Two Sides
Submitted by Peter McCaffrey on 18 October 2009 - 9:36pmThis post is really about the media and contrasting points of view. The fact that Rodney is the relevant minister is simply how I happened to come across the two stories and is really just co-incidental.
Last week Rodney announced a review of dog control laws. Or at least, he announced there will be a review at some point this term, government priorities don't allow for it right now.
Gisborne residents woke up to see this in their paper the next day:
"Dog Control Officers Not Happy With Hide’s Review"
ANY relaxation on dog laws from a review planned by Local Government Minister Rodney Hide would make the work of local animal control officers “very difficult”.
Microchipping, which was questioned by Mr Hide, has had excellent results locally, says Gisborne District Council chief animal control officer Pat Collins.
“I believe any dog owner who is not prepared to provide a lifetime ID for their dogs is not a responsible owner,” said Mr Collins.
“Mr Hide needs to be aware that the lack of dog control, or the relaxation of what is in place now, would equate to allowing the public to wander around New Zealand with loaded and cocked firearms.”
Meanwhile, if you lived in the Bay of Plenty you, literally, got a different story:
"Dog Control Officers Welcome Govt Review:
Brent Lincoln, team leader for animal services at Tauranga City Council, welcomed the review announced this week by Local Government Minister Rodney Hide.
Mr Lincoln said dog control officers and NZIACO had been advocating for changes to the dog control act for several years.
"The act is a mix of old and new with parts dating back to the 1800s," he said.
How can we get two media stories that are so completely different?
Possibly it has something to do with how different councils handle dog control laws - something that Rodney is planning to look at too.
But maybe a more likely explanation is that each newspaper only spoke to one person and that dog control officers, like students, don't all speak with one voice?
Last week Rodney announced a review of dog control laws. Or at least, he announced there will be a review at some point this term, government priorities don't allow for it right now.
Gisborne residents woke up to see this in their paper the next day:
"Dog Control Officers Not Happy With Hide’s Review"
ANY relaxation on dog laws from a review planned by Local Government Minister Rodney Hide would make the work of local animal control officers “very difficult”.
Microchipping, which was questioned by Mr Hide, has had excellent results locally, says Gisborne District Council chief animal control officer Pat Collins.
“I believe any dog owner who is not prepared to provide a lifetime ID for their dogs is not a responsible owner,” said Mr Collins.
“Mr Hide needs to be aware that the lack of dog control, or the relaxation of what is in place now, would equate to allowing the public to wander around New Zealand with loaded and cocked firearms.”
Meanwhile, if you lived in the Bay of Plenty you, literally, got a different story:
"Dog Control Officers Welcome Govt Review:
Brent Lincoln, team leader for animal services at Tauranga City Council, welcomed the review announced this week by Local Government Minister Rodney Hide.
Mr Lincoln said dog control officers and NZIACO had been advocating for changes to the dog control act for several years.
"The act is a mix of old and new with parts dating back to the 1800s," he said.
How can we get two media stories that are so completely different?
Possibly it has something to do with how different councils handle dog control laws - something that Rodney is planning to look at too.
But maybe a more likely explanation is that each newspaper only spoke to one person and that dog control officers, like students, don't all speak with one voice?
October 19th, 2009 at 12:29pm
Did you actually read these articles? Bylines misleading and all but neither suggests a review is necessarily a bad thing, one interviewee suggests its a good thing and one urges caution, but everyone seems to state microchipping is a good thing.
The first one just talks with the Council rep as well, and he simply states its better sorted on the local level - so the first one talks to a wider range of stakeholders, giving perhaps a slightly better idea of the issue. Not quite sure the point of this. Or this post. Bored though.
Post new comment