Letter to the Editor Bylaw is barking mad

Two dog lead-holders used to be screwed to the posts outside the Eastbourne 4Square. They enabled folk to park their dogs while they pop into the shop for a few minutes. But last Monday a bloke armed with a screwdriver removed them and proudly took photos of his handiwork.

For decades, these modest pieces of hardware have contributed to positive outcomes:

Health Benefits – destination walking: taking the dog to the local shops is great motivation for an added dose of daily exercise.

Environmental benefits – by not taking the car to the local shops there is less pollution and less village traffic congestion.

Community cohesion benefits - by walking there are lots of opportunities to chat with people and new interactions when kids ask “May I pat your dog?”.

Local economy benefits – if walking the dog and shopping are ‘decoupled’, then shopping becomes a ‘get-into-the car’ exercise and, if you’re going to do that, you may as well just drive on to the big supermarkets in The Hutt.

Sadly, these benefits are now in jeopardy. And it is not the fault of the 4Square store.

It is the doing of our local authority, the Hutt City Council, dusting off an old bylaw that dogs should not be left unattended in such a public place.

But have the local body officials and enforcers really thought this through? Is HCC looking at the bigger picture: the resulting balance of pros and cons?

Not only are there negative unintended consequences, as listed above, but it is also a textbook example of applying inconsistent policies.

Consider these two recent real life scenarios:

A group of youths (likely with a history of non-self-regulated aggression issues) intimidated and may have mugged fellow travellers on a Lower Hutt bus. What happened? Has the HCC been irrationally biased to give comfort to the many citizens who are now, understandably, wary of groups of youths? Has the HCC created a by-law prohibiting ALL unsupervised youths from traveling on buses? Of course not , because this would unjustly penalise well-behaved and considerate young people who use public transport in Hutt City.

A singular unattended dog (likely already known to have untrainable aggression issues) recently bit somebody in the vicinity of the shop. What happened? “HCC must be seen to ‘do something’” “Let’s be irrationally biased to appease some voters who might be wary of dogs” “Let’s take a sledgehammer and make life more difficult for ALL dog owners”.

With Scenario 1, no doubt the HCC and the police have dealt with the specific incident and the specific offenders.

With Scenario 2, the same principle should apply: deal specifically with out-of-control dogs and their owners. Do not introduce a blanket response blunt instrument that punishes the innocent.

So how can we move forward? Is there a solution to keep everyone content – (or at least find a solution that results in all parties having a tolerable level of dissatisfaction!)

For over twenty years we have enjoyed this feature of Eastbourne’s lifestyle: owning dogs and have taken them for walks which very often end up at the 4Square for us to do our daily grocery shopping.

Our pooches have been parked on the lead-holders without incident - other than lots of friendly pats from passers-by. How can we continue this happy lifestyle ?

We advocate relocating the dog leadholders to a new doggy parking area on the north wall of the shop - just around the corner and next to the car park.

As this area can get very hot, perhaps a nice little lean-to shade? ... and a water bowl?