CONTROL OF ALSATIAN DOGS

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 22, 21 October 1937, Page 12

CONTROL OF ALSATIAN DOGS

Bill In Council

POWER TO LOCAL BODIES TO PROHIBIT BREED

Similar to the measure which has been passed on three successive occasions by the Legislative Council, the Alsatian Dog Bill introduced by the Hon. C. J. Carrington (Auckland), making it an offence to keep an altiau dog unless registered under the Act at a fee of £2, giving any local authority power to prohibit such dogs in its district and providing that alsatiau dogs kept in a public place shall be muzzled, was read a second time by the Council yesterday.

Under the Bill, every local authority is required to keep a register of alsatian dogs owned by people iu the district, and any person who, trfter the expiry of three months from the date of the commencement of the Act, has an alsatian which is not registered shall be Hable on conviction to tr penalty not exceeding £5O. The registration fee is £2. Any person upon whose land an unregistered dog is found, or his agent, or any person duly authorised by the local authority, may destroy the dog. When any person is convicted of an offence under the Act the court may order the dog to be destroyed. Any local authority may decide that alsatian dogs shall not be allowed within its district, and any person guilty of an offence against that provision shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of £lO. It is also provided that “every person who permits any alsatian dog to go at large in any public place, or in or about any private premises where tradesmen, post office officials and others may be required to visit in the execution of their duties, whether with a registered collar affixed to it or not, without being muzzled in a manner sufficient to prevent the dog from causing injury by biting, is liable for every such offence to a fine not exceeding £lO, and any such dog so at large may be forthwith seized and destroyed by any constable.”

Importation Restriction.

For the importation into New Zealand of alsatians after three months from the date of the passing of the Act the consent of the Minister of Internal Affairs is required. The penalty for offences against this section is a fine of £2OO or imprisonment for six months. The Act, if passed, is to come into force on April 30, 1938. An alsatian dog is defined as: “A dog, whether male or female, which is wholly or partly of the species or kind commonly known as alsatian dog or alsation wolfhound, or belonging wholly or partly to any variety of the said species by whatever mrme such variety may be known, but does pot include any such dog the property of the State used for military or police purposes.” “The purpose of the Bill is to secure for the citizens of New Zealand, and especially women and ’Children, a measure of protection from this dangerous breed of dog,” Mr. Carrington said in moving the second reading. “It has proved to be st menace to human life. In Australia they have now taken measures controlling these dogs. Some of those measures are similar to that before the Council. Last December the Victorian Parliament passed a Bill which is almost similar to this Bill. This Bill ha’s been passed by the New Zealand Legislative Council on three successive occasions after very full discussions.” “Proved to be Dangerous.” Mr. Carrington said the measure differed in one respect from those previously passed. The fee payable under the Act for the registration of the dog had been reduced from £5 to £2. The reason for that was that it was felt in another place that the original fee was too restrictive. The principle underlying the Bill was that the foibles and hobbies of the minority should not be allowed to interfere with the safety and comfort of the masses of the people. “These dogs are dangerous and have been proved to be dangerous,” Mr. Carrington said. Supporting the Bill, the Hon. B. C. Robbins (Auckland) said he hoped that before long it would be on the Statute Book. His regret was that the measure was not one of one simple clause prohibiting either the breeding or the importation of the dog. The breed was a vicious breed. Many instances had been quoted where it had injured men and women. They were dogs that were known to worry sheep. “These dogs are not only a nuisance; they are an absolute menace to the lives of men, women and children,” Mr. Robbins said. “Whole Matter Exaggerated.” “To devote an afternoon to discussing the Bill would be giving it an importance which it [toes not deserve,” said the Hon. W. H. Mclntyre (Nelson). “The whole matter is exaggerated. To stress the worrying of sheep by alsatians is absolute exaggeration. The number of alsatians that worry sheep, compared with other dogs, is very small.”

Mr. Mclntyre said the introduction of a Bill to prohibit the importation of alsatians was, he thought, a bit absurd. To impose tines of £2OO or six months’ imprisonment for keeping any type of dog was to make the Legislature absurd. He did not intend to allow the Bill to go to another place without a division. He would move in Committee for the deletion of everything in the Bill except the clause providing for a registration fee of £2. Replying to the debate, Mr. Carrington said the movement for the restriction of these dogs had been supported in the Legislative Council of Western Australian, and on that occasion the Minister of Agriculture had given evidence of an atrocious attack on his daughter by an alsatian. If the matter was not important then the legislators on the other side of the Tasman were a queer lot. “Noxious Importation.”

Mr. Carrington quoted a letter from an Auckland woman giving her support to the measure, while stating that at one time she would have been his greatest enemy. That woman was suffering permanent injury for life through an attack by an alsatian, he said.

“These dogs have been proved to be a class by themselves,” Mr. Carrington said. “They irre a noxious importation into this country. If I had my way I would drive the breed out of the country.” The Bill was read a second time on the voices, Mr. Mclntyre opposing it. The Committee stage was set down for the next private members’ sitting day.

The Legislative Council, at. its rising yesterday, adjourned Mil November 2.