Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Scottsmum

Rego, Desex, Chipping Amnesty (Nz)

27 posts in this topic

Not entirely sure who, or what defines a "menacing dog" - or who'd call their dog one voluntarily - but this is still a great deal. It is open to anyone in the Council area - so 'non-menacing' dogs can be done too. I hope it gets good uptake.

Edit: found out what constitutes a menacing dog.

Territorial authority may classify dog as menacing

(1)This section applies to a dog that—

(a)has not been classified as a dangerous dog under section 31; but

(b)a territorial authority considers may pose a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife because of—

(i)any observed or reported behaviour of the dog; or

(ii)any characteristics typically associated with the dog’s breed or type.

I'd love to have a conversation about this? Thoughts? Good idea? Bad Idea?

In a bid to deal with dangerous dogs Auckland council is offering an amnesty to dog owners to get them registered, microchipped and de-sexed.

It follows a number of savage dog attacks, one of which left a seven-year-old boy with a hundred facial stitches.

The amnesty will last until June 30th and is available to menacing dogs, particularly American Pit Bull Terriers, which are not registered for the 2015/16 year.

If the dog is registered before the 1st of July, the council will waive the registration fee for the 2016/2017 year.

During the 10-week amnesty period, dog-owners who haven't registered their dog will have the $300 failure to register fine waived.

Dog owners will also be able to get their dogs de-sexed, microchipped and muzzled for $25.

After July 1st, the Council's animal management team will conduct a widespread enforcement campaign.

Councillor Calum Penrose, Chair of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, said the recent spate of attacks highlighted the need for action and Auckland Council was best placed to take the lead to reduce harm in vulnerable communities.

"A dog attack affects an entire community. It leaves victims with permanent scars, both physically and emotionally, and can tear families apart.

Auckland Council offers amnesty to dog owners

In a bid to deal with dangerous dogs Auckland council is offering an amnesty to dog owners to get them registered, microchipped and de-sexed.

It follows a number of savage dog attacks, one of which left a seven-year-old boy with a hundred facial stitches.

The amnesty will last until June 30th and is available to menacing dogs, particularly American Pit Bull Terriers, which are not registered for the 2015/16 year.

If the dog is registered before the 1st of July, the council will waive the registration fee for the 2016/2017 year.

During the 10-week amnesty period, dog-owners who haven't registered their dog will have the $300 failure to register fine waived.

Dog owners will also be able to get their dogs de-sexed, microchipped and muzzled for $25.

After July 1st, the Council's animal management team will conduct a widespread enforcement campaign.

Councillor Calum Penrose, Chair of the Regulatory and Bylaws Committee, said the recent spate of attacks highlighted the need for action and Auckland Council was best placed to take the lead to reduce harm in vulnerable communities.

"A dog attack affects an entire community. It leaves victims with permanent scars, both physically and emotionally, and can tear families apart.

Continued below.

Related Content

Rawiri Latu, 8, who was attacked by a dog when he was 18 months old. Photo / Stephen Parker

Effects of dog attack still felt

SURVIVORS: Jim Morgan and his best mate Sandy recovering at home after Saturday's dog attack. PICTURES/DEBBIE BEADLE

Old soldier and his mate attacked

The council has been discussing a ban on dangerous breeds such as pitbull terriers, and registering owners. Photo / iStock

Council to reveal plan for tackling dangerous dogs

"However, we recognise that this amnesty is a short-term solution and we cannot do this alone. We are calling on the support of the government to make changes to the Dog Control Act to require all councils throughout New Zealand to tackle this issue.

"I'd like to see the Act amended to include the compulsory de-sexing of menacing dogs unless lineage can be proven, the certification of owners of menacing dogs and a formal definition of an American Pit Bull," Mr Penrose said.

The call for change was echoed by Mayor Len Brown, who said stronger legislation would help to reduce the harm communities in Auckland faced every day.

"Working alongside the government will allow us to tackle this very important issue head on. In the long-term, it will reduce the strain on our resources and on the health system."

Auckland Council's Manager Animal Management, Geoff Keber, said in Auckland, pit bulls and their crosses were 20 times more likely than any other breed to be involved in a serious attack.

"We also know that dog attacks in the region are on the rise. In November 2014, there were 58 recorded attacks and 55 bites, however by January of this year, those numbers reached an all-time high, with 113 attacks and 90 bites recorded."

Mr Keber said there was also an over representation of dog attacks in some areas of the region, particularly in the south.

"While this offer is open to everyone across the region, we will be reaching out and focusing our efforts on those communities that are most at risk," he said.

Over the coming weeks, Aucklanders will see advertising and information distributed in different languages. A direct contact number (0800 462 865) has also been established for people to find out more about how they can take up the offer. People can also phone this number for emergency response in the wake of an attack.

For more information about the amnesty visit aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

BSL question at post #6

Edited by Scottsmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An amnesty on registration, chipping and desexing sounds good on paper, but I'd be worried about them using the information against me and my dog if I had a breed or type of dog that could be determined to be "menacing" on no other basis than appearance. "Menacing" seems to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean in this instance.

I'd like to see a public awareness campaign about responsible dog ownership, how to read dog body language, and how to interact safely with dogs. Something like this: http://stopthe77.com (lots of good videos on that site).

The nanny dog myth needs to die, too.

Edited by Papillon Kisses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh. I'm not so sure I'd want to be targeted as owning a menacing dog, put my hand up to say I owned menacing dog or otherwise. I mean I read the act & see how it's defined - but *In my opinion* it's a bit like calling yourself a dickhead. Usually you don't know you're a dickhead, or if you are you're not going to freely admit to it or appreciate being told you are one ;)

All that said, while I'd like to see the stats to back up an amnesty on registration - I think any program which offers discounted chipping and desex is a good thing.

As a side note, I've noticed a trend over here of LOTS of BYB - a lot on purpose (lots of dogs offered "at stud" in facebook groups) but also a LOT of whoops litters - we had neo mastiffs x Whippets going for $80 here the other day and something which looks like a British Bull dog x a big mastiff type for $40 ... I dunno - maybe Aussies are more keen to try and give a trendy name and sell the cross at a 'Profit' ... but what ever way you look at it more microchips and less gonads has to be a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, true about the dickheads, microchips and gonads. :laugh:

Dog ownership culture seems a lot different in NZ from what you've been saying here and in other threads. I think it was you who mentioned that a lot of New Zealanders seem to keep their dogs on chains in their yard? I wonder if/how that may influence the number or severity of dog biting incidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another council ignoring the evidence regarding the effectiveness of Breed Specific Legislation (it's not effective, it's really expensive, it draws precious resources away from other areas that would be much better at preventing dog attacks) and barging on ahead anyway. They're waiving the amnesty so people register and then they can track them and enforce BSL - while you've got BSL in the mix no one's going to take them up on it.

Much better to just offer and promote the $25 chip and desex to ALL community members with no threat of enforcement afterwards..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, true about the dickheads, microchips and gonads. :laugh:Dog ownership culture seems a lot different in NZ from what you've been saying here and in other threads. I think it was you who mentioned that a lot of New Zealanders seem to keep their dogs on chains in their yard? I wonder if/how that may influence the number or severity of dog biting incidents.

I can't stress that it's just my initial view of the dog culture. *My incredibly varied and extensive 5 months worth of experience* AND while I wasn't always an inner westie - I call myself a country girl - I have most recently spent 4 years living in Sydney's inner west.

BUT yes - I am finding the dog culture here in my region VERY differnt. We have whole parts of town where dogs are restricted, lots of markets and "CBDs" of towns of all sizes, cafes too (link) I can count 10-14 dogs on my street and I'm sure only one (other than Scott) is walked often - I see it out every 3-4 days. Someone casually mentioned to hubby at work the other day that they thought it was odd he walked his dog so much... and so on. But I do want to stress - this is one persons view of one area - and I think my suburb is a bit different again. It would be remiss of me to say that the whole country is like my little 'burb. The flip side to that is I can count at least 3 independent pet food shops, a few groomers, a petbarn (its animates here) + a tonne of feed shops in town and a huge number of vets in a town of 90,000- the animal industry is very well serviced - so maybe I'm just missing something.

Just another council ignoring the evidence regarding the effectiveness of Breed Specific Legislation (it's not effective, it's really expensive, it draws precious resources away from other areas that would be much better at preventing dog attacks) and barging on ahead anyway. They're waiving the amnesty so people register and then they can track them and enforce BSL - while you've got BSL in the mix no one's going to take them up on it. Much better to just offer and promote the $25 chip and desex to ALL community members with no threat of enforcement afterwards..

Annual rego is compulsory here - not sure if that weighs in to your comments but - just FYI.

I see what you're saying. However, I think in this case it's more of a a knee-jerk reaction - there's been a few really horrific attacks here in the few months I've been here - and the most recent ones have both been "pitty types".

I've thought about this a lot - and often thought I'd put my flack jacket on and ask. Maybe today's the day....

If its OK to select a breed based on it's type or traits why is it not OK to also base legislation or controls on them for the same reasons?

I own fox terrier types because I like what they offer - in terms of temperament and looks.

I think malinois and weimaraners are incredibly handsome dogs but I would never own a Mal based on their breed specific traits - and a good mal breeder would NOT sell one to me. One day I might have another Weim in my life - but I'd have to think long and hard about it

I'd never own a Maremma either - based entirely on their breed specific characteristics

Greyhounds / sight hounds are muzzled in some cases. Yes- I know that's pretty old fashioned and we've moved away from it

I get this is a huge over simplification - but why is one kind of breed selection or discrimination OK but BSL is not? Why is it not OK to ask for Greys to be in muzzles or ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another council ignoring the evidence regarding the effectiveness of Breed Specific Legislation (it's not effective, it's really expensive, it draws precious resources away from other areas that would be much better at preventing dog attacks) and barging on ahead anyway. They're waiving the amnesty so people register and then they can track them and enforce BSL - while you've got BSL in the mix no one's going to take them up on it. Much better to just offer and promote the $25 chip and desex to ALL community members with no threat of enforcement afterwards..

Annual rego is compulsory here - not sure if that weighs in to your comments but - just FYI.

I see what you're saying. However, I think in this case it's more of a a knee-jerk reaction - there's been a few really horrific attacks here in the few months I've been here - and the most recent ones have both been "pitty types".

I've thought about this a lot - and often thought I'd put my flack jacket on and ask. Maybe today's the day....

If its OK to select a breed based on it's type or traits why is it not OK to also base legislation or controls on them for the same reasons?

I own fox terrier types because I like what they offer - in terms of temperament and looks.

I think malinois and weimaraners are incredibly handsome dogs but I would never own a Mal based on their breed specific traits - and a good mal breeder would NOT sell one to me. One day I might have another Weim in my life - but I'd have to think long and hard about it

I'd never own a Maremma either - based entirely on their breed specific characteristics

Greyhounds / sight hounds are muzzled in some cases. Yes- I know that's pretty old fashioned and we've moved away from it

I get this is a huge over simplification - but why is one kind of breed selection or discrimination OK but BSL is not? Why is it not OK to ask for Greys to be in muzzles or ...

Annual rego doesn't change my comments, whether it's annual or not, if you threaten to enforce restrictions on people's dogs just because of the way they look you're going to end up with people not registering their dogs. Providing an amnesty doesn't help - anyone with half a brain knows it's so they can chase people and their dogs up. I know it's knee-jerk. That's no excuse.

There's so much to address in your other comments which I don't have the time to do but basically it boils down to the fact that our obsession with 'breed characteristics' itself is myopic at best, let alone trying to enforce based on these supposed characteristics.

Almost all dogs in our society these days, including 'Pit Bull' dogs, are bred for nothing other than appearance and for the purpose of being pets. There is plenty of empirical evidence that shows that even in purebred populations, the variation of behaviour *within* those breeds is just as divergent as behaviour between breeds. And the various breed groups do not show heightened instances of behaviours associated with their original purpose compared to other breed groups.

On top of that that nurture and current management has just as much (if not more) impact on behaviour than genetics does. Greyhounds are one of the only breeds these days that are still actively selected for a working purpose and yet look how many are killed/rehomed every year because they're not really that great at it. To then start applying 'breed characteristics' stuff to dogs bred for appearance and suitability as a pet only is a big leap.

I know that information isn't popular on a purebred dog forum where the idea of breed traits and characteristics is heavily weighted but it's not borne out by the evidence. Have a read of this great document: http://www.dogwise.com/downloader.cfm?itemid=breedselecting&format=pdf

Of course that's only when we talk about purebreds. To then start applying it to 'types' of dogs that you're picking only on their appearance rather than actual proven genetics becomes even more ridiculous.

Then of course there's all the other issues of why BSL is useless - expensive, resource heavy (when you're running around chasing 'pit bull' dogs that haven't done anything wrong you're not doing proactive stuff that actually *will* reduce dog attacks), encourages people to hide away their dogs and not comply with other areas of legislation (not registering, not going to the vet, not taking for walks, not going to training).... Honestly it's ridiculous that we're (collective 'we') even still talking about BSL as if it's something worth investing a second of energy thinking about.

For more info on the uselessness of BSL see here: http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/dog-legislation/breed-specific-legislation-bsl-faq/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response. Lots to think about there. :)

No probs :) There's really even more that could be discussed and thought about but that's really the core stuff. The core issue though is that it has been shown time and time again to not make societies any safer. In fact, in some areas it seems to have worsened things. This makes sense to me, as if you tell people that some dogs are inherently dangerous then the logical conclusion is that some dogs are inherently safe. People then take big risks with their non-restricted dogs, or ignore warnings signs because it's only those pit bulls that are dangerous. "Labradors/Border Collies/Kelpies/poodles etc etc don't bite"!

That has certainly rung true in my many years working in animal management. You'd be really shocked at how many people do really stupid stuff with their dogs and when I try and explain to them why they're putting their dog or other dogs/people at risk they tell me 'don't be silly, it's not like he's a pit bull!'. I've also had owners of dogs that have actually bitten and injured people or other animals tell me I shouldn't take action against them or their dogs because 'it's not like it's a Pit Bull'.

The best one was a Golden Retriever X Poodle that kept biting people walking past when left in the front yard. Beautiful fluffy dog. No one walking past was wary of the dog with it's head over the fence because 'it didn't look like a dangerous dog so I didn't think it would bite me', and the owners of the dog (who didn't witness the bites) were incredulous when I told them what happened because 'Groodles don't bite people!!'.

If you tell people that a small subset of dogs are 'dangerous' based on the way they look, they'll assume that dogs that don't look like that are no risk/can't bite.

Edited by melzawelza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not entirely sure who, or what defines a "menacing dog" - or who'd call their dog one voluntarily - but this is still a great deal. It is open to anyone in the Council area - so 'non-menacing' dogs can be done too. I hope it gets good uptake.

Edit: found out what constitutes a menacing dog.

Territorial authority may classify dog as menacing

(1)This section applies to a dog that—

(a)has not been classified as a dangerous dog under section 31; but

(b)a territorial authority considers may pose a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife because of—

(i)any observed or reported behaviour of the dog; or

(ii)any characteristics typically associated with the dog's breed or type.

This does not appear to be entirely accurate:

Banned breeds

The following four breeds cannot be imported into New Zealand: American Pit Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Brazilian Fila, Japanese Tosa and Perro de Presa Canario.

Other breeds or types of dogs can be added to the list of restricted dogs, but only after an Order in Council is agreed by Parliament.

Before recommending such an Order, the Minister of Local Government is required to consult with local government, animal welfare organisations, dog clubs and veterinary practices, as appropriate.

Menacing dogs

A classification of menacing dog was created under the Act. A council may declare a dog menacing if it considers the dog may pose a threat to any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife because of:

(i) any observed or reported behaviour of the dog; or

(ii) any characteristics typically associated with the dog's breed or type.

If a council believes on reasonable grounds that a dog is wholly or predominantly one or more of the banned breeds or types it must classify it as menacing.

Menacing dogs must be muzzled in public and the council may require it to be neutered.

Dangerous dogs

A council must classify as a dangerous dog:

(a) any dog in respect of which the owner has been convicted of a rushing offence (the Act sets out what constitutes a rushing offence);

(b) any dog which the council has (on the basis of sworn evidence attesting to aggressive behaviour by the dog on one or more occasions) reasonable grounds to believe constitutes a threat to the safety of any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife;

© any dog that the owner admits in writing constitutes a threat to the safety of any person, stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife.

Dangerous dogs must be leashed and muzzled in public and are also required to be securely fenced on the owner's property without blocking access to any dwelling.

So rather than having a separate 'Restricted Breed' category for pit bulls and pitbull crosses, they are apparently automatically classified as 'Menacing Dogs.'

Apparently the whole amnesty thing is a reaction to a recent incident in the Auckland Council area where a young boy was bitten by his uncle's pitbull type dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

possible I pulled the wrong part from the act. I didn't read it all. And yes - there have been two big attacks here - within a number of days of each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podengo   

I think there were 4 or 5 attacks in a couple of days, there were a couple in CHCH on the same day :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, true about the dickheads, microchips and gonads. :laugh:Dog ownership culture seems a lot different in NZ from what you've been saying here and in other threads. I think it was you who mentioned that a lot of New Zealanders seem to keep their dogs on chains in their yard? I wonder if/how that may influence the number or severity of dog biting incidents.

I can't stress that it's just my initial view of the dog culture. *My incredibly varied and extensive 5 months worth of experience* AND while I wasn't always an inner westie - I call myself a country girl - I have most recently spent 4 years living in Sydney's inner west.

BUT yes - I am finding the dog culture here in my region VERY differnt. We have whole parts of town where dogs are restricted, lots of markets and "CBDs" of towns of all sizes, cafes too (link) I can count 10-14 dogs on my street and I'm sure only one (other than Scott) is walked often - I see it out every 3-4 days. Someone casually mentioned to hubby at work the other day that they thought it was odd he walked his dog so much... and so on. But I do want to stress - this is one persons view of one area - and I think my suburb is a bit different again. It would be remiss of me to say that the whole country is like my little 'burb. The flip side to that is I can count at least 3 independent pet food shops, a few groomers, a petbarn (its animates here) + a tonne of feed shops in town and a huge number of vets in a town of 90,000- the animal industry is very well serviced - so maybe I'm just missing something.

Just another council ignoring the evidence regarding the effectiveness of Breed Specific Legislation (it's not effective, it's really expensive, it draws precious resources away from other areas that would be much better at preventing dog attacks) and barging on ahead anyway. They're waiving the amnesty so people register and then they can track them and enforce BSL - while you've got BSL in the mix no one's going to take them up on it. Much better to just offer and promote the $25 chip and desex to ALL community members with no threat of enforcement afterwards..

Annual rego is compulsory here - not sure if that weighs in to your comments but - just FYI.

I see what you're saying. However, I think in this case it's more of a a knee-jerk reaction - there's been a few really horrific attacks here in the few months I've been here - and the most recent ones have both been "pitty types".

I've thought about this a lot - and often thought I'd put my flack jacket on and ask. Maybe today's the day....

If its OK to select a breed based on it's type or traits why is it not OK to also base legislation or controls on them for the same reasons?

I own fox terrier types because I like what they offer - in terms of temperament and looks.

I think malinois and weimaraners are incredibly handsome dogs but I would never own a Mal based on their breed specific traits - and a good mal breeder would NOT sell one to me. One day I might have another Weim in my life - but I'd have to think long and hard about it

I'd never own a Maremma either - based entirely on their breed specific characteristics

Greyhounds / sight hounds are muzzled in some cases. Yes- I know that's pretty old fashioned and we've moved away from it

I get this is a huge over simplification - but why is one kind of breed selection or discrimination OK but BSL is not? Why is it not OK to ask for Greys to be in muzzles or ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scottsmum

I'm not sure what area you live in but I can tell you where i'm from in NZ it is not common practice to chain dogs up. In Christchurch dogs are allowed off lead at most beaches except around the surf life saving buildings. Dogs are allowed off lead at most parks but must be under effective controll. When I visit my family we take their dogs to a cafe that allows the dogs in the cafe and they have special treats for them. It is a really dog friendy city compare to where I live in Sydney. I can't let my dog off lead anywhere here except designated dog parks and a few beaches.

NZ does have a big problem with people just letting their dogs roam. My JRT was attacked several times while we were out walking and our pet cat was killed in our yard by roaming dogs. But these things do happen in Australia as well. Microchipping is usually free through the council and desexing is fairly cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry just re read what I have posted and need to add that our dogs had been attacked twice not several times. Thinking several may mean 7?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ScottsmumI'm not sure what area you live in but I can tell you where i'm from in NZ it is not common practice to chain dogs up. In Christchurch dogs are allowed off lead at most beaches except around the surf life saving buildings. Dogs are allowed off lead at most parks but must be under effective controll. When I visit my family we take their dogs to a cafe that allows the dogs in the cafe and they have special treats for them. It is a really dog friendy city compare to where I live in Sydney. I can't let my dog off lead anywhere here except designated dog parks and a few beaches. NZ does have a big problem with people just letting their dogs roam. My JRT was attacked several times while we were out walking and our pet cat was killed in our yard by roaming dogs. But these things do happen in Australia as well. Microchipping is usually free through the council and desexing is fairly cheap.

Yep. I acknowledge that these things certainly do happen in Australia as well. Wasn't trying to say it didn't.

I'm just saying I'm finding Palmerston North very different to Marrickville. :D That said - I've been walking dogs in a different suburb to home this last few weeks and holy crapola - they're certainly not chaining their dogs over the other side of Palmy. Never in my life have I been so happy that these dogs don't seem to realise they could clear a 4 foot fence in a flash. I've had to black list two whole streets for fear of being eaten - so maybe it is just my little bubble. But all in all - I find it very restrictive.

Here's the dog map issued by my local council. Red is dogs prohibited, yellow is off leash, green is on-lead. I tend to stay away from the yellow area along the river in 6 & 9 - while it is off lead - its often really busy and it's a shared cycle path - I have nightmares about Scottie crashing into a cyclist. We tend to drive about 20 minutes out of town to go to another off leash if I want to give him some time to romp on a long lead - but we've stopped going there as it's not well maintained and last time we went he got covered in paspalum.

dog-exercise-areas.jpg

Anyhow - I'm derailing my own thread. As Podengo said - Lots of attacks here lately. :(

Edited by Scottsmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sue   

Not seen it but have skimmed most of the thread. The five breeds banned from importation are also classified as menacing automatically, meaning they must be muzzled and leashed at all times when in public. If the local authority has enacted section (blah blah, can't remember the clause and part) of the Dog Control Act, then those breeds must also be desexed.

It is these breeds that the Auckland City Council is targeting.

I'm guessing once the amnesty is over, Council will be going door to door seizing unregistered dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not seen it but have skimmed most of the thread. The five breeds banned from importation are also classified as menacing automatically, meaning they must be muzzled and leashed at all times when in public. If the local authority has enacted section (blah blah, can't remember the clause and part) of the Dog Control Act, then those breeds must also be desexed.

It is these breeds that the Auckland City Council is targeting.

I'm guessing once the amnesty is over, Council will be going door to door seizing unregistered dogs.

Can they come in? Are there any here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sue   

There are APBT's and Dogo Argentino's here. Apparently there were a couple of Fila's at one stage that were show dogs. The other breeds apparently do not exist in NZ.

No, the breeds specifically named in the schedule of the Dog Control Act cannot be imported. Australia has a similar ban on specific breeds entering its borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×