Two Weeks ago, when I was searching for information about the insufficient policies and their related impacts, this news showed up: “Plan to raise dog registration fee angers owners" from The Marlborough Express. This is just the topic of one of my old English assignments, and this assignment is about discussing an argument between two groups. In this essay, I chose the argument between local government and the community over the dog microchipping issue.
This news reminded me that, apart from transport, environment, education and economic development issues, there are lots of other issues that troubled communities as well. Dog control issue is always one of the issues that are deeply concerned by the communities, and is raised by local governments as a serious issue that needs to be solved by establishing particular policies. Unfortunately, we planning students do not have much knowledge about it. I think this essay is a good example to show people that what is a dog control policy like and how an insufficient policy can affect the community. It might be a bit of long, please have patience and take your time to read it. The content of my essay is:
In 2009, the Marlborough District Council (MDC) increased dog registration fees, but gave a price cut of $24 for “good owners” who have microchipped and neutered their pets. This new policy caused dissatisfactions from hundreds of dog owners with older dogs; they thought it was unfair for them to pay a higher fee of $72 just because they did not microchip their old dogs (Young, 2009). As the Dog Control Amendment Act 2003 states that, all dogs registered on or after 1 July 2006 (except working farm dogs) are required to be microchipped. Most of these people’s dogs were much older than the age of the microchipping policy and have never been microchipped before. Does this mean they are not “good owners” and have to pay higher fees? Based on MDC standards (MDC, 2010), non- working dogs are divided into two categories. Category one includes dogs that have been neutered and microchipped and have not been classified as dangerous or menacing. And their owners have not been disqualified or classified as probationary or have not been prosecuted or received an infringement for a dog control offence. Category two dogs are any non-working dog that does not meet the criteria for a Category one. From July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2010, the MDC set the registration fees for Category one dogs at $48 and for Category two at $72. MDC states there are two ways for dog owners to reduce annual dog registration fee and to be a responsible dog owner. These ways are: pay on time, neuter and, microchip their dogs. The homepage also shows that the penalties for dog owners who have failed to have their dog microchipped can be a fine of up to 1000 dollars.
The increase of dog registration fee for some dog owners can be seen as a covert method of forcing dog owners to microchip their dogs. As the Department of Internal Affair states (2007) that dog microchipping is an essential way to identify a dog which has been aggressive and classified as dangerous or menacing, and it is especially important if a dog owner attempts to disguise the dog's identity. It can be regarded as the main reason that the Parliament passed the bill for compulsory microchipping of dogs in 2003. Based on this point, the intention of MDC’s policy making about dog registration fee is good. Dog owners have to microchip their dogs in order to get a reduction of registration fee; therefore more dogs are registered in national dog database. To some extent, this new policy improves dog control and enhances public safety. However, it does not meet everyone’s needs; interests of dog owners with older dogs, which have never been microchipped are neglected.
In an interview of Rachel Young (The Marlborough Express, 2009), Dog owner Anita Baucke commented that being a long-time responsible dog owner should make her eligible for a reduction in fees. Mrs Baucke said there should be exceptions for dogs like her 13 years old fox terrier pet Tina that were de sexed and had never been in trouble with dog control. She said she would not mind microchipping Tina if the pet was young, and she was afraid that Tina was too old to get microchip: “At her age, I don’t know if she will be alive next year.” As the Dog Control Amendment Act 2003 section 36A clearly defines, only dogs first registered on or after 1 July 2006 (except working farm dogs) and dogs classified as dangerous or menacing since 1 December 2003 are required to be microchipped. So why are dogs like Tina who is born before 2006 and have never been classified as dangerous or menacing should be microchipped? And why their dog owners cannot get a reduction as those “good owner” who have microchipped and neutered their pets.
Cheryl Jones, a woman from Picton was facing a similar problem like Mrs Baucke. She had signed a caveat describing her situation that her two microchipped bulldogs were naturally infertile. However, she still had to pay a higher registration fee because her pets were not neutered. She had already talked to the Council, but the Council members had informed her that they could do nothing about her case. Worse, as one of dog owners who have more than one dog in Marlborough, Ms Jones had to pay double for her two pets. “It really is over the top, what they’re charging”, she said to the reporter (Young, 2009).
Increase of dog registration fee has become one of the important issues of this argument. The latest dog registration fee from 2010 to 2011 is now available on the WDC homepage. Registration fee of non-working dog Category one is increased to $57 and Category two is raised to $86. The discount for dogs that has been microchipped and neutered is retained. Many dog owners with older dogs claimed that they could not afford this increasing payment anymore.
Dog owners Mike Stonely and David Lloyd told the Marlborough Express reporter that they thought the $14 rise was unfair and unreasonable. They argued that the increased registration fee equated to more than eight times the rate of inflation, which is opposite to MDC finance and information supervisor David Craig’s claims that fee revenues would fall by about $80,000 if dog fees were not addressed, at a public submission hearing on the council’s $110 million draft annual plan on 1st June, 2010. Mr Stonely used calculations from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand to support his opinion; taking inflation into account, if the non-working dog registration fee was $72 in 2006-2007, it should be $ 73 in 2010. Mr Stonely said it was unfair to reduce the fee for microchipped and neutered dogs, introduced in June 2009, whilst older- dog owners like him who have never microchipped their dogs were paying “the lion’s share”. He told the hearing that the registration fee was getting too expensive and there were already a lot of irate ratepayers in the dog owner community of Marlborough (Connell, 2010). If the Council does not take any action, for example, extend the categories of registration fee, but keep increasing the proposed fee, the whole situation will get worse.
Disapprovals of dog owners with older dogs reflect the unfeasibility of MDC’S new dog registration policy; the categories of non-working dogs are quite limited and the discount for microchipped and neutered dogs is unfair. When making change to the registration fee, policy maker of MDC should take into account of interests of dog owners who have problems with present dog categories. For making the dog registration policy more complete and effective, MDC should extend a new category for dogs which do not meet the criteria of Category one and for particular reasons cannot be placed in category two. Older dogs which have never been microchipped and dogs which cannot breed naturally will be put in this new category. Dogs which have at least one of these special features and have never been in trouble with dog control should be included in this category as well. Considering the financial pressure of these dog owners, the Council should set the registration fee for this category at an appropriate rate.
Reduction for “good owners” who have microchipped and neutered their dogs is unfair for those who did not microchip or neuter their dogs while being long time responsible dog owners. Good ownership should not simply be based on factors such as micropping and neutering. MDC’s action of reducing the registration fee is against the regulation of Dog Control Act about microchipping after 2007. If a dog owner can have a discount just because he or she had microchipped and neutered his or her pet, then dog owner who has well-behaved older dogs which have not been microchipped should also get a reduction for registration fee, or this discount policy should be cancelled.
In conclusion the intention of MDC to increase dog registration fee is a good idea. However, it does not accommodate for all owners of dogs especially for older dog owners who do not have need to microchip or neuter their dogs. Instead I propose more categories should be made to accommodate these owners or alternatively, receive the same reduction as the owners who neuter and microchip their younger dogs.
References
