Let's talk: Incentivising Good Dog Owners

about 4 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Should Council provide incentives for good dog owners? If yes, what would a good incentive be?

What is a 'good' owner?

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
Relates to Relates to

Thanks for having your say! Consultation has now finished. We'll be in touch with an adopted plan in August.

  • Jenny Grose over 4 years ago
    No incentives required. People who respect all animals and their dogs do not need incentives to do so. People who do not care for their pets and society around them should be DIS-INCENTIVIZED through having the animals in their care immediately impounded and re-homed. They should be heavily fined and/or criminal charges brought against them. Cruelty and disrespect for animals and society at large is not acceptable behaviour. full stop.
  • phil mckernon over 4 years ago
    we get all the rewards (incentives) from our dogs, councils, govt, should do much more to stop the abuse of dogs,We have too many cases of dogs going missing ( probably used as bait in dog fights ) dogs tethered all day and night, starved and abused.call ourselves civilized?? i think not !!!
  • ruff123 over 4 years ago
    Good dog owners don't need incentives - for them it's just common sense! Bad dog owners don't think they're bad so incentives won't make a difference to them. When reporting a wandering menacing dog I was told "yes, we know that dog, has it got out again?" Perhaps it's time for higher penalties to discourage irresponsible dog owners. Don't bother with a fine... you'll only use more resources chasing payment! How about a "3-strike" removal policy.
  • AlTaylor over 4 years ago
    Having lived in a number of other regions I'm astonished by how much WBOP charge for dog registrations and supply... what in return? The council should absolutely provide incentives to drive good behaviours. It makes sense to discount fees for microchipped and neutered dogs or even, charge a premium to those who choose to not go down that route with their animals.
  • RSS over 4 years ago
    My initial reaction to "good owner" incentives would be a reduction in registration fees. As the owner of dogs all my life and having never had a dog complaint, roaming streets or impounded, I feel I am unfairly paying out for problems that I as a responsible dog owner are not causing. Living rural and having more than 1 dog @ $67 per dog registration gets expensive, however, I would happily forgo any reduction in my own registration fees if the money I was "contributing" was used for the purpose of helping the disadvantaged dogs in our community instead. For example:1) Funding toward operating the pound as a "no kill" shelter with emphasis on rehabilitation/training and adoption rather than euthanizing. (Refer Nathan Winograds No Kill Initiative)2) Stronger laws regarding conditions dogs are to be kept in and prosecuting the pitiful animal abusers we have in our society and ensuring they are never allowed to own an animal again.3) Regulations or incentives to de-sex dogs unless owned by a registered breeder, like double the registration fee for dogs not de-sexed and perhaps the first time a puppy/dog is registered the fee could be refunded/waived on proof of de-sexing within six months as a financial incentive. There are too many irresponsible owners and backyard breeders adding to the dog population, while dogs die in pounds/shelters with no homes to go to, it's just not good enough.
  • cyclo over 4 years ago
    Substantially increasing the price of registration for non-neutered dogs seems like a pretty good incentive to get it done. Of course, this also strongly applies to cats. Non-neutered pets should only be permitted for registered breeders. As far as encouraging good ownership is concerned, unfortunately I'm of the opinion that scumbag owners will always be scumbags. Animal welfare laws in NZ are far, far too relaxed for my taste. I second the notion of a strict three strike policy for unacceptable welfare or control, after which owners have their animals removed (and hopefully re-homed) and are prohibited from owning animals for at least five years (preferably longer).
    Hide reply (1)
    • ruff123 over 4 years ago
      It makes sense to increase registration for non-neutered dogs (unless registered breeders) but I suspect most of them don't register their dogs at all. How do you penalise them if you don't know who they are?
  • conan89 over 4 years ago
    Absolutley if you have owned a dog for years they have been registed and microchipped and have never been in trouble we should have some sort of perk thrown our way
  • alison over 4 years ago
    Yes deffinately. A reduction in registration fee would be a good incentive. In =Rodney where we lived if you were a responsible dog owner, ie fenced property, neutered or spayed animal, you received a certificate which reduced your annual fee
  • WBSue over 4 years ago
    Double the fees, but introduce incentives for good owners, eg properly fenced section, properly trained dogs etc. If more than 3 complaints they should be deprived of pet ownership for 5+ years.Cats should also be included in the dog bylaws
  • jbatty over 4 years ago
    We need to make all dog owners good owners. You shouldn't have a dog without having to attend classes which would educate both the owner and the dog on how to behave in public!