With increased rights comes responsibility. This was the salutary warning last week from Dunedin City councillor Neville Peat as the hearings committee he was chairing recommended the council backtrack on some of its more hardline proposed dog control bylaws.
Cr Peat repeated the point yesterday as the council adopted nearly all the committee's recommendations. That means dogs will continue to be allowed off the leash on non-marked areas of council sports fields - the most contentious proposed change.
There will still be limitations: dogs must be on a leash while sports games are being played and must be on a leash within 20m of protected wildlife.
Various pedestrian areas will be opened up to leashed dogs, such as the Esplanade at St Clair, but restrictions made around other areas.
It will be welcome news for dog owners and submitters, who can feel they were heard as part of the process.
We are a nation of animal lovers. Dogs are invaluable companions to many people, and more often than not seen as part of the family. Responsible dog owners had felt penalised by the bad actions of a few and in such things there are often criticisms about over-legislating people's daily lives.
But not everyone will be happy. There has been much ado about doggy do on the city's sports fields and city streets, barking dogs, and concerns about wandering and menacing dogs. Those latter concerns are brought to the fore each time a friend, family member or member of the public is attacked by a dog. Serious attacks occur with alarming regularity throughout the country, and dogs can attack, often out of the blue, even those belonging to "responsible'' owners.
So it is important the warning about rights and responsibilities be made - and important it is heeded. Those in favour of stricter control should be able to enjoy a walk to or at the park free from piles of dog faeces, free from fear or anxiety, alongside those taking their canine companions for a walk.
Beaches should be fun places for all, but it is vital our wildlife is safeguarded, too. Good policies should work in the interests of a harmonious community, so there will undoubtedly be something of a wait-and-see approach. It is to be hoped the council's onus on owners comes with appropriate monitoring of high-use public areas and a firm hand for transgressors, otherwise it will have been a largely pointless exercise.
While the policies adopted yesterday hopefully have some effect in the public domain, they are sadly unlikely to do little to reduce the number of dog attacks in the home.
Far less palatable solutions are likely to be required to make a serious dent in those shocking statistics.
A study presented at the Association of Plastic Surgeons' annual scientific meeting in Queenstown last year revealed that almost 70% of the more than 99,000 dog attacks in the decade to June 2014 happened in the home. Children under 9 were at most risk. Even as the DCC was debating its dog policies, more children were added to this sorry list.
It is surely a case of when, not if, more councils will look to get tough on dangerous dog breeds, as Auckland council is doing with its current menacing dogs amnesty.
The pressure is also on the Government to make changes to the Dog Control Act.
The issue is an emotive one, but public safety surely has to hold sway.
For now, it is up to Dunedin dog owners to exercise their freedoms responsibly, for the good of all.
