Doggone it council faces backlash over blatant cash grab for rescue dogs

A LOCAL resident has slammed Bass Coast Shire’s strict pet regulations as an unfeeling cash grab after being hit with an excess animal fee for taking in her former husband’s elderly dogs.

Cheryl Connolly recently inherited a Koolie and a Jack Russell Terrier from the estate of her former partner. The emergency adoption was a rescue mission to keep the animals from being abandoned.

However, adding the extra two dogs to her own existing two dogs brought the total number of dogs in her household to a total of four.

Under current council local laws, ratepayers owning between 5,000 square metres and 2 hectares of land are strictly capped at three dogs and four cats. Exceeding this limit automatically triggers a permit fee.

Despite all four pets being desexed, Bass Coast Shire hit Ms Connolly with a $190 Excess Animal Permit fee on top of the standard $47 annual registration fee for each dog.

Council enforcement officers even conducted a property inspection to rule out illegal puppy farming. Following the visit, Ms Connolly received an overdue invoice demanding immediate payment of $192 to avoid further enforcement action.

"The dogs faced the prospect of being abandoned," a frustrated Ms Connolly said. "It was hard enough to lose my ex-husband, and now they want to take the dogs as well.”

Ms Connolly said the fees have come on top of $4,500 in veterinary bills for essential dental work. Official correspondence advised Ms Connolly that keeping the animals requires strict compliance.

“The pets must not cause a nuisance or negatively impact the local amenity through odour, dust, rodents, or an unsightly appearance,” council advised.

Refusing to back down, Ms Connolly escalated the dispute to Western Port Ward Councillor Rochelle Halstead, demanding compassion from council.

Responding to her concerns Cr Halstead sympathised with Ms Connolly agreeing the compliance charge may have been inappropriate and excessive.

Councillor Halstead revealed she had escalated the matter through the council’s Chief Executive Officer, but compliance staff had refused to back down.

"The controversy began when a local resident chose to adopt two working farm dogs belonging to a friend, Lew, who had recently passed away,” Cr Halstead explained.

“To save the animals from being euthanised, the resident registered all four dogs with the shire, her own two and Lew’s two and paid the required registration fees in good faith. Instead of showing leniency, council officers used the registration data to trigger an unannounced property inspection. Following the visit, the shire slapped the resident with an additional $192 fee. Council compliance officers have since refused to grant any exemptions, citing strict local government regulations.

Cr Halstead accused the shire of opportunistic gouging for charging a resident who was simply doing the right thing. "Given the age of the dogs and their desexed status, there is no suggestion that your four dogs constitute a breeding operation," Cr Halstead wrote.

Apologising to Ms Connolly for the rigid bureaucratic response Cr Halstead called on council to show a modicum of compassion and common sense to resolve the dispute.

In an emotional letter to a friend Ms Connolly vowed to fight the fine, highlighting the irony that responsible pet owners are being penalised while unregistered animals slip through the cracks.

"I told the officer from the start that I would not be paying the fee. He told me to take it higher up the ladder. I believe some thoughtfulness and compassion should come into this,” Ms Connolly stated.

The standoff has highlighted growing community frustration over rigid council compliance laws that fail to account for unique, compassionate circumstances.

As enforcement action looms, Ms Connolly is standing her ground, refusing to pay what she labels a heartless tax on kindness.