Dogged owner fights on
A Hauraki ratepayer is heading back to court to argue that a dog he claimed was not a dog isn't.
Gordon Israel has already cost ratepayers more than $10,000 in his legal battle with the Hauraki District Council and will argue in the High Court that the border collie he used to own is not a dog but a canine who is loved and cared for as part of his household and therefore exempt from registration.
Last year he was convicted of failing to register his dog Sally, but he also took urgent court action to stop the dog being put down –- which he lost.
Mr Tredgida said the court action had already cost the council $12,000, and with further action still pending the total cost could blow out to $30,000.
Somehow I don't feel 'sorry' for the council. They have to realise that dogs are not 'just' dogs for some people but part of their family. I really really resent the fact that they charge $80 to register a dog. We don't get much for that, except hassle. They say that the money goes towards putting away dangerous dogs, prosecuting dog owners, etc... but $80 worth?? It only cost $25 in most American/Canadian cities, and some cities don't even charge anything. They are just happy dog owners register their dog.
1 Comments:
At 11:54 p.m.,
Anonymous said…
As an onlooker this whole business strikes me as complete lunacy.
I don't see how anyone can argue that they should be exempt from registration fees on these grounds.
Although I do agree with Gordon Israel's sentiments about the position of Sally in his household, she is (or was) a Dog, not a human being, and as such is surely subject to the registration laws.
I do believe that registration should be a requirement of dog ownership and that the funds so raised should be put towards the costs of dealing with problems caused by iresponsible dog ownership.
The fee should reflect the cost of dealing with the problems - no more - no less.
In the UK the 'Dog License' was abolished and this has led to an increase in problems with the agencies set up to deal with the issues being funded by local councils out of ratepayers money (which is unfair to those ratepayers who don't keep dogs).
It also means that the agencies are under-funded, making them pretty ineffective and leaving charitable bodies and the Police to handled part of the problem and general confusion as to who is responsible for what!
The Council, in this case, seem to be putting an inapproriate amount of taxpayers money into making their point, but possibly have little choice other than to follow through.
For this to have got to the High Court suggests that what should be a simple matter of intrepreting and passing judgement on a simple legal requirement is far more complicated that it should be and perhaps indicates that the registration laws need revising or clarifying in some way.
I cannot feel sorry for the council either but can feel sorry for the ratepayers who pay their wages.
These hardworking citizens probably have higher priorities for the use of their hard earned cash.
How can something so trivial have become something so complex - and how come it has made news around the world?
And why was Sally destroyed? Surely not simply because she was not registered!
Post a Comment
<< Home