Operation Snoop Dog a failure

Avonside resident and dog owner Jenny Bennett thought there was a piece of rubbish lodged under a shrub in her garden. Instead, she picked up a beige box, stumbling into the murky world of canine espionage and one of the more ludicrous stories of the year to date.

This is the strange case of the dogs and the council, which we will call Operation Snoop Dog for now.

The Christchurch City Council has admitted placing bugging equipment without consent inside the Bennetts’ property, in an attempt to get a lead on their barking dogs, and has now apologised. The Bennetts – who hold ‘‘responsible dog owner’’ status with the council – have accepted the apology and are waiting to hear from their lawyer about whether to take legal action against the council for the breach of privacy.

While this puts the council in a tight spot, it is clearly not going to let go of its investigation easily. After saying sorry, it asked the Bennetts if they would mind the listening device going back on their property again, less covertly this time, which they have agreed to. In fact, Jenny Bennett said they would have agreed to it the first time too, if they had been asked.

It all comes down to barking. Four-year-old schnauzer Arthur’s vocal expressions were the target of a complaint eight months back. The Bennetts say they tried everything suggested by dog control staff to prevent him barking and found him a friend for company, 6-month-old bitzer Jeb. More recently they put gates up in an attempt to stop Arthur and Jeb barking when people walked by.

The surveillance device Jenny Bennett found contained batteries, a microphone and a recording device. Council regulatory compliance head Tracey Weston assured her the council’s policy was to ignore anything they heard on the recording other than barking. This was the only unit placed without consent, Weston said.

Clearly, and much to the relief of all ratepayers, it is good to know council staff make lousy spies. The first mistake was installing the unit without permission. For a covert action, the box’s concealment, below a bush, left a bit to be desired.

Human rights lawyer Michael Bott has taken a very dim view of the council’s actions, calling them ‘‘outrageous’’, ‘‘disproportionate’’ and a clear breach of the Bennetts’ privacy. It was, he said, the sort of behaviour you might expect from the GCSB – presumably referring in this instance to the Growling Canines Security Bureau.

This certainly seems like rough justice for the Bennetts. By all accounts they are not irresponsible dog owners, keenly following the suggestions of the dog control officers and accepting the installation of the listening device even after the council’s intrusion.

Everyone knows how annoying a relentlessly barking dog can be. Recording its distress or boredom is not a bad idea because often dog owners are unaware how vocal their pets are. When they get home, the barking stops.

We are lucky to have a council that is generally dog friendly and has overseen the provision of a network of dog parks across the city. Obviously in this case the council took its watchdog role too zealously.