Aranui not alone with dog problem

Press, 2 July 1986, Page 6

Aranui not alone with dog problem

Dogs were no more of a problem in Aranui than in several other localities of a similar socio-economic background, said the Christchurch City Council’s dog control, supervisor, Mr Mike Shaw. He had been invited to comment on remarks by counsel, Mr P. I. Redmond, in the District Court yesterday that there was a serious dog problem in Aranui. Mr Shaw said the apathy of some dog owners to dog control was not peculiar to the Aranui area. However, he said, in areas where people had to “work hard to make ends meet,” the control of a dog “might take second place.”

Mr Shaw said there were certain areas in the city where there was a greater tolerance to dogs, and he said he believed Aranui was one of those areas. It was unfortunate if there happened to be one person in an area tolerant to dogs running loose who was hypersensitive to the problem, said Mr Shaw.

However, he said, the law provided the opportunity for property owners who found stray dogs on their property to seize the

dog, and either hand it back to the owner or contact the council, who would then send someone to remove the dog from the section, said Mr Shaw.

Up to-19,000 dogs were expected to be registered this year, and another 10 per cent would not be registered, said Mr Shaw. Each year the council impounds up to 1600 dogs — about 8 or 9 per cent of the dog population.

In 1981 the council impounded up to 10 per cent of the dog population — the largest haul of dogs in the city ever, he said. The dogs came from all over the city, and there was “no way” one could say they came from a certain area, said Mr Shaw. The council’s by-law 104 only dealt with offences where the dog was caught in a public place not under control. Technically this meant the dog should be on a leash, but if the dog was under good verbal command, this could be deemed to be adequate, he said. If the dog had wandered on to someone else’s private property, then by law it became a civil matter over which the council had no jurisdiction.

“However, the dog usually has to cross a public street to get to the property, so we can take action,” said Mr Shaw. There was nothing the council could do about dogs who wandered to and fro from adjoining properties except to educate the dog owners, he said.

If people thought more dog-control officers were needed, then perhaps they should consider paying it in the general rate. At the moment the dogcontrol department was funded entirely by dogregistration fees. Four dog rangers were employed in four areas of the city, so each ranger was responsible for about 4500 dogs, said Mr Shaw.

There were enough rangers to deal with dogcontrol problems, provided people realised they had to do something for themselves, he said. “The dog does not know it is breaching the law.” “People should consider what responsibilities they will have before acquiring dogs. Unfortunately, some people only realised the burden after they have got the dogs, and some shirk that responsibility,” he said.