Time to take the lead and end dog attacks

By PAUL HUTCHISON*

Recent tragic dog maulings, along with the fact that more than 100 children under 14 are hospitalised each year after dog attacks, has prompted me to seek leave to have the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No.2) Dog Control Amendment put first on the order paper when Parliament resumes tomorrow.

This bill was reported back to Parliament in 1999 but given low priority.

It needs amending, with the focus of change being on owner responsibility, increased powers and enforcement by dog control officers, and tougher penalties.

In November 1997, the New Zealand Medical Journal published an article by John Langley from the Dunedin Injury Prevention Research Unit.

Dr Langley comments that in the early 1990s considerable public concern was expressed about the dog bite problem and the inability of the existing legislation to deal effectively with it.

In response, a completely new act, the Dog Control Act 1996, was passed by Parliament and came into force on July 1 1996.

The act has specific provisions relating to the control of dangerous dogs. Where a dog is classified as dangerous the owner is required to:

* keep the dog within a secure, fenced portion of the owner's property;

* muzzle the dog in public places;

* have the dog neutered;

* pay dog control fees at 150 per cent of the level that applies to dogs not classified as dangerous;

* not to dispose of the dog to another person without the consent of a territorial authority.

A dog can be classified as dangerous only after evidence of an attack, if there is sworn evidence of aggressive behaviour, or the dog owner admits that the dog represents a threat.

Dr Langley notes that breed-specific rates need to be treated with caution for several reasons.

He says New Zealand should be more active in identifying potentially dangerous dogs and applying the restraining provisions of the act.

While banning some breeds and classifying other breeds as dangerous may help, many people are bitten by breeds traditionally not considered to be dangerous.

In 1999, the conclusion of the Parliamentary Select Committee dealing with the 54 public submissions on the (No. 2) Bill at present languishing in Parliament was that, on balance, we consider it is more important that the Government take action to restrict the breeding of dangerous breeds of dog in New Zealand and to ban the importing of dangerous breeds into New Zealand.

While we accept that the owner of a dog has a significant effect on that dog's behaviour, we nevertheless believe that some breeds of dogs are inherently more dangerous than others and have the capacity to inflict more serious injury than other breeds.

At this stage we declare only the American pit bull terrier to be a restricted class of dog.

Studies of New Zealand dog bites have shown a steady increase.

In 1988 there were 158 dog bites for which in-patient treatment was required for a day or more, but for each of the past two years there have been about 300 attacks requiring hospital treatment.

Between 1992 and 2001, 2587 people required hospital treatment following dog attacks. Almost 40 per cent of these victims were children under the age of 9.

Neither current dog legislation nor the (No. 2) Bill provides enough flexibility for dog control officers to use their discretion on impounding or even destroying a dog proactively.

The reality is that a person has to be attacked or savaged by a dog before the law can be exercised.At present, the dangerous dog has an advantage over the child.

There is compelling need to use every legislative instrument possible to help to prevent attacks.

Reports indicate that organised dog fighting is becoming increasingly common in New Zealand. Alarm bells must start ringing.

Present penalties for dangerous dog attacks are pathetic, with fines of up to $5000 and jail for up to three months.

The new bill must substantially increase penalties up to 10-fold or more. Penalties for involvement with organised dog fighting can be up to $25,000 and a year in jail.

The right to own a dog must be coupled with owner responsibility to ensure that the dog does not harm others.

The major thrust of the new legislation must be focused around: * owner responsibility, dog registration, severe containment, muzzles and leads in public, and possibly owner registration or licensing;

* penalties must be a spectacular deterrent. Potentially dangerous dogs that are unregistered would normally need to be destroyed;

* dog control officers will need far greater powers to impound and/or destroy the animal on suspicion;

* the importation of dangerous dogs, their semen or embryos must be banned;

* local bodies may act as they see fit to exclude potentially dangerous dogs from public playgrounds;

* local bodies, in association with the police, might run owner dog training and education courses;

* if there is any doubt about owners or dogs fulfilling safety requirements, ownership should be withdrawn.

The Government has failed to act for three years. Next week it will have the chance to respond to my request.

It should lead Parliament to deal expeditiously with legislation that is aimed to prevent the horrific dog attacks that have appalled so many New Zealanders.

* Dr Paul Hutchison is MP for Port Waikato.

Herald feature: When dogs attack

How you can help

A trust fund has been opened for 7-year-old dog attack victim Carolina Anderson. You can send a cheque to: Carolina Anderson Trust Account, BNZ, PO Box 46-294, Herne Bay, or donate over the internet to BNZ account number 020 248 000 3002-000.

The Herald is backing an appeal to raise money for a $150,000 operating-room microscope for Middlemore's plastic surgery unit. The microscope is essential in minute plastic surgery work such as reattaching nerves. Middlemore has two, used on Carolina Anderson and the victims of the Pipiroa sword attack, but they need replacing. Donations can be sent to: The Microsurgery Appeal, Editorial Department, New Zealand Herald, PO Box 706, Auckland.