February 23, 2026 • 19 mins
There are calls for urgent action – after yet another fatal dog attack.
The death of a 62-year-old woman in Northland marks the fourth fatal dog attack in four years.
It’s while dog-related injuries and hospitalisations rise every year.
ACC statistics show more than 29,200 dog-related injuries in 2024/25 - nearly half of them a result of dog bites.
So, how do we get on top of this issue? Should Dog Control Laws go further?
Today on The Front Page, SPCA chief scientific officer, Dr Arnja Dale, is with us to discuss how we could potentially move forward, so no one else dies from a dog attack.
Follow The Front Page on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can read more about this and other stories in the New Zealand Herald, online at nzherald.co.nz, or tune in to news bulletins across the NZME network.
Host: Chelsea Daniels
Editor/Producer: Richard Martin
Producer: Jane Yee
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kilda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. There are
calls for urgent action after yet another fatal dog attack.
The death of a sixty two year old woman in
Northland marks the fourth fatal dog attack in four years.
(00:28):
It's while dog related injuries and hospitalizations rise every year
as well. Acc statistics show more than twenty nine than
two hundred dog related injuries in twenty twenty four to
twenty five, nearly half of them a result of dog bites.
So how do we get on top of this issue?
(00:49):
Should dog control laws go further? Today on the Front Page,
SPCA Chief Scientific Officer Doctor Anya Daala is with us
to discuss how we could potentially move forward so no
one else dies from a dog attack. First off, why
has this I guess current case or a most recent
(01:13):
case of a dog attack prompted such a strong response
from the SPCA.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
The reason that we've come out very strongly at the
moment is because we have been calling for action since
twenty fifteen and meeting with successive ministers over the years.
What's changed with this latest tragic fatality is that there's
now a lot of media attention and ministerial interest in it,
(01:41):
and so that is the difference. I don't can't explain why,
given that we've had four fatalities over the last four years,
this one is any different. But I think people are
just saying this is not acceptable, this is not safe.
These are tragedies that we actually can prevent with evidence
(02:02):
based review of the Dog Control Act, with evidence based
preventative measures, and it is just not acceptable that we're
dealing with an act that is thirty years old, and
that we know dog bites are increasing. We know that
we have had more fatalities in the last few years
(02:24):
than we have had. We used to have one every
three years. That was not acceptable either, but we've had
more and more as well as a lot of publicity
around the issues of roaming dogs, particularly in Northland, killing
stock and enduring stock, you know, our farmed animals, particularly sheep.
People have just said this is it, this is too much,
(02:47):
we don't want to live in the society.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Well, the fact of the matter is that these deaths
are completely preventable as well. So why wouldn't we change
the laws as you said, that are decades old. What
should we change the laws to what would be your recommendations.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Well, there, we've got a number of recommendations. And the
first thing that we need to do is that we
cannot tinker around the edges and do knee reactions following
following these high profile tragedies because that doesn't prevent future harm.
Reform must be carefully considered, it must be evidence based,
(03:26):
and it must focus on prevention. So our focus as
a country must be on stopping the attacks before they
have been, not just reacting afterwards. So what we urgently
need is a nationwide evidence based approach, which is modern,
contemporary legislation that actually focuses on behavioral science and preventative
measure measures. We need consistent enforcement, we need responsible breeding,
(03:51):
we need early behavioral intervention, and we need public education
involving both dog safety and possible dog ownership to stop
serious incidences before they actually happen. So we're calling for
three three things. We're calling on an urgent, substantive, evidence
based review of the Dog Control Act nineteen ninety six,
(04:14):
so thirty years old. It's hopelessly out of date. It's
out of step with evidence based approaches. We're also calling
on central government to reinstate grants to councils to subsidize
desexing of menacing and roaming dogs as an upstream preventative measure.
So they did this in twenty seventeen, which was the
(04:35):
first time they did it and the only time they
have done it. But desexing is a really important part
of the preventative measure, so they had an eight hundred
and fifty thousand dollars grant back then. But desexing is expensive,
it is a barrier, so we need to do this.
Central government needs to show leadership and do this. The
(04:58):
third thing we're calling for is standardized national guidelines for
counsels on actions to take following a dog bye incident,
to ensure that they are proportionate, evidence based interventions, that
they incorporate recognized tools such as the Dunbar byte scale.
And this actually allows for early intervention and appropriate action
(05:18):
to prevent tragedies before they occur because it's a risk
based measure.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
In terms of the desexing, we do that with cats anyway.
At the moment, don't we to protect native.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Birds, So the government doesn't provide any funding for cat desexing,
and like I mentioned, only once in twenty seventeen, which
was only one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which actually
doesn't go very far unfortunately so, but the SPCA spends
approximately these are for community animals, These are not for
(05:50):
animals in our centers. For community animals, we spend about
four million dollars desex and community animals, and we particularly
have been focusing on Northland because there are issues there.
Over the last couple of years, we're desect about four
two hundred dogs in Northland to help solve the problems
(06:12):
up there. But it's not enough. This is not an
SPCA issue, this is a community issue, and we don't
have central government leadership to actually take charge and actually
put in some evidence based, systemic preventative measures to stop
these tragedies occurring.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
Yes, it is actually very sad that we've had another
fatality in the North due to marauding, ferocious as I've
described them, homicidal dogs. But there's a deeper reality at
stake here. We do have very dangerous, unwanted breeds of
dogs here in New Zealand, and they are being crossbred
by people who pretend to be hunters, but an actual fact,
(06:58):
all they're doing is create a new type of menas
in our community. So please back our government with a deep,
vigorous examination and development of new rules and regulations as
to what level of fitness should you show before you
even allowed to own a dog. If the dog has
maimed and hurt someone, take it immediately from the property
(07:21):
and if they haven't come within seventy two hours to
accept responsibility, put it down.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Is there any way from stopping people from owning animals
before they get them so we know that they can
be charged. If you know they are a dog owner,
for instance, and then you find that dog mal nourished
or mistreated, you can then place restrictions on that person
as to whether they can own an animal between you know,
the next year, two years, five years, etc. Is there
(07:52):
anything that we can do or is there anything you
think we should do to stop people from owning animals?
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Well, provisions already under the Dog Control Act that allow
courts to disqualify someone from owning dogs in serious cases,
but simply asking whether we stop people owning animals altogether
sort of misses the broader issue because most serious incidences
do not arise in isolation. What they do is they
reflect gaps in early intervention and enforcement, consistency and national oversight.
(08:24):
This is often something that comes up after a tragedy.
What we actually need is a full overhaul of the
whole system and actually focus on consistent, evidence based measures
that will stop these situations occurring. There are situations in
(08:45):
other parts of the world that have already put all
these measures in place, so we don't need to reinvent
the wheel. We can look overseas to where it actually
has worked and actually bring them into the New Zealand
framework because New Zealanders deserve better. It is unacceptable for
people to be scared to walk down the road, to
(09:06):
be kids, to be scared to go to school. It's
unacceptable the level of dog bites that occurring in Zealand.
You know, we can look at the ACC data and
over the past six years there's an upward trend in
dog bite injury claims, so increasing from eleven and a
half thousand to more than fourteen thousand annually, and that
(09:26):
is really really concerning. New Zealand should be very concerned
about that. And these figures only reflect reported injury claims.
They don't tell us about the severity of these bites.
They don't tell us about the underlying causes. And we
also know that the majority of dog bites actually don't
are not reported. And part of the reason is is
(09:48):
that we know that the majority of dog bites occur
either in your own home or in homes of friends
and families, often a little bit of pressure or people
don't want to upset things, and so they're not actually reported,
and that is really really concerning.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
So I guess what you're saying is if we had
better preventative measures, I mean, fatalities wouldn't happen because presumably
those dogs would have been reported somewhere else down the line.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Yes, if you have evidence based interventions like the Dunbar
bite scale that I mentioned, it allows for early intervention
and actually appropriate action to be taken before these tragedies occur.
And that is the most critical thing, along with education.
(10:43):
Education is really really key here. It's just one part.
What we really need is a multi factorial, multi agency,
multi layered approach, which is happening to some degree already.
But what we're seeing is it's not enough. And the
reason it's not enough is because we don't have central
government leadership. We haven't had an evidence based reform of
(11:08):
the Dog Control Act, we haven't had We don't have
consistent national guidelines for counsels following a dog by incident.
At the moment, it's a lottery post code how your
counsel is going to respond because we don't have these
tools to ensure that proportionate, evidence based interventions are actually
(11:31):
in place, so that risk can be assessed and early
intervention can be put in place and appropriate action to
prevent these tragedies.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
When you say evidence based, can you give me an
example of what that might entail.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
So, for example, with dog safety education, we know that
there are mixed messaging going into schools. Now, there are
private companies that do it, there's counsels that do it,
but they're not cons system and not having consistent messages
is confusing not only to children but also to parents.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
About what happens when you get bitten by a dog?
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Well, what happens? How to prevent being bitten by a dog?
You do not like the most important thing is that
children and dogs are always supervised. You never force any
interaction that needs to be on their own measures. You
eliminate risk by not letting children go and disturbing dogs
(12:31):
while they're sleeping or while they're eating, or while they're
having a chewing a bone. These are all high reward
things for dogs, and we know the science says eliminating
that risk, making sure there's full supervision actually reduces dog bites,
particularly in that zero to nine age group. Now remember
(12:52):
the zero to nine age group. These are our small
vulnerable children and when they get bitten by a dog,
the vast majority of them are facial injuries. For adults,
when they get bitten by a dog's more it's more arms,
legs and hands that get bitten. We know that from
(13:13):
the statistics and the analysis that has been done. So
we really need to actually help our councils making sure
they're properly resourced and making sure they actually can have
consistent behavior based COORS assessments across councils. And we really
need to focus the dessexing on menacing dogs and roaming
(13:34):
dogs because we know that that is a significant concern
for societies to have these roaming dogs. We know that
there are parts of New Zealand that this is more
likely to occur, So we know that if you do
targeted interventions on these communities, it will result in a
(13:56):
reduction in dog bites and that it should be what
the government is actually focusing on.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
I guess I'm trying to find I'm finding it hard
to understand what a change in the law would mean
for getting rid of roaming dogs, say, or menacing dogs.
Rather that you can't do without that education, just getting
a grant and saying, hey, here, educate dog owners on
(14:28):
what to do, because in my mind it's obvious that
you don't let a three year old kid or something
next to a dog that's eating, you know, so why.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Them around the hug them around the neck, things like that. Yeah,
I'm not good for dogs. But most of all, what
we need is for dog owners all over as well,
is to recognize the early signs that a dog is
not comfortable in a situation. Dogs signal that they are
not comfortable. Sometimes the que is subtle, but for example,
(15:02):
our Dogs Safe Happy Homes is all about teaching children
and adults about how they can recognize these early signs
so that they can actually remove the dog from the
situation or the child from the situation, so that we
don't actually end up with situations where these behaviors have
to escalate and there is no other choice for the animal.
(15:26):
But to show more overt aggression. We want to be
able to eliminate that risk. But the reason we focus
on the Dog Control Act is because it was drafted
thirty years ago. It doesn't reflect modern behavioral science, it
doesn't reflect contemporary preventative approaches. And actually the Dog Control
(15:46):
Act is the legislation that sort of overhangs all of this.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
It's really difficult to say, and you can't really put
it down to breath. I know guy who had his
auchilies tend and saved by Chiuahwa when he was at work.
He was putting blinds up and don't worry, my dog
won't bite and it save it as accies tendon. So
we can't look at breeds. All dogs can bite. And
this is what people forget. I think we have people
going I've got a Labrador. They love kids. I think
(16:19):
labrador is a lot more tolerant than other dogs. But
there are so many different aspects to it. You know,
you having people and it's lovely to call yourself abhorrent
and to have a fur baby, but there's still a dog.
You've got to treat them like a dog, not like
a toy.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
And just lastly, do you think that we should be
as a society, I mean, treat dog ownership as a
privilege and not a right.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
The question isn't just about whether we should introduce another
requirement for dog owners but whether it actually the evidence
shows it will meaningfully reduce risk. And we know for
so overseas that there's been mixed results unless they're really
well designed and consistently enforced and supported by education and
behavior based assessments. So that's really important. So in the UK,
(17:14):
they had a dog license system. This is different to
registration which is currently mandated under the Dog Control Act.
This is different. They abolished that in nineteen eighty seven
because compliance was so long, so low, and enforcement costs
outweighed the benefits.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
All right, So because anybody's dog can have puppies, and
then I can just give you one and say do
you want it? Do you want one of these puppies? Right?
Speaker 3 (17:36):
Exactly, that's exactly right. And also like introducing knowledge tests
for dog ownership is an idea that also comes up.
We support education, it absolutely matters. We know that understanding
canine behavior, supervision and early warning signs do reduce risk.
But what we've seen from overseas from the evidence, and
(17:57):
the international experience is that it's all about the motivated
owners will do it, but they don't necessarily reach the
small number of high risk situations where serious harm actually occurs.
So if we're really serious about prevention, then any education
requirement would need to sit within a broader, modernized framework,
(18:21):
which is consistent enforcement, behavior based risk assessment, support from
central government for desexing, menacing and roaming dogs, and this
comprehensive evidence based review of the Dog Control Act. So
there is no one silver bullet. It needs to be
really comprehensive. It needs to be evidence based, and it
needs to be led by central government, and there needs
(18:44):
to be buying from everybody. I think it's quite clear
from what we've heard in the media, particularly this week,
that this situation is untenable. It is untenable. Any bite
is not okay. Need to be able to actually put
some evidence based intervention measures them that are early to
(19:06):
prevent these treasudies from occurring.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Thanks for joining us, Anya, Thank you very.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Much for having me.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzidherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
hosted and produced by me Chelsea Daniels. Caine Dickie is
our studio operator, Richard Martin, our producer and editor, and
our executive producer is Jane Ye. Follow the Front Page
(19:36):
on the iHeart app or wherever you get your podcasts,
and join us next time for another look beyond the headlines.
Kilda.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and this is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by the New Zealand Herald. There are
calls for urgent action after yet another fatal dog attack.
The death of a sixty two year old woman in
Northland marks the fourth fatal dog attack in four years.
(00:28):
It's while dog related injuries and hospitalizations rise every year
as well. Acc statistics show more than twenty nine than
two hundred dog related injuries in twenty twenty four to
twenty five, nearly half of them a result of dog bites.
So how do we get on top of this issue?
(00:49):
Should dog control laws go further? Today on the Front Page,
SPCA Chief Scientific Officer Doctor Anya Daala is with us
to discuss how we could potentially move forward so no
one else dies from a dog attack. First off, why
has this I guess current case or a most recent
(01:13):
case of a dog attack prompted such a strong response
from the SPCA.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
The reason that we've come out very strongly at the
moment is because we have been calling for action since
twenty fifteen and meeting with successive ministers over the years.
What's changed with this latest tragic fatality is that there's
now a lot of media attention and ministerial interest in it,
(01:41):
and so that is the difference. I don't can't explain why,
given that we've had four fatalities over the last four years,
this one is any different. But I think people are
just saying this is not acceptable, this is not safe.
These are tragedies that we actually can prevent with evidence
(02:02):
based review of the Dog Control Act, with evidence based
preventative measures, and it is just not acceptable that we're
dealing with an act that is thirty years old, and
that we know dog bites are increasing. We know that
we have had more fatalities in the last few years
(02:24):
than we have had. We used to have one every
three years. That was not acceptable either, but we've had
more and more as well as a lot of publicity
around the issues of roaming dogs, particularly in Northland, killing
stock and enduring stock, you know, our farmed animals, particularly sheep.
People have just said this is it, this is too much,
(02:47):
we don't want to live in the society.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Well, the fact of the matter is that these deaths
are completely preventable as well. So why wouldn't we change
the laws as you said, that are decades old. What
should we change the laws to what would be your recommendations.
Speaker 3 (03:04):
Well, there, we've got a number of recommendations. And the
first thing that we need to do is that we
cannot tinker around the edges and do knee reactions following
following these high profile tragedies because that doesn't prevent future harm.
Reform must be carefully considered, it must be evidence based,
(03:26):
and it must focus on prevention. So our focus as
a country must be on stopping the attacks before they
have been, not just reacting afterwards. So what we urgently
need is a nationwide evidence based approach, which is modern,
contemporary legislation that actually focuses on behavioral science and preventative
measure measures. We need consistent enforcement, we need responsible breeding,
(03:51):
we need early behavioral intervention, and we need public education
involving both dog safety and possible dog ownership to stop
serious incidences before they actually happen. So we're calling for
three three things. We're calling on an urgent, substantive, evidence
based review of the Dog Control Act nineteen ninety six,
(04:14):
so thirty years old. It's hopelessly out of date. It's
out of step with evidence based approaches. We're also calling
on central government to reinstate grants to councils to subsidize
desexing of menacing and roaming dogs as an upstream preventative measure.
So they did this in twenty seventeen, which was the
(04:35):
first time they did it and the only time they
have done it. But desexing is a really important part
of the preventative measure, so they had an eight hundred
and fifty thousand dollars grant back then. But desexing is expensive,
it is a barrier, so we need to do this.
Central government needs to show leadership and do this. The
(04:58):
third thing we're calling for is standardized national guidelines for
counsels on actions to take following a dog bye incident,
to ensure that they are proportionate, evidence based interventions, that
they incorporate recognized tools such as the Dunbar byte scale.
And this actually allows for early intervention and appropriate action
(05:18):
to prevent tragedies before they occur because it's a risk
based measure.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
In terms of the desexing, we do that with cats anyway.
At the moment, don't we to protect native.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Birds, So the government doesn't provide any funding for cat desexing,
and like I mentioned, only once in twenty seventeen, which
was only one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which actually
doesn't go very far unfortunately so, but the SPCA spends
approximately these are for community animals, These are not for
(05:50):
animals in our centers. For community animals, we spend about
four million dollars desex and community animals, and we particularly
have been focusing on Northland because there are issues there.
Over the last couple of years, we're desect about four
two hundred dogs in Northland to help solve the problems
(06:12):
up there. But it's not enough. This is not an
SPCA issue, this is a community issue, and we don't
have central government leadership to actually take charge and actually
put in some evidence based, systemic preventative measures to stop
these tragedies occurring.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
Yes, it is actually very sad that we've had another
fatality in the North due to marauding, ferocious as I've
described them, homicidal dogs. But there's a deeper reality at
stake here. We do have very dangerous, unwanted breeds of
dogs here in New Zealand, and they are being crossbred
by people who pretend to be hunters, but an actual fact,
(06:58):
all they're doing is create a new type of menas
in our community. So please back our government with a deep,
vigorous examination and development of new rules and regulations as
to what level of fitness should you show before you
even allowed to own a dog. If the dog has
maimed and hurt someone, take it immediately from the property
(07:21):
and if they haven't come within seventy two hours to
accept responsibility, put it down.
Speaker 2 (07:29):
Is there any way from stopping people from owning animals
before they get them so we know that they can
be charged. If you know they are a dog owner,
for instance, and then you find that dog mal nourished
or mistreated, you can then place restrictions on that person
as to whether they can own an animal between you know,
the next year, two years, five years, etc. Is there
(07:52):
anything that we can do or is there anything you
think we should do to stop people from owning animals?
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Well, provisions already under the Dog Control Act that allow
courts to disqualify someone from owning dogs in serious cases,
but simply asking whether we stop people owning animals altogether
sort of misses the broader issue because most serious incidences
do not arise in isolation. What they do is they
reflect gaps in early intervention and enforcement, consistency and national oversight.
(08:24):
This is often something that comes up after a tragedy.
What we actually need is a full overhaul of the
whole system and actually focus on consistent, evidence based measures
that will stop these situations occurring. There are situations in
(08:45):
other parts of the world that have already put all
these measures in place, so we don't need to reinvent
the wheel. We can look overseas to where it actually
has worked and actually bring them into the New Zealand
framework because New Zealanders deserve better. It is unacceptable for
people to be scared to walk down the road, to
(09:06):
be kids, to be scared to go to school. It's
unacceptable the level of dog bites that occurring in Zealand.
You know, we can look at the ACC data and
over the past six years there's an upward trend in
dog bite injury claims, so increasing from eleven and a
half thousand to more than fourteen thousand annually, and that
(09:26):
is really really concerning. New Zealand should be very concerned
about that. And these figures only reflect reported injury claims.
They don't tell us about the severity of these bites.
They don't tell us about the underlying causes. And we
also know that the majority of dog bites actually don't
are not reported. And part of the reason is is
(09:48):
that we know that the majority of dog bites occur
either in your own home or in homes of friends
and families, often a little bit of pressure or people
don't want to upset things, and so they're not actually reported,
and that is really really concerning.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
So I guess what you're saying is if we had
better preventative measures, I mean, fatalities wouldn't happen because presumably
those dogs would have been reported somewhere else down the line.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Yes, if you have evidence based interventions like the Dunbar
bite scale that I mentioned, it allows for early intervention
and actually appropriate action to be taken before these tragedies occur.
And that is the most critical thing, along with education.
(10:43):
Education is really really key here. It's just one part.
What we really need is a multi factorial, multi agency,
multi layered approach, which is happening to some degree already.
But what we're seeing is it's not enough. And the
reason it's not enough is because we don't have central
government leadership. We haven't had an evidence based reform of
(11:08):
the Dog Control Act, we haven't had We don't have
consistent national guidelines for counsels following a dog by incident.
At the moment, it's a lottery post code how your
counsel is going to respond because we don't have these
tools to ensure that proportionate, evidence based interventions are actually
(11:31):
in place, so that risk can be assessed and early
intervention can be put in place and appropriate action to
prevent these tragedies.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
When you say evidence based, can you give me an
example of what that might entail.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
So, for example, with dog safety education, we know that
there are mixed messaging going into schools. Now, there are
private companies that do it, there's counsels that do it,
but they're not cons system and not having consistent messages
is confusing not only to children but also to parents.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
About what happens when you get bitten by a dog?
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Well, what happens? How to prevent being bitten by a dog?
You do not like the most important thing is that
children and dogs are always supervised. You never force any
interaction that needs to be on their own measures. You
eliminate risk by not letting children go and disturbing dogs
(12:31):
while they're sleeping or while they're eating, or while they're
having a chewing a bone. These are all high reward
things for dogs, and we know the science says eliminating
that risk, making sure there's full supervision actually reduces dog bites,
particularly in that zero to nine age group. Now remember
(12:52):
the zero to nine age group. These are our small
vulnerable children and when they get bitten by a dog,
the vast majority of them are facial injuries. For adults,
when they get bitten by a dog's more it's more arms,
legs and hands that get bitten. We know that from
(13:13):
the statistics and the analysis that has been done. So
we really need to actually help our councils making sure
they're properly resourced and making sure they actually can have
consistent behavior based COORS assessments across councils. And we really
need to focus the dessexing on menacing dogs and roaming
(13:34):
dogs because we know that that is a significant concern
for societies to have these roaming dogs. We know that
there are parts of New Zealand that this is more
likely to occur, So we know that if you do
targeted interventions on these communities, it will result in a
(13:56):
reduction in dog bites and that it should be what
the government is actually focusing on.
Speaker 2 (14:03):
I guess I'm trying to find I'm finding it hard
to understand what a change in the law would mean
for getting rid of roaming dogs, say, or menacing dogs.
Rather that you can't do without that education, just getting
a grant and saying, hey, here, educate dog owners on
(14:28):
what to do, because in my mind it's obvious that
you don't let a three year old kid or something
next to a dog that's eating, you know, so why.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Them around the hug them around the neck, things like that. Yeah,
I'm not good for dogs. But most of all, what
we need is for dog owners all over as well,
is to recognize the early signs that a dog is
not comfortable in a situation. Dogs signal that they are
not comfortable. Sometimes the que is subtle, but for example,
(15:02):
our Dogs Safe Happy Homes is all about teaching children
and adults about how they can recognize these early signs
so that they can actually remove the dog from the
situation or the child from the situation, so that we
don't actually end up with situations where these behaviors have
to escalate and there is no other choice for the animal.
(15:26):
But to show more overt aggression. We want to be
able to eliminate that risk. But the reason we focus
on the Dog Control Act is because it was drafted
thirty years ago. It doesn't reflect modern behavioral science, it
doesn't reflect contemporary preventative approaches. And actually the Dog Control
(15:46):
Act is the legislation that sort of overhangs all of this.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
It's really difficult to say, and you can't really put
it down to breath. I know guy who had his
auchilies tend and saved by Chiuahwa when he was at work.
He was putting blinds up and don't worry, my dog
won't bite and it save it as accies tendon. So
we can't look at breeds. All dogs can bite. And
this is what people forget. I think we have people
going I've got a Labrador. They love kids. I think
(16:19):
labrador is a lot more tolerant than other dogs. But
there are so many different aspects to it. You know,
you having people and it's lovely to call yourself abhorrent
and to have a fur baby, but there's still a dog.
You've got to treat them like a dog, not like
a toy.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
And just lastly, do you think that we should be
as a society, I mean, treat dog ownership as a
privilege and not a right.
Speaker 3 (16:49):
The question isn't just about whether we should introduce another
requirement for dog owners but whether it actually the evidence
shows it will meaningfully reduce risk. And we know for
so overseas that there's been mixed results unless they're really
well designed and consistently enforced and supported by education and
behavior based assessments. So that's really important. So in the UK,
(17:14):
they had a dog license system. This is different to
registration which is currently mandated under the Dog Control Act.
This is different. They abolished that in nineteen eighty seven
because compliance was so long, so low, and enforcement costs
outweighed the benefits.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
All right, So because anybody's dog can have puppies, and
then I can just give you one and say do
you want it? Do you want one of these puppies? Right?
Speaker 3 (17:36):
Exactly, that's exactly right. And also like introducing knowledge tests
for dog ownership is an idea that also comes up.
We support education, it absolutely matters. We know that understanding
canine behavior, supervision and early warning signs do reduce risk.
But what we've seen from overseas from the evidence, and
(17:57):
the international experience is that it's all about the motivated
owners will do it, but they don't necessarily reach the
small number of high risk situations where serious harm actually occurs.
So if we're really serious about prevention, then any education
requirement would need to sit within a broader, modernized framework,
(18:21):
which is consistent enforcement, behavior based risk assessment, support from
central government for desexing, menacing and roaming dogs, and this
comprehensive evidence based review of the Dog Control Act. So
there is no one silver bullet. It needs to be
really comprehensive. It needs to be evidence based, and it
needs to be led by central government, and there needs
(18:44):
to be buying from everybody. I think it's quite clear
from what we've heard in the media, particularly this week,
that this situation is untenable. It is untenable. Any bite
is not okay. Need to be able to actually put
some evidence based intervention measures them that are early to
(19:06):
prevent these treasudies from occurring.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
Thanks for joining us, Anya, Thank you very.
Speaker 3 (19:10):
Much for having me.
Speaker 2 (19:13):
That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
at enzidherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is
hosted and produced by me Chelsea Daniels. Caine Dickie is
our studio operator, Richard Martin, our producer and editor, and
our executive producer is Jane Ye. Follow the Front Page
(19:36):
on the iHeart app or wherever you get your podcasts,
and join us next time for another look beyond the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Betrayal Season 5
Saskia Inwood woke up one morning, knowing her life would never be the same. The night before, she learned the unimaginable – that the husband she knew in the light of day was a different person after dark. This season unpacks Saskia’s discovery of her husband’s secret life and her fight to bring him to justice. Along the way, we expose a crime that is just coming to light. This is also a story about the myth of the “perfect victim:” who gets believed, who gets doubted, and why. We follow Saskia as she works to reclaim her body, her voice, and her life. If you would like to reach out to the Betrayal Team, email us at betrayalpod@gmail.com. Follow us on Instagram @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.