The issue of dog control bared its fangs again when a 92-year-old Kaikohe man was bitten when he tried to save his dog from an attack in Harold Ave. The owner of the offending dog said she had made a reasonable effort to confine it, but the attack happened. The dog will no doubt be destroyed, if it hasn't been already, but she will not be prosecuted.
We can't be expected to sit and wait until all the vicious dogs in the district attack someone, are seized or surrendered and destroyed. The council needs to be much more pro-active than that, and the owners of dogs need to know that if their animal bites someone they will pay very, very dearly.
We are told that 135 dog attacks were reported to the council in 2010. It would be safe to assume that many more were not reported. Two years ago 198 attacks were reported, and the first three and a half months of this year produced 44. Almost half the 2014 incidents were reported in Kaikohe, Kaitaia and Kawakawa.
Even if the problem wasn't getting worse, which it seems to be, this is unacceptable. It certainly isn't getting better, despite the council's efforts to educate dog owners. And it's not as if the council doesn't have the authority to do something effective. Rather it seems to be a lack of enthusiasm.
Two Kaikohe residents told this newspaper after the attack on 92-year-old Jim Morgan and his dog that they had been imploring the council to adopt a sterner response to irresponsible dog owners for 10 years, to no effect. They believed that Animal Control was under-staffed, while assurances that action would be taken had consistently come to nought. Of particular concern was the fact that in Kaikohe at least dogs seemed free to roam at will, especially at night, obviously in no danger of any control measures, until they bite someone.
Their deepest fear was that one day the victim would be a child. Not unreasonable, given the recent spate of dog attacks on children elsewhere. One suspects that if that was to eventuate the council would suddenly find another gear, as it undoubtedly would have had the attack on Jim Morgan and his dog been fatal. Remember that when Harold Ave residents went to their rescue Mr Morgan was on the ground with the attacking dog on top of him. That story could have ended in tragedy, but still the council is sticking to its story that it's doing a good job.
The response to that incident from the council's team leader for animal management beggared belief. Dog control officers had gone door to door in Harold Ave, checking on who owned dogs and whether they were registered. Some weren't "in the system," but were now. Does that mean that registered dogs don't bite? We were also told that dog registration wasn't a high priority in poorer households, that the owners of unregistered dogs were not bad people but needed help to become compliant.
Memo to Animal Control - registering a dog does not render it harmless. In fact no one has ever been able to tell this newspaper why we still need to register dogs. It was compulsory when all dogs were required to undergo treatment for hydatids every six months. Hydatids is long gone but registration hasn't. Why not? The only answer ever received from the council is that the revenue generated by dog registration covers the cost of rounding up unregistered dogs. How's that for compelling logic?
It certainly isn't used to round up roaming dogs, registered or not, because the council, according to the people of Harold Ave, doesn't do that any more.
Meanwhile the council is undertaking more "education work" regarding dog registration. That's got to be worth a A for missing the point.
Registering dogs might simplify the process of holding someone responsible when a dog attacks, but it doesn't stop the attack itself. Registered or not, dogs should not be free to roam the streets at will, especially when the council is receiving reports of attacks at a rate of close to four per week.
The unfortunate side-effect of more enthusiastic law enforcement by the council is that it will inevitably round up dogs that will never pose any kind of problem, but like to stroll around the neighbourhood on a regular basis. This is what some dogs do, and while their toileting routines might occasionally sour neighbourly relationships there is no valid reason for stopping them from doing that.
It would be unreasonable to expect Animal Control to make exceptions though. If we want them to round up roaming dogs we must expect that to apply to every dog. Should this come to pass, inevitably there will be complaints that aged, arthritic specimens have been impounded, but the alternative, letting every dog run wild whatever risk they might pose to people or other animals, isn't working.
And no offence to the council, but the current approach isn't going to suddenly start working because dog rangers have stepped up their efforts to promote responsible ownership. Responsible owners already know what's expected of them, and the irresponsible ones won't experience an epiphany next time they stumble upon a dog control stall at their local A&P show.
If education has a role it should be aimed at the people, children mainly, whose behaviour exacerbates the situation. Last week we heard from a Kaikohe man who had his dog destroyed, 18 months after he found it dumped and at death's door, because of the extent to which its behaviour had deteriorated as a result of taunting by children. Its brother was offered for re-homing in case it went the same way.
Parents need to do something about that. (Perhaps parents should be registered). The council's job is to remove dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs from the streets, and to hold their owners responsible in a meaningful fashion. If it doesn't, and someone dies, as Jim Morgan might well have died on Saturday April 16, they will have very tough questions to answer.
