Cathy Casey: Train owners and save the dogs

Every week, across Auckland, more than 70 dogs are destroyed by councils at ratepayers' expense. Unlike the unfortunate case of a dog being put down in error last week, councils' destruction of impounded dogs is not talked about much publicly.

Last month the issue got airtime after public outrage over Invercargill City Council's decision to destroy a litter of six, 6-week-old rottweilers. During that debate we learned Invercargill destroys about half the 500 dogs it impounds annually.

It was that fact which prompted me to find out how many impounded dogs are destroyed across Auckland in a year.

On the way to finding those figures, I learned a lot about council destruction of dogs. I discovered Whangarei District Council only introduced lethal injection this year. Before then, unwanted dogs were shot.

I also became interested in the language used by councils to describe dog destruction. They talk about euthanising dogs. To "euthanise" an animal means to put it out of its suffering.

Councils in Auckland are not "euthanising" dogs, they are destroying them. Council policy dictates that they cannot live at ratepayers' expense any longer than the allocated time - usually seven days.

I was not surprised to find dog destruction figures were not readily available. Indeed, Manukau was the only city in the region where I found statistics online.

The latest figures from each council make grim reading. The sad fact is in the Auckland region almost 10,000 dogs are impounded each year and of those 3762 (almost 40 per cent) are destroyed. That's around 72 dogs killed each week at ratepayers' expense.

Dogs can be impounded for all manner of reasons. For example, they could be found wandering, or they could be seized if unregistered.

Council destruction of a dog is a last resort. All impounded dogs are tested for soundness and temperament. Those dogs with two ticks will be re-homed. However, an impounded sick or ill-natured dog cannot be re-homed and will be destroyed after seven days.

Will the new Super City do anything to reduce this ghastly annual toll? The first part of the answer lies in keeping dogs out of the pound through owner education.

If a dog is impounded, the fault lies squarely with the owner. If the dog is sick, it has probably been neglected.

If it is an aggressive dog, it has probably not been well socialised. If it is not registered, it says much about the owner's commitment to taking responsibility for the dog.

Having to take an impounded dog to be destroyed after seven days must be the worst part of any animal control officer's work.

People need to be educated about dog ownership before they commit to owning a dog. With dog ownership comes responsibilities, not just to provide food, water and a place to sleep but also ensuring it is de-sexed, regularly exercised and well socialised with other people and animals.

Many people do not know enough about dogs before they find themselves the owner of one. It would be a good use of my dog registration fee if I knew that throughout Auckland people were being better educated about owning a dog.

The other part of the answer is to ensure dogs which do reach the pound get a second chance. The new Super City needs an integrated system for the successful re-homing of all appropriate impounded dogs.

The council pound should be a place people want to visit to pick a new dog. Details of all dogs requiring a new home should be online so that people who want a dog can be reached.

If the Super City targets owner education and develops a successful integrated re-homing operation then just maybe the shocking dog toll will come down.

* Dr Cathy Casey, an Auckland City councillor, is a former president of DOG, the Auckland Dog Owners Group.