"THE proposed new dog control Law is a mixed bag of the good, not so good and bad," says New ZeaLand Veterinary Association chief executive Murray Gibb.
The Bill proposes breed-specific controls by banning the importation of certain breeds and the creation of a new category of dogs, called menacing dogs, which must be muzzled in public at all times.
"Breed-specific controls make for good politics - but bad law," said Mr Gibb.
"They are difficult to enforce, particularly regarding the identification of American pit bull types. The pit bull terrier is very closely related to a number of other breeds including Staffordshire and English bull terriers. The poor correlation between genetic makeup and physical characteristics in these related breeds makes identification particularly difficult.
"If the Bill is enacted with these controls we will again advise our members that we don't support the use of veterinarians to identify unregistered breeds and/or crossbreeds on the basis of visual assessment only. The experience of jurisdictions that have tried breed-specific legislation shows that it makes no difference to dog attack statistics.
"The overwhelming weight of evidence given to the Select Committee, and which it chose to ignore, was against breed-specific controls. However, for many reasons the American pit bull terrier has become an icon for canine aggression, so it makes good politics," Mr Gibb said.
However, he says there are aspects of the Bill the NZVA supports. "Dog control is a complex subject and owner education is critical," he said.
"Therefore we are pleased to see the Bill allows local authorities to offer financial incentives for owners who get their dogs properly trained.
"It also imposes greater obligations on local authorities to ensure dog control bylaws take account of public safety and gives them the statutory tool to do so. However, these powers need to be used carefully to ensure the rights of dog owners and the public generally are preserved," said Mr Gibb.
"The Veterinary Association has long promoted consistency of application of the Dog Control Act by local authorities. We hope the new requirement in the Bill for them to report annually on administration of dog control bylaws will lead to greater consistency in application of the Act.
"We are pleased that the Minister has not accepted the Committee's recommendation not to go ahead with compulsory microchipping of dogs. Permanent tamper-proof identification of dogs by microchipping is a proven tool in local authority canine management, and it has other benefits for both dogs and owners. The reasons given by the Select Committee for dropping this proposal were pretty weak and the Minister has sensibly chosen not to accept them," he said.
"We are also pleased to see the proposal in the Supplementary Order Paper to remove the probationary owner classification has been dropped. In addition we support new powers being given to dog control officers to enter properties and seize dogs," Mr Gibb concluded.
