He said it was a straightforward case in which the dogs — responsible for killing 16 lambs and injuring others — were clearly identified and the owner admitted culpability, yet the council was incapable of going through the process in the required timeframe.
Council communications team lead Sonia Martinez said the council acknowledged “a failure of process” in the prosecution, under the Dog Control Act 1996, of the owners of the dogs.
Staff reviewed the case to address any shortcomings.
“We will continue to work with the complainant and investigate all options that remain available to them to seek reparation for their loss.
“We do not consider the case is closed yet and therefore cannot offer any further comment,” she said.
Last October, Malcolm discovered a “hellish and very traumatic” scene after two untagged dogs attacked ewes and lambs on his farm.
He “saw the carnage and saw the dogs” when he arrived to feed the lambs at 8.30pm.
He had previously come across the two dogs and taken them to the pound.
This time, when he discovered them with two dead lambs beside them, he took the dogs and called animal control.
A note with a contact number was left at his property the following day, and the writer said they needed to apologise.
At the time, he said being a dog owner came with responsibilities and the council needed to show the behaviour of both the dog owners and the dogs could not be tolerated.
Back then, the council said animal management officers were investigating the incident as a “serious attack by dogs on stock”.
The owners had been identified and a decision on enforcement would be made at the conclusion of the investigation.
In December, the council confirmed the dogs had been euthanised with the cooperation of the owners.
It said it was finalising options for actions and an infringement notice or prosecution was being considered. Given the nature of the incident, a warning was not an option.
Yesterday, Malcolm said the animal control staff he dealt with were capable and professional.
He believed no investigation was required and questioned why the council failed.
“Either there’s a systems problem or individual incompetence.”
If it was down to an individual, he believed they should pay him the compensation owed or, if it was a systems problem, then the council should reimburse him.
Malcolm estimated the total cost to him was just over $2630.
It included the cost of a vet call-out to assess seven injured lambs.
