Dogs Under Effective Control -DUEC

Gordon from Halswell

There is a Law that says the CCC has to protect the public from attack or bothering by dogs, in public places.
How they do that is up to individual councils, with local bylaws, the overriding factor is that dogs must be under effective control at all times DUEC and it would appear that the 3 main tools for the council in various areas are are:
1) Dogs Not Allowed at all. - DNA - Wild life reserves etc
2) Dogs allowed off the lead but must be under effective control. - DUEC - Most other large parks
3) Dogs must be on leads at all times. DOL - Parts of some parks like the Quarry.
There is little consistency between the public parks with both rules and signage, which confuses both the general public and dog owners who visit various parks.
Some areas have signs that state DUEC and then another small sign that requests dog owners to keep their dogs on leads. DOL. Certain community-minded people accost dog owners who elect to keep their dogs under control their own way yet still within the law.
So who is right and who is wrong?
The animal control officers can not take any action, if the dog is not breaking any laws and is under effective control.

My suggestion is, the requirement for having to keep your dogs on a lead is dropped from the books, so NDA and DUEC are the only two bylaws.
I hear the shouts and wails, but ask yourself, how many dog owners keep their dogs on leads because the law says they should? I have asked many people this question over the last 18 months and none have said because it was the law. Instead they want to keep their DUEC to protect their dog from road accidents, other dogs or the general public, as they are worried that their dog might bother them. DUEC
The dog owner decides what is the best way for them to keep DUEC and if the dog breaks the law, the owner should be handled the same way as DNOL are currently handled. There is no difference at all.
Summary: If a dog is bothering someone, it is not a DUEC no matter if it is on, or off the lead. So why make a lead compulsory?
This will result in dogs who are actually bothering people being reported and dogs who are not bothering people, on or off the lead, will not be reported.
That will save Animal Control from having to investigate dogs that are not physically doing anything illegal, but a passerby thinks they should be on a lead.
Taking the quarry as an example between 50-80% of people do not keep their dogs on leads in areas that are designated as 'On lead",
The CCC animal control has no major problems with dogs bothering people or other dogs at the quarry, yet most are off leads. That being the case, changing the bylaw to remove the necessity for a lead, will have little or no effect on the way the Quarry is operating, apart from dog owners can not be accosted or reported for having a dog off its lead, unless it is breaking a bothering or attacking law.
The idea is so simple and does away with having different rules for different parks and areas
I would think, I might get the odd comment.