COUNCIL TIGHTENS LEASH ON UNREGISTERED DOGS
THE number of unregistered dogs on the Gold Coast has exploded to 30,000 – and owners are about to cop it.
Gold Coast City Council wants to double the fines for nonregistration to $267 after it discovered almost one in every three dogs is not properly certified.
It has led to a spike in attacks and costing ratepayers millions in lost revenue. A standard fee for annual dog registration is $122 but pensioners pay $61.
Council is receiving on average 10 complaints a day about dogs, which consumes resources, while complaints of dog attacks and aggression had increased by about 12 per cent since 2013.
THE number of unregistered dogs on the Gold Coast has exploded to 30,000 – and owners are about to cop it.
Gold Coast City Council wants to double the fines for unregistration to $267 after it discovered almost one in every three dogs is not properly certified.
It has led to a spike in attacks and costing ratepayers millions in lost revenue. A standard fee for annual dog registration is $122 but pensioners pay $61. The council is receiving on average 10 complaints a day about dogs consuming resources.
A report to the council on a review of animal management laws reveals complaints of dog attacks and aggression have increased by about 12 per cent since 2013.
The city’s population has increased from 540,687 to 606,744 in that period, boosting dog numbers while the council’s surveillance in the previous administration had failed to keep up.
“It is estimated that despite annual surveys and reminders, there potentially remains some 30,000 unregistered dogs in the city,” the report said.
Council data shows the Coast has an estimated 106,778 dogs, of which 60,000 were registered – second to Brisbane with just more than 200,000 dogs.
Operational intelligence to the council suggests owners face financial problems, while many live in gated communities and take the risk that enforcement officers will not enter.
Lifestyle and community committee chair Hermann Vorster, who sparked the investigation, has welcomed the findings which recommend a doubling of fines to stop the noncompliance.
“It’s an escalating problem that’s of serious and dire concern to residents because it’s not just about nuisance. It can be a matter of life and limb,” Mr Vorster told the Bulletin.
Officers admit the reasons for dog attacks are complex.
“But it has been established the dog not being under effective control, breed types and level of social orientation all play significant roles,” they said.
The existing state laws were limited which prompted councillors to recommend Mayor Tom Tate write to the Government asking for the council to set penalties in its own jurisdiction.
But the Government told the council “due to the nature of these offences, a magistrate should consider the appropriate offences on a case-bycase”. The council is to consult dog owners on a new raft of penalties, including increasing fines for noncompliance from $133 to $267. Rather than just be served a noncompliance notice for a dog that continues to bark, owners could face an automatic penalty of $267 with the officer making the decision on the spot.
“Any revenue from enforcement should be reinvested into enforcement,” Cr Vorster said, aware that the council had to pay for police to attend some incidents.
“There used to be a program of doorknocking (in the previous term of council),” Cr Vorster said.