KEY POINTS:
Simple solutions have a particular appeal in the aftermath of an incident such as the savaging of 2-year-old Aotea Coxon by a dog in a Christchurch park. This is especially the case for politicians, who must offer immediate answers to an appalled public. Simplicity does not always equate
to good sense, however. So it is with the Prime Minister's suggestion that the best way to stop dog attacks would be to extend the list of banned breeds. Not only has this failed to work elsewhere but it delays an effective response by tackling the problem from the wrong angle.
Helen Clark's view stems from the fact that the dog involved in the Christchurch attack, a staffordshire-cross, was not among the four fighting breeds identified by the 2003 Dog Control Act. This law banned the importation of american pitbulls, brazilian filas, japanese tosas and dogos argentinos, and stipulated that those already in the country would have to be muzzled in public. Why not, then, simply extend the ban, an approach endorsed by United Future leader Peter Dunne, who said the eight serious attacks reported by the media in the past year had all involved pitbull terriers, bull mastiffs or stafforshire bull terriers?
The answer is that dogs of any breed are capable of attacking people if they are not trained properly or are mistreated by their owners. Banning particular breeds leads down a path that ends, presumably, with miniature schnauzers and dachshunds. More practically, experience in the United States has shown that such bans fail on the grounds of identification. Dog experts will argue endlessly over whether a cross-breed has come from a proscribed breed. In effect, a type can be cross-bred to such an extent that it becomes indistinguishable.
The Prime Minister was on sounder ground when she noted that a review of the 2003 law, commissioned three months ago, would examine the level of enforcement by local councils. The act attracted most publicity because of its microchipping provisions, but also increased the maximum penalty that can be imposed on irresponsible dog owners to three years in prison and a $20,000 fine. That replaced previous punishment of three months' jail and a $5000 fine, the inadequacy of which had been magnified by an apathetic judiciary.
The act sent a strong signal to dog owners. But the message will be heeded only if the law is applied strictly. Ensuring that must, as the Prime Minister suggests, be one strand of the Government's response. The other should be the education of owners. Only individual dogs are dangerous, and that is generally a reflection of their owners. Dogs that are chained up all day, rarely socialised or are treated badly will become aggressive and a danger to the public. People must be made aware of the need to socialise their dogs, and to have them properly trained, logically through the licensing of owners.
Helen Clark bemoaned the fact that previous calls for a tougher regime had been thwarted by "pushback" from responsible dog owners and breeders. More accurately, it was a case of better counsel prevailing. The toughening of the law in 2003 followed an attack on a 7-year-old girl in an Auckland park. This sparked near hysterical calls, such as that every dog should be on a leash and muzzled. Eventually, a parliamentary select committee sensibly toned down the more drastic provisions of the legislation, notably extreme fencing provisions. The upshot was an act that laid the foundation for a significant reduction in dog attacks. The Government's main priorities now must be to ensure that law is working and that dog owners are in no doubt about their responsibilities.
