LOUIS PIERARD Napier City Council's decision to get tough on unregistered and dangerous dogs is to be applauded. The door-to-door campaign is designed to ensure that all dog owners comply with the rules or face the consequences. Given the level of public concern about the danger of delinquent owners and their dogs, itis as well for the council to ensure that the administration of the city's canine life, for which all owners must pay, is providing the best service possible. When it comes to local body dog control (as it is with firearms registration), the principle of user-pays is stood on its head. Many councils strive to mitigate that and provide some fairness to the process, easing the cost of registration with rebates for proof of responsible ownership. However, the overriding objection of conscientious dog-owning households continues in the knowledge they are paying for the cost of controlling the dogs of bad owners who have a free ride. Local bodies find that most troubles are caused by unregistered dogs. A casual attitude to council bylaws often carries through to failure to observe other fundamental requirements for owning a dog, such as secure fencing, adequate nutrition and exercise and noise control. Any dog control regime needs to acknowledge the running costs of a database of all dog owners and the staff to go with it, hence the annual "dog tax". But it also needs to be weighted more heavily in penalties against those who tax the service. That, of course, requires a policing policy astringent enough for the deterrent potential of fines to have any effect. It is only by having such a guarantee of regular patrols that errant owners will stop taking a punt on their mutts being unregistered or allowed to roam. As with most things, it is the few who make life difficult for the rest. A get-tough regime will mean that those who do use the services of the council's dog control staff are called on to pay.
