This requires the owner to provide safe access to their property, muzzle the dog in public, neuter the dog, increase registration fees and council consent to transfer ownership to another person. Please be advised that your dog, Meisha, has been classified as a menacing dog under section 33A of the Control of Dogs Act 1996. Observed or reported dog behavior On 4th September 2018 your dog attacked a person.
A summary of the effect of the classification and your right to object is available on the next page. If a dog is classified as a dangerous dog under section 33A or section 33C, the owner of the dog—. In addition, if you do not comply with the above requirements, a dog control officer or dog warden may seize and remove the dog from your property and retain custody of the dog until Tasman District Council reasonably believes that you will comply with these requirements.
You have the right to be heard in support of your objection and you will be notified of the date, time and place at which your objection will be heard. Full details of the effect of being classified as a menacing dog can be found in the Dog Control Act 1996. The effect of a menacing classification is that the dog's owner must not allow the dog to roam freely in a public place or in a private space. manner, except when completely confined in a vehicle or cage, without being muzzled in such a way that the dog cannot bite but can breathe and drink without restriction.
The nature of the incidents and the owner's unwillingness/reluctance to adequately control the dog led to a decision to classify the dog as threatening.
Upholds the menacing classification for the dog Tylly owned by Valentina Pembeci; or
Rescinds the menacing classification for the dog Tylly owned by Valentina Pembeci
The complainant was walking on the beach near Rototai Reserve when a black and white dog lunged at the complainant and grabbed her by the shirt (elbow area). The owner of the van the dog came from spoke to the complainant. The owner was later identified as Mr. Lewis Toki and the dog as Tylly. The appellant was walking on the beach near the Rototai Reserve. Appellant observed a van parked in the back lot, a black and white dog came from the van and aggressively lunged at Appellant and. The dog was later identified as Tylly. 4.3 The testimony of the complainants is not controversial. 4.4 Tylly had recently given birth and would have been protective of her cubs. The dog owner displayed a level of recklessness by not properly restraining and controlling Tylly in a public area. 4.5 After reviewing the statements of the two complainants and Mrs. Pembeci, staff believe that Tylly poses a threat to the general public and that requiring a muzzle would mitigate that threat. Therefore, the decision has been made to classify Tylly as one. 5.1 In considering the objection, the Subcommittee may uphold or cancel the classification. DCA indicates that the following should be considered:. 33B Objection to classification of dog under section 33A. (1) If a dog is classified under section 33A as a menacing dog, the owner—. a) within 14 days of receiving the classification notification, may object in writing to the territorial authority regarding the classification; and. b) has the right to be heard in support of the objection. 2) The territorial authority considering an objection under subsection (1) may uphold or cancel the classification, and in making its determination shall have regard to—. a) the evidence that formed the basis for the classification; and.
Upholds the menacing classification for the dog Luna owned by Lewis Toki;
Rescinds the menacing classification for the dog Luna owned by Lewis Toki
Revokes the threatened classification for the dog Luna, owned by Lewis Toki. Tasman District Council Animal Control Subcommittee Agenda - March 3, 2020. 3.1 Explain the process and reasoning behind imposing the 'Threatened' classification on the dog and enable the panel to decide whether this is the appropriate classification in the circumstances. 4.1 Dog Attack on Livestock Incident - 5:00 PM on November 6, 2019 at 1890 Takaka Valley Highway Luna, while at large and not under control, attacked and injured two of the complainant's goats. 4.2 The goats required veterinary attention and Mr Toki's partner, Valentina Pembeci, paid the associated fees. 4.3 The complainant's evidence is not in dispute. 4.4 After reviewing the evidence, staff believe that Luna poses a threat to livestock, domestic animals and protected wildlife and that the requirement to wear a muzzle could mitigate this threat. It has therefore been decided to classify Luna as a threatening dog. 5.1 When assessing the objection, the Subcommittee may maintain or withdraw the classification. The DCA indicates that the following should be taken into account: 33B Objection to classification of dogs under section 33A. (1) If a dog is classified as a threatening dog under section 33A, the owner shall… (a) may within 14 days of receiving notice of the classification make a written objection to the territorial authority in respect of the classification; And. b) has the right to be heard in support of the objection. (2) The territorial authority considering an objection under subsection (1) may maintain or withdraw the classification and, in making its decision, must take into account:. (a) the evidence that formed the basis for the classification; And. b) any measures taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of persons or animals; And. c) the data on which the objection is based; and (d) all other relevant matters. 3 6.3 Imposing an infringement notice and threatened classification is the least punitive measure available to the Council.
6.3 The imposition of an infringement notice and menacing classification is the least punitive action available to Council
Tasman District Council Animal Control Subcommittee Agenda – March 3 Imposing an infringement notice and threatened classification is the least punitive measure available to the Council. Tasman District Council Animal Control Subcommittee Agenda – March 3, 2020. 8.5 The hearing panel will go into committee and make a decision. 8.6 Mr Toki will be informed of the panel's decision. 9.1 Dogs that attack ordinary people are considered to have committed a serious offense under the DCA. The punitive options available to the Council in this case are set out in section 7 above. 9.2 Failure to take action in such circumstances would be extremely unusual and would need to be justified by some form of mitigating circumstance. No situation was found. 9.3 After the panel has made a decision, it must, as soon as practicable, notify the owner in writing of: a) the determination of the objection; and (b) the reasons for its determination. By upholding the threatened classification, the Council will take the necessary action to significantly reduce the chance of Luna becoming involved in future damage to livestock. If the classification is withdrawn, it would be very difficult to consistently tackle future dog attacks of a similar nature.
It would also pose a significant reputational risk to the Council if Luna were to be involved in a similar incident again.
