IN 2003, a rash of dog attacks on children prompted the Government to introduce much stricter laws. Four fighting breeds were banned and the maximum penalty for owners whose dogs inflicted serious injuries jumped to three years' imprisonment and a $20,000 fine. Twelve years on, it is apparent this approach has failed. About 12,000 people now seek medical attention for dog bites every year, up from 8700 in 2003. Worst of all, about a third of those who require hospitalisation, mostly with severe facial injuries, are children. Clearly, it is time for another look at the dog laws.
A report called The Burden of Dogbite Injuries in New Zealand: 2004-2014 by Middlemore Hospital plastic surgeon Zachary Moaveni and student Jonny Mair, has shown a significantly higher rate of dog bites than previously reported. Most at risk were children under 9, Maori, and those living in low socio-economic areas. The Association of Plastic Surgeons says better safety measures and education initiatives are needed.
But identifying the most effective response is not easy. The Labour Government could not find the right answer, and nothing of substance has emerged from an inquiry into the law governing dangerous dogs kick-started in 2012 by National. Broadly, however, three initiatives are usually recommended - the banning of certain breeds, greater responsibilities for owners and education programmes.
Such programmes are common in schools, but it appears the message doesn't get through to many children.
Further education programmes are unlikely to solve the problem. Ditto for banning more breeds. Under the 2003 Dog Control Act, the importing of American pitbulls, Brazilian filas, Japanese tosas and dogos Argentinos was outlawed on the basis they would always pose a threat, irrespective of their owner.
