Editorial: Time to look at all aspects of dog laws

Opinion

Rodney Hide's plan for a "first principles" review of dog laws makes sense. A suitable period has passed since a spate of savage attacks on children prompted calls so extreme that dogs in public places would have had to be muzzled and on leashes. The legislation that was subsequently passed avoided such draconian responses, and was successful in reducing the number of dog attacks. Nonetheless, the Local Government Minister has some grounds for describing the present law as an "onerous muddle", and for believing that dog owners are subjected to too much restriction.

This was probably inevitable given the climate of near hysteria that followed some of the attacks, notably that on 7-year-old Carolina Anderson in an Auckland park in 2003. But, as Mr Hide says, good law is not made on the basis of emotion. His preferred emphasis, not surprisingly for an Act MP, would constrain the freedom of dog owners to enjoy the companionship of their pets only "if they or their dog ... significantly interfere with the rights of others". This means, says Mr Hide, that he is not sure if, for example, people should be protected from dogs running on the beach or from dogs on private property marked with clear warnings.

There is, obviously, a balance to be struck. Dog owners must be aware they have a responsibility for their animals. That was certainly reinforced by the far stricter penalties of the 2003 Dog Control Act and subsequent sentencing. The danger is that the irresponsible minority of owners may see a new emphasis on their rights as a cue for carelessness. Their responsibilities need to be underlined. It might not fit Mr Hide's agenda but consideration should be given to ensuring people in cities do a course in dog behaviour and care before they have the right to own one.

A complete review is bound to encompass two other contentious areas - the banning of some breeds and microchipping. Both of these contain elements of the muddled thinking referred to by the minister. It was never clear how embedding identifying microchips between dogs' shoulder blades would avert attacks or, indeed, solve any problem other than uniting lost dogs with their owners. The review will surely find that, because they are not serving their intended purpose, they cannot be providing value for money.

Extending the list of banned breeds was touted by the previous Government. It overlooks the fact that dogs of any breed are capable of attacking people if they are not trained well or are mistreated by their owners. Additionally, experience overseas points to the problems of breed identification that arise. The whole approach smacks of the simplicity that mars the existing legislation. More usefully, the review could consider other over-reaching aspects of that law, including fencing requirements that dictate unobstructed access to at least one door. Clear warnings should, indeed, provide sufficient notice to people entering private property.

The review will also canvass whether central or local governments should be responsible for dog control laws. Currently, councils can make their own decisions, and some appear to be taking an unnecessarily harsh approach, such as severely restricting dog exercise areas. More standardised rules nationwide would be a step forward.

We will have to wait until 2011 for the review because, as the minister suggests, there are more pressing priorities. That scheduling carries its own commentary. It says the legislation changes have not been a complete shambles, even if they have swung the pendulum against dog owners. Some laws, enacted largely for the sake of appearance, should go. But owner accountability must not follow in Mr Hide's pursuit of greater freedom.