Pamela Wade: Dog owners tripped up on unlevel playing field

When we went to buy our labrador, Fudge, and she got so excited that she did the Wall of Death around the breeder's living room, I thought the biggest problem about owning a dog was going to be protecting our soft furnishings at home.

And sure, they did come in for some stress, as did various pieces of pottery, shoes, toys, plants in the garden, the plastic liner of the fish pond and, most spectacularly, the electric cable leading to the pump in the pond.

But it turns out that the hardest thing about having a dog is suddenly becoming a social pariah.

There has always been a difference between going for a walk and walking a dog: the first is a solitary and silent activity, the second - until recently - a time for exchanging cheerful pleasantries with everyone you met, stopping to allow children to pet the animal, and swapping shop-talk with other dog-owners.

Having a dog broke down barriers and provided an effortless entry into conversation with strangers.

There is still a difference, but it is no longer one to enjoy. Since the vicious attacks on Carolina Anderson and other children by uncontrolled fighting dogs, taking the family labrador out for a walk has become an ordeal.

People now look at poor Fudge with suspicion, mothers gather their children to them as we pass on the footpath, some even cross the road to avoid us.

When I have occasionally let the dog off her lead to romp the last 50m home in a deserted street, I have scored cold looks from passing motorists.

While it is sad that man's ancient best friend should have become Public Enemy No 1 in such a short time, all breeds and individuals being tarred with the same brush as the menacing fighting dogs that have become so notorious, it is perfectly understandable.

No one can look at Carolina's mutilated face and think that nothing needs to be done to change the rules about dog control; and the shrill cries for what amounted to total canine imprisonment were only to be expected.

Dog-owners were hoping that in the time since, calmer minds would have considered the matter of new control regulations, and reasonable and workable requirements put in place.

The announcement of the Government's recommendations has gone some way towards allowing us to breathe a little easier but, as usual, only those of us who have the money to comply and the inclination to do so.

There will be plenty of people who will scoff at these laws in just the same way as they do at speed limits and car registration and other rules of life in our society. Can you really see people who fling takeaway wrappers out of their car windows as they roar through red lights meekly trotting along to the vet to pay $95 for a microchip?

Or people who don't even strap their children into cars bothering to put a muzzle and lead on their dogs?

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, when reasonable people have their freedoms curtailed and their bank balances reduced because of the behaviour of a selfish and inconsiderate minority who will continue to please themselves.

Laws will still have to be passed to deal with the problem, and proper enforcement is the only compensation for their overall unfairness.

There are other ways in which the Government and councils can appease the generally law-abiding owners of the country's half-million dogs.

For a start, the proposed requirement that all houses should have one dog-free doorway should be deleted.

Besides, the extra expense entailed in lining driveways with fencing when all that is really needed is a gate across the drive, there is the matter of security, which is why many people get dogs in the first place.

As well as the crime rate rises inexorably, the result in large part of the Government's failure to pay police properly, why should taxpayers have to spend money to allow burglars and home invaders safe access to our homes?

At our house, visitors stand at the gate and wait to be greeted while Fudge lets us know they are there.

It is a good system and no one has complained - although I cannot speak for any uninvited toerags who have slunk away when confronted by an untethered barking dog defending her (and our) property.

We would also like clarification and consistency in the rulings over where and when our dogs can be allowed off the lead. Is a park with an unused cricket pitch still a park, or a playing field? Are dogs banned or welcome at soccer fields fitted out with plastic bag dispensers?

Councils should have to fork out some of their money, too, to sort out their contradictory signs.

It's a dog's life? Tell us about it.

* Pamela Wade is an Auckland writer.