The only man in the past decade to be prosecuted by the Dunedin City Council for not controlling his dog told councillors he felt he was paying for "bucking up against animal control".
Mario and Katie Tucholski have been involved in a protracted battle with the council's animal control team over Mr Tucholski's now 6-year-old German shepherd, Kaiser, for several years.
This week, the council hearings committee heard the couple's appeal against a three-year disqualification from owning a dog, imposed on Mr Tucholski after he was convicted for allowing Kaiser to jump up against a car at Blackhead Beach, to bark at a dog inside, scratching the car's paintwork.
The couple are also appealing the dog's consequent classification as dangerous.
After the incident, the council seized Kaiser (the court has since allowed him to be returned to the couple while the appeal is sorted) and charged Mr Tucholski with three charges under the Dog Control Act.
The prosecution followed a previous history of Kaiser biting a person and attacking another dog, after which he was classified as menacing, reflecting the need to act to prevent any future incidents, the council said.
Mr Tucholski said official information showed it was the first prosecution animal control had taken in 10 years and only the second disqualification, and wondered why that was the case when far more serious incidences had been reported to animal control.
Two of the charges against him were dismissed in the Dunedin District Court, and Mr Tucholski last month pleaded guilty to an amended third charge of allowing Kaiser to rush at a Labrador dog that was inside a vehicle in a manner that caused the vehicle to be damaged.
Mr Tucholski started the hearing by pointing out that animal control had issued the disqualification and reclassification notices based on a charge against him the court actually dismissed, which, he said, was another example of the team's "repeated incompetence" in dealing with his case.
Cr Weatherall assured those matters had not gone unnoticed and would be dealt with in the committee's decision, and the hearing continued with an agreement the notices would be corrected.
Mr Tucholski said he was appealing because animal control issued a period of disqualification far more serious than the incident warranted.
They also issued a dangerous dog classification, when more severe incidents in the past had not resulted in the same.
He provided a list of more than 100 complaints received by animal control that included recidivist offending and incidents where dogs had repeatedly bitten people and attacked other animals - incidents he considered more serious than what Kaiser did, yet none had resulted in prosecution, he said.
Only one other person had been disqualified from ownership and that was for two years after three infringements within a two-year period.
"[That] shows a lack of consistency in animal control's enforcement of the Dog Control Act."
In response to a question from the committee, animal control team leader Roz MacGill said penalties were considered on a case by case basis, with all circumstances taken into account.
The couple sought a reduction to 10 months' disqualification, which, if granted, would already be served and they could keep the dog.
If the committee were to uphold the three-year disqualification, Mr Tucholski said he had no-one to give Kaiser to and, as he believed he was the only person who could control the dog, the dog would have to be put down.
Perhaps disqualification was animal control's "underhanded" way of achieving that in lieu of success in court, he said.
"My experience is that when you buck up against animal control, they just come back harder at you."
Afterwards, Mr Tucholski said he felt animal control's actions were the result of a personality clash between him and animal control staff that had been taken to the extreme.
He admitted becoming "furious" in conversations with animal control staff, but said he felt they had acted unprofessionally.
The committee of Crs Weatherall, Andrew Noone and Paul Hudson will issue its decision in due course.
