DOG NUISANCE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 56, Issue 261, 17 August 1936, Page 6

DOG NUISANCE.

COMPLAINTS MADE TO MINISTER.

RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNERS. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, August 16. “’Any person who keeps a dog or a number of dogs in a closely settled urban area has a responsibility to his neighbours and the public generally to see that the animals are adequately cared for and kept under proper control so as not to cause a nuisance or injury the property of other people,” said the Minister of Internal Affairs (the Hon. W. E. Parry) in an interview to-day. If a dog owner failed, the Minister said, to observe these cardinal rules of civil responsibility then he would have to accept the consequence of his neglect. The position would require to be met by some form fo control.

The Minister, who was discussing the subject of the control of animals and particularly clogs in closely settled urban districts, indicated that since assuming office he had received a considerable number of complaints from urban areas of damage to property and personal danger to people caused by dogs not being under proper control.

“While there are certain safeguards,” Mr Parry said, “and persons injuriously affected have certain rights under the general law as contained in the Dogs Registration Act, 1908, I would emphasise that both the owners of dogs and borough councils have a clear responsibility. The responsibility of councils arises out of the power conferred on municipal authorities by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1933. Section 364 of that Act authorises borough councils to make by-laws, amongst other things, for the purpose of regulatiing or licensing the keeping within the, borough of any animals, reptiles or birds and prohibiting their keeping if existence or keeping within the borough is, or in the opinion of the council is, likely to become a nuisance or injurious to health. This provision clearly indicates that the Legislature intended to east a definite responsibility on municipal bodies. I understand that in certain cases the powers conferred by the provision have been availed of, and no doubt in these cases the trouble is considerably minimised.”

Mr Parry said he was very interested in the matter, and it was his hope that both the owners of animals and; the municipal authorities would recognise their desponsibilities, thus assisting materially toward diminishing the trouble caused by dogs not being properly looked after.