Editorial: Target the breeds that bite

The full weight of strengthened law must fall on the owners of dangerous dogs. A spate of appalling attacks over the past few weeks has drawn attention yet again to a scourge that regularly raises its head. Each time there is an outcry, and each time politicians fall over themselves to promise drastic steps such as the banning of certain breeds. And next time somebody is savaged, it turns out that little or nothing has been done.

Nobody imagines that dog-control legislation is easy. The adage that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, is mostly true. Dogs can generally be trained to respect people in almost any situation, and those that cannot be trusted can be kept firmly on a leash. It is also true that in many attacks, particularly on children, the dog has probably been frightened by sudden movements or by a toy, ball or wheel that it mistakes for another animal. Owners who know their pet has these sort of propensities ought to supervise it closely around children.

Adults as well as children can sometimes be endangered by their own fear of dogs. Those who become tense and aggressive at the meekest approach of an unknown dog are increasing the risk of an attack. In those circumstances the law is unforgiving. If the dog bites it can be classified as dangerous and thereafter must be muzzled when it is in public places.

That and other precautions and penalties assume the dog has a law-abiding owner with a securely fenced property. The law seems much less decisive where dogs are not contained and posing a risk to people. Tolerance reached ridiculous proportions a few weeks ago when postal deliveries where suspended in a South Auckland street. Rather than seize and remove dogs that were on the loose, dog officers decided to accompany the posties, at public expense, for a week.

Dog owners know, probably better than anyone, that there are some breeds that have no place in canine, let alone human, society. They have been bred for aggression and cannot be allowed to come within sniffing distance of other dogs. They will attack without warning or provocation, and must spend a miserable existence, unable to be trusted to run free. It is a mystery why anybody keeps them, and unfortunate that the law permits it.

Obviously the law cannot dispatch entire breeds at one bloody stroke. The best that can be done, humanely, is to prohibit further breeding, and even that, so it is argued, has been rendered difficult by cross-breeding. It is an objection that will not stand scrutiny. Strict controls on breeding are advisable anyway; responsible breeders can meet any legitimate demand. Then it would be reasonable to require that all dogs with any trace of an unwanted breed be castrated.

Yet breeding restrictions would not be enough. There will be dangerous individuals in any breed, and some of the attacks in recent days invite stronger pre-emptive measures. Local government representatives complain that their officers cannot seize a dog that rushes at people or behaves threateningly. And they cannot go on to private property to remove a dog that has offended and is likely to escape and offend again.

They should be given that power. Dog-control officers will be reasonable people. They are probably in the job because they know dogs and enjoy them. They are unlikely to use the proposed powers lightly. Where they see a dog is under care but inadequate control, they are likely to do their utmost to help the owners rather than remove the pet. But where they find owners careless and the animal to be a menace they must be able to step in before somebody is mauled. And those owners should also face legal penalty. Responsible dog-owners would have nothing to fear.