New
Zealand select committee on BSL
THE NEW Zealand Government has announced that it is considering
a range of options to strengthen and even enhance its existing
dog control legislation in the wake of a spate of particularly
nasty dog attacks on children. Amongst the measures listed for
discussion by the Local Government and Environment Select Committee
is breed specific legislation (BSL) against so-called ‘dangerous
breeds’, which may include the Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
The SBT has been targeted by much of the media as a ‘dangerous
breed’, even though no SBTs have been involved in any of
the attacks.
The chair of the select committee Jeanette Fitzsimons issued
a statement in which she declared:
"In February 2003, following a spate of serious dog attacks
around the country and the public concern that resulted, the
Minister of Local Government announced the Government's intention
to conduct an urgent review of the Dog Control Act 1996.
"The Local Government Law Reform Bill (No. 2) is seen as
a potentially useful vehicle for quickly advancing the review.
The bill had not progressed through Parliament since being reported
to the House by the Internal Affairs and Local Government Committee
in 1999.
"As it stands, the bill primarily deals with 'restricted
dogs'. However, on 18 February 2003 Parliament referred the
bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee, and
gave the committee the power to propose any amendments relating
to the care and control of dogs generally."
Obligations
The committee now has the ability to look at any matter relating
to the Dog Control Act. Among the matters it may consider are:·
additional national requirements for dog control·
restrictions on specific breeds of dogs· additional obligations
on dog owners· control of dogs generally, including the
power to make bylaws requiring muzzling clarification of enforcement
powers, including powers of entry and whether these powers need
to be extended· increases in penalties.
In determining amendments that could be made to the Act, the
Department of Internal Affairs will survey all city and district
councils on their views on the Act. Information about the administration
of dog control generally is also being sought. The consideration
of this information by the Minister is expected to take place
at the end of March, and decisions arising from it will be recommended
without delay to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
This will possibly take the form of a Supplementary Order Paper.
Ms Fitzsimons added: "While acknowledging public concern
about the incidence of dog attacks, and the urgency of the issue,
the committee wishes to have available to it as much information
as possible before it calls for public submissions on the bill.
For this reason, it will seek submissions as soon as the officials
have completed their work and/or a Supplementary Order Paper
is available that the public can comment on. At that stage the
committee will advertise in the newspapers and issue a media
statement calling for submissions."
However, there is evidence that the New Zealand Government appears
to be backing away from its get-tough attitude to dangerous
dogs after a new survey found Labradors commit more attacks
on people than Rottweilers.
A report for Local Government Minister Chris Carter, based on
a survey of 71 of the 74 councils around the country, has found
that the number of dog attacks on humans has declined sharply
in the last four years.
It also found that, despite public concern over certain breeds
of dogs considered to be more dangerous, a wide variety of dogs
including German Shepherds and Labradors are responsible for
attacks on people.
But the report says that, despite public concern, the number
of dog attacks reported to councils has fallen from 3082 in
1999-2000 to 2969 in 2000-2001 and to 2773 in 2001-2002.
Total estimated attacks fell from 5177 to 3589.
The incidence of attacks is also down, from 1.27 per 1000 people
in 1999 to 0.88 in 2002. The decrease comes despite a 15,000
increase in the number of registered dogs in the same period.
The survey finds that councils consider dog owners to be the
major impediment to dog safety and that the current law is adequate
for both enforcement and punishment of owners. They wanted more
powers to be able to seize dogs considered to be dangerous.
Children under the age of 10 were over-represented in dog attacks
requiring hospital treatment, however, amounting to 39 per cent
of cases. Males were attacked in 60 per cent of cases.
Mr Carter said the Cabinet would be considering "balanced,
workable initiatives" to tighten dog laws and improve public
safety.
David Levy – the UK’s Kennel Club Liaison Officer
for Staffordshire Bull Terriers said that he view4ed the inclusion
of BSL as an option "extremely worrying and also very contradictory".
Mr Levy has an in-depth article for distribution throughout
the New Zealand media whereby he explains the problems of misidentification
of breeds and the failure of BSL to make a significant effect
on dog attacks anywhere else in the world.
Mr Levy’s article "Collateral Damage" is reproduced
…….
Collateral Damage
David B Levy – Kennel Club Liaison Officer for Staffordshire
Bull Terriers
Whilst
not wishing to debate the pros and cons, rights and wrongs
of the current war, a term that surely causes concern to anyone
must be "collateral damage". In reality it means
anyone killed or injured by mistake. The phrase was perhaps
originally coined to avoid the image that killing people can
go wrong but in practice, it has taken on its own heavy meaning
and imagery.
Collateral damage certainly does not cover situations where
children are bitten by dogs. In my humble opinion these are
not "mistakes" and virtually every such incident
can and should be prevented.
If latchkey dogs didn’t roam streets during the day in
the inner cities. If parents didn’t leave their child
and especially visiting children unattended with dogs (any
more than they would leave several young children together
without supervision). If governments would legislate to make
dog fighting and other vicious so-called "sports"
truly untenable by imposing severe penalties on those caught
and convicted, then the number of serious dog attacks would
reduce to virtually nil.
No, my point about "collateral damage" is that it
is caused by lazy journalism and careless government.
There are 3 "breeds" of dog that are frequently
confused, the Pitbull terrier, the American Staffordshire
Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. Personally I remain
convinced, and indeed all the scientific evidence from all
over the world demonstrates that breed is just NOT the major
factor behind serious dog attacks. However, the World’s
media – and more importantly perhaps, the World’s
politicians, just cannot be bothered to consider such facts.
In the UK the British Government rushed in legislation banning
"the type of dog known as the Pitbull terrier".
Fortunately for SBT owners, the major canine organisations
were consulted and were at least able to persuade the politicians
and civil servants that the registered Staffordshire Bull
Terrier breed was different.
Of course the basic law remains a very blunt instrument that
has caused untold suffering to many law-abiding members of
the general public. The real purpose of the Dangerous Dogs
Act was recorded in Hansard during the Select Committee hearings
when the Metropolitan Police confirmed that the Act had served
its purpose by removing the protection of Pitbull terriers
from London’s drug dealers. Does this not suggest that
Government has accepted a level of "collateral damage"?
In Germany, the Government rushed in legislation following
the terrible death of a boy in Hamburg. No member of the local
police nor of the local government was ever censured for the
fact that the dogs that killed the boy were known to the authorities,
were actually already under a muzzling order and that the
owner, a known dog-fighter, was blatantly ignoring the order.
How many dogs have died because of the police failure to implement
the existing laws? Once again, Government reactions, fuelled
by misinformation from the media, created a law that bans
all the breeds with similar sounding names. Again this became
the Pitbull terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Bull
Terrier and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. This, despite the
fact that there was not a single recorded case of a Staffordshire
Bull Terrier ever being involved in a serious biting incident
in Germany. "Collateral damage"?
In France, the Government’s draftsmen even managed to
get the breed names wrong.
There, they introduced laws banning the Pitbull terrier, American
Staffordshire Terrier and "Staffordshire Terrier".
This latter does not exist but to compound the error, they
then issued documents and photographs of a variety of large,
bully breeds and got many of them wrong. Eventually the French
Government confirmed that the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is
NOT considered a dangerous dog and is NOT covered by the new
laws.
Is it any wonder that people get confused when trying to say
what "breed" of dog was involved in an incident?
The Veterinary Association in France has now published a correction
as follows:
Title : Law of 6 January 1999 - mistakes still being made
In the area devoted to dogs at the Agricultural exhibition,
behind the central canine society stand, there was a poster
showing the dogs listed in the decree of 27 April 1999 and
covered by the measures in the law of 6 January that year.
And it is worrying to note that four years after it appeared,
communications about the law still include the same mistakes:
mention of a non-existent breed, the Staffordshire Terrier;
inclusion of a photo of a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (which
is not covered by the law) appearing under the description
"American Staffordshire Terrier" (the correct photo
being the one at top left under the name Staffordshire Terrier).
The existence of such documents which are supposed to contain
accurate information but still lead to errors of interpretation
is all the more reprehensible since it covers the implementation
of this law.
How much "collateral damage" will be caused by these
types of error? How many dogs will die and how many owners
be traumatised by losing their pet.
Finally we come to New Zealand. Some excuse could be made
for Germany and France. They are dealing with strange foreign
words and perhaps not quite understanding the difference between
such closely appearing names. How easily could we English
speaking nations confuse Epagneul de Pont-Audemer, Epagneul
Fougeres, Epagneul Francais and Epagneul Picard? How much
easier to just lump them together as "Epagneul".
In New Zealand however, we have native English speakers yet
still the newspapers are content to mix and match the names
of dog breeds as the fancy takes them. Currently, the New
Zealand Government is reported to have received submissions
from all the major local councils which, they claim, show
that "Staffordshire Bull Terriers" are the top of
the biting list. Strangely, neither the American Stafford
nor Pitbull feature on the list at all! Yet the one list I
have seen in detail, Auckland City Council, the SBT does appear
(though far from the top of the list) for being involved in
incidents with other dogs but does not appear at all for incidents
where humans are involved. Are we to believe that Auckland
Staffordshire Bull terriers behave significantly better than
those in other parts of New Zealand?
More specifically, in the 22nd March issue of the influential
International Newspaper, reporter Colin Espiner describes
the dog that attacked Carolina Anderson (the main figurehead
for the current anti-dog campaign) as a "Staffordshire
Bull Terrier". In fact, the dog has officially been identified
by the authorities as a crossbreed. The Auckland City Council
authorities tell us that there was NO SBT or American Staffordshire
Terrier in the cross. Is this merely a case of Mr Espiner
not letting the facts get in the way of a good story?
The "collateral damage" here is obvious. Misreporting
will lead to public outcry and politicians, fearing a backlash
will strike out with the only weapon they seem to understand
– a breed ban on ……"Staffordshire Bull
Terriers".
And who will be the losers? Obviously the Stafford owners
will lose their pets but more importantly perhaps, the New
Zealand public will settle down in the safety of knowing that
no more such attacks can occur. EXCEPT THEY WILL.
People will continue, in their ignorance, to create situations
where all sorts of dogs react "naturally" to their
circumstances. Dog-fighters will go even further underground,
safe in the knowledge that the worst that will happen to them
is to lose the odd dog and pay a small fine. Life will go
on as before – except for the hundreds of Staffordshire
Bull Terriers – but then they are just "collateral
damage"!
|
