We all love our dogs and want to take them with us to interesting places. We want them to roam free and enjoy the great outdoors with us. But the fact is, there are places that dogs don’t belong:

Fledgling Weka. Photo by angrysunbird.

The [New Zealand] Department of Conservation (DOC) says it has laid three charges against a Hauraki Gulf resident whose dogs killed 14 endangered weka at the Kawau Island Historic Reserve in May [2009].

The man is charged with allowing his dogs to enter a DOC reserve on two separate occasions, and with being the owner of dogs that attacked and killed protected wildlife — a charge that carries a maximum penalty of three years in jail and/or a $20,000 fine. …

The North Island weka is a nationally endangered sub-species.

[Via : Man charged after dog killed 14 weka | Stuff.co.nz.]

It’s easy folks: keep dogs out of places where they aren’t supposed to go. Take them to an approved beach or park for a run, and help protect our endangered wildlife.

In Shanghai, China, residents and pet experts feel it’s too hard to own and keep a dog, and have asked for the law to be changed:

Shanghai Old Town. Photo by kirillmazin.

Raising a dog in Shanghai costs from 500 yuan ($73) to 2,000 yuan per year for a license, depending on where the owners live. And applying for a license needs approval of neighbors and a neighborhood committee. Dogs without a license will be taken away if found.

… In August a legislator had suggested a ban on walking dog in public areas, blaming dogs for damaging lawns, leaving waste everywhere and disturbing the peace.

“Pet dogs bring most people troubles or even harm, and only a few people fun,” Deng Zixin was quoted as saying by Shanghai Oriental Morning Post.

[Via : Dog lovers call for new law.]

In a speech to the 2009 NZ Companion Animal Conference Hon Rodney Hide, Minister of Local Government, spoke of the possibility that some restrictive dog laws could be relaxed:

I believe that dog owners should be free to enjoy the companionship of their dogs and that their freedom should only be constrained if they or their dog interferes with the rights of others. I would go further, in fact, to say ‘significantly interferes with the rights of others’.

This is great to hear in a country where local councils seem often to treat all dogs as dangerous creatures to be confined, restrained and regarded with utmost suspicion at all times.

Hide calls for a balance between freedom and responsibility.

Hide’s speech is well worth reading in its entirety, but below are a few points that I see as being of particular interest. What follows has been heavily edited.

Hon Rodney Hide.

My belief in the need for individual freedom and personal responsibility impacts directly on my job as Minister of Local Government, which includes consideration of the country’s dog laws.

I expect that sometime in 2011, you may be asked for your views.

In the meantime, the present laws will apply, although I hope that local authorities will work hard to ensure the emphasis is on freedom, rather than restriction.

I think it is clear that people have a right to be protected in their own property from wandering dogs, or from dogs barking so they can be heard on other people’s property over a significant period, or unreasonable hours.

I think people should be protected from dogs who bite them, or push them over, or act in a way that makes reasonable people with some experience of dogs feel threatened with attack.

I think drivers should not have to face wandering dogs on busy roads.

I think it is reasonable that people whose dogs soil public or other people’s private property should clean it up.

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.

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.

The dog laws themselves allow councils to make their own decisions about dogs. There is anecdotal evidence that councils have restricted dog owners to an extent that goes beyond the removal of significant threats to others.

[Via : Beehive - Speech to NZ Companion Animal Conference, Auckland.]

Have your say.

At the Wellington City Council site there’s a petition for a better deal for dogs:

Title: A Positive Dog Policy Petition

Opened: 25 September 2009

Closes: 25 October 2009

Petition Details

We request that the Dog Policy include:

• increased off lead access to the Town Belt, Botanic Gardens, beaches, Karori Cemetery, Trelissick & Macalister Parks
• a presumption that dogs will be under control rather than simply on leash. Ecologically sensitive areas & the City Centre to be on-leash.
• access to the City Centre 24/7 & for Waitangi Park to be removed as a prohibited area
• expanded exercise areas that are fenced, with poo bag dispensers & rubbish bins

Background information

This petition grew out of the Dog Policy review process of 8 & 10 September. It reflects a careful across-the-wards effort by Wellington dog owners, Wellington non-owners, and members of DAWGS to improve our city by improving its dog policy.

• http://www.bringfido.com/destination/city/lon…
• http://www.sfdog.org/do/runfree_sf.htm
• http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/opinion/480007
• http://doglobby.org/
• http://knowit.co.nz/2009/09/wellington-needs-…
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=1529231…

Visit: ePetitions – Current ePetitions – Details – Wellington – New Zealand before 25 October 2009 to have your say.

Paw Justice.

I don’t even want to think about the cruelty some people inflict on animals, so it’s a good thing that others do this incredibly hard task:

[In 2010] the [Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] will be asking Government to increase the maximum custodial sentences for crimes of animal cruelty. This will be hugely assisted if the people of New Zealand speak out and ask for better justice for our animals.

You can help by signing the petition available in SPCA’s, vet clinics and pet stores nationwide. Or you can go to the website www.pawjustice.co.nz , download a petition form and send it to us. Get your friends and family to sign it too and do your bit to seek more appropriate sentences for people who abuse or neglect animals.

[Via : RNZSPCA.]

A quandary

I must confess, I’ve never really supported the notion of simply increasing the harshness or length of sentences for crimes. I think our lives are complex and many factors contribute to crime. Harsher sentences alone won’t necessarily deter people or prevent such crimes.

They do send a message that such things are unacceptable though. That we don’t take them lightly.

As a society we need to look at and seriously work on attitudes and causes. We need to deal with the underlying problems that lead to people inflicting terrible violence on animals or other people.

On the other hand, I read of the atrocities on otherwise defenceless animals. If I consider the possibility that my own animals may suffer these horrors at the hands of passing strangers, I just want to join those who would ‘lock up the perpetrators and throw away the key’.

I absolutely want to protect our pets (and for that matter farm animals) against these horrors.

The statistics

I’m the kind of person who responds well to statistics. I’d like to see some comparisons: are the actual sentences for torturing animals on a par with those for violence on people? Or are they comparable to say shoplifting or graffiti?

I’m inclined to trust the SPCA. If they say we need harsher sentences then I’ll lend my support. After all, they are the front-line folk who actually deal with these horrific things. While I close my eyes and try to avoid knowing about it they are literally picking up the pieces.

This, for example, seems out of proportion:

Jeffrey Hurring is a 19-year-old man who took more than 30 minutes to kill a young Jack Russell terrier, Diesel, by [specific cruelties excised]. All in front of a group of young children.

He received the longest sentence given for animal abuse in New Zealand to date — 1 year’s jail time.

[Via : Crimes against animals | Stuff.co.nz.]

Sentencing comparisons

Sentence length in the 1990s.

A bit of searching found that in 1999 in New Zealand the average sentence for grievous assault (on people) was 21.9 months (Table 3.9).

In 1999, according to that chart, threatening to kill, assault on a child and serious assault all lead to sentences of around 7 or 8 months on average.

Grievous assaults include:

• wounding with intent
• injuring with intent
• aggravated wounding/injury
• disabling/stupefying

I would think that torturing an animal to death would rank at least with the actions listed under grievous assault.

What do you think? Can you offer comparisons with more recent figures for New Zealand? Figures that reflect what happens in other countries?

What will be effective?

It’s easy to feel the outrage and to want to ‘lock them up’ for longer. But will that actually reduce cruelty to animals?

Will we be sending offenders to a prison where they learn refined techniques for violence? Will they stop harming animals (a good result) only to move on to harming people? There’s already a known connection between cruelty towards animals and violence towards people.

Would the money we spend keeping people in prison for longer perhaps be better spent on preventing violence in the first place?

What thoughts do you have on how we can stop people from harming, and even torturing our companion animals?

Two recent news reports carry the same theme: profiling dogs by breed and sentencing them to death because of what they might do. First, in Invercargill, New Zealand:

The six-week-old pups were given a lethal injection on Tuesday because the [Invercargill City] council felt they would grow up to be dangerous. …

[Council chief executive] King disputed the breed of the puppies, saying they were rottweiler-bull terriers, which meant they were likely to become dangerous despite the SPCA claiming good homes created good dogs.

“In theory that’s all good but (killer) Charles Manson was a lovely person at one stage, too,” he said.

However, in this particular case, the puppies were destroyed because of their particular crossbreed, the mother’s aggression, and the council being cautious, Mr King said.

[Via : Puppies could have lived - news - southland-times | Stuff.co.nz.]

The other report comes from Northern Ireland:

Bruce, a Staffordshire-bull terrier cross, was seized by North Down Borough Council dog control officers in 2007.

It was ruled to be a banned pit-bull type and a magistrate has ordered its destruction, but owner Shannon Brown is appealing the ruling.

“He has never harmed anyone or ever would, if he did I would have put my hand up to it,” she said. …

The council said it was acting to meet its “statutory responsibilities” under the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991.
“This makes it illegal for anyone to have a pit-bull type dog in their possession or custody,” the council said.

[Via : BBC NEWS | UK | Northern Ireland | Death row dog for Court of Appeal.]

It seems the crime these dogs have committed is to have been born the ‘wrong’ breed. In neither case was it shown the dog had actually threatened or harmed anyone.

Is there hard evidence that certain breeds are highly likely to harm people? Even the Invercargill spokesperson pointed out that some people (Manson, in this case) cause serious harm to people. Do we go about locking up the offspring of convicted killers?

Dogs can potentially cause harm to people and animals — in part it’s in their nature, especially when they work together in a pack. But it seems to be in the nature of some people too, and again, the ‘pack’ tends to play a large part in that.

What do you think? Should dogs be banned because of their breed? Should puppies be killed solely because of their breed?

It’s not long since high-profile American footballer Michael Vick was incarcerated on account of dog fights.

Pitting any animals to fight one another is barbaric. Over the centuries in Western society we have put a stop to bear-baiting, cock-fighting and other similar activities.

Dog fighting is proving hard to eradicate though, even in New Zealand:

… the SPCA and police issued a search warrant and raided a south Auckland house fearing it was the centre of a dog fighting ring.

A dog owner at the property was issued with a written warning for pitting his own dogs against each other. …”We do take it very seriously. It’s a blood sport, it’s barbaric and it’s totally unnecessary,” says [the SPCA's Jim Boyd]

But it is a secret blood sport, which hard to expose and generally kept alive by gangs.

[Via : Dog fighting on the increase in New Zealand | NATIONAL News.]

If these guys want to prove how ‘tough’ and ‘manly’ they are then they should set up a ring and fight one another directly. I don’t care if they batter one another to death — provided that as a taxpayer I don’t end up paying for health care for the survivors. They should be ‘tough’ enough to fight their own battles and not force dogs to do their fighting for them.

There are many places where local laws limit the number of dogs you can own, but it’s usually more than one dog. In some parts of China though a one-dog policy is being put in place:

While pampered pedigree dogs are a regular sight on the streets of major cities like Guangzhou and Beijing, the boom has spiked the number of strays as pets get abandoned. The number of public spaces getting soiled has also increased, as have the complaints from neighbors not partial to canines in crowded districts and tenement blocks.

On July 1, [city of Guangzhou] authorities implemented the “one-dog policy” seen as a crackdown on the estimated 100,000 unregistered dogs in Guangzhou ahead of the Asian Games in the city next year.

[Via : One-dog policy has China pet owners hot under collar | Lifestyle | Reuters.]

It seems harsh to impose such a limit on people who already own more than one dog.

I also wonder if it’s good for the dogs themselves. Many people do own only one dog, but dogs are pack animals.

What do you think about a one-dog policy? How many dogs are you allowed to own where you live? Let us know in the comments.

In recent years two of our aged pets have died. One is buried beneath the lemon tree, while the ashes of the other reside in a fine wooden box on the windowsill.

It would be good to think we could have placed both in a pet cemetery and planted a native tree in their memory.

That’s what the fine folks in Christchurch will be able to do soon:

The Christchurch City Council has set aside 60 plots at The Groynes recreational reserve to be sold to pet owners wishing to plant a native tree in memory of their animal companions. …

A plot and tree package could be bought for $75. A selection of native trees would be offered by the council for planting.

[Via : Thumbs up for new pet plots | Stuff.co.nz.]

The Groynes is a wonderful off-leash area. It seems very appropriate to set aside part as a memorial cemetery area for dogs and other pets.

60 plots sounds not very many though — I wonder how quickly they will all be bought up?

For a review of The Groynes doggy playground visit our companion site Run Spot Run.

Update: over at consultations.org.nz you can read the draft policy as a single page or a series of pages and leave comments. Please use that site to hold discussions by comments with other Wellington dog owners. Comments are also welcome here on this article.

If you’re one of Wellington’s approximately 5,500 dog-owning households you really should closely read and then respond to the new Draft Dog Policy. ¹

The deadline for submissons is: 5.00pm Friday 7 August 2009 . (Or 4pm, if you read the brochure available online.)

They still hate us

The Council still hate dogs, though they’re hiding it a bit more now.

Many dog owners in Wellington that I’ve spoken to feel the Council hates them. Try Page 7 of the Draft Policy:

92% of Wellington households are not dog owners. When considering the exercise and recreation needs of dogs and their owners, it is important to ensure that the general public are not intimidated by uncontrolled dogs and that conflict of use is avoided or mitigated.

It sums it up the approach of the Draft Policy nicely: dogs are dangerous, vile things to be excluded if possible. 92% are not — they could have said 8% are …

It’s galling to read the Council’s Vision:

Wellington is a vibrant city with a thriving cultural life … the city has an abundance of recreation and leisure opportunities. …Wellington City Council wants to … help achieve economic growth, greater prosperity and an improved quality of life for all Wellingtonians.

What’s missing there is the implied final except for dogs and their owners.

OK, let’s try to be fair. Someone on the Council has obviously worked extremely hard to get this grudging note added (also on Page 7):

The Council has a responsibility to safeguard community safety and health by controlling the activities of dogs. The Council also recognises the health, safety, well-being and companionship benefits of dog ownership.

We see though that still the main emphasis is on dog control; the benefits of ownership are secondary.

Future articles on specific topics

If this one article were to discuss the entire Draft policy it would be a week long. I simply want to introduce the topic here and point out the underlying negative philosophy.

We have around 4 weeks to make comment, and there’s a lot to discuss. If there’s a particular topic you’d like raised leave a comment on this post and I can create a new Post on that topic.

Just a parting word: I was discussing the Draft Policy with a couple of dog owners I met at the beach. Their first remark was how much it must have cost to produce the glossy book that was sent to all Wellington registered dog owners. That money could have been better spent on providing services such as rubbish bins at off-leash areas …

¹ The Draft Policy

The Council’s current Dog Control Policy was adopted in 2004. It is largely concerned with community safety and health as well as dog welfare and registration. The policy also sets restrictions on dog access to public places.

Submissions

To give the Council your submissions on the draft Dog Policy, read the brochure below and complete the submission form. The brochure includes the Summary of the Statement of Proposal as well as the full Statement of Proposal.

• Draft Dog Policy Public Consultation Brochure (419Kb PDF)
• Online Submission Form

The deadline for submissons is: 5.00pm Friday 7 August 2009 .

Alternatively, the brochure and form are available:

• at the Council reception desk at 101 Wakefield Street
• from Council Service Centres and libraries
• by post – contact the Council for your copy.

[Via : Public Input - Draft Dog Policy - Wellington - New Zealand.]

The announcement above has been abbreviated.