Editorial: Dog law out of control
The ground shifts again. It's now unlikely microchipping will become compulsory across all newly-registered dogs from July 1.
The Green Party, courtesy of having the numbers at committee level, has succeeded in having a clause included that only dogs classified as menacing or dangerous be microchipped. On its own that wouldn't have mattered. Labour, with NZ First and United Future, still had the numbers for blanket microchipping, but now United has changed its mind.
It will support an exemption to farm dogs, but if Labour can't live with that, it will support the Greens' new position. The trouble here is all the politicians have lost their way. It should not be compulsory for any dogs to be microchipped.
The Greens plan doesn't make sense. Dogs aren't really the problem. The owners are. Many dog attacks are by breeds not considered dangerous or menacing. The owners of "dangerous" dogs who don't register their dogs now (an estimated 200,000 of New Zealand's 700,000 dogs are not registered) certainly won't be going out of their way to microchip them. Quite true!
The farm dog exemption isn't fair either, certainly not in the eyes of the thousands of show or small dogs that shy even from cats. And what qualifies as a farm dog anyway? My one would be a workign dog, that's for sure...
And, taking up the view of the national veterinary association, there is no workable halfway house here, it's either all dogs microchipped or none.
Why not all? Quite simply, because microchipping won't stop dog attacks, and, if anything, will lead to even more non-compliance of the licensing system. Why is the government shoving this one down our throats... another process, another law that will bloats the all more government agency..
And the benefits the vets see in microchipping can be achieved by other means. Go ahead and introduce one national database instead of the present 74. You don't need microchipping as an excuse to do that. EXACTLY, however, they do need microchipping to PAY for the database!
Go ahead with more rigorous enforcement of dog control laws. Again, no need for microchipping. And yes, it's impossible now to identify the owner of a dog without a collar or registration tag, about as impossible in future as identifying a dog that isn't microchipped.
Let's remember here the new laws still introduce greater powers to councils and larger fines for the non-conformist, and public safety will be improved. Microchipping doesn't need to be part of that mix, and all politicians are missing that point.
The Green Party, courtesy of having the numbers at committee level, has succeeded in having a clause included that only dogs classified as menacing or dangerous be microchipped. On its own that wouldn't have mattered. Labour, with NZ First and United Future, still had the numbers for blanket microchipping, but now United has changed its mind.
It will support an exemption to farm dogs, but if Labour can't live with that, it will support the Greens' new position. The trouble here is all the politicians have lost their way. It should not be compulsory for any dogs to be microchipped.
The Greens plan doesn't make sense. Dogs aren't really the problem. The owners are. Many dog attacks are by breeds not considered dangerous or menacing. The owners of "dangerous" dogs who don't register their dogs now (an estimated 200,000 of New Zealand's 700,000 dogs are not registered) certainly won't be going out of their way to microchip them. Quite true!
The farm dog exemption isn't fair either, certainly not in the eyes of the thousands of show or small dogs that shy even from cats. And what qualifies as a farm dog anyway? My one would be a workign dog, that's for sure...
And, taking up the view of the national veterinary association, there is no workable halfway house here, it's either all dogs microchipped or none.
Why not all? Quite simply, because microchipping won't stop dog attacks, and, if anything, will lead to even more non-compliance of the licensing system. Why is the government shoving this one down our throats... another process, another law that will bloats the all more government agency..
And the benefits the vets see in microchipping can be achieved by other means. Go ahead and introduce one national database instead of the present 74. You don't need microchipping as an excuse to do that. EXACTLY, however, they do need microchipping to PAY for the database!
Go ahead with more rigorous enforcement of dog control laws. Again, no need for microchipping. And yes, it's impossible now to identify the owner of a dog without a collar or registration tag, about as impossible in future as identifying a dog that isn't microchipped.
Let's remember here the new laws still introduce greater powers to councils and larger fines for the non-conformist, and public safety will be improved. Microchipping doesn't need to be part of that mix, and all politicians are missing that point.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home