Editorial: All concerned must make dog law work

Commendably, the Government has always insisted that tighter dog control laws must strike a balance. In the lead-up to the unveiling of new legislation, the Prime Minister spoke of the need to differentiate between "the 99.9 per cent of the public who have a dog they love and look after, and the others who cause a lot of trouble". It is an important distinction but one placed under severe pressure by a rash of dog attacks, most notably the mauling of Auckland child Carolina Anderson. Commendably, however, the Government has been as good as its word by not allowing an outpouring of emotion to become the catalyst for law that is draconian and ill-directed.

Its measures will raise eyebrows in only one respect: the requirement to fence properties now carries an obligation to ensure unobstructed access to at least one door. Since when did the state assume that right?

But at least there is no concession to those who would have every dog on a leash and muzzled in a public place. Dogs need the freedom to exercise, just as their owners need to be aware they are accountable for their pets' behaviour. If the public has lost patience with dog-owners, it is with the irresponsible minority. And if the public is less enchanted with dogs, it is with those that are bred to fight and kill. Quite correctly, the irresponsible are the focus of the planned law.

Thus there are much harsher punishments for owners whose dogs inflict serious injuries. The onus will be on the Judiciary to enforce the penalties, which rise to three years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Law-abiding dog-owners will want this - as much as the public - as compensation of sorts for the costs they will incur in fencing their properties and, eventually, embedding microchips in their pets. Until now, the Judiciary has been peculiarly loath to enforce the law fully, despite the urgings of victims and dog-control officers. The destruction of offending dogs has appeared to be the limit of its ambition. Now the courts have a far greater range of penalty - and more space to manoeuvre when determining the appropriate sentence for a careless owner.

Local councils, likewise, must play their part. The ability to require the muzzling of dogs they consider dangerous - based on size, behaviour and temperament - is a powerful tool against irresponsible owners and cross-bred animals. As is the added power to be given to dog-control officers. They cannot work effectively when limited to seizing animals roaming at large. Thus they will be able to go onto private property to remove a dog, an act originally intended to be sanctioned by a 1966 law change but, regrettably, not interpreted that way. Finally, the requirement for councils to review their dog-control policies should prompt more standardised rules nationwide.

If the planned law generally reflects the adage that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, it makes a well-merited exception with american pitbull terriers, brazilian filas, dogo argentinos and japanese tosas. They will always be a threat to children, irrespective of the owner.

So savage is the pitbull's reputation that in the 1980s the SPCA wanted its importation banned. The Government of the day ignored the plea; now, belatedly, the importing of pitbulls and the other three breeds has been outlawed and they will have to be muzzled in public. This is a humane method of dealing with dogs that cannot be trusted in canine, let alone human, company.

Some responsible dog-owners will feel they are being made to pay for the crimes of a small minority who will not respond to the new law. And they may also feel this would all have been unnecessary had the present law been enforced. There is a measure of truth in that, but equally, the Government had to answer widespread community concern by devising more effective ways of controlling dangerous dogs. This has been achieved in an even-handed way.