New Zealand Dog News

Reviewing the dog news in New Zealand with editors comments. Someone needs to keep reviewing how our dogs are doing in society.

October 08, 2009

Hide plans review of 'onerous' regulations


An overhaul of dog laws is planned. Thank you!

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide, who has asked officials to review the laws, said some councils took dog regulation too far. It is really great to hear some common sense coming into our dog laws.

Dog laws had been made on the "basis of emotion", with "onerous" restrictions being placed on responsible dog owners, he said. Totally agree!

"Dogs are now more controlled in most cities than ever before. Dog owners are also more controlled, and their rights to enjoy their dogs have been restricted." he said. "Is the balance right? There is anecdotal evidence that councils have restricted dog owners to an extent that goes beyond the removal of significant threats to others.

"I am not sure that people with an irrational fear, however real, of dogs have a right to require the physical restraint of all dogs in public places. I worry that councils take dog regulation too far." They are. Once you put a uniform on someone, they think that it gives them the right to do what they want to others. Yes, their job is difficult when dealing with some members of the public with dogs, but it's the 'easy' ones that they pick on because they can. It must be human nature because kids learn this quite young...

However, dog owners had a responsibility to stop their pets annoying other people. I agree with this too! It's the fine line of living together as a community.

"Drivers should not have to face wandering dogs on busy roads," Hide said. "I think farmers have every right to shoot dogs that pose a threat to stock on their farms. But I am not sure that people should be protected from dogs running on a beach off the leash, or from dogs on private property marked with clear warnings about the dogs, or from people owning a large number of dogs on private property or from being approached by a dog." Rodney must have read my blog :)

Canterbury Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals manager Geoff Sutton said the Dog Control Act allowed "enough flexibility". If dog owners took responsibility for their dogs, there would be no problems. "What we all want is for dogs to be under control at all times," he said.

Could we have the same for kids? "under control at all times!" -- sheese... of course there will be a time that your dog will wander.

Yes, they will.

You can have the highest fence, but all it takes is for the visiting cousin to leave the gate open. What is needed is for the dog to control himself! Self-control... and we as dog owners should teach our dogs this concept...

Some councils went too far in their interpretation of the law, others did not go far enough, he said. "There's no measure of an individual council's performance – it's all done internally."

I'm thinking of Mr Watts in Invercargill... killing those puppies !!!!

The Christchurch City Council's dog control policy was "effective" and a "pretty fair interpretation of the Dog Control Act", Sutton said.

Local Government New Zealand regulation spokeswoman Dianne Hale said protecting the public through the licensing of owners of dangerous dogs should be considered as part of the review.

Canterbury Kennel Club Association president Bernard Fears said dog owners should take full responsibility for their animals, but some councils took the control of dogs too far.

Hide said compulsory microchipping would be reviewed. good... since they haven't stopped dog bites!

"Is it good value for money? Does it help us deal with the worst criminal use of dogs by gangs? I'll be looking for real evidence in any review of our dog-control laws," he said.

Well Rodney, you'll also have to look at our drug laws and 'have your say' in the review of drug and alcohol review... as you know Rodney, the more conservative you become with drugs (ie, given control of drugs to our Health Ministry), then we'll be on our way of dealing with the menacing dogs.

As dog control was not a Government priority, the review would not take place until 2011
__________________________

Review of dog laws on Hide's agenda
another good article about what Rodney Hide said....

4 Comments:

  • At 10:53 a.m., Blogger Fi from Four Paws and Whiskers said…

    Great post !
    Needs reviewing :)

     
  • At 12:51 p.m., Blogger g said…

    oh dear, you seem to be off on a tangent again.. Dogs by nature need control, a pack leader. Microchipping wasnt "to stop dog bites??" it allows the tracking of dogs which may have offences registered against them nationwide and stiops fraudulent registration, avoidance and aids theft recovery! The current laws shouldnt bother any responsible dog owner as they only punish non compliance... so im guesssing you must be non compliant?

     
  • At 9:44 p.m., Blogger Natalie said…

    The tracking of bites... oh really. You don't even share your database with the SPCA who are the ones dealing with dogs. Get your system right!

    You can't even write your name... an anonymous G... seems like you are the one that is non compliant!

     
  • At 9:56 a.m., Blogger g said…

    actually, im not allopwede to publically comment, but your constant diatribe drives me to comment!! i think you will find the National Dog Database is the legal requirement for registering microchips, the companion animal database is a voluntary one which in fact vets and spca charge $15 to add details on!! NDD is free!!
    the spca refuise to give local authorities the details of "clients" dogs when they chip them... and yes the NDD is restricted to warranted officers for obvious privacy reasons as it contains some sensitive info ie domestic abuse alerts and dog and owner danger alerts for obvious reasons.. the spca are not "the ones dealing with the dogs" as you put it. any dog over 3 months old should be referred to t5he local authority unless they have an MOU with their spca branch. The TA will give the SPCA the details of any microchipped dog as rwequired in exchange for the owner details.. its a two way street..
    The system is "right" and works well in the owner recovery of dogs on the system nationwide. i dont know how you can comment on it if you are not privy to it??

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 
web page hit counter