CITY COUNCIL AFFAIRS.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20919, 28 July 1933, Page 17

CITY COUNCIL AFFAIRS.

TO TUE EDITOB OF TtrE PBES9. Sir, —At the present time our city councillors are engaged in the momentous task of trying to provide adequate revenue of the ensuing financial year to carry on the necessary work under civic administration. My object in writing this letter is to draw your attention to one source from which considerably more money could Ibe obtained if the by-laws were enforced and proper supervision applied; I refer to dog registration. In the recently published estimates I see the revenue derived under this heading for the last year was £lll2, and the estimated yield for this year is £IOOO. Now, it strikes me rather forcibly from these figures that a considerable number of dog owners are' evading the obligation imposed upon them to register their canine friends annually. It seems to me also, that if any person? can reconcile it to their conscience to conveniently forget such 1 liability, it should then be the council officials' duty to see that all own- ] ers fulfil this requirement and thereby j considerable more revenue must be ob- 1 tained. At a conservative estimate of ( 10s a head, classifying the majority of dogs in a city as household pets, it ] would seem that about 600 people did < their duty last year, which appears to j be out of all proportion to the popu- 1 lation and the number of dogs that ; must be in existence in Christchurch. Years ago when I was a resident ( in the Heathcote county before it was : absorbed into the city, the county's dog | tax collector made a house to house ] canvass every year In search of un- < registered dogs, but not since that < time have I received a visit from a city council inspector on a similar errand, though I have invariably kept

a dog and registered it regularly every year of its existence. I have occasionally read of the Heathcote county and New Brighton Borough Council prosecuting people for keeping unregistered dogs, but I have never yet seen an instance of the City Council taking such action. During Dr. Thacker's terms of office as Mayor he instituted raids in the city on all stray dogs found in the streets, and I would like to sec the doctor again lead a crusade against all unregistered dogs, and round up the delinquents who fail to observe this part of their civic duty. Whilst on this subject, I must confess I regard the present fee of 10s for a dog, described as a pet, as excessive and unreasonable, seeing that a man who uses a dog as a means of earning his livelihood escapes with 2s Cd a year. As this charge is fixed by resolution of the council annually, I would suggest that In order to adjust the disparity between these fees, the tax for a house or sporting dog should be reduced to ss, and its owner called upon to pay for the cost of the collar, at present borne by the council, in the same manner as a motorist prays for the registration plates for his car. I can sympathise with all lovers of dogs who may regard the early part of this letter as a perhaps severe stricture on their privileges at the present time, and who may find some difficulty in providing the necessary registration fee, but the latter portion, if put into effect, should assuage their feelings, and as all dog owners have a , duty to perform none should be | allowed to evade their legal obliga- ; tion as at present many must un- | doubtedly do.—Yours, etc., i t , „ DOG owner. I Juiy 27, 1933. I