GRRRR - DOES THE COUNCIL REALLY LISTEN TO OUR SUBMISSIONS?

Helen from The Brook

I wrote a submission for the Dog Control Policy and Bylaw review. Because of the lockdown I was offered the following options for an oral presentation:
a) Via Zoom video link
b) Via telephone call
c) Submitting a short statement which someone will read on your behalf.
So I wrote a short statement well within the 5 minute allocation and asked if someone at the council could read it out for me as I don’t do zoom. Which they agreed on.

When I listen to the council meeting on Youtube nobody read out my statement. There were a few people talking to their submission and one person talked on the phone.

I wrote to NCC and asked what had happened. Part of their reply: “The Chair (Kate Fulton) of the committee makes the decision about how the Hearings are managed, and had made the decision shortly before the meeting that the statements would be circulated and tabled but not read aloud.”
Why was I then not contacted so I could phone in and read my statement? Another person talked over the phone. Kate Fulton was part of the previous dog review bylaw when NCC misread the Nelson dog community by then trying to enforce draconian laws. So her decision not to allow my representative or myself to speak to my submission doesn’t come as a surprise as my submission questioned the very essence of this proposed policy.

Thirty minutes into the meeting Kate Fulton reads out that a number of people (incl myself) had wished not to speak and councillors were asked to read our statements later. This contradict the communications I've had with council staff prior this zoom meeting.
www.youtube.com...

There is no wonder why people in general doesn’t engage positively with the council. One of the basic complaints I hear is that ‘they don’t listen anyway’, ‘it’s who you know that can make change happen’, ‘councillors pet projects’ etc. And it certainly comes across to be true. Dog reviews only come up every eight years or so which is a big part of the life of a dog and the time the owner and dog have together.
I have now joined the camp who lost faith in our democratic right in this "smart, little city".

People may not be interested or agree with my contribution to NCC, but I do believe it’s wrong to be silenced hence I’ve added my oral submission below. No comments needed to the oral submission itself please.
************************************************************************
“This is my contribution and short statement re the proposed dog bylaw. Many thanks for reading it out! Cheers, Helen (Which didn’t happen!)

Thank you for listening to this oral presentation and I hope you have read my written submission.

Dog ownership play a big part in the lives of many people and families. In 2018 the pet industry were worth $1.8b*.

Since the last dog bylaw were adopted dog ownership has increased steadily. The Dog control activity report between 2013- 2019 does not show any great negative changes despite the increase in dogs which reflect that most dog owners must be ‘good dog owners’. Housing developments in Nelson has changed with much smaller gardens which means an increased need for public areas for dog walking. This proposal is mostly about the increase of on-leash and prohibited areas. Many dog owners cannot give their dogs sufficient exercise and stimuli during on-leash walks.

During the last decade safe areas that used to be available for people to exercise their dogs have decreased or become less pleasurable to use.
-Walkways have become shared paths with cyclists,
-the hills around Codgers, Andrews field, the new BMX park at the end of Branford Park, the Maitai/Brook loop are shared but taken over by bikers,
-the back beach by kite surfers,
-the extension of Founders railway going through green areas,
-most swimming holes along the Maitai are dog prohibited part of the year,
-soccer activities on the Maitai cricket ground took over the cricket off season that dog -owners had negotiated with the council as an off-leash area
-and now all the grazed areas surrounding Nelson are proposed to become on-leash
just to name a few of these losses of safe areas for dog owners.

I can’t help but make the comparison between bikers and dog owners. The latter heavily regulated and mostly self-funded whilst the council has no interest to regulate or enforce the former and they are given substantial yearly financial support ($1m last year).

What makes a Good versus Bad dog owner? For example, many people use sport fields to let their dogs be off-leash as a place where children and dogs play together when there are no matches or training. Years ago I saw a councillor play with his children on the Victory Square sports field incl their off-leash dog. The family and dog had a lot of fun. It was an on-leash area so this councillor broke the bylaw. There were no other people around, they were not affecting anyone else. There’s not many green areas around for families with dogs in this area. Bylaws that either doesn’t make sense, aren’t practical or are too prohibitive won’t be followed and good people will become bad dog owners.

Suggestions:
- Fence off play grounds to allow families to bring their dogs to neighbourhood parks or sports fields not in use and let dogs be off-leash.
- Dog walkers need more areas to choose from, to spread the ‘load’ which would “minimise danger, distress, and nuisance to the community generally”. Leash aggression is a very real occurrence when dogs are force to meet other dogs on narrow footpaths or tracks.
- With the loss of safe off-leash areas the council need to find other ways to manage currently grazed land around Nelson urban areas. See my suggestions in my written submission.
- Good Dog Owners: If the council viewed dog owners as good dog owners, there would be no need for on-leash or prohibited areas. I have not heard that there’s an outrage against dogs so this must be a council driven proposal. It highlights the council’s view that there are not enough good dog owners hence these proposed prohibited bylaws. So when a biker/cyclist offends against a pedestrian on a footpath, shared path/track, do you limit all cyclists to on- road cycling only, or ban bikers from tracks’?

Unfortunate incidents are part of life and rather than a fear-based new dog policy and bylaw, I would like to see an inclusive approach. The wellbeing of dogs owners and dogs depend of quality areas to walk in. Please respect dog ownership by not penalise dog owners.
Thank you for listening