Microchip law a howling shame
This is a good overview of what has happened... well done.
The vote on the dog microchipping law that has ended up exempting farm working dogs was marked by farce, with some Green MPs springing a last-minute surprise – including on party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons – and supporting the National Party proposal, The Dominion Post writes in an editorial.
That is fitting. The legislation was already flawed, and the exemption has now made it a joke. It was driven by the Government's need to be seen to be doing something after the 2003 attack on Auckland schoolgirl Carolina Anderson, in which an American Staffordshire terrier left her with half her face ripped off and needing plastic surgery. Carolina's father was justifiably angry and campaigned for the Government to toughen up the laws – though microchipping was not part of his campaign. Did he actually think about that?? He was just angry, but the laws were already there in place. Nothing more needed to happen.
It is too easy to forget that the dog which attacked Carolina was eventually found, destroyed and its owners briefly jailed. In short, the existing system worked and delivered the culprits. Excellent!
The Government had to show that it was treating the issue seriously, however, and introduced a raft of measures including a proposal that all dogs registered after July 1 be microchipped. That, then local government minister Chris Carter argued, would help ensure that if a child was attacked, it would be possible to identify the person who owned the dog and who should have been controlling it.
It does not take much thought to reveal the flaws in such an approach. There are 500,000 dogs registered in New Zealand – and another 200,000 that are not. The Veterinary Association says somewhere between 30 and 40 per cent of dog owners are already breaking the law by not registering their animals. It is difficult to believe that they will suddenly have a change of heart and pay the $50-$110 it will cost to microchip their previously unregistered animals.
What was unworkable when it was applied to all dogs has been made even more so by the division between farm working and other dogs. Inevitably, there will be a blurring between true working dogs and dogs which could be defined as such. The Veterinary Association, which opposed exemptions, says many farmers have registered their Labrador retrievers and Jack Russell terriers as working dogs.
The registrations are no doubt legitimate, but it is hard to see why the Lab curled up in front of a fire in Karori should be microchipped while the one who tucks down in a farm house kitchen in the Manawatu should not. In a further complication, there will be no national process for deciding whether a dog is a legitimate farm working dog. Instead, the Government's plan is to leave it to individual councils. The result will be an unworkable farrago.
AdvertisementAdvertisementThat is what the Government needs to recognise, and it should admit it was driven by political correctness rather than common sense. For dog control measures to work, the vast majority of dog owners need to buy in to them, to regard them as fair and equitable, and to believe them likely to deliver a meaningful benefit.
Microchipping fails that test, and fails it badly. The likely outcome will be low compliance and a justified sense of resentment by those who follow the letter of the law. The Government should recognise that, tuck its tail between its legs and abandon the scheme. MORE>>
The vote on the dog microchipping law that has ended up exempting farm working dogs was marked by farce, with some Green MPs springing a last-minute surprise – including on party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons – and supporting the National Party proposal, The Dominion Post writes in an editorial.
That is fitting. The legislation was already flawed, and the exemption has now made it a joke. It was driven by the Government's need to be seen to be doing something after the 2003 attack on Auckland schoolgirl Carolina Anderson, in which an American Staffordshire terrier left her with half her face ripped off and needing plastic surgery. Carolina's father was justifiably angry and campaigned for the Government to toughen up the laws – though microchipping was not part of his campaign. Did he actually think about that?? He was just angry, but the laws were already there in place. Nothing more needed to happen.
It is too easy to forget that the dog which attacked Carolina was eventually found, destroyed and its owners briefly jailed. In short, the existing system worked and delivered the culprits. Excellent!
The Government had to show that it was treating the issue seriously, however, and introduced a raft of measures including a proposal that all dogs registered after July 1 be microchipped. That, then local government minister Chris Carter argued, would help ensure that if a child was attacked, it would be possible to identify the person who owned the dog and who should have been controlling it.
It does not take much thought to reveal the flaws in such an approach. There are 500,000 dogs registered in New Zealand – and another 200,000 that are not. The Veterinary Association says somewhere between 30 and 40 per cent of dog owners are already breaking the law by not registering their animals. It is difficult to believe that they will suddenly have a change of heart and pay the $50-$110 it will cost to microchip their previously unregistered animals.
What was unworkable when it was applied to all dogs has been made even more so by the division between farm working and other dogs. Inevitably, there will be a blurring between true working dogs and dogs which could be defined as such. The Veterinary Association, which opposed exemptions, says many farmers have registered their Labrador retrievers and Jack Russell terriers as working dogs.
The registrations are no doubt legitimate, but it is hard to see why the Lab curled up in front of a fire in Karori should be microchipped while the one who tucks down in a farm house kitchen in the Manawatu should not. In a further complication, there will be no national process for deciding whether a dog is a legitimate farm working dog. Instead, the Government's plan is to leave it to individual councils. The result will be an unworkable farrago.
AdvertisementAdvertisementThat is what the Government needs to recognise, and it should admit it was driven by political correctness rather than common sense. For dog control measures to work, the vast majority of dog owners need to buy in to them, to regard them as fair and equitable, and to believe them likely to deliver a meaningful benefit.
Microchipping fails that test, and fails it badly. The likely outcome will be low compliance and a justified sense of resentment by those who follow the letter of the law. The Government should recognise that, tuck its tail between its legs and abandon the scheme. MORE>>
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home