Submission to Auckland Council in response to proposals for the northern end of Snells Beach
Introduction
This submission addresses the proposed removal of picnic tables and footpaths at the northern end of Snells Beach and the proposed permanent dog ban for the area north of the Sunburst Avenue boatramp. Those two measures are directly related and I propose to address them as such.
I am concerned that council biodiversity official Megan Young is motivated more by pressure from activists rather than achieving any credible or measurable conservation goal. According to her own emails, she predetermined decisions as a direct result of pressure from attention-seeking amateur conservationists and then relied on evidence from those same people without scrutinising it or even visiting the area in question. In addition, Megan Young relied on studies about protected species that Department of Conservation do not give weight to.
It has been almost a decade since Greg Sayers chaired a dog access rules review which imposed the precedent-setting rules north of the boatramp outside where he dossed. Those rules were imposed at the last possible minute and without proper consultation. According to council minutes:
“[T]he local Forest & Bird representative did not consider that such restrictions were necessary in relation to wildlife concerns. Council biodiversity staff do not consider Snells Beach is a particular area of concern with regards to protected wildlife.”
Since then, I have lodged multiple LGOIMA requests asking for copies of that advice, which Rachel Kelleher has obstructed. The council have also obstructed the release of information stating when and why the biodiversity team’s stance had since changed.
Senior council officials, including Rachel Kelleher, Louise Mason, Denise Pieters and Sally Woods have gone to extraordinary lengths to shield Megan Young from legitimate public scrutiny. They have even redacted information that is in already in the public domain:
Based on the scant levels of transparency, the little information that I have obtained about Megan Young demonstrates a co-ordinated and deliberate campaign by unelected officials to obstruct and undermine the mandate and oversight by elected officials.
I am a citizen who expects transparency. I am not hamstrung by a code of conduct. I have the experience and expertise to research and expose council misconduct.
According to official information, it has been circulated widely amongst the council that I am a bully, a liar, violent, a misogynist, and a hacker. I am none of those things but those attempts to discredit me has created a stigma which has been used to obstruct the release of information revealing the corruption inside the council.
Please note: The only times that have been available to make submissions on dog policy have been 2013, 2015, 2019, and now 2025. During the periods in between, the only way to hold Megan Young accountable has been to use official information channels and expose her conduct. Meanwhile, those pressuring Megan Young have been redacted or not disclosed, the cloak of secrecy providing an environment to escalate their agenda.
A foot in the door
The first time that shorebirds and dogs were raised in the same sentence was in 2013 by one-term Rodney Local Board member, June Turner. June Turner lived on the northern urban boundary of Snells Beach bordering the old Salvation Army camp and campaigned against any development of properties north of her property and north of the Sunburst Avenue boatramp. Forming various incorporated societies, including the Snells Beach Ratepayers’ and Residents Association in 2004, that became a soapbox for her “Not In My Back Yard” campaigns. With June elected as a councillor for one term at Rodney District Council and one term on the Rodney Local Board, Sunburst Avenue residents ran the ratepayers’ association, looking for the next thing to ban.
Prior to 2013, in none of June Turner’s submissions or court action against developments north of the boatramp did she mention environmental issues. She never mentioned the effects of sediment runoff on the food source of threatened wildlife or human encroachment on nesting areas. Instead, she wanted wide esplanade reserves and facilities to encourage public access to the beach.
With all the land between the boatramp and Boathouse Bay being developed, June Turner then turned her attention to restricting those who could use the public spaces. The focus was on the predominant activities and activities that the council could control, such as liquor consumption, camping, parking, motorhomes, and dog walking.
June Turner and her supporters saw the dog access rules as a foot in the door in order to extend their sphere of influence. It wasn’t about the natural environment; it was about controlling the environment. When Greg Sayers moved next door, all their Christmases had come at once.
In the same Rodney Local Board meeting that Greg Sayers proposed the dog access rules for the northern end of Snells Beach, Sunburst Avenue resident Chas Benest and June Turner just happened to give a presentation about motorhomes using the carpark next to the boatramp. Greg Sayers never disclosed these obvious conflict of interests.
At the same time, Greg Sayers was also on the Hibiscus & Bays Local Board, also living part time in the family home at Arkles Bay. Nearby, there was a Forest & Bird-endorsed Dotterel Minder programme at Big Manly Beach. The Hibiscus & Bays Local Board did not impose dog access rules restricting dogs due to the presence of protected wildlife nor did anyone ask for them.
The dog access rules at Snells Beach opened the door for further attempts to restrict the peaceful enjoyment of the northern end of the beach.
Science
According to official information released by Auckland Council, there were no warnings or infringements issued in Snells Beach due to dogs attacking protected wildlife. There was no photographic evidence. There were only complaints lodged by people seeking special status for Snells Beach as a bird sanctuary. This didn’t deter Megan Young from using this doctored stock photo in her presentations:
According to science, dogs are ranked lowly as a threat. The 1993 and 2004-2014 NZ Dotterel Recovery Plans rank black-backed seagulls (which are unprotected) as the most imminent threat, followed by other birds, cats, mustelids, rodents, human activity, habitat encroachment, and then dogs. In 2018, Auckland Council & Forest & Bird experts gave evidence that activities such as kite surfing have been identified as a significant threat:
“birds perceive kite surfers as large predators and avoid them by taking long flights or leaving a site altogether.”
“Dr Lovegrove said that an increase in kite-surfing at the Karaka shell banks in the South Manukau harbour had been found to be disturbing migratory species such as godwits and preventing breeding of New Zealand dotterel for whom this was an important site.”
Snells Beach is one of the most popular kitesurfing beaches in the region, yet these are the only restrictions, with no mention of protected wildlife:
The only scientific evidence that attempted to assess the risk of dogs to shorebirds was a 1995 study funded by Forest & Bird. This study was relied on for an unpublished 1996 masters thesis from Andrea Lord. Here is the correct citation:
Lord, A.E. 1996: Responses of northern New Zealand dotterels (Charadrius obscurus aquilonius) to human disturbance. Unpublished MSc thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton. 76 + 11 p.
Here is the section from the 2004-2014 NZ Dotterel Recovery Plan mentioning the thesis:
That’s it. Dogs were considered as “other factors” and ranked below the threats posed by seagulls and other native birds.
The version that Megan Young relies on is a 2001 article mentioning the thesis and study in an academic journal. I have attached this article in full. Remember, this is the evidence quoted and relied on by Auckland Council since 2017, when Megan Young returned to Auckland Council after completing her Masters thesis.
There are several important aspects to the Andrea Lord article that the council should consider. First, that the study was inconclusive. The article uses terms like “potentially”, “possibly”, and “likely.” In the recommendations, it states:
“Further work, such as measurement of hatch rate, is required to ascertain the impact of human disturbance on the nesting success of the endangered New Zealand dotterel. Information on the contribution of predation to nesting success is also required.”
The study was conducted in 1995, the NZ Dotterel Recovery Plan was released in 2004, and Auckland Council only started to rely on the Andrea Lord article in 2017. In other words, there were 22 years to conduct further study, yet none was conducted by Forest & Bird, Department of Conservation, or even Auckland Council to shore up the holes in the research.
The study, which didn’t include Snells Beach, stated:
“There was evidence that the birds habituated to humans on high-use beaches.”
Again, there was no further study into this factor. NZ Dotterels in Snells Beach used to nest at the northern end of the beach - north of the estuary and north of the footpath terminus. The footpath terminus was less than 30 metres from the nearest NZ Dotterel nest. There was never an issue raised about dogs encroaching on nests until 2017, when Boathouse Bay was proposed. That is a strong sign of habituation.
The first that many became aware of the Andrea Lord thesis was when a new Snells Beach resident, Jacquie Russell, started quoting it in her TOSSI column in Mahurangi Matters, despite dogs being banned from Tawharanui Regional Park since 1973:
In 2001, Andrea Lord’s thesis Effects of human approaches to nests of northern New Zealand dotterels provided clear evidence that people and especially dogs do affect dotterels’ ability to breed. The study suggested disruption of incubation would be greatly minimised if dogs were banned within a 100-metre radius of dotterel nesting sites, and human access within a 50-metre radius on busy beaches, and 70 metres on remote beaches.
The Department of Conservation did not include such recommendations in its 2004-2014 NZ Dotterel Recovery Plan. Jacquie Russell, who would later form the Snells Shoreline Conservation Community, was referring to her plans for Snells Beach.
There was plenty of time to conduct research during the 2017 consent process of Boathouse Bay and the period leading up to the 2019 Dog Policy Review. Instead, Megan Young and Jacqui Russell saw Lord’s thesis as a ‘Road to Damascus’ moment, treating it as gospel.
A lay person knows that dogs chase cats, who chase rodents. From my observations, the hostility towards dogwalkers along the reserve has seen a noticeable decrease in the number of dogs being walked along the footpath of the reserve. Meanwhile, there has been an increase in cats crossing the reserve on to the beach. The resulting campaign against cats has seen an increase in mustelids, marsupials, and rodents. The introduction of a trapping programme of mustelids, marsupials, and rodents has seen an increase in Pukeko and shorebirds attacking NZ Dotterels.
I am no scientist but the plans of Megan Young and her supporters appear misdirected and backwards.
I trained a dog to be a conservation dog. Attending avian aversion training, the dog chased cats off the reserve for 18 months during evenings before the 2015 restrictions were introduced. I then asked the Department of Conservation whether my dog could be assigned to a conservation plan for Snells Beach. They weren’t interested as Snells Beach wasn’t a significant ecological area worthy of a plan.
Proper research needs to be conducted before rules are imposed - not just cherry picked to suit an agenda.
Best Practice v Snells Beach
The 2015 position of the council’ experts were consistent with Forest & Bird’s Dotterel Minder programme and the Department of Conservation’s NZ Dotterel Recovery Plan. The conservation measures at the northern end of Snells Beach – including the roping off of nesting areas and signage alerting people to maintain a distance – were consistent with that plan. Throughout the country, the Department of Conservation erected signs alerting dogwalkers of the presence of nests within fenced areas and asked that dogs be walked below the high tide mark:
Despite Snells Beach having a large intertidal area, such signs were never erected there.
In 2017, Auckland Council allowed the Boathouse Bay development to destroy the habitat and roosting area of NZ Dotterel, without restoring the habitat according to the prescribed dune design included as part of the consent application:
Since then, the council’s focus has gone off on a tangent to the NZ Dotterel Recovery Plan.
In 2019, the dog access rules were extensively reviewed across Auckland. Official information reveals that months before the new rules would come into force, Megan Young caved to pressure from Michele MacKenzie to circumvent elected officials by imposing ‘temporary’ dog bans that would come into force days after the new rules.
The ‘evidence’ to support the ban was Andrea Lord’s 2001 article. Michele MacKenzie then provided outdated photographs taken outside the relevant area.
Originally, Young proposed only banning dogs from the 100m at the northern end of the beach where NZ Dotterels nested. Despite the motivation for the ban being to protect the 1-2 breeding pairs of NZ Dotterels, Tim Lovegrove didn’t consider that sufficient to justify a dog ban. He suggested that Megan Young look for other species to justify a ban to cover the 800m of beach north of the boatramp.
This extraordinary act of bad faith by council officials was cut-and-pasted each year since to justify ‘temporary’ dog bans for 8 months of each year.
Recent emails from Megan Young admitted that the effectiveness of the bans hadn’t been measured, there weren’t any other examples of such bans, she wanted experts to look for evidence to support a continuation of the bans, and wanted to avoid any further public scrutiny by making the bans permanent. She even suggested that staff questioning her methods meet with her over a coffee to avoid any information coming under official information laws.
Despite the lack of evidence, it is now proposed to ban dogs permanently from the beach all year round, not just the migratory or breeding season. Furthermore, Megan Young wants to revert a public access esplanade reserve into a bird sanctuary. That reserve was created as a direct result of a subdivision consent and its particular purpose is to provide public access to the beach from those adjacent developments. Effectively, the council is breaching the Reserves Act because the council didn’t enforce Boathouse Bay to comply with the resource consents that they issued.
The NZ Dotterel Recovery Plan has specified goals and performance targets to increase the NZ Dotterel population in areas where it can be sustainable. The Department of Conservation recognises that urban beaches cannot reasonably sustain a permanent or growing NZ Dotterel population. According to official information, however, Auckland Council’s dotterel minder programme is purely focussed on publicity, volunteer numbers, and evidence provided by unsupervised and unvetted volunteers.
Megan Young has allowed volunteers to relocate protected wildlife using dubious methods closer to threats and then pitched footage of predator attacks to the media:
Volunteers have appeared on the front page of newspapers posing next to relocated nests, breaching the NZ Dotterel Recovery Plan, the Wildlife Act, and even the recommendations of the ‘evidence’ quoted to support the ‘temporary’ bans.
Megan Young has appeared before the Rodney Local Board, giving presentations stating that such publicity is a core element to rating the success of her plans.
Without any chicks fledging since 2015, biodiversity officials were filmed in Snells Beach for a ‘Bird of the Century’ competition claiming their programme to be “a complete success.”
Megan Young’s myopic and tunnel-visioned focus has divided communities. Her bias has prioritized the futile conservation efforts of unsupervised and unvetted volunteers, without consulting or even empathising with those directly affected by her measures. She has caused conflict with other beach users, eroding public confidence and trust in the council.
5. “Health, Safety & Comfort”
Before I address potential solutions, I wish to address the elephant in the room. This is relevant when considering the reasons for the dog access rules and the weight that should be given to those pushing for the rules.
During the 2015 Dog Policy Review, a new term was used to justify the on-leash rules for the reserve north of the Sunburst Avenue boatramp. That term was “health, safety, and comfort.” Those are not relevant considerations prescribed under the Dog Control Act to support such rules. Greg Sayers, however, was swayed by his neighbours who were the only people pushing for the rules.
From all the evidence that I have documented, the only risk to the health, safety, and comfort of people using the reserve are those who pressured for the on-leash rules in the first place. Those people don’t own dogs, yet deliberately created conflict with even those walking dogs on a leash. They have swamped the council with bogus complaints just to give their campaign validity. I have video evidence of Animal Management Officers complaining about the same six people lodging complaints “every day” and the waste of council resources to travel from North Shore to Snells Beach to then not find any issue.
I have witnessed baiting of dogs, assaults, and other malicious conduct. On several occasions, one person repeatedly concealed food in their socks to attract dogs’ attention. Sparrow eggs (which resemble NZ Dotterel eggs) have been spread across the beach next to the boatramp, fake dog access signage has been erected, un-authorised cat brochures with council branding circulated, existing signs have been vandalised or altered. Each time that a complaint was lodged, Relationship Manager Denise Pieters tried to gaslight complainants, despite providing conclusive evidence:
According to official documents, including court evidence, those who pressured Greg Sayers and Megan Young to impose stricter dog access rules have impersonated elected officials, parking officers, animal management officers, and even police officers. Greg Sayer’s neighbour, Diane Taylor, assaulted a dogwalker, saying that she “worked for the police.” She even repeated that phrase to Sgt Dan McDermott, which he recorded in official documents.
According to court evidence, Animal Management Officer Merushe Arts led vigilantes to believe that dogs caught off leash three times would be destroyed.
On 9 September, 18 September, and 1 October 2021, I was preparing evidence for this submission by taking photos of dune protection and signage. On those three occasions, June Turner, Lorraine Martin, Lois McPherson, and their associates attempted to unleash my dog, which was tethered to a fence. On the first occasion, I received a fine, which was waived. In the second attempt, Lorraine Martin visited Diane Taylor, followed me, and I filmed Lorraine Martin charge at me and assault me with her camera.
Auckland Council then obstructed the release of evidence that could be used in my defence, including the fact that Lorraine Martin had a history of making false accusations about dogs and their owners. At the trial, Lorraine Martin and Lois McPherson perverted the course of justice three times, the judge noting Lorraine Martin’s actions:
“supported the theory of the case for the defence that Ms Martin was a busy body who knew better than anyone else what to do and what should happen in the trial.”
I was acquitted. Investigations into the criminal conduct of Lorraine Martin and her associates are ongoing.
Dog rules should be about avoiding nuisance, not the rule becoming the nuisance. Unfortunately, containing a large number and variety of dogs to a smaller area and a narrower timeframe creates more risk of nuisance between dogs and between other beach users.
Essentially, Snells Beach has a large tidal flat and the time restrictions for dog access don’t synchronise with the best times to walk dogs. While I agree with the Auckland-wide summer rules, ideally there should also be tidal-based rules. In other words, one rule for the whole beach could allow off-leash dogwalking below the high tide mark, which would provide a much larger area for dogs to be separated from other dogs and other beach users. Dogs should also be allowed to swim at high tide outside summer time restrictions.
It should go without saying that if a dog cannot be reasonably controlled off leash then the dog should be on a leash. The rules should reflect that in areas of high use (Summer restrictions) and high risk (road reserves, carparks, playgrounds, and fenced off wildlife areas).
There is a noticeable difference in the patterns of different users of the reserve. Throughout the year, dogwalking often occurs before 10am and after 5pm. Between 10am and 5pm, school children, elderly, and active pursuits (such as cycling, fishing and kitesurfing) frequent the reserve.
The esplanade is over two kilometres long, which is a good distance to exercise people and dogs. Four kilometres is an hour walk for many people. Segregating that area with different rules is unnecessary. It would be more practical for dogs using the reserve to be required to be on leash throughout the year between 10am and 5pm and under control off leash outside those times.
When considering dog access rules, elected and unelected council officials should consider those directly affected by the rules. The signage for the 2015 and 2019 dog access rules contradicted the bylaws. It took 18 months for the 2019 dog access signage to be erected in Snells Beach. Meanwhile, signage for the ‘temporary’ dog bans were erected late and remained until after the bans had expired.
Solutions
Most of the solutions were prescribed in Appendix F from the 1993 NZ Dotterel Recovery Plan, which drew on experiences from Omaha Beach. I have attached this to this submission.
Before 2015, there were several existing conservation measures at Snells Beach consistent with what is successfully applied elsewhere. Take, for instance, for a section of the Schooner Avenue reserve frontage with the beach, developers-initiated dune plantings where the dune protection fencing specifies beach access points. If this design should be extended the full length of the beach, it would provide a physical barrier with the reserve, provide an escape from predators, and would provide a terrace above the high tide level for birds to nest and roost. The controlled access to the beach through specified corridors would create enclaves for birds above the high tide level that could be roped off during nesting seasons.
6.1. Conservation Measures
Relying purely on the evidence, plans, science, and advice from the Department of Conservation, all that was required for Snells Beach since 2015 was the following:
Restore and protect the dune vegetation between the reserve and the beach for the full length of the beach;
Use the dune protection to restrict access points to the beach;
That rangers (not volunteers) rope off nesting areas where disturbance will be minimal;
A pest control programme in the fenced dune protection areas;
That rangers (not volunteers) erect signs informing people to walk dogs below the high tide mark away from nesting areas; and
For rangers to monitor for five years and conduct proper research before expanding the protected zone.
I have attached proposed signage and plans which I prepared on 17 September 2021.
Snells Beach is 2.4km long. At high tide, the beach is around 5 hectares. At low tide, it is 200 hectares. What I propose better addresses avoiding conflict compared to the status quo, which relies on segregating the beach along an arbitrary boundary.
6.2. Dog Access Measures
Based on the issues identified and addressed in this submission, I recommend the following dog access rules:
That there be one set of dog access rules for the full length of Snells Beach that is well signposted and consistent with what the bylaws state;
That the summer restrictions continue to be from 1 December until 1 March, 10am until 5pm, where -
Dogs are not permitted on the beach, and
Dogs must be on a leash on the reserve;
That winter rules are –
Dogs are permitted off leash on the beach,
Dogs must be on a leash on the reserve between 10am and 5pm; and
That dogs are under control on a leash on carparks; and
That dogs aren’t permitted on playgrounds and fenced off wildlife areas.
Signage would look like this:
7. Conclusion
Accordingly, none of the special dog access rules or proposals of Megan Young to encroach on the reserve will be necessary.
I am confident that many in Snells Beach would appreciate you looking back at the past decade and realising that there was always a more rational and reasonable solution to actual and manageable risks.
Please find the attached to this submission the following in Appendices:
Proposed signage for Snells Beach;
Proposed areas where dune planting and dune protection be installed;
Appendix F from the NZ Dotterel Recovery Plan;
The 2001 Andrea Lord article;
The 1993 NZ Dotterel Recovery Plan;
The 2004-2014 NZ Dotterel Recovery Plan; and
A list of Department of Conservation resources about shorebirds.
I appreciate this opportunity to make this submission.
Grant McLachlan