Editorial: Beware dogs should be golden rule

Two years ago, as emotions boiled following the brutal attack on 7-year-old Carolina Anderson by an american staffordshire terrier, the Auckland SPCA delivered some pertinent advice. "Our plea to parents," said chief executive Bob Kerridge, "is still to teach all children not to approach unknown dogs." It was his way of noting that although tougher dog laws were about to be enacted, there would continue to be problems if exuberant children launched themselves at animals that felt threatened by such advances. Parliament could impose all manner of strict penalties for irresponsible owners whose dogs inflicted serious injuries, but all its effort would go only so far.

Mr Kerridge's words had a special resonance this week, when a 5-year-old girl underwent surgery after a vicious dog attack outside a Grey Lynn supermarket. The girl was bitten on the face by a german shepherd-labrador cross after patting the dog on the back of the head. She had been told by the owner that the dog, which was on a leash and tied to a seat, was very friendly.

The owner was, in fact, in no position to know this, having had the dog for only three days. People need to assess their new pets in various situations for far longer before being able to make such pronouncements, no matter what assurances have been offered by previous handlers. This shortcoming was, of course, not known to the young girl, who took the owner's word. Neither was it known by the girl's mother, who said: "My children are quite sensible and have played with dogs before." Clearly, the mother believes that, having been told the dog was friendly, she had been sufficiently protective of her children. Mr Kerridge wants even greater caution - no matter how benign the apparent circumstances, parents should not allow themselves to be lulled into a false sense of security. It is advice that should be heeded, whatever the concessions to the complicating features of the Grey Lynn case.

Certainly, prudence appears to be relatively widespread. In Auckland's parks and reserves there is now far less evidence of parents allowing their children to rush up to dogs. Most seem to have accepted that they have a responsibility to teach their children how to relate safely to dogs, just as they must instruct them how to cross the road. They have also become more dog-wise. There is a wider recognition, for example, that dogs often do not see a pat on the back of the head coming, and interpret it as a threatening gesture. A stroke under the chin is far safer.

Statistics indicate that this greater sense of responsibility, allied with local councils' tougher stance on dog control and stricter penalties, is having the desired impact. In Auckland City, reported incidents of canine aggression, which include dog-on-dog attacks and aggressive challenges, dropped from 969 in 2002-2003 to 574 in 2003-2004. That success should not be overlooked in the reaction to the Grey Lynn incident.

Indeed, it would be unfortunate if the pendulum were to have swung so far that in all instances of attack, dogs are automatically considered the guilty party. That threatened to be the state of affairs after the 2003 mauling of Carolina Anderson and a rash of other assaults. Among the unreasonable calls was one for every dog to be on a leash and muzzled in a public place. Quite correctly, the Government struck a reasonable balance in response, differentiating between the vast majority who look after their dogs well and those who are irresponsible.

All dog owners now know they must be accountable for their pets. Under the Dog Control Act, the maximum penalties for a person whose dog inflicts serious injuries - three years in prison and a $20,000 fine - are substantial. Owners, as a result, should be far more cautious about declaring their dogs friendly, or encouraging them to play with unknown children. Just as parents should think twice about allowing their children to approach unknown dogs.