这里政府对狗的管理好像非常的严格

天才

ITS A DOGS LIFE AT STAKE
By CATRIONA MacLENNAN*

If you love your dogs, don't let them roam the streets. New Zealand's dog-control laws are strict and there are few second chances.

It is heartbreaking to be working as duty solicitor and to have to tell a series of upset dog-owners that a judge is going to order that their animals be put down.

It is too late at that point for owners to produce photos of the dogs and explain that they are lovely animals and do not normally get into trouble. Judges have very little discretion under the law.

There are 18,500 to 19,000 dogs registered within the Auckland City Council boundaries, and a further 17,000 to 19,000 in the Manukau City Council area.

The Manukau council prosecuted 163 dog-owners under the Dog Control Act in the 12 months to June 30, up from 97 in the previous year. The Auckland council prosecuted fewer than 20.

The two relevant sections under the Dog Control Act are the rushing and the biting sections.

The rushing section is used for less serious cases, when a dog runs at people and startles them. This often happens when a dog rushes at a stranger, such as someone delivering mail.

Owners who are prosecuted will receive a fine of up to $1500 as well as a conviction, and the dog is liable to be classified as dangerous.

A dog may also be classified as dangerous if sworn evidence of aggressive behaviour by the dog on one or more occasions is received.

Once dogs are classified as dangerous, they must be muzzled at all times in public, be desexed, be contained in a securely fenced property allowing visitors separate access to the house, and may not be disposed of without the permission of the local authority. Registration fees are also increased to 150 per cent.

In cases where a dog bites a person and the attack is considered to be serious, the judge must make an order for destruction of the dog.

The only discretion not to order the dog to be put down is when the judge finds that the circumstances of the attack were exceptional. This is a narrow exemption and relates strictly to the attack, so arguments about the dog's previous good behaviour or close bond with the owner will not be relevant.

Once an order for the destruction of a dog has been made, the Manukau City Council sends out a contractor to pick up the animal and it is then put down by injection. The Auckland City Council sends dogs to the animal shelter, where they will be put down by a veterinarian.

In Peteru v Manukau City Council, the High Court dismissed an appeal from a District Court decision ordering the destruction of a dog. The dog had been tied up to weights which the animal could move, and the District Court judge found that there were no exceptional circumstances.

The High Court judge said that the test for exceptional circumstances was high. Parliament's intention to reduce dog attacks was clear. While it was regrettable to destroy a dog when there was an obvious attachment with the owner, Parliament's clear purpose could not be overridden.

In Rotorua District Council v Whakaue, the Solicitor-General successfully appealed after a dog-owner was simply fined for a dog attack on a postal employee. The High Court judge held that destruction of the dog was mandatory unless the owner could establish exceptional circumstances. Since those had not been proved, the dog was to be put down.

In Sutherland v Rotorua District Council, a dog let off a leash to be exercised in a park bit a jogger many times. The owner's appeal against the destruction order was dismissed. Justice Williams noted that dogs that had previously been well-controlled could still be destroyed and said that dog attacks were perceived to be an increasing problem which the law was designed to address.

Many dog-owners seem to have little idea of how strict the law is, and are shocked when they arrive at court to find that the judge is going to order their pet to be destroyed. Unfortunately, it is too late for regrets and promises at that point.

People who really care about their dogs should look after them properly. A dog is a huge responsibility in terms of time and emotional and financial commitment. People who cannot make that investment should not have dogs.

The laws are tough and, unfairly, it is the dog that will pay the main price for the actions of a negligent or uncaring owner.

* Catriona MacLennan is a South Auckland lawyer.

NewLynnHse

这样可以避免很多不必要的误会

添

NewLynnHse 发表于 2013-7-30 10:55
这样可以避免很多不必要的误会

同意，这是好事

天才

什么求情之类的都没有用，不是在于这狗为什么咬人，去摸狗鼻子被咬了，照样PUT DOWN
关键看人家评判这狗以后会不会继续咬人

https://www.facebook.com/pages/D ... ort/140523642739349

这个主页大家可以看看，对这件事会有不同的看法

天才

Auckland Council is taking a tough line on dog bites no matter what the situation: If someone enters your property (even illegally) and your dog bites them, YOU WILL be prosecuted. If someone approaches your and your dog while on a leash and your dog bites them, YOU WILL be prosecuted. If you have your dog in an off leash area and it bites someone who enters this area, YOU WILL be prosecuted. Other New Zealand Councils dont take such a hard line instead opting to review each case individually

奥克兰特别严