Site Content
What actually defines a “nuisance” in public?
What actually defines a “nuisance” in public?
Christchurch Dog Control Bylaw 2025
There’s a growing misconception that multiple dogs being visible in public automatically equals a nuisance. That’s not how nuisance is defined.
A nuisance is about impact, behaviour, and management — not numbers or visibility.
Everything in life carries risk. Crowded markets, cycling groups, fun runs, festivals — none are risk-free. What matters is how risk is managed, especially regarding canine welfare.
Christchurch regularly manages large public activities such as:
• Coca-Cola Christmas in the Park
• Christchurch Marathon
• Cycling pelotons, markets, and community events
These aren’t considered nuisances because of size — they’re managed through planning, oversight, and clear expectations, similar to the dog walking standards enforced in the community.
Dogs are no different.
A nuisance arises when there is:
• Loss of effective control
• Poor supervision or risk management
• Genuine interference with others
It does not arise when dogs are calm, responsive, and under effective control or simply being in “eye sight.”
Risk does-Not 🟰 danger. Poor risk management does.
Public spaces are shared. Fair, evidence-based enforcement depends on management — not assumptions.
⸻
Disclaimer:
This post is for public education and general comparison only. References to events or activities are not intended to criticise, endorse, or single out any person, business, or organisation. Examples are used solely to illustrate shared-space risk management principles.
Bylaw
Why council’s current dog limit framework does not align
christchurch city council already recognises that walking multiple dogs is a safety and risk assessment issue, not simply a numbers issue. this is evident in the criteria used when considering exemptions beyond the standard four-dog limit.
current assessment considerations include:
• handler experience and competency
• knowledge of dog behaviour and body language
• ability to manage group dynamics and compatibility
• risk management and incident response systems
• public safety in shared spaces
• welfare outcomes for the dogs
however, despite recognising these factors as essential to safety, any person may still walk up to four dogs without any assessment at all, regardless of experience, accountability, or behavioural knowledge.
this is where the framework stops aligning.
if managing multiple dogs genuinely requires judgement, skill, and risk assessment, then applying a blanket number without assessment contradicts that recognition. and if professional judgement is required beyond four dogs, it confirms that numbers alone do not define safety.
a welfare- and safety-focused system should align its rules with its own risk criteria — distinguishing between casual handling and professional operation — because dogs are managed by people, not headcounts.
shared for public education and understanding.
Bylaw
Numbers don’t create safety — management does
Christchurch already allows hundreds of dogs to gather under council-approved exemptions — safely and successfully.
Examples include:
• end-of-season pool events with hundreds of off-leash dogs
• large, structured dog events like 4 Paws Marathon and Pawsome Run, managing 500+ dogs through one location
These events work because they are:
✔️ well managed
✔️ rule-based
✔️ safety-led
✔️ welfare-focused
Yet elsewhere, strict numerical limits are applied to everyday dog walking — regardless of experience, education, or demonstrated competence.
If safety, experience, and management are stated within exemption criteria, then why are multiple dogs permitted under inexperienced or unassessed handlers?
This is where the problem lies.
That’s the contradiction.
If large numbers are acceptable when management, rules, and protocols are in place, then safety cannot logically be defined by a number alone.
Limits do not define dog management.
People, systems, and skill do.
Do you agree?
Bylaw
Effective control is about skill — not map colours- (you cannot create art without the artists)
If dogs were genuinely kept under effective control, supported by evidence-based training and education, much of the current dog-control map across Christchurch wouldn’t be justified by evidence.
Safety isn’t created by blanket bans or painted zones.
Safety comes from:
• educated handlers
• understanding dog behaviour and body language
• welfare-first decision-making
• accountability and skill
While we fully support protecting wildlife and natural habitats, broad restrictions applied without considering behaviour, handler skill, or actual risk can unintentionally create other issues.
Extended or blanket leashing requirements, especially in congested areas, can contribute to:
• leash reactivity and frustration-based behaviours
• restricted natural movement and gait
• reduced ability for dogs to express species-appropriate behaviour
Dogs are not biologically designed to move exclusively on leads. From an animal-welfare perspective, dogs need opportunities to move freely, sniff, explore, and express natural behaviours — under effective control.
When large areas are restricted regardless of dog behaviour or handler competence, dog use is pushed into very limited green spaces. This leads to overcrowding, congestion, conflict, and increased pressure on infrastructure like bins and water access.
Ironically, these pressures can create the very problems the restrictions are meant to prevent.
If education, competence, and risk-management standards were applied consistently:
• public safety would improve
• wildlife could be better protected through informed handling
• canine welfare outcomes would improve
• pressure on limited spaces would reduce
Behaviour, education, and handling determine risk — not blanket exclusions or leash-only policies.
At Christchurch Professional Dog Walkers Inc, we advocate for education-based, welfare-first approaches that support public safety, canine wellbeing, and respect for shared environments.
⸻
Disclaimer:
Educational content only. Not intended to override council regulations or replace individual responsibility.