Agenda of Hearings Panel - Other

Item 5: Objection to Classification of a Dog as Menacing - Rebecca Bennett - Dog named "Camo"

Hearings Panel - Other

29 November 2017

REPORT R8737

Objection to Classification of a Dog as Menacing - Rebecca Bennett - Dog named "Camo"

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To decide on an objection to the classification of a dog as menacing pursuant to section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996.

2. Summary

2.1 Section 33A of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides for a dog to be classified as menacing if the territorial authority considers that the dog may pose a threat to any person because of observed or reported behaviour of the dog.

2.2 Section 33B of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides a right to the owner of a dog classified as menacing to object to the classification and be heard in support of the objection.

2.3 On 6 October 2017 a dog named “Camo” owned by Rebecca Bennett was classified as menacing due to reports received of the dog tied up to a seat on Trafalgar Street outside the ASB Bank acting aggressively towards pedestrians walking past. The behaviour of the dog was of such concern that members of the public were afraid to come out of nearby shops to walk past the dog and other concerned members of the public were stopping pedestrians fearing that they would be bitten.

2.4 On 19 October 2017 a written objection was received from Rebecca Bennett.

3. Recommendation

That the Hearings Panel - Other

Receives the report Objection to Classification of a Dog as Menacing - Rebecca Bennett - Dog named "Camo" (R8737) and its attachments (A1867668, A1867669, A1850853 and A1867670); and

Dismisses the objection of Rebecca Bennett; and

Upholds the classification of “Camo” as menacing.

4. Background

4.1 Nelson City Council is not aware of any previous Dog Control history of aggression involving Camo.

5. Discussion

Dog Control Act 1996 Provisions

5.1 Section 33E of the Dog Control Act outlines that if a dog is classified as a menacing dog the following must be complied with-

(a) The owner must not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place or private way, without being confined completely within a vehicle or cage, or without being muzzled in such a manner as to prevent the dog from biting but to allow it to breath and drink without obstruction.

(b) If required by the territorial authority the dog must be neutered.

Note that the Nelson City Council Dog Control Policy requires that all dogs classified as menacing are neutered. Camo has already been neutered.

5.2 Under Section 33B(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996, if a dog is classified as menacing the owner has 14 days in which to object to the classification and has the right to be heard in support of the objection. If an objection is received within the allowable period the requirements of the menacing classification are suspended until the Nelson City Council has made its determination.

5.3 Section 33B(2) outlines that the territorial authority considering an objection may uphold or rescind the classification, and in making its determination must have regard to-

(a) The evidence which formed the basis for the classification; and

(b) Any steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of persons or animals; and

(d) Any other relevant matters

5.4 Section 33B(3) outlines that the territorial authority must, as soon as practicable, give written notice to the owner of-

(a) Its determination of the objection; and

(b) The reasons for its determination.

Criteria for consideration

5.5 The evidence which formed the basis for the classification

5.5.1 On 27 September 2017 at about 2.40pm Nelson City Council Dog Control received three separate reports of a dog tied up to a bench seat outside the ASB Bank on Trafalgar Street acting aggressively towards pedestrians walking past.

5.5.2 These reports describe the dog barking, growling and lunging at people as they walked past. One of the reports describe a man being bitten on the hand (this man has not been identified).

5.5.3 A short time later Dog Control Officers arrived and found a situation where concerned members of the public were stopping people walking past the dog and other member of the public were hiding in a shop too afraid to come out.

5.5.4 A member of the public has made a short video recording of the behaviour of the dog and later provided it to Dog Control.

5.5.5 The dog was seized and impounded.

5.6 Steps taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of persons or animals

5.6.1 In her written objection Rebecca Bennett outlines that she will-

(a) Not take Camo walking into the Central City.

(b) Not tie Camo up in a public place.

5.7 The matters relied upon in support of the objection

5.7.1 In her written objection Rebecca Bennett relies on a lack of previous aggression incidents involving “Camo”. She has provided three letters from people who support Camo and his previous behaviour.

5.7.2 Ms Bennett has also engaged a qualified dog behaviourist who has produced a report.

5.7.3 Ms Bennett further outlines that she is concerned a menacing classification would limit Camo’s life activities that he enjoys.

5.8 The matters relied upon in support of the objection

5.9.1 There don’t appear to be any other relevant matters.

6. Options

Option 1: The objection be dismissed (recommended option)
Advantages	· This will result in Camo being legally required to wear a muzzle whenever out in public. This will reduce the risk of people being attacked and injured should another aggression incident occur.
Risks and Disadvantages	· This may have a negative impact on life activities Camo and his owner enjoy.
Option 2: The objection be upheld
Advantages	· Camo and his owner will not be legally required to wear a muzzle.
Risks and Disadvantages	· This will increase the risk of people being attacked and injured if Camo was to become aggressive.

7. Conclusion

7.1 Camo’s behaviour on 27 September 2017 shows that he can behave in an aggressive manner and is a real risk to the public.

7.2 It is considered that in order to reduce the risk of an attack on a member of the public that he should be muzzled whenever in a public place.

7.3 A menacing classification is the lowest level of classification that requires the use of a muzzle when in public.

7.4 It is recommended that the objection be dismissed and the classification of Camo as a menacing dog be upheld.

Brent Edwards

Manager Environmental Inspections

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1867668 Relevant Sections of the Dog Control Act 1996 ⇩

Attachment 2: A1843455 Notice of Classification ⇩

Attachment 3: A1850853 Objection from Rebecca Bennett (including support letters) ⇩

Attachment 4: A1867670 Dog Behaviourist Report ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The regulatory functions are to be performed in a manner that is most cost-effective for households and businesses. The Dog Control Act 1996 provisions are being applied appropriately to minimise the public risk.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendation aligns with Council’s Dog Control Policy by having regard to the need to minimise danger, distress and nuisance to the community generally caused by dogs and/or by non-compliant owners.

3. Risk

Council has obligations under the Dog Control Act 1996 to follow correct legal process.

There is also a safety risk to community from future incidents.

4. Financial impact

There is no additional cost to Council should the recommendation be approved.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The recommendations outlined in this report are not considered significant in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Maori have not been consulted on this matter.

7. Delegations

The Hearings Panel – Other has the power to hear and determine objections to the classifications of dogs and all other procedural matters for which a right of objection and hearing is provided for under the Dog Control Act 1996; and to recommend changes to the Council’s Dog Control Policy and Dog Control Bylaw.