Love Te Arai, and our wider community, have attended many council meetings and submitted many letters for consideration on the proposed ban of dogs on Forestry beach. Unfortunately, a blanket ban on dogs has still gone through from 2026. See below for one of the more eloquent submissions from our wider community.

‍

To the councillors determining dog bans in the Auckland region

I have some grave concerns over the supposed Auckland Councils’ intention to ban dogs on Forestry Beach. Auckland Council have as one of their community priorities the maintenance or increase in access for dogs to more locations within its’ district. This is not the case especially when sites like Forestry are being closed down. My global role is as a researcher in epidemiology and biostatistics with minority native groups for Google X in San Francisco. They are looking for places to invest. I would not support investment in a district that disregards its constituents. One of the major contributors to health and wellbeing is places and spaces where physical activity and community connections can be made. Dogs help afford this. Dogs, encourage people to exercise even when the owners don’t feel like it. It does not make sense to reduce the number of recreation spaces in a district only to have increases in the number of hospitalizations due to poor health. The dog ban is in direct contradiction to health and wellbeing for its communities.

The beach at Forestry had a 72% level of support for maintaining dog access on this one beach. More than any other location. This has been ignored. This does not appear to recognize due process when its constituents are ignored. While it is agreed that other locations where environmental threats are present a ban makes sense but that is not the case in Forestry. It seems that a blanket approach has been taken where it need not be. The council has been provided poor information, and its councilors are not engaging with the community voice. On a review of the council proceedings, not only were the wrong map areas provided but the panel did not engage with the submission content or at a level that would recognize the wishes of its communities. Likewise, the panel believed that Forestry community were illegally trespassing where no enforcement material stating the fact was ever made visible, hence no one knew about the ban.

Likewise, Ngati Manuhiri support of the dog ban began with support for council by laws but not for a Forestry dog ban per se. The current chair for Ngati Manuhiri not only doesn’t live in the district preferring Rotorua but is disregarding the wellbeing of people that are part of this district. This can also be seen by his recent flip flop position on the proposed dump in the Dome changing from opposition to support. I’m surprised by Ngati Manuhiri’s disregard for not only the wellbeing of Maori within the rohe but also the advocacy that it could have won for itself when larger issues arise in the future. I have been a strong advocate and contributor to the wellbeing of people coming in to the Forestry community for close to three decades. This submission process has left me thinking that Ngati Manuhiri and Auckland Council not only don’t listen but have taken poor advice and made a blanket decision where more discretion is required. If a solution is not arrived at, and one better than two alternate locations that are at once too small and inaccessible then I would rather live somewhere else and contribute to a district that values its members. This is an unbureaucratic process that leaves me thinking I live in the wrong country.

Since publishing the letter there has been some great support from a number Ngati manuhiri. Note too that not all Manuhiri agree with the dump.

Ihirangi Heke