On May 25, two Animal Services officers visited the 27-year-old Tauranga woman after a neighbourhood barking survey.<\/p>\n
She received a letter with the results that included three confirmations that her dogs were an apparent nuisance.<\/p>\n
She said she had also received a couple of barking complaint letters and phone calls from the council asking her to take steps to minimise the barking. <\/p>\n
\u201cI have continuously lost sleep over this whole saga,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI went door-knocking to at least four neighbours\u2019 houses on my street to ask in person what they thought of my dogs\u2019 issues.\u201d<\/p>\n
She said she accepted some suggestions and made some changes, including blocking off part of her deck and tethering the dogs to a lower part of the yard.<\/p>\n
However, on June 5, she received a council abatement notice stating her dogs were to wear anti-barking collars 24\/7, or she would face fines ranging from $300 to $1500.<\/p>\n
The abatement notice said the council had investigated a complaint involving Zeus and Karma.<\/p>\n
The council surveyed 15 residents in the area and three indicated a nuisance caused by \u201cloud and persistent barking\u201d.<\/p>\n
The notice said the officer had reasonable grounds to believe Zeus and Karma were causing a nuisance.<\/p>\n
It said Castledine must \u201cobtain and use a functioning anti-barking collar\u201d.<\/p>\n
Shontelle Castledine is required to place anti-barking collars on her dogs Karma (left) Zeus. <\/p>\n
She should also consider other options to reduce the barking, including keeping the dogs indoors, providing exercise before separation, seeing an animal behaviourist, and medication.<\/p>\n
The notice said if any further complaints were made, a new notice would be issued with more requirements.<\/p>\n
If the council had reasonable grounds to believe the nuisance was continuing to cause distress to any person, a dog control officer could remove and impound the dog or require them to be removed from the property, it said. <\/p>\n
Castledine could make an objection within seven days, which would go to a regulatory hearings panel.<\/p>\n
Castledine said she submitted an objection the day she received the notice and bought two anti-barking collars.<\/p>\n
Zeus with his anti-bark collar.<\/p>\n
A panel would consider her objection on July 20. <\/p>\n
Castledine said she feared the new collars, which vibrated when the dog barked, would harm the dogs.<\/p>\n
She said Zeus had \u201cnearly died of asphyxiation due to a collar freak incident\u201d in April. She was terrified something would happen again when she was not home.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe dogs were playing as normal inside, and Karma\u2019s large tooth got accidentally hooked on Zeus\u2019s collar, and as they each tried twisting and pulling away the collar got twisted and tightened around Zeus\u2019 neck, in panic and survival mode trying to wriggle free.<\/p>\n
\u201cI witnessed Zeus before my eyes very nearly choke to death due to having a collar on and [being] hooked in play time.\u201d<\/p>\n
She hoped the council would reconsider the abatement notice as she had taken steps to reduce barking.<\/p>\n
Tauranga City Council regulatory and community services general manager Sarah Omundsen. Photo \/ Alex Cairns<\/p>\n
Omundsen said the council did not specify the type of anti-bark collar that must be used, only that it was fitted and functioning.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe anti-bark collar sold by council includes a vibration function and is bark-activated.\u201d<\/p>\n
It was designed to discourage ongoing excessive barking rather than the odd bark.<\/p>\n
Omundsen said multiple complainants independently reported persistent barking from the property.<\/p>\n
Animal Services tried to work with Castledine before taking action; however, the barking continued, Omundsen said. <\/p>\n
The abatement notice was issued under Section 55 of the Dog Control Act, which allows the council to instruct the owner of a nuisance barking dog \u201cto make such reasonable provision on the property to abate the nuisance\u201d.<\/p>\n
Anti-bark collars in NZ<\/p>\n
The welfare code for dogs is administered by the Ministry of Primary Industries under the Animal Welfare Act.<\/p>\n
The code said electronic behaviour-modifying collars should only be used when other training methods fail.<\/p>\n
It describes them as \u201cpunishment-based devices\u201d that supply an \u201cinstant noxious stimulus for an unwanted behaviour\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is contrary to the philosophy of most animal behaviourists, who recommend reward-based training methods.<\/p>\n
\u201cElectronic training devices can be harmful if misused, but used carefully they can be very effective against unwanted behaviours.\u201d<\/p>\n
Use must not cause the dog unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress, and the collars should not be left on unsupervised dogs because a malfunction could cause serious harm, the code said.<\/p>\n
It specifies that bark-activated collars should only be used as a \u201clast resort in cases of a dog barking excessively in its own territory\u201d. <\/p>\n
Citronella spray varieties were \u201cpreferred\u201d over those delivering an electric shock.<\/p>\n
The SPCA and New Zealand Veterinary Association oppose anti-bark collars being used.<\/p>\n
\u2013 LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.<\/p>\n