1 The Council will use the full range of enforcement options available to it under the Dog Control Act 1996 and other legislation to ensure that dog ownership in the District is undertaken in accordance with this policy.

9.2 The Dog Control Act 1996 provides that the Council may issue infringement notices or prosecute for, offences against the act or the Council’s bylaws.

The Council’s aim is to promote responsible dog ownership and therefore an educational advisory approach will be taken where appropriate.
However, enforcement action may be taken without warning where:

• An owner fails to register a dog.

• The actions or inaction of the owner amount to a disregard to the safety or convenience of any person or the safety of any animal.

• The dog has attacked a person or animal.

• There has been a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Dog Control Act 1996 or the Council bylaws.

9.3 Dogs found at large in a public place in contravention of the Council’s bylaws may be seized and impounded by a Dog Control Officer, Dog Ranger, or any other person authorised by the Council.

SCHEDULE 1

General Dog Access Rules

This Schedule contains general dog access rules that apply across the Southland District.

1. Playgrounds and sports grounds under the control of the Council

Dogs are prohibited on any playground or sports ground at all times.

2. Urban zones, roads, Council-controlled carparks and boating areas, designated freedom camping areas

Dogs must be under control and on a leash within or on all –

(a) Urban zones as identified in the Southland District Plan; and

(b) Roads as defined in the Dog Control Bylaw 2015; and

(d) Council-controlled boating areas (including any wharf, jetty, boat ramp, boat marshalling area);

(e) Designated freedom camping areas as defined in Council’s Camping Control Bylaw 2012.

3. Council cemeteries, Council camping grounds

Dogs are prohibited from all Council-controlled cemeteries and camping grounds unless permission is obtained from the Council or signage indicates dogs are allowed and provided the person whom the dog is accompanying complies with any reasonable conditions imposed by the Council in relation to the entry or presence of the dog.

4. Walking tracks and picnic areas under the control of the Council

Every owner must comply with any restriction or prohibition of a sign to which Clause 4.7 applies.

Note: For convenience, playgrounds and the Urban Zones are shown on the maps in Schedule 2. For technical reasons other areas that are referred to above cannot be shown.

Council

03 August 2015

SOUTHLAND DISTRICT COUNCIL

DOG CONTROL BYLAW 2015

Pursuant to the Local Government Act 2002 and the Dog Control Act 1996, the Council makes the following bylaw:

PART 1

PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS

1. TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT

This bylaw may be cited as the Dog Control Bylaw 2015 and shall come into force on the 8th day of August 2015.

2. REPEAL

The Southland District Council Dog Control Bylaw 2010 is repealed.

3. APPLICATION

Except as otherwise provided this bylaw applies to the whole of the district of the Council.

4. INTERPRETATION

(a) In this bylaw, unless the context otherwise requires:

“The Act” means the Dog Control Act 1996.

“Council” means the Southland District Council or any person delegated by it to act on its behalf.

“Premises” means any land, dwelling, storehouse, warehouse, shop, cellar, yard, building, or part of the same, or enclosed space separately occupied, and all lands, buildings, and places adjoining each other and occupied together are deemed to be the same premises.

“Road” means that area of a road defined in the Local Government Act 1974 that is used or is reasonably usable for vehicular or pedestrian traffic and includes the margins of that area.

“Urban Zone” means those areas defined as urban zones in the Southland District Plan planning maps.

(b) Any term not defined in this bylaw but which is defined in the Act shall have the meaning given to it by the Act.

PART 2

REGULATION, CONTROL, AND ACCOMMODATION OF DOGS

5. MINIMUM STANDARDS OF ACCOMMODATION FOR DOGS

(a) Every owner shall ensure that:

(i) dogs are provided with sheltered and dry sleeping quarters with access to clean water; and

(ii) measures are taken to enable dogs to keep warm in cold weather; and

(iii) sleeping quarters are large enough to allow the dog to stand up, turn around and lie down comfortably; and

(iv) dogs are able to urinate and defecate away from the sleeping area; and

(v) ventilation and shade is provided in situations where dogs are likely to experience heat distress; and

(vi) the shelter is kept in a sanitary condition.

6. CONTROL OF DOGS IN PUBLIC PLACES

(a) Except in the areas specified in Schedules 1 and 2 or otherwise required by the Act dogs in public places may be off-leash but must be under control at all times.

7. CONTROL OF DOGS IN DESIGNATED DOG EXERCISE AREAS

(a) The owner of any dog (including a dog classified as a menacing or dangerous dog that is muzzled) may take that dog off-leash in any public place specified in Schedules 1 or 2 as a designated dog exercise area provided that dog is under control at all times.

8. CONTROL OF DOGS IN PUBLIC PLACES SPECIFIED AS ON- LEASH AREAS

(a) No person shall take a dog into any public place specified in Schedule 1 or 2 as an on-leash only area unless the dog is controlled on a leash.

(b) Clause 8(a) does not apply to –

(i) any dog confined in a vehicle or cage; or

(ii) any working dog while it is under the control of its owner or handler.

9. PROHIBITION OF DOGS IN CERTAIN PUBLIC PLACES

(a) No person may take a dog not confined in a vehicle or cage into any public place specified in Schedule 1 or 2 as a prohibited area.

(b) Clause 9(a) does not apply to:

(i) any working dog while it is under the control of its owner or handler.

(i) it is completely confined in a vehicle or cage for the purposes of transportation; or

(ii) the occupier or person controlling the public place has given permission for the entry or presence of the dog.

10. CHANGES TO DOG ACCESS AREAS BY PUBLIC NOTICE

(a) The Council may from time to time by public notice prohibit or impose additional conditions on the taking of dogs to any of the areas in
Schedules 1 and 2 or walking tracks and picnic areas under the control of the Council and those conditions shall apply accordingly as if they are conditions specified in the Schedules.

(b) The Council may from time to time by public notice make temporary changes to Schedules 1 and 2 in relation to leisure and culture events (including dog friendly events), dog training, threatened or ‘at risk’ protected wildlife vulnerable to dogs, and pest control. Those changes shall apply as if they are conditions specified in the Schedules.

(c) In this clause, public notice means one or more clearly legible notices affixed in one or more conspicuous places on, or adjacent to, the area to which the notice relates.

11. DOG FAECES

(a) The person in charge of any dog that defecates in any public place must immediately remove and dispose of the faeces in a way that does not cause a nuisance.

(b) Clause 11(a) does not apply to any working dogs herding or driving stock on a road.

12. MULTIPLE DOGS ON PREMISES

(a) Except as provided in clause 12(b), no person may keep more than two dogs over three months of age (other than working dogs) on any premises for more than 14 consecutive days.

(b) Subclause (a) does not apply if –

(i) allowed by a licence issued under clause 13; or

(ii) an application for a licence under clause 13 has been made within 14 days of there being more than two dogs kept on those premises; or

(iii) the premises are over 50 hectares.

(iv) the premises comprise a veterinary practice or a Council pound.

13. LICENCE FOR MULTIPLE DOGS ON PREMISES

The Council may grant a licence to keep more than two dogs on premises on such terms as it considers are reasonably necessary.

14. REQUIREMENT TO NEUTER UNCONTROLLED DOG

The Council may require the owner of a dog to cause that dog to be neutered if that dog has not been kept under control on more than one occasion within a 12 month period.

15. EFFECT OF REQUIREMENT TO NEUTER UNCONTROLLED DOG

(a) If a dog is required to be neutered, the owner of that dog must, within one month after receipt of the notice of the requirement, produce to the Council a certificate issued by a veterinarian certifying –

(i) that the dog is neutered; or

(ii) that for reasons that are specified in the certificate, the dog will not be in a fit condition to be neutered before a date specified in the certificate; and

(iii) must, if a certificate under subclause (a)(ii) is produced to the Council, produce to the Council, within 1 month after the date specified in that certificate, a further certificate under subclause (a)(i).

PART 3

IMPOUNDING, OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

16. IMPOUNDING

(a) A dog control officer or a dog ranger may impound any dog at large in breach of this bylaw, whether or not the dog is wearing a collar having the proper label or disc attached indicating that the dog is currently registered.

17. OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

(a) Every person who breaches this bylaw commits an offence is liable to the penalty specified in the Local Government Act 2002.

PART 4

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

18. EXISTING DOG OWNERS WITH MORE THAN TWO DOGS

Any dog owner who has more than two dogs on any premises at the commencement of this bylaw is not required to obtain a licence under clause 13 until 1 July 2016, provided:

(a) The dog owner does not keep the dogs at any premises other than the premises where they were kept at the commencement of this bylaw; or

(b) The dog owner does not increase the number of non-working dogs being kept.

Council

03 August 2015

Council

03 August 2015

Council

03 August 2015

Attachment E

Summary of sample submissions to the dog access rules in the Statement of Proposal

Town

Submission

Staff comments

Otautau

Sandra McKenzie

It appears the Otautau Community Board wishes to use part of the Arboretum as a dog exercise area, The Arboretum Trust oppose this proposal. This is a high use area, used daily by the elderly, and young mothers with children, walking groups, schools, Cubs, Scouts all use this Arboretum. The Community Board are poorly informed as to the use this area gets. There has been no contact from the OCB to the Arboretum Board regarding this proposal, our Lease agreement with SDC would not favour this proposal either, It states we cannot allow a change that would be a nuisance to any neighbouring farmland. C-Ovis is a major concern as is stock safety. Any exercise area would be detrimental to the extensive Native Planting that has been done in the past two years. Dog faeces would be everywhere making our plant care work disgusting, let alone what the walking tracks would look like after a very short time. It is hoped that Council will see fit to leave this area as status quo, or change it to leash only for everyone then would be able to enjoy it safely.

Accepted. The Otautau Community Board recommends that the whole of the Arboretum remains on-leash required.

Otautau

Clifford Robert Baker

I believe the current dog access rules in Riverton and Otautau are working satisfactorily.

The proposals for Otautau would drastically reduce the area available for off-leash dog exercise which I believe would cause more problems than it would solve. It is not necessary to have off-leash area in the arboretum. I think the Community Boards are exceeding ther authority and their remit with their proposals. I am not aware of any consultation with ratepayers by our Community Board on these issues. I think their proposals would impact unfairly on responsible dog owners.

The existing dog exercise areas have not been changed.

The public has been consulted and all dog owners notified of the consultation period.

Otautau

Marion Busch

Dangerous dogs should not be on the public roads - unless muzzled. - Children should not work big dogs on their own. - Here in Otautau alongside the Riverbank in the township, this area is popular for walking dogs. Please all of them on a leash! This is a very nice walking track for all of us.

The walking track is proposed to be on-leash only.

Riverton

Marie Freeman

To restrict access for dogs on beach at Taramea Bay at river mouth would take away the enjoyment for both dog owners and dogs. I look out over this area and it is not widely used by members of the public, other than those exercising their dogs. There are of course exceptions at holiday periods and hot summer weekends when the beach is more popular. Why change something that does not pose any problems at present. How would this be policed if there was a change.

Accepted. The Riverton Community Board after considering pubic feedback recommends that these beaches remain on-leash required.

Riverton

Clifford Robert Baker

I believe the current dog access rules in Riverton and Otautau are working satisfactorily.

This view is shared by a number of dog owners, though a number of people also would support more restrictive rules.

Riverton

Trisha Mitchell

Riverton Rocks area: I support prohibiting dogs on these beaches between 10.00 am and 7.00 pm for summer months ONLY (1 December to 1 March as for Christchurch beaches). For the rest of the year the restrictive hours are unreasonable. The beaches are deserted for much of the day, especially during school hours. Before 10am can be very cold and after 7pm would be both cold and dark during the winter. The beaches at low tide offer a wide expanse of smooth walking surface, which can be important for older dog owners who can find uneven pavements or bush walks difficult. Using the beaches during the daytime allows them to give their dogs plenty of exercise which ensures they are unlikely to be troublesome. CPTED suggests that the presence of responsible dog walkers is a social good and is to be encouraged.

Accepted in part. The Riverton Community Board after considering pubic feedback recommends that these beaches remain on-leash required.

Riverton

Dawn Barry

I oppose the above changes for the following reasons: • Lack of adequate advertising/consultation of this late proposed change. After receiving your letter I was given conflicting information at Riverton SDC office. The map showing Taramea Bay beach as a dog off-lead area was shown to me with the assurance that this would still be an off-lead area. This map conflicts with the information in your Summary of proposed changes to the dog access rules in the Statement of Proposal (above). This change is so drastic that I believe ALL dog owners & others should be notified of it and given time to understand the ramifications before it is bought before the deciding committee. This information (of extra changes) could have been sent to ALL dog owners with their registration invoices. A lack of public information and the confusion between the map & later written info means this is confusing to say the least. • Lack of justification The proposed changes are not the result of complaints, but apparently an attempt to “be seen to be doing something” about preventing dog nuisance. Once again, responsible owners of registered dogs are being punished for the actions of the few irresponsible dog owners. Yet these changes will do nothing to deal with those owners of unregistered & out of control dogs. Apparently this change was initiated by the local community board. I believe they are not representing their community in suggesting these draconian changes, that effectively ban myself & other dog owners from the beaches near where we live. • Dogs need to run off lead & exercise to be fit, healthy & happy. Responsible dog owners provide them with this opportunity while still having them under control on the beaches. Pounding the pavements on lead is simply not adequate exercise for some dogs, and their owners surely have the right to enjoy the beaches with their canine companions. These are not the owners who let their dogs off at night to roam & worry stock or those who mistreat their dogs & have so little control that their dogs attack people &/or dogs. • The (proposed) hours (before 10am or after 7pm) would prevent many people from exercising their dogs here at all. This is a totally unjustified ban. Its dark well before 7pm for months, and before 10am is just not practical for many of us. Those living around the Riverton Rocks area would have to drive a 10 km round trip to walk on North Beach and why should they? In conclusion, I urge the committee to retain the current dog access rules for Riverton which have worked well, including the all hours, off-lead, area at Taramea Bay & on-lead areas on other Rocks beaches & tracks. The current off-lead area from the Soundshell to the playground at Towack Street is probably the most popular dog exercise area in Riverton. I have been exercising my dogs here for 20 years & have only once witnessed a dog (their owner, actually) behaving badly in this area. As it is working well having this area as off-lead & I strongly believe it should be retained.

The public has been consulted and all dog owners notified of the consultation period.

Accepted in part. The Riverton Community Board after considering pubic feedback recommends that these beaches remain on-leash required.

There are nuisance problems with dogs, and changes were intended to proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Large dog exercise areas will continue to be available in Riverton.

Riverton

Kate Vandermeer

I am DISGUSTED to read the vitriolic tirade written in Fiordland Advocate (25 June 2015) about dog control. I have already made a submission in regards to these bylaw changes, but I feel it is necessary to reiterate some facts to ensure SDC understands the challenge they face. The basis of the Animal Welfare code are the 5 Freedoms, one of which is "Freedom to express normal & natural behaviour". While this must obviously be within reasonable bounds of good behaviour, one of these behaviours is to be able to run around & play without the restriction of a leash. The proposed removal of all exercise areas in Riverton is simply unthinkable. If residents wish certain areas to be dog-free, then a safe alternative needs to be provided. Dog owners are not second-class citizens who can be shunted out of the community. How are dog owners meant to provide "adequate exercise & care" (as required by the Welfare Acts) if there are NO exercise areas available? Every town NEEDS a suitable area where dogs can be safely exercised off-leash as well as plenty of opportunities to walk their dogs. 98% of owners are responsible people with well-behaved dogs. Don't punish us for the disgusting behaviour of the ill-disciplined & uncaring 2%.

Accepted in part. The Riverton Community Board after considering pubic feedback recommends that these beaches remain on-leash required.

There are nuisance problems with dogs, and changes were intended to proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Large dog exercise areas will continue to be available in Riverton.

Dog access rules are necessary to protect the public.

Riverton

Dorothy Willis

The Adventure Park (where the whale is) is not secure from dogs allowed off the leash along the foreshore. Many times people have to rush their kids to the car and leave because dogs can run up the hill well before their owners. Secure fencing is needed along the hill and also the roadside with a gate. Howells Memorial Park on Towack Street is not listed in your schedule. Dogs come up from the beach. It needs to be leash only. Many tourists stop there for photographs, to read history and to lunch.

A dog exercise area next to a playground is a risk. Balfour and Te Anau are other examples where this is the case. The map has been redrafted to retain the existing buffer, though in practice this will not have much effect. There is a need for dog exercise areas and the community as a whole benefits from these. This area is ideal as a dog exercise area, and any other place along the beach areas would result in similar proximity to sensitive area issues.

Howells Memorial Park will remain on-leash only.

Te Anau

Fiona Steffens

I read this to mean that access to Ivon Wilson Park and the Lakefront reserve as dog exercise areas that do not require the dog to be on leash is the case. I have heard that these were to be changed. As a responsible dog owner of two dogs, I use both areas frequently and have had no problems with other dogs off leash. I see these as important for legal dog running exercise. in Ivon Wilson Park in particular, mostly the only people I see are those there with their dogs for off leash exercise. I would like this to continue.

John Steffens

I have been walking my 2 dogs at Ivon Wilson Park off leash for many years. I seldom even meet other people there other than people walking their dogs off leash. I have never had any problems, and appreciate having this area to let the dogs run about doing what dogs do safely. The proposal to make this leash only is totally over the top. Dogs need to run and fossic and Ivon Wilson is perfect for this. Same comments apply to the Area from the Rodeo Grounds to below the Waiuna Estate, where we live. This is another area that is great to let a dog have a safe "RUN" and there are no problems. Access to this area of Lakefront to go walking with the dogs was one reason we built at Waiuna. The small area at the Water Park bordered by heavy traffic and private homes, some unfenced, is a dumb place to let a dog run off leash. To have this area as the only open area in Te Anau for a dog to run free is totally ridiculous. I oppose the leash only areas at Ivon Wilson Park. I oppose the leash only area Rodeo Grounds to Waiuna Estate. I oppose the off leash area at the Water Park due to traffic, and bordering private homes.

Southland is mostly rural with people living here due to the feeling of relative freedom experienced here as opposed to living in a City like Auckland, and being able to enjoy wide open spaces with few people around hassling you. Lets keep things rational and respond to actual threats and problems. Most dogs and dog owners are responsible. Just have tools that allow real problem dogs and owners to be controlled, and let freedom reign. Having to have my Bigon Maltese on a leash to walk around the shore of Lake Te Anau from the Rodeo Ground to the WAuna, and at Ivon Wilson Park is nuts.

Accepted in part. The Te Anau Community Board after considering public feedback has recommended Ivon Wilson Park be subject to the default access rule that dogs may be off-leash but must be under control at all times.

The large dog exercise area on the Recreation Reserve and Lakefront Reserve will continue to be available in Te Anau.

These rules will increase enjoyment and safety of these areas by other people.

There are nuisance problems with dogs, and these changes are intended to proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Te Anau

George Batchelor

Ivon Wilson park should remain as is. It is an important resource for dog walkers, and is largely used as such. Having just spent a lot of money (and money well spent) on improving the park, it would be crazy to limit its using by enforcing or trying to enforce a leash only policy. I can't imagine the submissions in favour of changing the Ivon Wilson leash policy, will out weigh those in favour of the status quo. Please listen to the people. If you put a leash only restriction on the park, where are you going to move the walkers to? People that walk their dogs free-reign but under control are not going to start walking them in the same area on a lead - they will be forced elsewhere.

Accepted in part. The Te Anau Community Board after considering public feedback has recommended Ivon Wilson Park be subject to the default access rule of off-leash permitted.

The large dog exercise area on the Recreation Reserve and Lakefront Reserve will continue to be available in Te Anau.

The default access rule of off-leash permitted outside of the urban zone is another option for off-leash activity.

These rules will increase enjoyment and safety of these areas by other people.

There are nuisance problems with dogs, and these changes are intended to proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Te Anau

Edith Jones

I van Wilson Park in Te Anau should not be changed to dogs on leashes. It's one of the few big areas that you can have your dog off a lead - so they can actually get some exercise. Many breeds of recreational dogs (Springer Spaniels, GSP, etc) can not be sufficiently exercised on a lead. Ivan Wilson is an ideal location for exercising your dog off a lead. The vast majority of times I have been in there, I was the only car in the parking lot - or - perhaps there was another dog owner there as well.

Accepted in part. The Te Anau Community Board after considering public feedback has recommended Ivon Wilson Park be subject to the default access rule of off-leash permitted.

The large dog exercise area on the Recreation Reserve and Lakefront Reserve will continue to be available in Te Anau.

The default access rule of off-leash permitted outside of the urban zone is another option for off-leash activity.

These rules will increase enjoyment and safety of these areas by other people.

There are nuisance problems with dogs, and these changes are intended to proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Te Anau

Daryl Parkes

Strongly oppose dogs on lead on Lake Te Anau shore from Rodeo to Upuk. Should be monitoring vehicular use more. Support leads on at Ivon Wilson Park.

Accepted in part. The Te Anau Community Board after considering public feedback has recommended Ivon Wilson Park be subject to the default access rule of off-leash permitted.

There has been demand by dog owners to retain off-leash dog activity at Ivon Wilson Park. The Park is currently a dog exercise area and by definition dog owners are encouraged to exercise their dogs off-leash there. The proposed designation with the default rule removes this as a dog exercise area, though retaining off-leash rule.

Te Anau

Mary Williams Obe

I think it is important that dogs are henceforth kept on leashes in urban parks such as Ivon Wilson and Fergus Square in Te Anau - so that a) the public are protected, particularly children, the elderly and the disabled, and that b) dog owners are easily able to collect their dogs' faeces. There have been several cases of dogs attacking and frightening people in places inclusive of Fergus Square in Te Anau. It is inappropriate for dogs to be allowed to roam free in such urban spaces frequently used by children. This above statement that starts "Council is proposing that the default dog..." is incomprehensible. I have spoken to several people interested in this consultation who did not understand it and neither do I. I think this undermines the validity of this form and therefore the consultation process as a whole and would like this message heard by those in charge of this consultation. I have had to tick the neutral/no preference box, but was wishing that there was an "eh?" box!

In the new subdivisions around Te Anau, many families with young children live in fear of local dogs who run free. It is unfair for hard-strapped families to have to provide dog-proof fencing to keep others' dogs out. It is a responsibility of dog owners to fence their potentially dangerous animals in.

This consultation will doubtless have numerous responses from dog lovers arguing against further controls because they have their own dogs under good control. I am not a dog hater. I am a supporter of safety, and believe that dogs must be kept under better control overall through better regulation to prevent at least upset and frightened communities, and at worst the death or serious injury of a child.

Accepted in part. There has been demand by dog owners to retain off-leash dog activity at Ivon Wilson Park and this has been accepted by the Te Anau Community Board.

A number of dog exercise areas in Te Anau have been removed in the draft bylaw based on considerations such as these, for example Fergus Square.

The default access rule is explained in the summary of information in the Statement of Proposal, that submitters were encouraged to read prior to filling in the submission.

Te Anau

Fiona McDonald

I am a non dog owner and I feel that a lot of dog owners are not responsible. I live in Te Anau and I feel that Te Anau has an issue with dogs. Dogs regularly roam free with no owner in site, let alone a leash. Dog fouling is common and even this morning walking along the lakefront there was dog poo that nobody had collected. Ivon Wilson regularly has dog poo all over the place. Some dog owners feel that they can do anything without consequence. As a mother who's child had a bad experience with a dog as a toddler and who is still unsure of dogs, I think it is important that all dogs are leashed. Designate an area where dog owners can take there dogs without leash and sign post it well so the public no and can avoid it if they so wish. But along our lakefront the dogs should be leashed. I am fed up with using the beaches in the summer and peoples dogs just roaming amongst children playing. Who's to day they won't attack a person they don't know. I think owners should be fined for leaving their dog poos as well, I know this is practically impossible to police, but it is disgusting. People think of their dogs as extra members of their family would they allow their children to foul in the public place and then leave it!

Accepted in part. There has been demand by dog owners to retain off-leash dog activity at Ivon Wilson Park and this has been accepted by the Te Anau Community Board.

A number of dog exercise areas in Te Anau have been removed in the draft bylaw based on considerations such as these, for example Fergus Square.

Much of the town remains on-leash required. A large dog exercise area is proposed.

Te Anau

Martin Sliva

Allow dogs to the centre of Te Anau. Why people can not go to a cafe with their dog?

This rule maintains the enjoyment and safety of this area by other people.

Such rules proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Te Anau

Jacqui Rogers

Dogs should be allowed to run at the rugby grounds and down around the lake at Te Anau. Dogs should be allowed to swim and chase a ball.

Dogs should be allowed on a leash on the lakefront in Te Anau and throug the centre of town. The only time dogs are a problem is if they are unleashed in town and roaming.

Accepted in part. The lake area and lakefront is National Park and therefore by default prohibited to dogs.

The large dog exercise area on the Recreation Reserve and Lakefront Reserve will continue to be available in Te Anau.

The default access rule of off-leash permitted outside of the urban zone is another option for off-leash activity.

These rules will increase enjoyment and safety of these areas by other people.

There are nuisance problems with dogs, and these changes are intended to proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Te Anau

Helen Prendergast

I think dogs should be able to run free of leads in Ivon Wilson park and Lakefront Reserve from rodeo grounds all the way up! Where are we supposed to exercise a dog who needs to run off the lead now? The wee little water park? And how is that exercise and enjoyment for the dog owne

Accepted in part. The Te Anau Community Board after considering public feedback has recommended Ivon Wilson Park be subject to the default access rule of off-leash permitted.

The large dog exercise area on the Recreation Reserve and Lakefront Reserve will continue to be available in Te Anau.

The default access rule of off-leash permitted outside of the urban zone is another option for off-leash activity.

These rules will increase enjoyment and safety of these areas by other people.

There are nuisance problems with dogs, and these changes are intended to proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Te Anau

Katy Barnes

The amount of off leash area currently proposed for Te Anau is not going to cater for all residents. The proposed site for off leash use is close to main roads and could cause issues with dogs running onto the road and causing an accident. Why make changes when what is currently in place works?

As a Te Anau rate payer, I don't agree with the proposed changes, One of the appeals of this town is that locals and visitors alike is the space available for heaps of outdoor activities. For a lot of people their daily exercise involves walking or running with their family pet. I think it would be very sad if families who make it a weekly ritual to go for a walk with their dog along the lake or down for a swim in an area without others and could not take their family pet for a swim too. How embarrassing to tell visitors to our town that they cannot go for a run with their dog? Maybe if we had a dog park like a lot of other places in New Zealand this would not be an issue- perhaps a great alternative to look into? The water park is beside a main road which could be a huge problem if this is the only place dogs are allowed without a leash. With a higher concentration of dogs in one area there is the potential for them to get carried away and run in front of traffic while playing with another or chasing one of the many rabbits in this area.

Accepted in part. The Te Anau Community Board after considering public feedback has recommended Ivon Wilson Park be subject to the default access rule of off-leash permitted.

The draft bylaw proposes to change the Water Park from a dog exercise area to a default off-leash permitted area. This means that dog owners are no longer encouraged to exercise their dogs there.

The large dog exercise area on the Recreation Reserve and Lakefront Reserve will continue to be available in Te Anau.

The default access rule of off-leash permitted outside of the urban zone is another option for off-leash activity.

These rules will increase enjoyment and safety of these areas by other people.

There are nuisance problems with dogs, and these changes are intended to proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Te Anau

Bob Perry

Having walked my dog off leash in Te Anau at Ivon Wilson, the lake front and Fergus Square, daily for the past 3 years, and having never witnessed any dog intimidate any member of the public in these areas, I believe that any change with respect to these areas is completely unnecessary at without merit. Any changes need to be evidence based. I do not believe that there is any evidence to support these changes.

Accepted in part. The Te Anau Community Board after considering public feedback has recommended Ivon Wilson Park be subject to the default access rule of off-leash permitted.

The large dog exercise area on the Recreation Reserve and Lakefront Reserve will continue to be available in Te Anau.

The default access rule of off-leash permitted outside of the urban zone is another option for off-leash activity.

These rules will increase enjoyment and safety of these areas by other people.

There are nuisance problems with dogs, and these changes are intended to proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Te Anau

Melanie Campbell

As the responsible owner of two small dogs, who we walk daily, carry poop bags and keep them on a leash, the new and existing rules are un-fair and unreasonable, let's get dog friendly like QLDC dogs are like children to families, they more than ever are taking dogs on holidays with them, it's embarrassing that they can't even walk leashed dogs down our Main Street, sure dangerous dogs are another story, but the dogs that are getting walked are loved family pets

The large dog exercise area on the Recreation Reserve and Lakefront Reserve will continue to be available in Te Anau.

The default access rule of off-leash permitted outside of the urban zone is another option for off-leash activity.

These rules will increase enjoyment and safety of these areas by other people.

There are nuisance problems with dogs, and these changes are intended to proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Te Anau

Helen Newcombe

Ivon Wilson park and the Lakefront reserve in Te Anau should not be leash only. Dogs must be under control but they need spaces to go to be exercised freely. If The Water Park becomes the only free dog exercising place it will become overrun with dogs being exercised. This is an unsecure park with significant roads along one side, and residential properties on the other. My house backs onto this reserve and I don't want to see a significant increase in the number of dogs using this reserve. The solution would be to maintain other leash free exercising areas. I have never had a problem with other dogs roaming freely in Ivon Wilson Park or the lakefront reserve.

Accepted in part. The Te Anau Community Board after considering public feedback has recommended Ivon Wilson Park be subject to the default access rule of off-leash permitted.

The draft bylaw proposes to change the Water Park from a dog exercise area to a default off-leash permitted area. This means that dog owners are no longer encouraged to exercise their dogs there.

The large dog exercise area on the Recreation Reserve and Lakefront Reserve will continue to be available in Te Anau.

The default access rule of off-leash permitted outside of the urban zone is another option for off-leash activity.

These rules will increase enjoyment and safety of these areas by other people.

There are nuisance problems with dogs, and these changes are intended to proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Te Anau

Jane Dwyer

I feel that dogs should allowed on the Main Street as long as they are on a leash and owners are responsible and clean up after their dog

This rule maintains the enjoyment and safety of this area by other people.

Such rules proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Te Anau

Shirley Mouat

No dogs allowed on the main street of Te Anau please. People not steady on their feet and young children would be threatened by dogs. Dog poop and wee on the shop frontages are not an image we wish to portray in a tourist township. There are lots of dog areas in Te Anau.

It is proposed to continue this rule.

Winton

Donald Calder

The Winton Community Board proposes that the Ivy Russell Reserve area be removed from being a dog exercise area. I oppose this change for the following reasons – 1. It is an existing, reasonably well fenced, area which has an existing poo-bag dispenser, and shelter facility, thus not requiring extra expense to retain as it is. 2. The separate natural bush lined clearings that make up the reserve lend themselves to dog training. A large number of users have found this in the past. It also means different users can be ‘naturally’ separated from each other. 3. The vast majority of existing dog users delight in being allowed to share the area with other users such as pre-school groups, family parties, walkers, bikers, and the elderly on mobility scooters. They carry leashes, poo-bags, and are very mindful of the other users. I have yet to find someone who does not agree with the status quo. Therefore why change what works well? 4. The natural weather shelter and the beauty of Winton’s only remaining bush area encourages people to enjoy it; especially the elderly of which Winton has a considerable proportion. Responsible freedom of dog use is part of that. Are we not tasked with encouraging the full use of these assets in our community? Banning the dog owners will certainly embitter many of those users. 5. To utilise one of the other proposed dog-exercise areas would necessitate a vehicle trip which would be prohibitive for many of the older dog owners who live at the north end of the town. Because of this, removing Ivy Russell Reserve may well have the effect of more dogs walking the streets and the associated problems that brings. Please note that I am not opposed to adding more areas (apart from the associated costs) but only to the removal of Ivy Russell Reserve

Dogs will continue to be permitted at Ivy Wilson, the change is that they will be required to be on-leash.

This rule will increase enjoyment and safety of this area other people.

There are nuisance problems with dogs, and these changes are intended to proactively reduce the incidence of problems.

Winton

Emma Bryan

Winton - could there not a be a rule with regards to the Winton track that dogs are permitted off the lead before 9am & after 7pm when less people would be using the track? How do you propose dog owners get their dogs to the Anzac Oval exercise area when dogs are not permitted in the main street area? Will the proposed Moores Reserve exercise area be fenced off to protect sport users using the area for cricket/touch/soccer? Riverton - could the proposed rule to ban dogs from the beach between 10am - 7pm be changed to apply to summer/spring months only & during winter dogs be permitted on a lead during those hours & off a lead at other times?

There has been no other public demand for a time rule for the walking track. The public would need to be consulted about such a change if such a change was proposed.

The Anzac Oval is second preference. The first preference is Moore Estate Reserve. After considering submissions, only the Moore Estate Reserve is proposed to be a new dog exercise area. This area is proposed to be fenced.

Winton

Jane Douglas

Winton - the current "dog exercise area" at Ivy Russell reserve is a great space for dogs, however it's not fully fenced and families with young children do use this area, or people with dogs on leads running through being approached by dogs off lead. I think this area should be dogs on lead. If the establishment of a fully fenced dog exercise area was to occur I would prefer Moore reserve verus Anzac oval so is away from the Main Street. However I also don't feel it is the councils responsibility to provide areas that people can exercise dogs off lead.

The submission concerning Ivy Russell is what is proposed.

It is Council’s responsibility to make dog access rules that are provide for the needs of dogs, dog owners and the general public.

Winton

Kate Vandermeer

I am concerned about the removal of Ivy Russel Reserve as an off-leash dog area, although if well-planned & co-ordinated with the opening of a proposed dog park in Moore Reserve, this could be an acceptable proposal. I feel very strongly that dog owners are to a degree being persecuted in Winton for the unacceptable behaviour of a few. We own a lovely German Shepherd, who is kept behind a 6ft fence, leashed when in public & only allowed off in the designated areas. We always pick up after her & we have never encountered any issues regarding poo or other dogs. It would be a huge shame & very unfair to restrict exercise areas as a result of a few causing negative behaviour. In the past I have always been very wary of fenced-in off-leash dog exercise areas due to owners who have poorly socialised & uncontrolled dogs being there, leading to aggressive incidents which are very stressful & upsetting. The fault yet again is squarely to blame for a few minority owners who don't know what they are doing (or don't care!). I feel that the Council would be better served to pursue ongoing education & monitoring of dogs & their owners. Encouraging people to be more socially responsible & curtailing the behaviour of the minority would be far better served than blanket restrictions.

The need to coordinate the change of designated dog exercise areas in Winton is accepted.

The default access rule of off-leash permitted outside of the urban zone is another option for off-leash activity.

Mayor	Mayor Gary Tong
Deputy Mayor	Paul Duffy
Councillors	Lyall Bailey
	Stuart Baird
	Brian Dillon
	Rodney Dobson
	John Douglas
	Bruce Ford
	George Harpur
	Julie Keast
	Ebel Kremer
	Gavin Macpherson
	Neil Paterson

Chief Executive	Steve Ruru
Committee Advisor	Fiona Dunlop