Ruapehu Mayor Weston Kirton wants stronger powers for his council to deal with dangerous or menacing dogs. Photo / Moana Ellis
Ruapehu’s mayor says dog control laws are failing communities and leaving authorities unable to act decisively after attacks.
Ruapehu District Council is calling for sweeping changes to dog control laws, including stronger powers.
“Council would welcome additional powers to deal with dangerous or menacing dogs,” Mayor Weston Kirton said.
“The community is understandably very frustrated. If there is a dog incident, they expect council to be able to act quickly and decisively, and often we are hamstrung.”
Kirton said the reforms must strike a balance between enforcement and community responsibility, but stronger legal tools were essential to restore public confidence and improve safety.
The Government said this month it would overhaul the Dog Control Act following a series of serious dog attacks, including the death of a woman in Northland.
In response, Ruapehu’s council said reform was urgently needed, Kirton describing the existing legislation as “not fit for purpose”.
“If owners of dogs involved in an attack on a person want to keep the dog, the threshold of evidence needed to obtain a destruction order is a very high bar,” he said.
“The courts require statements from affected parties and often people do not want to get involved.”
Kirton told Local Democracy Reporting the council was doing what it could with the resources and tools available.
“Dogs are a community issue, and we need the support of the community to be able to fully utilise the regulatory powers that we have.”
Kirton raised the issue at last week’s Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Zone 3 meeting, where councils discussed practical changes they want included in the review.
He wants the review to reduce the dog holding period from seven days to five, allowing councils to process impounded animals more quickly.
He also wants the disqualification period for irresponsible owners extended from three years to 10. Council officials say repeat offenders often replace seized dogs and continue problematic behaviour.
Stricter rules around breeding and kennels were also required, Kirton said.
Councils were concerned about unregulated breeders flooding the market with multiple litters marketed as “pure breed” dogs without proper documentation, often at lower prices.
Kirton said breed classification remained a contentious issue.
He is pushing for a review of Schedule 4, which lists dogs considered menacing by breed, with suggestions to include American Staffordshire Terriers and XL Bullies.
However, he said council officials acknowledged breed-based rules had limited success and had noted a dog’s behaviour was more strongly influenced by training and care.
There were also practical challenges in classification, including disputes from owners and the use of DNA testing to verify breed.
The council and others would instead look to gather better data on breeds involved in attacks and rushing incidents to inform decisions.
Other suggestions focus on tightening control measures. These include mandatory standards for fencing and containment, particularly for large or powerful dogs, and increasing infringement penalties to deter irresponsible ownership.
Some councils had already begun pursuing unpaid fines through debt collection and seeking owner disqualification after repeated offences, Kirton said.
The review could also introduce mandatory reporting of dog attacks by health professionals, including ACC, emergency departments and GPs.
Kirton said councils currently received only a fraction of reports, despite anecdotal evidence from doctors treating dog bites on a weekly basis.
He said he would support a national system for dog registration fees to ensure consistency across regions, as well as the creation of a DNA database for classified dogs to help identify animals involved in attacks.
Councils were also seeking stronger powers to retain and destroy dangerous dogs, and clearer legal language, such as replacing discretionary terms like “may” with enforceable “must” provisions.
He would also support stronger rules around persistent barking, mandatory parvovirus vaccinations for puppies and expanded authority to seize dogs from restricted breeds.
This month councils champion LGNZ said an overhaul of dog control legislation was “much needed”.
LGNZ president Rehette Stoltz said no one should have to feel unsafe in their own neighbourhood and dog control rules as they currently stood were not sufficient.
“Dangerous dogs are intimidating and affect people’s sense of safety. It’s clear we need to reform our dog control laws to better protect communities,” Stoltz said.
LGNZ said councils required proactive powers. This included being able to intervene earlier when aggressive dogs posed a risk to public safety, strengthening powers through bylaws to require fencing and desexing where required as preventative measures, and changes that enable better information sharing between key agencies.
LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.