Dog owner Brigid Sinclair, pictured with Fred, says it's time for Whangārei District Council to review its dog registration fees and provide positive rewards for those who comply.
Dog owner Brigid Sinclair, pictured with Fred, says it's time for Whangārei District Council to review its dog registration fees and provide positive rewards for those who comply.
Dog owners are calling on Whangārei District Council to slash registration fees or put them to more positive use.
However, the council says the fees go towards necessary services such as:
Education programmes and campaigns for schools/community/business groups;
Dog management, including law enforcement, patrols and attending to complaints/incidents;
Administering the animal management offices and kennels (dog pound); and
Administering our dog management programme.
Dog owner Brigid Sinclair sparked a spirited discussion on social media when she and others objectedto registration fees being used for “punitive” things of little or no benefit to responsible dog owners.
That so much of the fees went towards WDC’s animal control service exacerbated the outrage for dog owners who had experienced “incredibly negative” dealings with the pound here, Sinclair said.
A fee portion should go towards rewarding good dog owners withpositive initiatives such as greater discounts and more dog parks, Sinclair said.
She said international research showed positive incentives were a better way of gaining compliance than a punitive approach.
Dog owner Nathan Read told the Advocate he pays more than $200 to register his two pet Australian Heeler dogs. He lived rurally and did not need dog park facilities, which he believed were covered by general rates.
He wanted to see fees slashed to cover the price of the annual registration tag and associated mailing cost. In his view, those were the only costs council incurred in relation to responsible owners.
The Far North District Council says dogs would not need to be impounded if owners ensured their pets were registered and under control. Photo / Michael Cunningham
Read said responsible dog owners were an “easy target” for the council to collect registration fees from.
This was unfair, given irresponsible owners “did not pay a cent” towards fees and animal control.
“Why penalise the dog owners who do the right thing so that the whole community can be protected from the dog owners who do not?” Read asked.
All ratepayers should pay because any member of the public — dog owner or not — could have cause to call animal control about stolen, wandering or aggressive dogs, Read said.
Not all participants in the discussion were against the fees. One likened the situation to the fees required by various professional bodies:
“All lawyers pay exorbitant practising certificate fees, in part, to ensure the costs relating to “bad egg” lawyers are covered by the profession as a whole ... Surely, this same approach should apply to dog owners?”
The council joined the online discussion several times and said fees were “for necessary services that need to be paid for somehow”.
Whangārei District Council said the fees were “for necessary services that need to be paid for somehow”.
It was required by law (the Dog Control Act 1996) to operate a dog management and a dog registration programme.
It agreed there were benefits for the general public, and was why “10% of the costs were covered through general rates”.
“Part of our education programme is the outreach we do with local schools to teach kids how to be safe around animals. We take our dog Max to help with these visits.
“Good dog owners, specifically those who had their dogs desexed, were rewarded with reduced fees,” the council said.
Whangārei District Council’s trustee education dog Max is taken to local schools to teach kids how to be safe around animals. The programme is partly funded through dog registration fees. Photo / Facebook
Other dog owners in the discussion wanted council to widen its range of discounts, which were limited to early payment, working dogs, and desexed dogs.
People said discounts should also be given to owners who passed a dog ownership licence-type test — as was available in other local authorities.
“There could [also] be a discount for any dog that had been trouble-free for the preceding year, like the no-claims discount on [an] insurance premium,” a contributor said.
Several people questioned the efficiency of animal control, with one person saying his calls about wandering stray dogs weren’t actioned.
“If my furry mates happen to get out (albeit they don’t) and the pound picks them up, why then do I have to pay hundreds to get them back if I have already paid for this service (via registration fees)?”
Council health and bylaws manager Reiner Mussle told the Advocate: “A dog licensing programme of the sort you are mentioning (over and above the responsibilities council has under the Dog Control Act) are expensive to administer and the extra cost for that would need to be covered somehow.
“If it was covered by the responsible owners, it would mean either a one-off implementation fee or an increase in the cost of the registration, or in an increase in the amount of the dog management costs that are already covered by ordinary ratepayers (whether dog owners or not).”
Sarah Curtis is a news reporter for the Northern Advocate focusing on a wide range of issues. She has nearly 20 years’ experience in journalism, much of which she spent court reporting. She is passionate about covering stories that make a difference.
