Hi Dave. I have just caught up with this blog. I am a responsible dog owner, period. I look after my dog. I take my dog to the doctor when it is sick, I feed it, I clothe it and yes i walk it with poo bags at the ready. I do not agree with being fined $300.00 fo not having a dog waste bag with me. I do not agree with the fine being imposed on people responsible or otherwise. I have other reasons for saying this and tkaing this stance which I am not going to attempt in this forum.

The best thing to do is to teach your dog to shit in the bush... get him to park his bum right up, and have a dump there.

Some people might object to teaching a dog a place to crap, but think of it like this... if you forgot your bag, or if you dog did more than one crap on his walk, wouldn't you rather the dog did his crap in the bush. Sight unseen. better than ducks!

John F. #12:

That's great that you back the idea of the council spending an estimate $100,000.00 - some which is mine - on a blimmin destination park for dogs.

I was a dog owner, and think some dogs are great however, I believe spending that much money (during this unfortunate global financial "crisis", recession, if you will)on pet dogs is absolutely absurd. Dogs are not desperate for a holiday-themed destination.

And as for my suggestion for playgrounds, I was giving an example for more of a constructive benefit for humans - not pet dogs.

@Libbie: "If the council and dog owners want a doggy destination park they should fund it themselves. General rates should be used for general people - such as playgrounds for children,"

Why not also say: "If parents want playgrounds, they should fund it themselves, and not dip into funds set aside for general maintaining of the city/town." I'm not a dog owner, but I have no problem with the council spending money on them. I get the benefits of other facilities that dog owners, perhaps, do not use.

John Niland is quoted in the article: "I don't think it is realistic to charge people $300 to obey the law." It's not $300 to obey the law !! It's $300 for breaking the law!

Dog owners have had enough of being lumped into one bin. Our little dog creates less 'waste' than the dozens of cats that roam the neighbourhood, crapping on our lawn and gardens.

In parts of AUZ you aren't allowed to let your cat roam either. Me thinks I'll be setting gin traps if they don't bring that in here soon.

I agree that people should be cleaning up after their dogs but surely $300 is excessive? Isn't that in line with fines for driving a car with no WOF, driving unsafely etc, which is certainly a more serious act breaking the law. People are getting community service for fraud, and they expect dog owners to cough up $300 if they happen to be caught short without a bag? Seems a bit extreme. Surely a fine of $40 or something in line with a parking ticket would be more suitable, in my opinion

I was puppy-sitting for my brother one weekend and took the dog for a walk - my mistake was only carrying ONE bag.. for some reason she decided to go on a pooping spree which ended up with me finding VERY creative ways of picking up and disposing of the doggy-doo... I now have my own dog and take a bunch of little bags with me - it's really not hard to pick up the poop - kinda gross at times but but still... you wouldn't leave your baby in dirty nappies would you?

Good to see some actual consequences for people not taking responsibility for their dog's mess. But a 12 month settling period? Surely that's too long - why not only 3 months? And at a time when retail businesses are facing pressure to ditch plastic bags, I assume the council poo bags will be fully biodegradable?

Ducks and pigeons can make a huge mess everywhere as well, and people feeding them in public places (normally these are the places that everyone enjoys spending time at) only concentrates the mess there.

And why did these two just get hidden in the "other changes" at the bottom of the article? - Only three dogs to be allowed at one property - what about those who already have 4 dogs? What about an owner whose one dog has a litter of puppies? - Owners to face an exam to be registered as Responsible Dog Owners - who pays for this? Will it just be another micro-chipping mess where the people who the rule is targetting will never bother with it? What benefit do people get from being a registered responsible dog owner?

As a dog owner, I already thought it was a $200 for not cleaning it up.... must have been in Dunedin. So im happy with the fine ... nothing worse than someone leaving it on the footpath. My problem is the bollocks statement of increasing the number of exercise areas from 55 to 60. Realistically more than half of these current areas are far to small to be counted as an exercise area. The council should be honest and say that there is currently 20 (at the most) useful exercise areas. And even then I was surprised moving here and finding that there weren't any fully fenced areas with agility equipment ... the council is only 6 years behind on that idea