Man's best friend. Our four-legged friends. Our feathered friends. Our feline friends. Our canine companions.
By whatever name we call them, it is clear New Zealanders love their pets - indeed, most are considered to be members of the family.
According to a 2011 survey by the New Zealand Companion Animal Council, we spend well over $1 billion on our pets each year and our pet population of about 5 million gives us a higher rate of pet ownership than any comparable country.
The survey found 68% of New Zealand households own at least one pet. We are the world's biggest cat owners, with a feline population of 1.419 million (28% of New Zealand households own one cat and a further 20% of households own two or more). The country's canine population is about 700,000 (29% of households own a dog).
Dunedin City Council figures released last September showed similar results in terms of dog ownership, levels of which had steadily increased. There were a record 16,122 registered dogs in the city as at June 30, 2013, an increase of more than 25% from the 2004-05 year.
Given the obvious affection for our canine companions, it is hardly surprising the Government's moves to tighten its policy on dogs in state houses has got affected dog owners hot under the collar.
Housing New Zealand estimates half of state house tenants have a dog - an estimated total of 40,000 dogs - and is proposing significant amendments to its Dog Policy and Dog Management Procedure. The focus of the proposal is on what it calls ''removing barriers to independence'' and ''freeing up homes for applicants in greatest need''. In the proposal, the corporation's top objective is to: ''Reduce barriers for tenants who are no longer in need of a state rental to find a suitable home in the private rental market. Dogs create a barrier for tenants ''moving on'' because many private landlords don't allow dogs.''
Other objectives are ''improved ability to match tenants to a suitable property'', to reduce health and safety incidents (for staff, contractors, neighbours and the public), reduce damage to properties, and ''support the corporation's ability to reconfigure the asset portfolio''.
The corporation currently allows dogs if tenants have sought permission, although it believes a high proportion do not have permission. Under the new transitional proposals, dogs would be allowed only on ''exceptional grounds'' - if they assist a person with a disability through a certified organisation. Discretion can be shown, and exceptions may be made for people with mental illness or other chronic health conditions, or cases in which dogs have been at the property for a number of years and present for inspections.
No-one would dispute the fact the corporation should be focused on making the best use of its taxpayer-funded assets, and evaluating and changing its housing stock to better fit the changing composition of today's families. Tenants who are able to find and afford private rental accommodation should be encouraged and supported to do so. And it is reasonable to expect state housing tenants should abide by the rules of their landlord - in terms of behaviour, health and safety - as any private landlord would also expect.
But private tenants do have a greater choice in where they live and under what conditions. State tenants have less. Eliminating the choice to have a dog may be seen as unfair, if not discriminatory, by many. While some people with disabilities are undeniably dependent on their pets, animals have myriad benefits for many - they teach us about love, care and respect, and can provide us with meaningful companionship, which can have physical and mental health benefits. The need for this may be increasing as we get older, live longer, and as more people live alone.
Dogs are loyal companions, part of the family. Dictating what that ''family'' makeup should be has more than a whiff of social engineering about it - even if some of the reasoning behind the proposal appears sound.
