Yaaawwn!..

Yep, still here. The Boss has been doing this course thing
for the restaurant, and basically hogging the computer for
weeks now... Sniff.

A good study...

This makes interesting reading. They try to add balance to the statistics used, and it's an Aussie study, not American, put together in a large hospital.

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/aug4/thompson/thompson.html

It doesn't paint us bull breeds in a great light, but nor does it allow for the standard of care given to individual animals... ie dangerous dogs usually have dick head owners.

Although...

It's GREAT to see some positive staffy press like the below...but it's interesting how it was gone from the STUFF headline page within a few hours of appearing...unlike the 'vicious pit-bull' stories that dominate for days.

Sigh.

Yay...Yay Yay YAY !!!

FRIENDLY BREED: Linda Fowler says it was the affectionate nature of her purebred Staffies, Amba, left, and Bugsy, that made them stay with a woman they found bleeding and semi-concious after a fall on to rocks.

Dogs rescue woman hurt in fall

By MATT CALMAN - The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 01 April 2008

An Upper Hutt woman survived a fall on to rocks and a night in the open before passing dogs found her.

The woman, 44, slipped and fell below the Bridge Rd reservoir, north of Upper Hutt, after heading to the dam for a walk late on Sunday.

She spent all night lying semi-conscious on cold rocks before being found.

Birchville resident Linda Fowler was jogging at 7.30am yesterday when her purebred Staffordshire bull terriers, Amba and Bugsy, veered off the track.

Miss Fowler kept running but the persistent howls of her dogs led her back.

"I kept calling them but they wouldn't come. They just stayed there."

The woman was dressed in black and nestled on the rocks between two trees.

"I thought she was part of the rocks. I couldn't see what the dogs were barking at.

"I was almost touching her and I realised it was a human and I thought: `Oh my god'."

The woman was drenched with spray from the dam, "yellow" with hypothermia, bleeding from the head and "burbling incoherently", she said.

She was saying: "Who are you? Where am I? What's happening?"

A MetService spokeswoman said the overnight low was 15 degrees celsius but drizzle and rain before dawn would have made it feel colder.

Miss Fowler ran a kilometre to a nearby house to raise the alarm. Another woman coming up the track with her dog went to comfort the injured woman.

The residents of the house took a tarpaulin and jackets to cover the woman till the ambulance arrived.

Acting sergeant Allister Rose, of Upper Hutt, said the woman had been reported missing by a friend on Sunday night but details were "sketchy".

Police had been waiting for more information yesterday morning when news filtered through that she had been found.

"She had been lying virtually under a waterfall all night. It's extremely lucky that she didn't perish and that the dogs found her when they did."

The woman is recovering from her injuries in Hutt Hospital.

Miss Fowler said her dogs were nothing like the Staffordshire crossbreds often featured in the media for attacks on humans. "They obviously recognised that she needed help."

New Zealand Kennel Club president Phil Lyth said it was a good day for the breed.

"Too often bad cross-breeds are mislabelled Staffies. That's a slur on good purebred dogs.

"They're a good purebred dog with an excellent temperament."

I hope you ALL sent a response???

Option 1: Include Additional Breeds in Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act

Q 1.1 What additional breeds of dog should be added to Schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act?

BREED	REASON WHY
No breed should be added.	Among many reasons, a five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls", concluded in part that: ..statistics did not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, ..when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly. .. focusing legislation on 'type' of dogs distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners. Further, in a report by the American Veterinary Medical Association, titled "Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions" (JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001) they state that; Breed or type bans—Concerns about “dangerous” dogs have caused many local governments to consider supplementing existing animal control laws with ordinances directed toward control of specific breeds or types of dogs. Members of the Task Force believe such ordinances are inappropriate and ineffective. Statistics on fatalities and injuries caused by dogs cannot be responsibly used to document the “dangerousness” of a particular breed, relative to other breeds, for several reasons. First, a dog’s tendency to bite depends on at least 5 interacting factors: heredity, early experience, later socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), and victim behavior.7 Second, there is no reliable way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed in the canine population at any given time (eg, 10 attacks by Doberman Pinschers relative to a total population of 10 dogs implies a different risk than 10 attacks by Labrador Retrievers relative to a population of 1,000 dogs). Third, statistics may be skewed, because often they do not consider multiple incidents caused by a single animal. Fourth, breed is often identified by individuals who are not familiar with breed characteristics and who commonly identify dogs of mixed ancestry as if they were purebreds. Fifth, the popularity of breeds changes over time, making comparison of breed-specific bite rates unreliable. Breed-specific ordinances imply that there is an objective method of determining the breed of a particular dog, when in fact, there is not at this time. Owners of mixed-breed dogs or dogs that have not been registered with a national kennel club have no way of knowing whether their dog is one of the types identified and whether they are required to comply with a breed-specific ordinance. In addition, law enforcement personnel typically have no scientific means for determining a dog’s breed that can withstand the rigors of legal challenge, nor do they have a foolproof method for deciding whether owners are in compliance or in violation of laws. Such laws assume that all dogs of a certain breed are likely to bite, instead of acknowledging that most dogs are not a problem. These laws often fail to take normal dog behavior into account and may not assign appropriate responsibilities to owners. Some municipalities have attempted to address notice and enforcement problems created by unregistered and mixed-breed dogs by including in the ordinance a description of the breed at which the ordinance is directed. Unfortunately, such descriptions are usually vague, rely on subjective visual observation, and result in many more dogs than those of the intended breed being subject to the restrictions of the ordinance. this report can be read in full at www.avma.org/public_health/dogbite/dogbite.pdf In other words, we should ban certain individuals from owning dogs, as those that would have a muscular dog to make vicious, whether for reasons of personal security, or (more likely) personal insecurity, will simply move to other breeds apart from the currently favoured 'bull' breeds. If we are to ban a type of dog because it is powerful enough to seriously harm people, then the only logical ban would be based on size of dog, not 'breed'. All dogs are the same as far as scientific evaluation of their genetic make-up is concerned, sharing some 99% of their genes with canis-familiaris..the common wolf. All physical differences are cosmetic. ALL dogs are "3 missed meals away from being wolves."

Q 1.2 What should be the basis for identifying which breeds should be included in Schedule 4?

This question should be posed as "What should be the basis for identifying which PEOPLE should be included in shedule 4"?

Option 2: Destruction of Dogs Classified as Dangerous

Q 2.1 Do you think the current controls imposed on dangerous dogs are sufficient to control such dogs?

Reason

I answer no because it appears that when an innapropriate owner loses one dangerous dog, through impounding or it wandering off as a stray, they simply create another. There are any number of unscrupulous 'back yard' breeders who cater to this demand, and the more unstable and vicious the temperament, the more in demand they are. That is a sad reflection on our society, but it is true none the less

Q 2.2 Are the behaviours that determine whether a dog is dangerous appropriate as a measure of the risk the dog poses to society?

Reason

Section 57A(2) is quite clear in its guidelines and meanings. The appropriate penalties are available to authorities. What appears to be lacking is the will or ability to enforce the legislation we already have in place. It's worth noting that those who would flout the law are simply encouraged to do so by this lack of enforcement, which is creating a groundswell of discontent in the community against all larger dog breeds no matter how well bred, socialised and responsibly cared for they may be.

Does the list of behaviours need to be changed?

If yes, what would you propose?

Type here

Q 2.3 Do you support or oppose the mandatory destruction of all dogs classified as dangerous?

Reason

These things must be looked at on a case by case basis. If there are extenuating circumstances it may be that an animal is destroyed before all the facts are brought to light.

Option 3: Increase the Controls on Dogs Classified as Menacing to the Level of Controls for Dogs Classified as Dangerous

Q 3.1 Do you think the current obligations on owners of dogs classified as menacing are sufficient?

Reason

I am in two minds about this one. While I support the idea of recidivist owners having further controls and obligations placed upon them, there are an enormous number of dogs that MAY in the COUNCILS OPINION "pose a threat to people or animals on the basis of observed or reported behaviour or characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type (Section 33A);"

It's my opinion that councils have no ability to accurately differentiate between breeds. This has been proven in many legal challenges to such decisions overseas. If we are to seriously believe that a dogs breed is a contributor to aggressive behaviour, then how are councils to know that a mixed breed dog isn't 1/8^th rottweiller and 7/8^th retriever if the physical characteristics of the rottweiller are not evident. Yet the 'nature' of the rottweiller could well be dominant. (Again I would point out that I do not consider any breed inherently vicious, and I regard all dogs as potentially dangerous!)

Basically it worries me that we would place the onus on council to decide whether or not a dog belonged to a particular breed or type, when there is not a veterinarian in the world who can establish such a thing, even with a full battery of testing. That is because fundamentally all dogs are the same once you get under the skin, in the same way that people of all races are.

Q 3.2 Do you support or oppose elevating the level of control on dogs classified as menacing to the level of control on dogs classified as dangerous?

Reason

I would strongly oppose such a change. My concern is that the classification is founded on a subjective decision by a local authority, based on a very loosley worded piece of legislation. (ie 'on the basis of observed or reported behaviour or characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type') As discussed above in Q3.1, that is an unacceptable onus on council when professionals in the animal field are incapable of such distinctions. As an example, the staffordshire bull terrier is known to be a very 'vocal' dog, and it can sound to a non dog lover (or even an uninformed lover!) that it is growling and snarling, when in fact it is expressing affection. On that basis though, the dog could be classified as menacing because someone was scared of the noises it made. That would be plainly unfair to the dog and its family.

Option 4: Mandatory Neutering of Dogs Classified as Menacing under Section 33A

Q 4.1 Should dogs classified as menacing under section 33A of the Dog Control Act also be required to be neutered?

Reason

As outlined in Q3.2, there are many valuable show dogs that could be needlessly neutered, and thereby have there show status revoked (only entire dogs/bitches can be shown at championship shows) This ruins not only their show career, but also their value.

Option 5: Owner Licensing

Q 5.1 Do you support owner licensing?

How would it improve safety around dogs?

I'm not sure that it would improve safety, as those who would ruin a dog are not likely to obey the dog laws anyway, in much the same way that those who would drive dangerously don't care much for the road licensing laws. That is why I believe banning any breed is an exercise in futility if improving public safety is the goal.

However, it would at least be a simpler law to enforce than that of further breed specific legislation, and begin the process of holding people responsible for their dogs actions rather than blaming an entire population of dogs for the behaviour of a minority.

Q.5.2A If you answered YES to Q.5.1, should all owners be licensed?

Reason

As stated earlier, I believe all dogs are potentially dangerous, and one should demonstrate sufficient knowledge and understanding of owner responsibility before being allowed to keep one in urban areas.

Or

Q.5.2B Should licensing be targeted in some way?

If yes, on what basis?

If you have never had a dog, or have not shown that you can (and will) train and socialise the animal, then perhaps you should not be able to have dogs over a certain size until you can demonstrate your ability and willingness to do what is necessary. Also, dogs become a far greater threat to people and other animals when formed into a pack, and so a license should allow just one dog per houshold as a base level, with further endorsements to own more given on a case by case basis.

Q 5.3 Should dog breeders be licensed?

Reason

Absolutely fundamental to a healthy dog population. If we were to determine the heredity (NOT breed) of dogs that attack people in NZ (or anywhere) I doubt very much that many came from a responsible breeding program. Pet shops and back-yard puppy mills are churning out litters with the sole motive of profit, not soundness of temperement. This is anathema to a good breeder. If we were to enact only one change to our dog laws, this could have the greatest impact on public safety. And no, I'm not a dog breeder!

Q.5.4 Should the licence administration be carried out by individual councils or by a central authority?

Reason

This I don't have an answer to. In the other examples of licensing that we could use as models, that being motor vehicle and firearm legislation, then a central authority is used. I imagine this is a cost / benefit equation that needs to be carefully weighed.

One option I see as having merit is the NZ Kennel Club or even the SPCA could be empowered to provide the testing. It seems to me that it should be provided by an organisation that has the knowledge and skills to make such assessments meaningful, rather than an appointed officer who may have no real world canine experience.

Q 5.5 How should owner licensing be funded?

We the owners would need to pay. Sadly! However when we are willing to pay many hundreds of dollars for the animal, plus a lifetime of food and vetinary care, then what is another couple of hundred dollars if it means society will be more comfortable around our animals.

Option 6: Councils May Require Proof of Breed

Q 6.1 Do you support or oppose this approach?

Reason

Controversially, I do not support 'mixed breed' dogs, even though many wonderful examples are in the community. There are some 300 registered breeds with the kennel club, and that is surely enough variety for anyone to choose from? If all dogs in the community were 'pedigreed', and only licensed breeders were allowed to offer pups for sale, then only quality bloodlines would be reproduced. Very few people willing to pay for a well bred dog are going to allow it to become a public menace, or wander the streets. Back yard breeders and pet shops would have no market for their genetically poor products if proof of breed was a requirement.

Q 6.2 In what circumstances would it be appropriate for councils to require evidence of breed, or to determine the breed of a dog if no evidence is produced?

In all circumstances. If breed type cannot be evidentially proven, the mandatory neutering should be called for. This would, within a generation of dogs, provide a safer community.

Q 6.3 Would a broader threshold for breed and type classification of a Schedule 4 breed or type of dog, such as “significantly” or “noticeably”, enable councils to improve public safety around dogs?

Reason

Because the breed or type of dog is not the problem. The individual dog and owner are the risk to society.

Q 6.4 Can you suggest alternative ways of resolving difficulties in identifying a dog’s breed?

A pointless exercise. The dog is either a purebred with docmented pedigree, in which case there is no doubt, or a crossbred, and then it is impossible to determine with any veracity. Any legal challenge mounted against arbitrary labelling by local authority would be time consuming and costly to all concerned, with no satisfactory resolution likely for any party.

Option 7: Probationary Owners to Surrender Dogs Classified as Dangerous or Menacing

Q7.1 Should owners who have been placed on probation retain responsibility for dogs classified as dangerous or menacing?

Reason

Probably not, although I have serious concerns about the classification criteria, and what are we to do with animal until the owner comes off probation, unless it is to be immediately destroyed. While that may be tempting, it would be fraught with legal difficulties and challenges in court.

Option 8: Increase Dog Containment Standard

Q 8.1 Should dog owners’ responsibilities for ensuring the security of their dogs be made clearer and more explicit?

Reason

Owners responsibilities for housing / securing their animals are quite clear. Some people just choose to ignore them.

Q 8.2 Should the standard for containment of dogs be increased?

Reason

Again, the laws are adequate, just not enforced well or consistently.

Option 9: Round Up & Faster Destruction of Unregistered Dogs

Q 9.1 Should councils be required to round up unregistered dogs?

Reason

Absolutely. Further the owners should be made to pay for the animals confinement until it is registered or (after a reasonable time period), re-homed or destroyed.

If owners will not obey such a simple requirement as registration, they are unlikely to obey the more onerous ones either. If such a small cost is a barrier to registration then how would such an owner pay for quality food and healthcare for the animal?

Q 9.2 Should councils be able to destroy unclaimed, unregistered dogs in less than seven days?

Reason

3 days is a reasonable timeframe to come forward. There are any number of reasons why an owner may be unaware that the dog is impounded, and must be given some time, but anyone who cared for the dog properly would certainly check the pound within that time.

Q 9.3 If not, what should the minimum period be?

Type here

Please send us your comments by 5.00pm, Monday 31 March 2008.

Email your comments to dogcontrol@dia.govt.nz, or post a hard copy to:

Improving Public Safety Under the Dog Control Act 1996: Options for Discussion,
Department of Internal Affairs,
PO Box 805,
Wellington.