10 August 2026: Animal control case

Media: Rotorua Daily Post

Topic: Animal control case

Enquiry

I'm writing a story about Rotorua dog owner Brooke Ellis, who said her dog Rosco was impounded on May 7 after biting a council worker.

She said Rosco was in good health when he went to the pound, but his health deteriorated and she decided to put him down on July 8 "to end his suffering".

She said she found out this week that the council was intending to file charges against her in court when council refused her LGOIMA and Privacy Act request.

I have interviewed her about what happened and would like to send you her comments for right of response and some questions.

• These are the key facts, as told to us by Brooke Ellis. Are these accurate and, if not, what is disputed?:

1. Rosco was impounded in Rotorua on May 7 after biting a council worker
2. The dog had been off-leash in a field in Western Heights with owner Brooke Ellis' son at the time.
3. He was kept in the pound until being put down on July 8 with the consent of his owner, Brooke Ellis.

• What injuries did the bite victim suffer and how serious were they? Brooke Ellis claims she was told they were "minor" when the council declined her offer to pay for his medical bills.
• What process did the council follow after this incident, and was this different from a standard process in any way?
• How long was the investigation with Rosco expected to take when it started? Brooke Ellis claims she was told 'up to two weeks'.
• On what date was the investigation into the May 7 incident completed?
• Please provide the findings of the investigation.
• Brooke claims she requested Rosco be released as a menacing dog with conditions, but the council did not respond. Is this accurate and if so, why did it not respond, or take the request to the Dog Control Panel?
• Brooke Ellis claims the council has told her it is prosecuting her. What charges have been or are being filed?
• Why has it taken about three months to get to this point?
• Brooke Ellis claims Rosco's health deteriorated in the pound and she does not know why. She noted foaming at his mouth at the 5/6 week mark, and eventually he began to "turn his nose up" when she tried to feed him, and was generally not himself. She claims she raised the foaming with pound staff and they said they would keep an eye on him. She acknowledged she did not ask for vet care. She euthanised him to "end his suffering". Were pound staff aware of any deterioration in Rosco's health during his stay, and if so what action was taken?
• Brooke said she filed a LGOIMA and Privacy Act request on July 7 for information relating to her and Rosco's case. On August 4, she found out her request was refused and the council had been “collating information towards prosecution proceedings” and court documents were being filed this week.

She did not yet know what the charges were and questioned why it had taken so long to get to this point. Why was Brooke only told this week that charges were being laid and why has it taken this long?

Comments:

Ellis claimed she called animal control “every couple of days” for an update but did not get a response.

She then started sending emails “with no response”, including asking if Rosco could be released as a menacing dog with conditions.

Ellis did not dispute that Rosco biting the worker was wrong, “but I don’t agree with how long it has taken them to investigate this minor issue”.

She visited Rosco daily with “treats and snacks”.

“Towards the end, he just would turn his nose up.

“He just wasn’t himself and because he had been in there so long and I was visiting him every day, I could see him slowly deteriorating.

“He was in perfect health when he left our property, I cannot say why he was falling ill.”

She said she made the “heartbreaking decision” to euthanise Rosco after he spent almost nine weeks in the pound “deteriorating in a cage”.

Rosco’s death had “completely upset” her and her son.

She wanted the council to drop the charges against her and for the council to admit that “holding a dog for 10 weeks without clear communication - and allowing him to become ill - is unacceptable”.

She called on the council to issue a formal apology.

She also wanted investigations involving dogs in the pound to “have strict time limits” such as a maximum of 14 days.

Response

From Group Manager - Destination Development, Jean-Paul Gaston:

As this matter is currently before the courts, we are unable to comment on the specifics of the case or provide the information requested.

Ms Ellis’ LGOIMA request was declined because the matter is subject to ongoing court proceedings. Charging documents were filed in the Rotorua District Court last week.

However, we do not agree with the suggestion that Rosco’s health deteriorated while in the care of Animal Control. During his time at the pound, Rosco was friendly with staff. He ate two meals a day and his water bowl was filled on a regular basis.

We also dispute the claim that Ms Ellis was not kept informed throughout the process. Ms Ellis visited the pound regularly, and during those visits staff provided updates on the progress of the investigation.

While Council acknowledges that this was a distressing situation for all involved, it was ultimately Ms Ellis who signed a voluntary surrender form authorising Rosco’s euthanasia.

*NOTE: After receiving the above response the reporter informed us that they would not publish a story yet, that they would instead follow the case through the court process