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 able to be imposed on 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 country's dog laws.
The extent of the problem has been revealed by a report entitled The Burden of Dogbite Injuries in New Zealand: 2004-2014 co-authored by Middlemore Hospital plastic surgeon Zachary Moaveni and student Jonny Mair. It showed 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 the Government must introduce better safety measures and education initiatives.
But identifying the most effective response is no easy matter. The Labour Government could not come up with the right answer, and nothing of substance has emerged from an inquiry into the law governing dangerous dogs kick-started in 2012 by then Local Government Minister Nick Smith. Broadly, however, three initiatives are usually recommended - the banning of certain breeds, greater responsibilities for dog owners, and education programmes.
Such programmes are relatively common in schools. But it appears the message is not getting through to many children. Some parents add to the problem by not paying sufficient attention to their children's interaction with dogs. One study has concluded three-quarters of bites are inflicted after a child engaged with a dog. Further education programmes are, in themselves, unlikely to solve the problem. Nor is 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. A case can be made for adding "pitbull-type" dogs to this list. This would include all manner of cross-breeds and mongrels obviously capable of killing. Yet that would improve matters only so much. The salient fact is any breed is capable of attacking if the dog has not been trained well or has been mistreated by its owner.
The nub of the issue, therefore, is owner responsibility. Dangerous dogs are commonly a reflection of their owners. They become aggressive because they are not socialised properly, are treated badly, or are neglected. People need to be left in no doubt about their responsibility to properly train and socialise their dogs. One way of achieving this could be licensing owners, perhaps requiring them to complete courses in dog care. It may sound draconian, but if such steps are not taken, those appalled by the injuries suffered by defenceless children are likely to demand far harsher responses.
