The owner of Happy, Queenstown’s ‘famous singing sheepdog’, says he’s been ‘‘framed’’ by the council’s animal control team by a ruling forcing the talented pooch to be muzzled.
Kim Turton, 61, has busked in the resort for the past 28 years, the last seven and-a-half with Happy, whose singing prowess has lent star power to the double act.
The canine boasts 1500 likes and 1700 followers on his own Facebook page.
However, an incident earlier this year saw Happy slapped with a ‘menacing dog classification’ by the council, forcing him to be muzzled at all times when in public places — including when performing with Turton.
Turton was packing up following a busking session on March 25 when Happy allegedly got into a skirmish with a pint-sized pooch.
Turton says he and Happy had their backs turned and were unaware of the other dog, a bichon that was on a long lead when it approached Happy from behind, then went underneath him.
‘‘Happy tried to turn around, they had a scuffle … it was all over in a few seconds.’’
Turton contends the fight was caused by Happy being ‘‘startled’’ by the other dog.
This claim was backed by witnesses, fellow busker Paul Marcham and his partner Claire Forrester.
Marcham gave a verbal witness statement to a council animal control officer.
However, Mountain Scene understands the officer incorrectly transcribed the first version of the statement to say Marcham ‘‘noticed a small white dog approaching us on a long lead’’, and that Happy interacted with the other dog before the tussle.
Scene has seen a copy of the first statement, annotated with handwritten words signed by Marcham saying ‘‘This 1st statement was not written as I wanted it.
“It was changed’’.
A second version of the statement was produced, also witnessed by Scene, with Marcham’s statement corrected to say Happy was startled by the dog.
Turton says he’s unsure which version of the statement is official because despite repeated requests, he is yet to see the full report of the incident from council.
He received the council enforcement order on May 12, citing the incident and Happy’s history of dog attacks leading to the ‘menacing’ classification.
Turton concedes Happy has had a ‘‘couple of other scuffles’’ over the years, but says they were the result of other dogs coming into his space.
He’s upset with the ruling, claiming it’s halved his busking takings because parents are too scared to let their kids near a muzzled dog.
‘‘When served the notice, I was in tears for a week.’’
He’s convinced the council officer’s mistake was not an honest one, and is appealing the order, with a hearing set for September 26.
Adding fuel to this belief, Turton says the officer did not follow up with Forrester, the second witness, to get an official statement from her.
‘‘I am presuming because [council] are short-staffed, the officer’s been able to get away with this.’’
‘‘[The officer] has framed us right under the nose of their colleagues.’’
Council media man Sam White says these ‘‘serious allegations against a QLDC staff member in the course of this specific investigation require detailed consideration’’.
‘‘Given this case is under appeal … it isn’t appropriate for council to provide further media comment at this stage.”
Turton says if it was ‘‘council’s intention to destroy us by putting a mask on Happy’’, it has failed.
‘‘He still sings.’’
