RESOLVED

THAT the apology of Cr G R Leonard be received and sustained.

HC09/42 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED

There were no late items.

DELEGATED MATTERS (196KB)

Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation for the period 1^st April to 1^st June 2009 are submitted separately for the Committee’s information.

RESOLVED

THAT the reports of delegated matters for the period 1^st April to 1^st June 2009 be received.

HC09/43 Carmine/Gordon CARRIED

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Monday 18 May 2009 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC09/44 Bubb/Gordon CARRIED

Cr Carmine requested that it be noted in the minutes that a letter in support of Mr and Mrs Lee was sighted by the Committee from D Mischewski (Mr and Mrs Lee’s neighbour).

J PITA, 212 STATE HIGHWAY 25 (OLDFIELD ROAD), WAIHI (195KB)

An appeal has been lodged.

Attached was a report from the Dog Control Officer including supporting information.

A hearing was scheduled for 9.15am. The hearing commenced at 9.15am.

Ms Juanita Pita (Appellant) was in attendance.

Ms Pita stated presented her case.

Ms Pita advised that the dog concerned in the matter is ‘Missey’ a female Pitbull, is owned by her son. She explained that her son left the dog temporarily in her care while he took a trip to Australia. Unfortunately, when she was out at the airport dropping her son off, the dog got tangled in her chain and barked.

A neighbour called the dog ranger, Mr Murray Sexton. Mr Sexton arrived at her address and advised Ms Pita that the dog was not registered and it would need to be registered in either her name or that of her sons. Ms Pita stated that Mr Sexton only gave her 7 days to get the dog registered even though he knew her son was out of the country. Ms Pita stated that she was not informed at the time that she would be held responsible for the micro-chipping and de-sexing of her son’s dog. She felt that this was unfair to expect someone taking care of another person’s dog, to be made responsible for the micro-chipping and de-sexing of it.

Ms Pita stated that following her discussion with Mr Sexton, she gave the dog to her brother who resides in Thames and sometimes in Port Waikato. She then received a letter from Council stating that Missey was classified as a menacing dog which also included a registration notice. Ms Pita stated that she was unaware that she had to microchip and de-sex the dog; she therefore incurred a $300 fine. She stated she wrote to Council explaining that she no longer had Missey in her care. There was no reply of explanation from Council only another $300.00 fine.

Since this time, her brother has found a new home for Missey. Ms Pita stated she did not know who the new owner was or where they resided other then they live in the Thames-Coromandel District.

Ms Pita stated she then arranged for the new owner to get Missey micro-chipped but the vet advised them that Missey was too young to be neutered.

In conclusion, Ms Pita stated that she felt she was not informed fully regarding what was required by Council to adhere to the regulations under the Dog Control Act. If she had known what the ramifications would be, she would not have registered the dog in her name.

Cr Gordon asked did you contact Mr Sexton to explain the delay in de-sexing the dog?

Ms Pita stated she was unaware that she was responsible for the de-sexing and micro-chipping the dog in the first instance but she did advise the Councils Customer Services Officer of the situation.

Cr Gordon asked on the 16^th of January, did you come into speak with Council staff straight away when you received the infringement concerning the micro-chipping and de-sexing of the dog?

Ms Pita stated she was not given the opportunity to have the dog de-sexed at the vets before the infringement was issued. In the original notice when she first registered the dog, she was not given the opportunity to produce a certificate from the veterinary surgeon. Upon investigating the de-sexing she was told by the veterinary surgeon that the dog was too young to be de-sexed. It was more appropriate to de-sex a dog once it had finished it first heat.

Cr Bubb asked, did you explain to staff that Missey was not your dog.

Ms Pita stated that she did explain that Missey was left at her house when her son went to Australia and during that day whilst at the airport, Missey got out. She also explained that she had no choice but to register the dog in her name as her son was absent and could not sign the registration document.

Mr Sexton spoke to his report.

He stated that where a dog is left with someone for more than 72 hours, the dog becomes their responsibility.

Staff was called over concern of this dog which is of a menacing breed. When visiting the property it was found to be unregistered.

Ms Pita was given the opportunity to register the dog. She was issued with a registration form to comply within seven days. She was also advised of a menacing classification which required her to microchip and de-sexes the dog. She was advised that she could appeal the classification. Ms Pita did not advise she had an issue at the time. She then registered the dog. Two months later, Councils records revealed that the Pitbull in her possession was not de-sexed, nor micro-chipped. An infringement was issued within 14 days to comply. As she did not comply within the time required, the infringement stood.

Ms Pita advised that she no longer had the dog in her possession. Six weeks after that she produced a micro-chipping certificate.

A letter was then received from a vet outside of the district stating that no dog should be de-sexed before 6-12 months of age after being on heat. The vet disagreed with the legislation. Mr Sexton asked the vet if he could state why medically the dog should not be de-sexed. The vet advised that the dog was not medically affected by de-sexing at the present age but that he did not agree with this practice at such an early age.

The vet did not provide a reason in writing as he was aware of the legislation.

The dog is now residing out of the district, which is not de-sexed and is a Pit bull which is a classified menacing breed. If the dog was able to be tracked it would be followed up for de-sexing.

The Thames-Coromandel District Council dog rangers are presently trying to locate the dog in the Thames-Coromandel district.

The offence is still valid. No appeal was received from Ms Pita regarding registration and classification compliance.

If the dog was too young, Ms Pita should have presented staff with a letter from the vet stating why the dog should not be de-sexed.

Ms Pita has been corresponded with on a number of occasions advising of the compliance requirements. No response was received from her.

Mr Sexton stated that on these grounds, the first infringement of non-compliance of a Menacing Classification should stand and the second infringement is cancelled.

Cr Gordon asked if Ms Pita was now the new owner as she has taken on the dog and has registered it in her name.

Yes, if she has registered the dog in her name she is the new owner and must comply with the menacing dog classification requirements.

This infringement can be withdrawn if the new owner complies.

The infringement is active for 6 months then legal action is to be taken.

Ms Pita produced a letter from her brothers Veterinary Surgeon (Whangamata Animal Hospital) which stated that a dog of Missey’s age should not be neutered until it has recovered from its first heat i.e. 3 months after the first het. This heat may start between 6-12 months of age.

Ms Pita agreed with the legislation regarding Pitbulls. Staff advised her she had a month to comply. Ms Pita stated that she has tried to comply.

Ms Pita advised staff that her son was the owner. Ms Pita stated she will follow up with her brother the address of and name of the person who now has Missey in their care.

Ms Pita stated that if she should have been given the opportunity to de-sex the dog in the first place before the infringement was issued.

The hearing closed at 9.47am.

The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.

After considering all of the evidence the Committee

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT the infringement notice no. 6597 is upheld unless within 28 days Ms Pita complies with the notice whereupon the infringement will be cancelled.

HC09/45 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine