The Dog Control Act is under scrutiny following three serious dog attacks last week.
Organisations such as Auckland Council and the SPCA separately called for a review of the Act after a woman was fatally mauled in Northland last Tuesday. This was before another attack in Christchurch on Saturday that left three people with injuries. Another person suffered injuries to their hand from a dog attack in Timaru that same day.
The SMC asked experts to comment. Please feel free to use these quotes in your reporting or follow up with the contact details provided.
Associate Professor Mike King, Department of Bioethics, University of Otago, comments:
“Dog attacks typically reveal a failure of responsibility in which both people and animals are wronged. Dog owners assume an obligation to care for the animals and protect the public. Dogs do not have the capacity to reflect on alternatives and choose to be dangerous. They become so through the conditions in which they are bred, raised, and kept.
“Aggression is a function of temperament, socialisation, housing, and whether the owner can manage animals whose size, strength, and number make the consequences of failure severe. When inadequately socialised, contained, or supervised dogs attack someone and are then destroyed, both the victim and the animal have been failed by the owner’s decisions.
“These are cases of moral hazard: the costs fall on victims, communities, and the dogs themselves, while meaningful accountability for owners remains the exception. Warning signs are typically visible, and ought to be acted on by owners and authorities alike. Effective regulation and penalties, and strengthened ownership infrastructure, are necessary, with costs borne by owners, but shared by the society that benefits from responsible dog ownership.”
Conflict of interest statement: “None.”
Associate Professor Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere, Auckland Law School, University of Auckland, comments:
“There is a real problem when the government reacts in a knee jerk sort of fashion to particular harms that are coming out. We’ve seen this with dog control legislation in the past, where we had amendments to the act to regulate both dangerous and menacing dogs as a direct result of some pretty horrific dog attacks that occurred.
“What we’re seeing is that those amendments have done little to nothing to actually prevent dog attacks from arising, which goes to show that reform that simply responds to what is happening currently might not necessarily be the most evidence-based, science-led, and effective way of curbing those sorts of harms.
“So what I think is missing is the call for whole scale reform that is led by clear, evidence-based policy initiatives. The SPCA has already outlined several issues with the current act, and there are many more besides that that indicate that the whole thing needs to be scrapped and started again.
“I think what would happen in that situation is that we could start to really think about:
- How we regulate dogs in this country – why it is left to local councils to essentially create their own bespoke regimes for regulating and registering dogs within their particular jurisdictions that don’t really have a heap of national coordination or effectiveness.
- The place of dogs within New Zealand and what kind of relationship we want with them, and how that can be a really productive and positive relationship, not one that leads to a lot of harm to both humans, but also many, many dogs in this country.
“One potential option is not just related to dogs, but generally to companion animals. In France, they have essentially a license to own companion animals. And I think that could be a potential way forward – really educating folk about this practice when it comes to dog ownership and dog behavior, and really emphasising that the concept of owning an animal and having one as a pet really should be a privilege and not a right.
“That would also allow for enhanced enforcement, and for focus on that relationship between the dog and the owner as being the primary issue.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I’m President of the New Zealand Animal Law Association.”
Dr Natasha Duncan-Sutherland, Emergency Specialist, Te Toka Tumai, Auckland Adult Emergency Department, comments:
“Firstly, may I please reach out and offer my deepest sympathies to the victims and whānau of both the recent dog-attacks, but also to all others who have been impacted by this issue over such a long period of time.
“Injury from dogs touches on both human and animal welfare, and prevention requires a careful and considered public health, evidence-based approach, focusing on systems and organisational level changes.
“Our research has demonstrated the breadth and seriousness of the issue, with ACC statistics showing 29,220 dog-related injuries in 2024/25, with nearly half of these (14,120) being dog-bite injuries. Injuries occur more often on limbs in adults, but in children due to their size relative to the dog, occur more often on the face/head/neck region. Rates of injury have been increasing steadily over time, with consistent annual rates within each region across Aotearoa, and are higher in low-socioeconomic groups and, on a historical and current background of discrimination, within our Indigenous Māori population.
“A study on caregiver perspectives showed that while dogs are highly-valued within NZ communities, they can also cause harm to children in both public and private places, and that over-trust in dogs is a key feature in the circumstances around incidents occurring.
“A systematic review of the evidence for prevention of dog-bite injuries revealed that dog-control legislation, especially that which reduced the dog-population, were the most effective strategies. A further effective strategy in one country was the introduction of mandatory notification of dog-related injuries by veterinarians and health professionals, which decreased insurance claims for DRIs by nearly a third. The study also demonstrated that whilst community-based, adult-directed education on keeping children safe around dogs could be effective, that education programmes for children on dog-safety are unlikely to reduce injuries.
“A further study on dog-control strategies within New Zealand revealed some of the issues that currently exist, including: high numbers of unregistered dogs; a lack of sterilisation and breeder regulations; the inability of animal-management officers to promptly intervene following attacks, and to set fencing requirements or infringements for attacks on people or roaming dogs due to legislative restrictions; the lack of legislation protecting children; and inequitable resourcing.
“Stemming from our research, a multi-sectoral, national dog bite prevention group was developed, implementing non-legislative strategies including widespread public education over a four-year period. Despite these efforts, ten years of statistics show these measures are insufficient, and legislative change is required to enhance public and child safety.
“Our recommendation is that the Dog Control Act requires urgent review, with the introduction of:
- Mandatory notification of all dog-related injuries by health professionals and veterinarians to local Animal Management.
- Mandatory desexing of all dogs, to be completed by six months of age or within 28 days of an owner taking possession of the animal, except where the dog is owned by a registered breeder or exempt on veterinary grounds.
- Enhanced powers for local councils and animal management officers to:
- Immediately seize dogs in specified circumstances, including following an attack, where multiple dogs are kept on a property, or where there are child-safety concerns
- Set minimum fencing standards for all dogs
- Limit the number of disputes or appeals by owners to one
- Establish a single ‘high-risk’ classification for dangerous and menacing dogs
- Issue infringements for roaming dogs or attacks on people, particularly children
“Successful implementation of these strategies will also require equitable resourcing from central government, and partnership with Māori and other community groups, to support low-income whānau in particular.”
Conflict of interest statement: “Our research was funded by the Starship Foundation. I have no other conflicts of interest.”