THE DOG NUISANCE ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1055, 2 April 1867, Page 5

THE DOG NUISANCE ACT.

The Act under which the policc are now actively engaged in providing collars, at a cost of five shillings each, to the owners of dogs; is the " Dog Nuisance Act, 1854," and as at this season of the year its enactments, or something like them, arc more or less stringently put in force, a few words on the matter may not be out of place.

The practice pursued by those collecting this tax is to call at the several houses in and about Auckland, and if they see any dog upon the premises, whether chained up or running loose within an enclosure, to insist upon the owner purchasing a collar under threat of summoning him to the Police Court if the collar is not bought. Now clause G of the Act under which a person is liable to pay tax for his dog scarcely we think warrants this mode of procedure. It runs thus—-

If any dog upwards of throo months old shall be til large (whether with or without its owner) on any highway or itncnclosal land, without a ticket issued for the then current year affixed to him, tho owner of such dog shall forfeit for every su?h offence" auy sum not exceeding twenty shillings. The proof that any dog is less than three months old shall in any proceedings under this Act lie on the owner of such dog.

It is clear then that dogs kept upon tho chain or confined within enclosed premises, are not liable to this tax, and yet it is well known that attempts arc made to compel the owners of dogs so confined, to pay a tax, which could not, if they only resisted the imposition, be enforced from them.

We not only quite agree with those who would seek to abate the dog nuisance, by compelling the owners under a penalty to affix collars to their dogs when permitted to be at large but we would go a step further, and recommend that the owners of dogs should be compelled to pay a tax for every dog whether at large or not; but the system of collection must be something very different to what it now is if the public is to be satisfied. The plan pursued at home is the more impartial and effective one. Every house-occupier has left at his residence a tax paper to fill up, and under a heavy penalty lie is bound to state the number of dogs in his possession. If he succeeds in deceiving the tax collcctor he is then at the mercy of any neighbour or person who for the sake of half the penalty may inform against him. Were this plan practised in Auckland we should not hear of auy man being singled out to pay for his dog, while another person could keep eight dogs untaxed. Where £1 is now collected, £5 would be collected then, and at a less cost to the public. The tax, as is often done at home, might be collected on commission, ensuring zeal and impartiality in the performance ot' the work, and saving the time of the police.