26 to 28 March 2010 is when the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind are raising funds to help with training Guide Dogs:

Red Puppy appeal.

It costs the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind over $22,500 to breed, then train a guide dog for a blind or partially sighted New Zealander. With no government funding for this essential service public support is truly valued. You can continue to support Guide Dog Services by donating today.

[Via : Whats the Red Pupply appeal?.]

Can you help?

Volunteers are vital to the work of the RNZFB’s Red Puppy Appeal, and in the course of a year over 10,000 people volunteer. This includes volunteers for both the Red Puppy Appeal (previously Guide Dog Appeal) and Blind Week. Volunteering provides a wonderful opportunity to meet people, learn new skills, share existing skills, and have fun and give something back to your community.

I can only link to this 13 minute TVNZ video — Prison pups:

Mobility dogs in training. Still from TVNZ video.

Some of New Zealand’s worst criminals are finding unconditional
love behind bars: meet the prison puppies said to be helping both
society and cell mates.

A group of women in prison in Auckland, New Zealand, have been specially chosen to provide initial training for mobility dogs, as part of the work of the Mobility Assistance Dogs Trust:

The MISSION of the Trust is to “enhance the lives of people living with long term physical disabilities by providing trained mobility dogs to increase independence, confidence, self esteem and participation in New Zealand communities”

The women find friendship and purpose in their training work. With plenty of time at their disposal, they can provide a commitment that may be hard to find elsewhere.

It seems like a perfect partnership: training the puppies brings benefits for prison inmates; the trained dogs bring benefit for people with disabilities.

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.

How do you hear a timer or a fire alarm if you’re totally deaf? Maybe your dog can do it for you:

Hearing Dogs for Deaf People NZ.

Elvis is Northland’s first official hearing dog and alerts Leanne Platjes to important noises like alarms or people knocking at the door.

Leanne, who is almost 100 percent deaf, says Elvis gives her confidence, companionship and security.

…Elvis responds to sounds like someone at the door or timers by pawing Leanne on the leg.

When she asks where is it? he leads her to the source of the noise.

[Via : Elvis is no hound dog | Stuff.co.nz.]

What is a Hearing Dog?

Hearing Dogs for Deaf People NZ is a charitable trust which rescues young dogs of any breed and trains them to be hearing dogs:

… most Hearing Dogs are rescued from Animal Rescue Centres as pups or young dogs. …

Fortunately pedigree isn’t important — but being friendly, intelligent and responsive to sounds is. Which is why Hearing Dogs come in all shapes and sizes and almost every breed and cross-breed you could think of.

[Via : What is a Hearing Dog - Hearing Dogs.]

Training costs $11,500 for each dog, which is then matched to a deaf person for free.

The dogs are approved by the government to go anywhere with their deaf owner.

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?

A few weeks ago I mentioned in When dogs attack; and what to do about it a woman who had been set on by a pack of 8 pig dogs. It was a horrific attack that left the victim badly injured.

I can’t imagine being subjected to that kind of attack, but if I were I suspect my emotions would rule and I’d be out for harsh penalties and revenge. I’d probably also be terrified of dogs.

It’s heartening to read today that the victim isn’t responding in that way at all:

Mrs Christensen said yesterday she did not want [Tara] Tuhakaraina [owner of the dogs] to be given a jail sentence. “I don’t bear any grudges towards Tara. She has made a mistake and the best outcome would be a monetary fine, and not to be put in prison.”

Tuhakaraina should not be able to own a dog for five years, she said. …

“I haven’t been put off dogs, I’ll just be more careful in the future … I would like to run again but I will take someone with me next time.”

[Via : Dog attack victim wants owner fined, not jailed | Stuff.co.nz.]

That’s courage.

In Taranaki, New Zealand, a couple of dogs have suffered the ill-effects of a poisonous plant. Sally, a Bichon Frise died after eating the shrub:

Poisoning was dose-related, meaning it was only lethal if dogs ate a lot of the plant.

“If they only eat a little we can pump their stomachs and give them a sedative, but in Sally’s case it was just too much.”

The yesterday, today, tomorrow plant – brunfelsia latifloria – is a fast-growing decorative shrub popular for its leaves which fade in colour from purple to white in the days after it blooms. It is particularly common with people doing ‘garden makeovers’.

The plant’s principle toxin is brunfelsamidine, a neurotoxin.

[Via : No more tomorrows for tragic dog Sally - national | Stuff.co.nz.]

See what else is poisonous to dogs — there’s quite a list.

Living next to a barking dog is annoying, that’s for sure. But is surgically altering a dog’s larynx the right way to go about solving the noise problem?

Dogs are having their barks surgically silenced for no reason, a vet warns.

Christchurch vet Ian Ross said … “It’s easy in Christchurch to have a vet surgically alter the larynx of a dog to make its bark quieter. It’s a real shame …”

Some dogs were debarked because constant barking angered owners and neighbours.

“It’s much simpler to drop the dog off at the vet for surgery than it is to increase his exercise and train him not to bark. But why does this dog bark all day and all night?

[Via : Surgery barking up the wrong tree, says vet | Stuff.co.nz.]

In New Zealand the Animal Welfare Act 1999 pretty much prohibits debarking dogs:

Restricted surgical procedures may be undertaken only by a veterinarian, or veterinary student under direct veterinary supervision, who must first satisfy themselves that the procedure is in the interests of the animal (section 17(2)). Therefore, this places a higher ethical test on the performance of the procedure. These procedures are: debarking a dog, declawing a cat, docking the tail of a horse or any procedure subsequently declared to a restricted surgical procedure.

[Via : Guide to the Animal Welfare Act 1999: Table of Contents | MAF Biosecurity New Zealand.]

A search on Google provides plenty of results for “how to stop a dog barking“, including articles, videos and even official leaflets.

Techniques include praising a dog for being quiet, non-punitive aversion techniques such as a citronella collar, understanding why the dog is barking and working with that information, toys, training and exercise, and even professional intervention.