The Gore District Council is reviewing its dog control bylaw after being first adopted in 2013.
The policy, first adopted in 2013, is under review.
Eight submissions from the community guided discussion on the bylaw at last Tuesday’s council meeting.
For dog owners in West Gore, the majority of parks and reserves are not dog- friendly or require a tether, meaning a trip to Hamilton Park in East Gore is the only chance to run dogs off the leash.
Two options were on the table, with either the council removing restrictions on one or more parks or reserves to allow dogs, or not changing anything to allow more investigation into suitable areas.
Cr Keith Hovell said owners had a legal responsibility to provide exercise and recreation for their dogs and the prohibition of areas in West Gore was inhibiting this.
"The plan shows West Gore is a disadvantaged area. The policy says classification of public places should provide sufficient areas to meet exercise needs.
"Clearly it’s not sufficient, in terms of our own policy," he said.
Cr Paul McPhail agreed with this, and said dog owners have a right to know why parks they pay rates for do not allow them in.
"Ratepayers are paying considerable money for these to be maintained and can’t bring their dogs in there.
"I think we need some answers as to what regulations there are and why, and I think we need to do something about it," he said.
Councillors voted for further exploration of the issue by council workers.
The idea of a dog park was floated, but the council would not be exploring the option at this time.
Next on the agenda was dog poop, with either the option to increase enforcement for negligent owners leaving excrement around, or continuing with the educational approach.
Cr Glenys Dickson said this was a major issue in the town, which needed to be addressed before she would consider more dog friendly areas in Gore.
"Obviously [the educational approach] is not working," Cr Dickson said.
"I don’t know what else we can do.
"Everywhere you walk there’s dog excrement on the path, in the shrubs; it’s not good enough."
"There are irresponsible dog owners causing issues for people who are responsible, [which is] another reason I wouldn’t like to see dogs in reserves," Cr Dickson said.
Cr Richard McPhail supported this and said even with bags around dog walking areas for people to pick up after themselves, it was still a problem.
"[We can have] enforcement by compliance, or compliance by enforcement. We’re handing it to them and we still have people leaving dog poop around," he said.
Council would need to employ more staff, so enforcement was always available, which councillors agreed was unnecessary.
Mayor Ben Bell suggested signs with enforcement options be installed, councillors agreed to continue the educational approach.
The council would continue to not require the desexing of unclaimed dogs while instructing staff to investigate how other councils handle the issue.
In terms of the dog tethering, it was agreed to reference the coming legislation in the bylaw and include dog owner education package.
The definition of the word "owner" will also be edited in the policy.
Cr Hovell put out an amendment for the policy to examine prohibited areas for dogs such as schools or reserves, wanting these to be investigated and amended, which was seconded by Cr Paul McPhail.
