|
New
Zealand BSL campaign hots up
BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION proposals in New Zealand are being
fought against by campaigners now that the NZ Government has
announced its draft law which would effectively penalise Staffordshire
Bull Terriers and SBT crosses by defining "Pit Bulls".
Leading campaigner Marion Harding told OUR DOGS:
There is a piece in a local paper here "Horowhenua Mail"
dated April 24, 2003 written by Rod Shaw who is Environmental
Protection Manager for Kapiti Coast District Council. He says:
‘Kapiti was the first region in New Zealand to legislate
against certain breeds, to limited success. Now the Government
is attempting to bring in similar legislation but have the difficulties
been thought through?’ He went on to say that ‘But
making the bylaw turned out to be the easy part. Enforcing it
was a different matter as far as the pit bull was concerned.’
He says further on ‘But as was suspected to be the case
in Kapiti, if pit bulls were legislated against, pit bull owners
would start registering their dogs as Staffordshire terrier
crosses.’
"There are 275 Stafford crosses registered in Kapiti now.
That was confirmed by the dog control office several weeks ago.
It is known by the staff that a large number of these are other
than what they are registered as.
"The government has called for microchipping of dogs. While
that may work for certain aspects of that which they are hoping
to achieve, it will not help identify a dog's 'make'.
There will be no way of stopping owners registering the new
puppy as a whatever and telling the vet it is one of those when
getting the microchip implanted. There is a cost to the new
puppy owner for this on top of already high local authority
registration fees which come due at the same time as the implant
and also puppy vaccinations."
A number of editorials and articles have appeared in local and
regional newspapers and magazines in recent weeks that make
a bit of a mockery of many of the proposed law changes and in
particular the clause about fencing of the dog owner's property.
Problem
Marion
comments: "Government want a free access to one door
of the house wherein the caller (or intruder) has unimpeded
access. No waggy-tailed dog to greet the caller and no warning
device for the occupant. This would also apparently keep dogs
away from front fences so that the dog cannot terrorise the
postie when attempting to put mail into the letterbox. Apart
from taking away peoples' right to protect themselves and
their home or to deter unwanted callers, there is the large
problem of cost, which for many pensioners and young families
will be more than they can afford."
There was fury and outrage, fuelled by the media, for the
first couple of months after 7 year old Carolina Anderson
was attacked in an Auckland park by a cross breed dog. The
NZ Government has put forward a package of measures to address
the problem of dangerous dogs and to reduce the number of
dog bites subsequent to this wave of hysteria. However, as
with most BSL-based laws, when one looks carefully at the
proposed amendments there is little that will address the
problem.
"There are added expenses for responsible dog owners,
intended restrictions on "the fighting breeds" by
banning importation of dogs, semen, embryos of American Pit
Bull Terriers, Japanese Tosas, Brazilian Filas and Dog Argentinas,
new fencing requirements (or rather a revamp of an old fencing
law), microchipping, authority for dog control officers to
come onto your property and seize a dog that they suspect
is not registered with their council providing there is no-one
home under 16 years of age, and higher penalties for infringements,"
says Marion. "The proposed amendment which gives me the
most trouble is the one which gives dog control authorities
the power to deem ANY DOG as POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS. This seems
to have gone un-noticed by the media. There is no definition
of the word potentially.
There is also provision that a territorial authority MUST
classify as potentially dangerous any dog that they believe
belongs to the breeds banned by importation, either wholly
or predominantly. Potentially dangerous dogs must where muzzles
out in public. The right to object to a classification appears
to have been given to the territorial authority only. So in
disguise it would seem that this government has slipped in
breed specific legislation.
"We are presently waiting for submissions to be called
by the Select Committee. This could be as early as this week."
|
