Dog plans tough for poor, elderly

Dog owners fearful of not being able to meet the cost of proposed new laws are considering having their pets put down, MPs were told yesterday.

The poor and elderly feared Government plans for all dogs to be fenced and micro-chipped would be beyond their means, Kennel Club president Ray Greer told the local government select committee when submissions on the proposed legislation opened yesterday.

Other owners feared their dog would be branded a dangerous breed under the Local Government Law Reform (No 2) Bill.

"The fencing requirement is plainly an overkill, with costs being prohibitive to the elderly," Mr Greer said.

His vet had told him of several elderly people bringing in loved pets and asking for them to be put down because they didn't want to break the law.

"They can't afford to build a fence around their driveways and they don't want to go to jail."

Mr Greer said banning specific breeds was unworkable and had been dropped in the United Kingdom when it clogged up the court system.

The legislation, prompted by the mauling of Carolina Anderson, 7, in Auckland, came under constant fire in the first public submissions heard.

If passed, the legislation will mean all owners must securely fence their dogs and have unimpaired access to one door by July 2006.

All dogs would have to be micro-chipped and leashed in public places, and certain breeds would have to be muzzled in public.

The MPs heard the law would force council rates up about 4 per cent to cover costs and dog owners paying trebled registration fees.

Gwenda Martin told MPs the legislation was overkill and would have social consequences, particularly for the elderly.

"This proposed legislation seems to me very like blowing the arms and legs off Iraqi children in the hope of killing Saddam," she said.

"No matter how mild and harmless the dog may be, [owners] face devastating costs to keep that dog."

"There are a great many people ... for whom a pet is the most important thing in their life. Take away some old people's dog and you will virtually kill them off."

Kennel Club board member Clyde Rogers said genetics were only one component of the problem and it was wrong to blame specific breeds.

Federated Farmers vice-president Charlie Pedersen said securely fencing dogs would be costly for owners of farm dogs and achieve little.

"Unfortunately this [law] has been driven by an emotive poll in reaction to a tragic event and will encourage irresponsible dog owners not to register their dogs," he said.

Unregistered dogs were responsible for 46 per cent of attacks in 2001-2002.

"The minority of irresponsible dog owners should be targeted by tougher sanctions, not the majority of responsible dog owners who will bear the costs of these provisions that will do little to tackle the real problems," Mr Pedersen said.

The submissions largely agreed with proposed heavier fines for errant owners.

The maximum penalty for the worst Dog Control Act offences would be three years' prison and/or a fine of up to $20,000, up from three months' jail and $5000.

The proposals

A requirement to leash dogs in many public places.

New fencing requirements.

Stiffer penalties and more power to seize dogs.

Microchipping of dogs from 2006.

Power to disqualify dog owners.

Specific breed controls.

- NZPA