Bird-brained council officials are dividing communities
Snells Beach in Rodney encapsulates how a poor decision made by elected officials spirals into overreach by unelected officials, passing unnecessary and unreasonable costs onto ratepayers.
In 2015, against the advice of experts, two members of the Rodney Local Board caved to their neighbours by imposing draconian dog access rules north of the boatramp outside where they lodged. Although Forest & Bird, Department of Conservation, and council biodiversity officials argued that the area was not a significant wildlife area worthy of special attention, the local board made the decision at the last minute and without consultation.
The boatramp was the northern urban boundary. Since then, the council approved non-notified, non-complying, high intensity developments north of the boatramp that have destroyed the habitats, roosting areas, and food source of protected shorebirds. To appease protests, a developer installed a picnic table next to the once-thriving estuary.
That moment divided the community, exposing all the flaws of the council. Instead of lodging public submissions during the 2019 dog policy review, locals pressured a new and ambitious unelected official. Days after the popular new dog access rules came into effect, the bureaucrat used delegated powers to impose much harsher dog bans, the local board employed extra staff to enforce them, and gave locals fencing to cordon off areas. The bureaucrat then joined a conservation group to further her reach, which the naive local board funded.
The bureaucrat made the dog ban decision, but then asked colleagues for evidence to support it. Without visiting the areas, the bureaucrat relied on an incomplete and inconclusive 1995 study from a colleague’s 1996 unpublished university thesis. Supplied with photos from locals, most weren’t of the relevant area.
Every year since 2019, the bureaucrat copied-and-pasted the same ‘evidence’ for successive ‘temporary’ dog bans. Concerned that the bans were ineffective, she asked for experts to cover her back. To avoid public scrutiny, she threatened elected officials that she would continue the annual bans unless they made the dog bans permanent.
It is now proposed to impose a permanent dog ban north of the boatramp all year round, not just during the migratory and breeding season of godwits and dotterels. Furthermore, the bureaucrat wants to rip up the picnic table and the footpath to convert a reserve into a bird sanctuary – relocating birds away from the development occupying the destroyed habitat. Not settling with Snells Beach, similar dog rules are proposed for Big Manly Beach and Tindalls Beach.
Of all the problems facing protected birds, dogs rank near the bottom of the list. Department of Conservation remain steadfast that urban beaches aren’t significant wildlife areas, recommending that dogs be walked below the high tide level. The council, however, won’t follow best practice, allowing council biodiversity officials to posture by abusing dog access rules.
According to court evidence from the same council biodiversity officials, kite surfing poses a greater risk. Snells Beach is the most popular kitesurfing area in the region, yet no local or official has complained. Humans, storms, erosion, rodents, mustelids, possums, cats, and even Pukekos also rank higher than dogs.
The ringleaders of the movement in Snells Beach live along the old urban boundary south of the boatramp. In 2004, they formed a ratepayers’ association and rallied against anything near their homes. They abuse connections with officials, censor public debate, lodge bogus complaints, forge signatures on petitions, impersonate officials, lodge dubious funding applications, circulate unauthorised council material, erect fake council signs, and coordinate vigilante patrols. Emails reveal that council officials condoned, encouraged, defended, and redacted such behaviour.
Attaching herself to this group, the ringleader of the anti-dog/pro-bird movement is friends with a developer who tried to destroy the shorebirds’ habitat. She only started her campaign after that friend on-sold to another developer who carried out similar plans. That movement has been taken over by residents at the newly-developed northern end, who relocated nests closer to threats and then pitched footage of predator attacks to the media. (None of the predators were dogs.)
Despite no dotterels fledging, the bureaucrat then ran an expensive (and unsuccessful) “Bird of the Century” campaign, claiming her conservation efforts were “a complete success.” The offending development, Boathouse Bay, was then awarded House of the Year, due to “a concerted effort to revitalise the nearby bush and democratise the beach.”
What’s going on in Snells Beach was never about the natural environment, but rather controlling the environment. When individuals and groups manipulate governments to prioritise the enforcement of environmental measures over the needs and freedoms of its citizens, there is a name for that: eco-fascism.
Grant is an environmental consultant and former independent hearings commissioner.