NZVA supports Dog Control Act

THE New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA)supports the Dog Control Act as it currently stands, remarked Dr Chris Hutchings, the association's spokesperson on urban animal management.

The Act recently came under attack after Wellington dog Toot was ordered to be destroyed after killing a cat. Toot then disappeared before the order could be enforced.

Responding to the criticism Dr Hutchings said "Calls to change the Act because of the inability to enforce the destruction order issued under section 57 in this case are not justified. The Act is tough and robust and since it was passed in 1996 the number of dog attacks has dropped significantly.

"All dogs are potentially dangerous to people, stock and wildlife. The Act has given the judiciary and enforcement agencies a tool to effectively deal with dog attacks."

Wellington lawyer and Act list MP Stephen Franks criticised the Act for being too rigid, particularly S57(5) which states, in relation to dog attacks, "...the Court shall, on convicting the owner, make an order for the destruction of the dog unless the circumstances of the attack were exceptional and do not justify the destruction of the dog."

Section 58 of the Act places exactly the same constraints on the courts in relation to dealing with dogs causing the death of protected wildlife.

"Take the recent case of the two dogs shot by a dog control officer in Oamaru for killing a number of rare and protected penguins. Imagine if the dogs were not shot immediately and were subjected to a destruction order under S58. If the dogs had disappeared like Toot before the order was enforced, the public outcry against the dogs and the owner would have been huge," said Dr Hutchings. The Waitaki District Council will prosecute the owner of the dogs under the Dog Control Act.

The Brucellosis scare

ABOUT the middle of last year there was a period of anxiety for the owners of St Bernard dogs - a dog had been imported that gave a positive result to a brucellosis test.

The Ministry of Agriculture and the Kennel Club were quickly involved with the problem and informing all St Bernard owners of their obligations to co-operate with the testing programme and take precautions as per instruction from their vet or from the Ministry.

After more testing it was found that the dog in question had given a false-positive reading and was not affected by the disease. Tests for this disease often give either a false positive or a false negative result, so numerous tests are completed before a dog is pronounced negative or positive.

St Bernard owners will have been relieved that the crisis in their breed was a non-event. However, for everyone else it is good to know that MAF and the NZ Kennel Club took action so quickly.