sdclogo

 

 

Council

 

OPEN MINUTES

 

 

 

Minutes of a meeting of Council held in the Council Chambers, 15 Forth Street, Invercargill on Monday, 3 August 2015 at 9am.

 

present

 

Mayor

Mayor Gary Tong

 

Councillors

Lyall Bailey

 

 

Brian Dillon

 

 

Rodney Dobson

 

 

Bruce Ford

 

 

George Harpur

 

 

Julie Keast

 

 

Ebel Kremer

 

 

Gavin Macpherson

 

 

Neil Paterson

 

 

IN ATTENDANCE

 

Group Manager Environment and Community Bruce Halligan, Committee Advisor Fiona Dunlop and Environmental Health Manager Michael Sarfaiti.

 


Council

03 August 2015

sdclogo

 

1          Apologies

 

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bailey, Baird, Douglas and Duffy.

 

Moved Cr Keast, seconded Cr Harpur  and resolved:

That Council accept the apologies.

 

It was noted that Councillor Bailey joined the meeting at 1.00pm.

 

2          Leave of absence

 

There were no requests for leave of absence.

 

3          Conflict of Interest

There were no conflicts of interest declared.

 

4          Public Forum

There was no public forum.

 

5          Extraordinary/Urgent Items

There were no Extraordinary/Urgent items.

 

6          Oral Submissions to the Dog Control Policy 2015 and Dog Control Bylaw 2015

 

1.       Karl Thomas addressed the meeting in support of his submission. 

 

He advised that he had no preference/neutral to the proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

 

He supported:

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

 

He opposed:

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

Mr Thomas would like to see further investigation into a further discount for dog owners who have attended the nationally recognised Canine Good Citizen course.  He believes that the dogs and owners who attend this course benefit from the training they receive.

 

He also commented that not all dogs in the schedule are dangerous dogs.  He highlighted that the 3 most common breeds of dogs in the bite statistics are over represented in common breeds.  Bite reporting from ACC statistics shows that schedule 4 dogs are not responsible for many bites.

 

Mr Thomas asked what the revue collected from the multi dog fee going towards.  He advised that he has no problem with the fee if it goes towards further monitoring. 

 

2.       Neville Kerslake addressed the meeting in support of his submission.  He advised that he is opposed to the Moores Estate Reserve site in Winton as this bounds his farm.  There is the potential to affect his farming operation especially around lambing time.  He commented that there had been no direct consultation with directly affected landowners.  He believes that communication with affected parties would be of benefit to landowners and Council.

 

He advised that since the implementation at the Winton Walking track there has been an increase in dogs being exercised in the area.

 

Mr Kerslake would also like the status quo to remain at the Ivy Wilson reserve.

 

Mr Kerslake was asked if he had sustained stock losses and advised that there had been.  The penalties for the owners of dogs caught are not enough of a deterrent.

 

Mr Kerslake supported:

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·               The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

 

Mr Kerslake opposed:

·                The proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

 

Mr Kerslake had no preference was neutral on:

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

3.       Owen Hudson addressed the meeting in support of his submission.

 

Mr Hudson advised that he is not happy with dogs running off leash through farm properties.  This is because most of the areas are thought private property and or on farmland.  He would like to see Council have a policy for dogs on “unformed roads” to be on leads.    He also commented that as a farmer his stock is at risk of hydatids, ovis (sheep measles) and sheep worrying from undosed and out of control pig dogs.  The problems that he faces is common for other farmers.

 

He advised that he is opposed to the proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

 

He supports:

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

4.       Malcolm MacKenzie did not address the meeting regarding his submission.

 

5.       Anthony Turner did not address the meeting regarding his submission.

 

The meeting adjourned at 9.24am and reconvened at 9.29am.)

 

(Mayor Tong, Councillors Dillon, Dobson, Ford, Harpur, Keast, Kremer, Macpherson and Paterson were present when the meeting reconvened.)

 

 

6.       Honorine Orchard addressed the meeting in support of her submission.

 

Ms Orchard advised that she supported:

·                The proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

She advised that she did not support:

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

 

7.       Irwin Davidson addressed the meeting in support of his submission.

 

Mr Davidson advised that he supports all the proposals in the consultation documents.

 

He also advised that he is a breeder of pig dogs which are contained in a fully fenced section.  When he has visitors his dogs are put away.

 

Mr Davidson believes that people should be registered to have dogs, not dogs being registered.

 

8.       Bronwyn Campbell representing the Winton Football Club Incorporated addressed the meeting in support of the submission.

 

Ms Campbell advised the meeting that Winton Football Club opposes the placement of a dog park in Moore’s Reserve.  Moore’s Reserve is “home” to the Winton Football Club which plays both winter and summer league football.  Touch rugby, cricket and rugby league are also played on the reserve.  She advised that people are already bringing dogs to the reserve and not cleaning up after their dog has done its business.  This is causing a hygiene issue for players.

 

Ms Campbell also advised that as Ivy Russel reserve is already zoned suitable for dogs, the club feels that is a better place for a dog exercise area.

 

Ms Campbell circulated photos which are attached as appendix 1 to the minutes.

 

The meeting adjourned for Morning Tea at 10.31am and reconvened at 10.51am.)

 

(Mayor Tong, Councillors Dillon, Dobson, Ford, Harpur, Keast, Kremer, Macpherson and Paterson were present when the meeting reconvened.)

 

9.       Jo Lundman addressed the meeting via videoconference in support of her submission.

 

Ms Lundman advised that she supported:

·                The proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

Ms Lundman advised that she is neutral and has no preference to the proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

 

10.     Catie Helm did not address the meeting regarding her submission.

 

11.     Kate Norris addressed the meeting via videoconference in support of her submission.

·                The proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

Ms Norris advised that she is neutral and has no preference to the proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

 

12.     Dawn Barry addressed the meeting in support of her submission.

 

Ms Barry advised that she supported:

·                The proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

Ms Barry advised that she was opposed:

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

 

13.     Alanna Barrett addressed the meeting in support of her submission.

 

Miss Barrett advised that she is opposed to the proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

 

She advised that she supports the proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

 

Ms Barrett has no preference or was neutral on:

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

14.     John Steffens addressed the meeting via videoconference in support of his submission.

 

Mr Steffens advised that he opposed:

·                The proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

He also advised that he was in support of:

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

 

The meeting adjourned for Lunch at 11.35am and reconvened at 1.00pm.

 

(Mayor Tong, Councillors Dillon, Dobson, Ford, Harpur, Keast, Kremer, Macpherson and Paterson were present when the meeting reconvened.)

(Councillor Bailey joined the meeting at 1.00pm.)

 

15.     Louise Duffy addressed the meeting in support of her submission.

 

Ms Duffy advised that she supported:

·                The proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

 

She advised that she was opposed to the proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

 

Ms Duffy advised that she was neutral and had not preference on the proposal that a 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.

 


 

16.     Lindsay Middleton addressed the meeting in support of his submission.

 

Mr Middleton advised that he opposed:

·                The proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

 

Mr Middleton suggested that all dog owners using unformed roads through, or adjacent to private farmland be required to carry proof of registration and proof of dog dosing with specific reference to treatment for ovis.  Dog owners should also be required to pick up and remove dog faeces from the property they are traversing.

 

17.     Tanith Robb representing Federated Farmers of New Zealand addressed the meeting in support of the submission.

 

Ms Ross advised that Federated Farmers broadly supports the draft Policy and Bylaw with concerns over some areas.  They suggest that the documents be bought into line with the objective of the Dog Control Act 1996 to make sure that dogs do not become a nuisance or danger to people or animals not others.

 

Federated Farmers supports:

·                The default access rule for public places not listed in schedule 1 and 2 (dogs must be under control at all times and may be off a leash)

·                The changing of the default dog access rule for roadways, road margins and footpaths

·                The adoption of a registration fee structure which recognises non-working and working dogs

·                The exemption of multiple dog licensing requirements and that the exemption apply to all dogs on rural properties over 50 hectares

·                The intent of the welfare requires and that it would be better places in the Dog Control Policy rather that in the Bylaw.

 

Federated Farmers opposes:

·                The licensing requirements applying to “non-working” dogs

·                The consultation of the multiple dog licensing requirement without specifying what the cost of such license if.

 

18.     Ray Willett addressed the meeting in support of his submission.

 

Mr Willet advised that he supported:

·                The proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

Mr Willet advised that he opposed the proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

 

19.     Claire Penno addressed the meeting in support of her submission.

 

Ms Penno advised the meeting that she supported:

·                The proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

She also advised that she was opposed:

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

 

She was also neutral and no preference on the proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

 

20.     Bridgette Chiles did not address the meeting regarding her submission.

 

The meeting adjourned at 1.42pm and reconvened at 2.05pm.

 

(Mayor Tong, Councillors Bailey, Dillon, Dobson, Ford, Harpur, Keast, Kremer, Macpherson and Paterson were present when the meeting reconvened.)

 

21.     Ben Dooley addressed the meeting in support of his submission.

 

Mr Dooley advised that he was neutral and had no preference on the proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

 

He advised that he supported:

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

 

Mr Dooley also advised that he was opposed to:

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

 

Mr Dooley circulated to the meeting copies of fee schedules for dog registrations from other Council’s which were much the same size as Southland District Council.  These are attached to the minutes as appendix 2.

 

The meeting adjourned at 2.11pm and reconvened at 2.23pm.

 

(Mayor Tong, Councillors Bailey, Dillon, Dobson, Harpur, Keast, Kremer, Macpherson and Paterson were present when the meeting reconvened.)

 

22.     Wendy Joy Baker addressed the meeting in support of her submission.

 

Ms Baker advised that she was opposed to the proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

 

She also advised that she was supportive of:

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal not to introduce a comprehensive District Monitoring Programme, where a Dog Control Officer would visit properties every few years, to identify properties that may pose a risk to neighbours and to check for unregistered dogs.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

Ms Baker was neutral with no preference on the proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

 

Ms Baker circulated various photos and documentation which supported her submission.  These are attached as appendix 3 to the minutes.

 

(During Ms Bakers submission Councillor Ford returned to the meeting at 2.24pm.)

 

The meeting adjourned for Afternoon Tea at 2.35pm and reconvened at 2.51pm.

 

(Mayor Tong, Councillors Bailey, Dillon, Dobson, Ford, Harpur, Keast, Kremer, Macpherson and Paterson were present when the meeting reconvened.)

 

23.     Peter Dunne representing the New Zealand Kennel Club Inc addressed the meeting in support of their submission.

 

Mr Dunne advised that the New Zealand Kennel Club Inc supported:

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

 

He also advised that the Kennel Club were opposed to:

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

 

The Kennel Club were neutral or had no preference on:

·                The proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

 

The Kennel Club were not concerned on:

·                The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

The New Zealand Kennel Club believe that many of their members are responsible dog owners who are bound by the rules and regulations of the Dogs Welfare Code 2010.  Mr Dunne advised that the Club is looking to introduce random kennel inspections in the near future for members applying to be breeders.  This approach is based on the responsibility the Club sees as promoting itself as being the “go to” organisations for dog owners.

 

24.     Dianne Tyssen representing the Southland Kennel Association addressed the meeting in support of their submission.

 

Ms Tyssen advised that the Southland Kennel Association supports the proposal to provide discounts in the dog registration fees for fencing, good history, microchipping, and de-sexing.

 

She advised that the Kennel Association are opposed to:

·                The proposal that roadways, roadsides and footpaths are leash-only.

·                The proposal that the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw that a multiple dog licence will be needed to keep more than two dogs on a property and that this proposal would not apply to working dogs unless they are kept in an urban area.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of belonging wholly or predominantly to one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996 will be mandatory.

 

The Kennel Association has no issue with:

·                The proposal that the default dog access rule of effective control of dogs with off-leash permitted remains unchanged and that this applies to areas where dogs are not prohibited, leash only or dog exercise areas.

·                The proposal to transition to new rules in the draft Dog Control Policy and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 with a two year transition is suggested for the discounts for responsible dog owners and a one year transition for multiple dog licensing.

·                The proposal that the neutering of dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour will be mandatory.

·                The proposal that a 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.

 

Southland Kennel Association also advised that they can understand the Southland District Council decision to not introduce a district monitoring programme believing that this is based on cost.  The Association is of the view that its members responsible owners bound by New Zealand Kennel Club rules and regulations and the Dog Welfare Code 2010.  The Association supports random visits as an opportunity for ongoing education of dog owners.

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 4.14pm and reconvened at 4.20pm.

 

(Mayor Tong, Councillors Bailey, Dillon, Dobson, Ford, Harpur, Keast, Macpherson and Paterson were present when the meeting reconvened.

 

 

Reports - Operational Matters

 

 

6.1

Dog Control Policy 2015 and Dog Control Bylaw 2015

Record No:         R/15/5/9008

 

Purpose

1       The purpose of the report was to hear oral submissions and on the Draft Dog Control Policy 2015 and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 and to then deliberate on those submissions.

 

 

The Council noted that on 18 March 2015, Council adopted the draft Dog Control Policy and Bylaw, and publicly notified and invited submissions on the proposal which closed at 5.00pm on Thursday, 30 April 2015.  Council also noted that 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 asked to be heard.

 

 

 

Resolution

Moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Keast and resolved recommendations a - e

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.

 

(Councillor Kremer returned to the meeting at 4.22pm.)

The meeting discussed the key issues of the draft Dog Control Policy 2015 and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 which needed to be considered by Councillors.

 

Officers provided a table of key issues as a guide for Councillors to follow.

 

The key issues outlined in the guide were as follows:

Dog access rules

Registration fees

Multiple dog licencing

Transitional arrangements

District monitoring programme

Mandatory neutering of dogs classified as menacing

Discretionary requirement to neuter

 

Following discussion on the above key issues, the meeting then proceeded to consider and agree the various issues to be included in the draft Dog Control Policy 2015 and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015 to be confirmed by Council at the meeting on 26 August 2015.

 

 

 

 

DOG ACCESS RULES

 

1

Moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Harpur  and resolved:

That Council:

Agree that the default access rule remain unchanged as proposed in the draft Dog Control Policy 2015 and Draft Dog Control Bylaw 2015.

 

2

Moved Cr Paterson, seconded Cr Dillon and resolved:

That Council:

Agree that dog access rules for roadsides and footpaths remain as off-leash permitted and that officers resolve the implications of this decision concerning unformed roads and townships without on-leash zones.

3i

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Harpur and resolved:

That Council:

Agree that there be changes to the dog access in Te Anau as follows:

·               Prohibited Area – Town Centre, sports fields and all playgrounds.

·               Ivon Wilson Park be a default access area where dogs are “off leash under control”.

·               Lakefront Reserve from Rodeo Grounds to end of Waiuna Subdivision to remain as a dog exercise area

·               Luxmore Reserve Walkway from Milford Road as illustrated on the draft map in the officers report; “dog to be on a leash”.

·               Water Park reserve to be default access “off leash”.

·               Exercise area at Recreation Reserve as illustrated on draft.

·               Fergus Square reserve to be classified as default access “on a leash”.

 

3ii

Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr Paterson and resolved:

That Council:

Agree to the dog access for Riverton as outlined on the map in attachment a of the officers report.

3iii

Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr Macpherson and resolved:

That Council:

·         Agree to the dog access for Winton as outlined on the map in attachment a of the officers report with the provision to change Ivy Russell Park to “off leash”

·         That the map be amended to clarify that dogs may be walked on-leash on the public walkways around the perimeter of the sports grounds at Moore’s Estate Reserve

·         The removal of the proposed dog exercise area at Moore’s Estate Reserve

REGISTRATION FEES

4

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Harpur and resolved:

That Council:

Agree that Council should provide discounts for responsible dog owners.

MULTIPLE DOG LICENCING

5

Moved Cr Paterson, seconded Cr Keast and resolved:

That Council:

Agree to introduce multiple dog licences.

6

Moved Cr Macpherson, seconded Cr Kremer and resolved:

That Council:

Agree that multiple dogs licencing will be required for more than two dogs on any premises.

6a

Moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Harpur and resolved:

That Council:

Agree to not introduce a cap on the number of dogs in the registration fees.

7

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Harpur and resolved:

That Council:

Agree that multiple dogs licences apply to all dogs in urban areas.

TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

8 and 9

Moved Cr Dobson, seconded Cr Kremer  and resolved:

That Council:

Agree to:

(i)      support a two year transition for a discount scheme; and

(ii)     apply a one year transition for multiple dog licenses.

DISTRICT MONITORING PROGRAMME

10

Moved Cr Macpherson, seconded Cr Dillon and resolved:

That Council:

Agree to not introduce a District Monitoring Programme to the draft policy of bylaw that would involve a visit to every property in the District.

MADATORY NEUTERING OF DOGS CLASSIFIED AS MENACING AND DISCRETIONARY REQUIREMENT TO NEUTER

11-14

Moved Cr Kremer, seconded Cr Dobson and resolved:

That Council:

Agree to:

(i)      Support mandatory neutering for dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of observed or reported behaviour.

(ii)     Support mandatory neutering for dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of characteristics associated with breed or type.

(iii)    Support mandatory neutering for dogs classified as menacing on the grounds of dogs belonging wholly or predominately one or more breeds or types listed in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

(iv)    Support the ability for Council to require dog owners to neuter their dog on the grounds of repeat wandering incidents.

 

Moved Cr Dillon, seconded Cr Keast and resolved recommendation f (with an addition)

That the Council:

f)       Instructs staff to make any changes to the draft Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw as required (outlined above) and report back to Council on 26 August 2015.

 

 

 

 

The meeting concluded at 5.39pm.               CONFIRMED AS A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD AT A MEETING OF THE Council HELD ON MONDAY 3 AUGUST 2015.

 

 

 

DATE:...................................................................

 

 

 

CHAIRPERSON:...................................................

 


APPENDIX 1

 

 


APPENDIX 2

 

 


APPENDIX 3