A proposal to allow dogs in Dunedin's CBD was narrowly defeated at a Dunedin City Council meeting.
The plan to run a 12-month trial in the CBD was the only contentious issue raised at yesterday's council meeting, where councillors agreed to the other changes made to Dunedin's dog control policy by a hearings committee of chairman Cr Neville Peat and Crs Mike Lord and Doug Hall.
This meant dogs would continue to be allowed off leash on non-marked areas of council sports fields, which was the key area of concern from submitters when staff originally proposed that right be removed.
Councillors also voted for a staff review of how the council manages public nuisance caused by stray and feral cats.
Crs Richard Thomson and David Benson-Pope were the most vocal opponents of introducing a 12-month trial allowing dogs in the CBD.
Cr Thomson pointed to his experience as a main street retailer in the days when dogs were allowed in the area.
It did not work then and he did not believe it was a good idea now.
"It's about gagging while you are trying to clean up a particularly revolting dog turd outside your shop.
"It's about the hairdresser next door carting out buckets of soapy hot water and a scrubbing brush to clean up first thing in the morning so it doesn't end up inside her shop,'' Cr Thomson said.
The majority of people who brought their dogs to town were not good owners and were instead young men showing off "their muscle dogs''.
The panel had got it right on the other proposals but he questioned their expertise when it came to the CBD.
"With respect to understanding shopping, I'm just not sure that the retailers of George [St] salivate with excitement when the names Hall, Peat and Lord come up in conversation.
"Mike taking his dog shopping involves putting it on the back of the ute when he goes to Wrightson's.''
Cr Benson-Pope said relying on 138 people who made submissions on the city's dog control policy was not a good basis for making a decision that affected so many people.
He questioned whether the people, including central city business owners, most affected by the change "had any idea'' about the proposed trial.
Other councillors raised concerns about how the trial's success or otherwise would be assessed.
Cr Lord backed the panel's recommendation for a trial.
"We sat on this in good faith. If you don't like what we do, or don't think we are capable, by all means have a crack.''
In reply to Cr Benson-Pope, he said the council had made decisions based on fewer submissions in the past, including divesting from fossil-fuel investments.
Cr Hall said a lot of submitters wanted to take their dogs with them when they sat outside at cafes and bars in the CBD and he thought it was a "good idea''.
Cr Hilary Calvert said it was "disrespectful and particularly undemocratic'' to disregard the work done by the hearings panel and not approve a trial.
When it came to a vote, councillors were evenly split on whether there should be a trial, and Mayor Dave Cull's casting vote proved to be the difference.
Speaking about the overall changes, Cr Peat repeated comments made last week in stressing that the easing of restrictions for dog owners came with an expectation of increased responsibility by them.
He earlier repeated some of the concerns expressed by Cr Jinty MacTavish about problems caused by stray and feral cats and the limitations on what councils could do about it.
"I wish there was a cat control Act, but there isn't,'' he said.
Public momentum, as was evidenced by submissions on the dog control bylaw, was shifting towards introducing more controls on cats.
"I think the day will come when there are some serious controls on cats, because in a city that calls itself the wildlife capital of New Zealand, we have some real issues.''
In response to questions from Cr MacTavish, council civic and legal manager Kristy Rusher said the lack of powers given to councils when it came to controlling cats would make it difficult for it to enforce their microchipping.
