CONTROL OF DOGS IN STREETS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXI, 14 January 1938, Page 7

CONTROL OF DOGS IN STREETS

STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF BYLAWS NELSON CITY COUNCIL DECISION DIVISION CALLED FOR Strict enforcement of the by-law relating to the control of dogs on the streets was decided on by the City Council at last night’s meeting following the reading of a report by the Town Clerk (Mr F. Mitchell). At the December meeting of the Council the dog nuisance was the subject of a deputation from the Advance Nelson Association, and a petition signed by 120 business people was presented to the Council. The Town Clerk reported as follows: “This matter was last considered by the Council at the end of 1934 when I was instructed to obtain an opinion from the Municipal Association’s Legal Adviser with regard thereto. “Mr O’Shea was asked to advise (1) Whether in his opinion the Court would uphold a bylaw prohibiting dogs from being at large in the business area of the City and (2) whether he could suggest any way in which dogs could be cpntrolled.

“Summarised, his advice was as follows: —1. That while such a bylaw was held to be unreasonable in Devonport on the grounds t’.at it was not necessary, it was unlikely that the Court would take the same view in Nelson where different considerations would apply. 2. ,That the only effective bylaw that could be made would be one providing that the owner of every dog which was at any time on certain prescribed streets would be guilty of an offence. Such a bylaw, Mr O’Shea suggests, would probably be unreasonable, as it would require every dog to be kept at home. (It is difficult to follow Mr O’Shea’s reasoning in this respect as the restriction would apply only to certain definied portions of the City. This also seems to conflict with the opinion given hove.) 3. That a bylaw could certainly be made providing that dogs be kept on leashes but that this was a dangerous practice particularly in the case of larger dogs. He advised against the making of such a bylaw in the interests of the public and particularly old people. 4. That the nuisance could best be met by a strict enforcement of the Dogs Registration Act. “This opinion was considered by the Council on the 31st January 1935 when a motion to make a bylaw prohibiting dogs from the business area was defeated on the casting vote of the Mayor. “The following summary of the position elsewhere is given from the information obtained by the Advance Nelson Association:—

“Napier: Bylaw requiring dogs to be on leash is not enforced as all dogs found in gardens and reserves are impounded. “Wanganui: Bylaw requiring dogs to be on leash in certain streets. “Palmerston North: Ditto.

“Hamilton: Bylaw relates only to dangerous dogs and to dogs suffering from disease.

“Timaru: Bylaw relates to Caroline Bay only. “Our own bylaws deal only with female dogs, unregistered dogs and dogs on certain of the Reserves.

“It would appear from the foregoing that the Council has three alternative proposals to consider: — “1. The making of a bylaw prohibiting dogs from certain defined portions of the City. Such a bylaw, Mr O’Shea suggests, may be held to be unreasonable.

“2. The making of a bylaw prohibiting dogs from certain defined portions of the City except when on a leash. This raises the question of danger to the public and particularly old people as suggested by Mr O’Shea. “3. The strict enforcement of the law relating to dogs.”

The Mayor (Mr G. L. Page) moved that No. 1 alternative in the report be adopted, but it lapsed for want of a seconder.

Councillor J. A. Harley said the difficulty he saw in connection with No. 1 and No. 2 suggestions was that they could not be enforced. He felt that the matter could be dealt with by No. 3 alternative and he moved that it be adopted.

Councillor E. R. Neale seconded the motion. He said he was convinced that the extent of the nuisance had been grossly exaggerated.

Councillor G. P. Russell said it was not only the unregistered dog which caused a nuisance. One hundred and twenty businessmen would not sign a petition if there was no nuisance. It was time the Council handled the question. The motion would not overcome it. He favoured dogs being kept on the leash when in the city. Owners could take their dogs to the river bank or zig-zag for exercise, as others were doing. The main streets should not be the clog exercise gfound. He moved an amendment that dogs be kept on a leash in the business part of the town.

Councillor S. McArthur seconded the amendment. He agreed that the motion would not overcome the difficulty. Councillor H. G. B. Hurst said that

the amendment meant that some people would have to keep dogs on the chain all the time. However, he favoured the amendment in preference to the other two proposals The Mayor supported the amendment. ! He said he did not sec that losal shop- ! keepers should have to put up with filth being deposited on the shop fronts.

Councillor Harley in reply said the Council did not want to put any further restrictions on citizens. He was sure the dog inspector could effectively cope with the matter by dealing with dogs habitually in the streets. When the amendment was put to the meeting there were four votes for and four against. Councillor Russell asked for a division which was as follows: For the amendment: The Mayor, Councillors Russell, McArthur, and Hurst. Against: Councillors Neale, Harley, Fitz-Gerald, and Glasgow. The Mayor gave his casting vote against the amendment. The motion was then carried.