Erana Jamieson: Education a key to dog awareness

Opinion

It is well recognised that children are at risk from dog attacks because their exuberant behaviour - loud noises, sudden movements and the like - can be interpreted as threatening by a dog.

Nonetheless, a 2002 survey undertaken throughout the Auckland region, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin indicated that dogs were not identified as a big threat.

When residents were asked why they considered their neighbourhood to be unsafe, the highest percentage recorded for dogs was 5 per cent (in Manukau City). At the top of the list was strangers (up to 58 per cent).

In late 2002 it was clear that people were not as concerned about dogs attacking their children as other safety issues, but it was still considered important that children and parents recognised the dangers dogs could pose.

Then, on January 31, 2003, 7-year-old Carolina Anderson was attacked and horrifically injured by a dog while enjoying an evening with family and friends at a local park. The response amounted to a case of moral panic, especially by the media, the public and politicians. It led to the hurried enactment of stricter controls to combat the perceived problem.

Stanley Cohen developed a model for moral panic based on the case study of Mods and Rockers in 1960s England. It has been used to describe other phenomena, such as drug problems and the Aids epidemic of the 1980s. The process of moral panic is:

* Someone or something is defined as a threat to values or interests.

* The threat is depicted in an easily recognisable form by the media.

* There is a rapid build-up of public concern.

* There is a response from authorities or opinion-makers.

* The panic recedes, or results in social changes.

The situation after the attack on Carolina Anderson followed that path. While there had been other dog attacks earlier that month, this attack was the trigger for panic. Within days, articles and headlines flooded newspapers, warning us of the danger of dogs. A definite threat had emerged.

The reason that this event, in particular, aroused a public outcry can be attributed to the innocence of a 7-year-old girl and her horrendous injuries, juxtaposed against the alleged blase attitudes of the dog owners. This tugged at people's heartstrings.

But while such attacks can never be condoned or trivialised because they are serious, they are not necessarily indicative or representative of all attacks. Indeed, research has shown that a great number of attacks are near or on the dog owner's property, and that the victim is often a family member or friend.

The role the media plays in the development of moral panic should not be underestimated. It is the main method of communication to the public. It is also used as a gauge of opinion by decision-makers, so it can influence both groups significantly.

The media portrayed the problem of dog attacks and dog control in 2003 in a sensational and emotive manner. The sheer number of articles and their poignant nature quickly led the public to become wary of dogs and their owners.

While the reporting of the perceived problem did have the positive effect of raising awareness, it also stirred fear and anxiety between dog owners and the non-dog owning public. This led to irrational behaviour. In one extreme case, a person with a leashed dog was struck by bricks thrown by disgruntled locals.

The authorities' response to this frenzy of reporting and public concern was to announce sweeping changes to the 1996 Dog Control Act. It is quite typical during moral panic for legislative change to involve more power being given to officials, and stricter controls being placed on the people or things perceived as the root of the problem.

This approach was taken in 2003. The main focus became punishment of dogs and their owners: breed bans, restricted areas where dogs could exercise unleashed, and a reduction in the number of warnings given to owners before fines were imposed.

The furore eventually subsided once legislation was passed in December 2003, when the problem was said to have been resolved.

But problems remain. There are grave concerns that the hurried enactment of the amendments means the law is poorly thought through and does not combat the real source of the problem, and that the response was an overreaction.

Accident Compensation Corporation statistics for 2002 showed that dog-bite claims did not reach even 1 per cent of total claims. This indicates that the Government, in passing the dog-control changes, were acting on perceived public opinion, rather than evidence on the seriousness of the issue.

While some aspects of the new law are positive, such as the extra powers to seize dangerous dogs, it omits mention of one crucial way of reducing dog attacks - education and public awareness.

This factor has been successful worldwide in reducing the number of victims, especially children. Education is important for dogs and their owners and also for the public, so they are made aware of any potential dangers.

Because children are particularly vulnerable, parents and schools need to work together to ensure they are taught correct behaviour when around dogs, and the right way to treat them. This is increasingly important as the country becomes more urbanised and children, especially, are less animal-savvy.

The Department of Internal Affairs had a promising proposal for a public awareness campaign, but it has not eventuated. Such a programme, in a similar vein to the ACC "Think Safe" campaign, would be hugely beneficial.

A nationwide school programme to teach children about dog "dos" and "don'ts" would also be a way of teaching the next generation of pet owners the right behaviour and attitude. Local councils are doing wonderful work in dog education, but this would be enhanced by a centrally run programme.

* Erana Jamieson, a law student at Auckland University, has just completed an honours paper on dog-control law and moral panic, and has written for the Child Accident Prevention Foundation.