Editorial: Dog control at heart of vexed fee-rise wrangle

Photo / Thinkstock

Opinion

Dog owners were looking forward to the standardisation of the bylaws for their pets under the Auckland Council. A mish-mash of regulations under the previous seven territorial councils had created confusion.

They have now learned, however, that consistency will carry a cost. Under the council's Long Term Plan, dog owners face sizeable increases in registration fees. A de-sexed dog will cost $120 a year, up from $47 for those with a good-owner licence, and from $75 for those without.

Not unexpectedly, this has caused consternation. Many dog owners are appalled at not only the scale of the rise but that there is no longer any financial recognition for responsible ownership. Further, they say, good owners are being asked to carry the cost of those irresponsible owners whose animals keep the council's pounds busy.

The council, for its part, is keen to lessen the burden of dog control on ratepayers. It costs $12.1 million a year to run these services (including the pounds and fieldwork), of which $7.1 million is recouped from registration fees. The planned fee increase is designed to bring dog owners' contribution to control costs up to 80 per cent.

That means ratepayers will still be subsidising dog owners to some degree. But it also means responsible owners will be subsidising the wayward to an even greater extent. This is far from ideal.

The main payment burden should fall on those responsible for the bulk of the council's spending. Conceivably, that should mean, for example, a higher fee for reclaiming a dog from a pound.

The problem here is that the council faces a battle to draw money from irresponsible owners. Often as not, they are loath to get their pets registered and they have little interest in getting them back if they are impounded.

Statistics for 2010-11 show more than 3300 dogs impounded in Auckland were destroyed after being unclaimed by their owners and deemed too dangerous to be adopted. A higher reclaim fee would only aggravate this.

Given that, the dog owners' case against the increase in registration fees must rest on the concept that control is a community issue, rather than a burden to be placed on the shoulders of dog owners.

This view is underpinned by the many roles of man's best friend, not least in providing companionship for the elderly and the ailing, and in enhancing community health and wellbeing through activities inherent in dog ownership.

In that context, it is reasonable to argue that there is as much reason for ratepayers to subsidise dog control as there is, say, to subsidise council swimming pools. Ironically, the $5.5 million that KPMG estimated it would cost ratepayers for free entry to the council's 24 pools is almost identical to what they would have to pay if the dog registration fees were to remain as they are.

Auckland's beaches provide a readymade alternative to the council pools. That severely undercuts the case for free entry. Dog control costs create far more of a dilemma. The ultimate answer probably lies in a licensing system that would require owners to do a course in dog behaviour and care.

This would promote responsible ownership, which, in turn, would reduce the use of pounds and other control activities. Then, dog owners would have every right to look forward to lower registration fees.