Author Retains CopyrightBrokenshire, Sophie2023-05-172023-05-1720222022https://ir.wgtn.ac.nz/handle/123456789/30724New Zealand’s approach of ordering that dogs be destroyed after an attack is too strict. The Dog Control Act 1996 is meant to exist for the care and control of dogs, however the current state of the law only provides for dog control, and fails to take into account animal welfare concerns. If a dog bites a person or animal, there is a presumption of the dog’s destruction, unless exceptional circumstances can be made out. However case law shows that exceptional circumstances are construed extremely narrowly. Qualifying exceptional circumstances are human-focussed, not animal-focussed. The presumption of destruction frequently creates disproportionate outcomes, with substantial emotional toll on dog owners. The approach taken to dogs that have attacked should be broadened. Aggravating factors, the dog’s history of offending and the severity of the bite all should be relevant considerations. The treatment of dogs as property is out of step with the role that dogs play in the lives of many New Zealanders. Destruction should not be the only option available to a judge. Options such as removing the dog from its owner, dangerous dog classifications and behavioural training should at least be options for the judge to consider. Responsible dog owner licensing should be implemented for all dog owners. A movement away from the presumption of destruction can better balance the interests of public safety, animal welfare and responsible ownership.pdfen-NZhttps://www.wgtn.ac.nz/library/about-us/policies-and-strategies/copyright-for-the-researcharchiveDog controlAnimal WelfareDestruction OrdersDog Control Act 1996Dog AttacksTextAll rights, except those explicitly waived, are held by the AuthorLAWS489