To: The Chief Executive Officer and Council of the Municipality of Swakopmund 

Submission deadline: 30 September 2026

We, the undersigned residents, ratepayers, animal-welfare supporters and responsible dog owners of Swakopmund, respectfully object to the proposed Dog Control By-Laws in its proposed form.

While the intent to safeguard public health and safety is commendable, several provisions risk unfairly penalising responsible dog owners (and dog lovers) and may unintentionally compromise animal welfare which would be not be in the spirit of the Animal Protection Act

The following Key Concerns are highlighted below:

We fully support responsible pet ownership, including the licensing, vaccination, identification, proper care and control of dogs. However, we believe that the below proposed amended by-laws are unfair and do not distinguish between responsible and irresponsible owners.

•     Restriction on numbers: Limiting households to two (2) dogs per dwelling and six (6) dogs per plot/agricultural property is overly restrictive. Families with adequate space and resources to sufficiently care for multiple pets (especially smaller breeds) should not be penalised.

•     Complex-wide restriction: The proposal to limit the number of dogs to two per entire complex, irrespective of how many units exist or the size of individual yards, is impractical and will inevitably cause serious confrontation among residents. It is unclear what will happen to existing dogs if the complex already has more than two—will excess dogs be evicted, and if so, what becomes of them? This provision risks unnecessary conflict and potential animal abandonment. It also infringes on property rights, as owners of individual units with sufficient space and facilities should retain autonomy over responsible use of their property. From a community governance perspective, such blanket restrictions undermine fair and equitable treatment of residents, creating unnecessary disputes.

•     Impound reclaim period: Allowing only three days to reclaim an impounded dog before destruction or sale is unduly harsh and risks unnecessary loss of pets, especially if an owner is out of town/hospitalised etc.

•     Dangerous dog presumption: Automatically classifying a dog as dangerous after a single incident without expert assessment is unfair and may stigmatise breeds or responsible owners.

•     Permit application for additional dogs: Whilst Council can grant or refuse applications made under sub-regulation (1), approved applications can be subject to “any conditions it may consider necessary”. This could be an arbitrary decision without taking into account all circumstances of the Applicant.

•     Permit objection process: Allowing neighbours to object without requiring substantiated evidence risks abuse and discrimination against responsible owners.

•     Penalties: Uniform fines of up to N$2,000 or imprisonment for minor infractions such as late licence renewal or delayed clean-up of defecation are disproportionate.

These restrictions may force loving families to surrender pets that are already part of their households. It could also place additional pressure on the local SPCA and other animal-welfare organisations, which already face difficulties finding suitable homes for abandoned animals.

We therefore respectfully call upon the Municipality of Swakopmund to consider the following Counter Proposals:

1. Suspend the adoption and enforcement of the Proposed new by-laws for dog control until meaningful public consultation has taken place. These consultations should include: Swakopmund residents, veterinarians, animal-welfare organisations, body corporates and other affected parties before finalising the by-laws.

2. Dog number flexibility:

2.1. Allow flexibility in dog numbers, permitting up to four dogs per dwelling where owners demonstrate adequate care, fencing, and space.

2.2.Remove the complex-wide restriction and instead assess each unit individually based on space and responsible ownership, respecting property rights and avoiding unnecessary community conflict.

2.3. Protect dogs already lawfully living with their families through a fair grandfather clause, allowing existing pets to remain in their homes.

A person’s ability to care responsibly for a dog should be assessed according to appropriate factors such as available space, cleanliness, noise control, animal welfare and the owner’s conduct—not only according to an arbitrary numerical limit.

3. Extended reclaim period Extend reclaim period for impounded dogs to 7–14 days, with mandatory attempts to contact owners before destruction.

4. Fair permit process: Introduce a reasonable and affordable permit process for households wishing to keep additional dogs. Limit permit objections to substantiated concerns (noise, health hazard), with Council weighing evidence against responsible ownership.

5. Balanced dangerous dog assessment Require veterinary or behavioural expert evaluation before declaring a dog dangerous, removing automatic presumptions.

6. Graduated penalties Introduce graduated penalties, with warnings and lower fines for minor first offences, reserving maximum penalties for repeat or severe violations.

7. Animal welfare safeguards Ensure sterilisation or destruction decisions are overseen by a veterinarian, with humane methods mandated.

8. Enforcement: Focus enforcement on neglect, cruelty, uncontrolled breeding, excessive noise, roaming dogs and genuinely irresponsible ownership. SPCA and/or any other animal welfare organisation should have the right to, without warrant, be able to intervene when there is suspicion of animal neglect, as set out in Section 8 of the Animals Protection Act, 1962, as amended by the Animals Protection Amendment Act, 1972 (Act 7 of 1972).

Our dogs are companions, protectors and beloved members of our families and not only pets or “just a dog”. Responsible owners should not be punished, and healthy and happy animals should not lose their homes because of a blanket restriction.

We respectfully request that the Municipality review the proposed Dog Control By-Laws and develop a fair, practical and compassionate framework that protects both the community and the welfare of our animals.

Our furry children are important to us. Let us stand together and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Petition signatories

By signing this petition, I confirm that I support the requests stated above