Misuse of Police Communciations

Kathy Kerr and Dot Pleasants are stenographers at the local police station and used their employment position to misuse the police communications report. (see posting The “hearing”)Kathy Kerr actually stated at the hearing that there was a witness to the effect that the dog was tangled and I challenged this statement- again something very conveniently missed off by Stuart Hylton.The 111 call made by my neighbour was followed up promptly by police communications calling to find out where the dog was (rightly so) and in that conversation my neighbour who was tending to me lying on the roadside was asked how it happened. Her reply was that she didn’t know but thought it was round a road marker or something. Road markers are flexible incidently. I corrected her and said that the dog had walked around a sapling.
After the hearing I complained to Duncan Mcleod Head of Police here in Wanganui who gave me a very fair hearing and assured me not only would he look into the matter but would speak to all parties concerned. He duly did this and whilst not able to sort it out completely did tell me that I could have accessed the communications report by asking at the police station. So some weeks later I attempted to do exactly that only to be refused access . This matter is also before the Ombudsman.

“Meg” and “Sam”

Kathy Kerr rang me and asked me to take Meg and Sam for a week whilst she sorted out her parents who had been shipped into a resthome. Sam and Meg belonged to them and were unsocialised and difficult and the result was pandemonium at her place with the shepherds on the inside and Sam on the outside trying to get at each other through a glass door.I felt sorry for her and the situation and took the dogs. After handling Meg and Sam for a few days and they were responding nicely -Kathy Kerr rang me to say the vet was coming to put both dogs down. I was incensed at this as they hadn’t even had a chance -nor was I prepared to assist in the euthanaising of them and said she would have to come and take them away as I would have no part of it. I did suggest that we attempt to rehouse them and to that end I advertised on Trade-Me. There was some outstanding responses and an excellent home was found for Meg-that left Sam. Finally a very good offer was received from Westport. The prospective owners were keen enough to travel to Wellington via the ferry to meet us and take Sam. It certainly all looked very promising- however unfortunately try as the new owners might things didn’t work out and not long after they got Sam- he broke away from them and attacked another dog. We all agreed that wasn’t on and he was put down.Kathy Kerr and Graeme Pleasants used this little episode against us at the “hearing”
If the viewer is wondering does that put me off stopping to try and help someone in trouble-no it doesn’t. The reality is that 99.99% per cent of the people and animals you meet in the course of running a business such as ours are a delight.

Manny the Newfoundland

Working in the kennels you are left sometimes wondering who is the dumb animal and thinking may be its the homo sapien not the canine. This was one of those occasions.

Manny’s owners brought him in to be boarded and typical of the breed with a requirement for regular steady exercise due to the arthritis in the hips. They did how ever follow up this with the announcement that whenever Manny doesn’t want to do something he just lays down flat out and thats it as far as he is concerned. Considering that he weighed slightly better than 12 stone it was a reasonably vexacious problem. However the owners enlightened me with how they dealt with it. Having had horses and ponies they had threatened him and on a least one occasion lightly wacked him on the rump with a piece of alkathene and that had solved the problem . In summation what they suggested was that I carry a piece of alkathene and he would not lie down and refuse to move.However initially I was reluctant to do this. The first time I walked him he walked down the drive fine and when we went to cross the road we got to the middle of the road and then he decided that was it and promptly lay down in the middle of the road. Now we live by an extremely dangerous corner (3 deaths and about 18 accidents on it over the years) so its not a good look to be standing in the middle of the road for any length of time unless you have an extraordinary death wish. The result of Manny lying down in the middle of the road was that I had to literally drag him to the grass verge – I might add that didn’t make him get up either. However after some negotiation mostly on my part we continued our walk with repeated lie downs and negotiations (all on my part). I have to admit the owners summation was exactly right.So on the night walk I armed myself with a piece of alkathene and thought in my innocence that all I would have to do would be to show it to Manny and he would give up his lying down to make his point. Forget it- got to the middle of the road and down he went- so the only thing left to do was give him a sharp rap on the bottom- well up he got very promptly and we continued our walk -which consisted of me having to wave the alkathene at him every time he looked like dropping to the ground and we managed to finish the walk in a slightly better time than previously.Graham ( my husband) said to me well whilst that might work its not a good look so after some thought I decided well Manny behaves as long as he knows you have the alkathene so if I cut it to the size to fit in my boot-show it to him before we walk up the road and where it is we will achieve the desired result. I might add to get it to fit into my boot I ended up with a piece about 4inches long. So the next morning I showed Manny the alkathene and put it in my boot. Well what a well behaved Newfie. That night when I went to walk him once I had the lead on he lent against me peering into my boot- and I might add having a 12 stone newfie lean on you is memorable- then I realised what he was up to- he was peering into the top of my boot to see if I had the alkathene.
I might add for all the time that we boarded him which was some years he would always peer into my boot to see if I was armed. Fortunately he never worked out that 4inches of alkathene isn’t of any consequence.No arms-he would lie down as he pleased – armed he was so well behaved.Typical of all the giant breeds they know their strength and have a sense of humour with it all to themselves.

The “Hearing”

When I came out of hospital I was rung by Stuart Hylton and told that a hearing would be held as soon as possible. He also added that he would be very angry if the dog walked. On Monday 31st July 2006 I was again rung by Stuart Hylton and told there was to be a hearing on the 4th August. Later that week he again rang me to say that Pleasants were bringing a support person and when I said that would be Kathy Kerr the breeder of “Ori” he replied with “thats a bit more than a support person. The Pleasants actually brought along 2 “support” people. The minutes are posted below
The chairing of this “hearing” by Cr Murray Hughes was appalling for whatever reason.The Council needs to take a very long hard look at their due processes- the very reason why I have no intention of dropping this matter. The minutes were taken by a stenographer and were in note form till some time late August when they were written up by Stuart Hylton.

Closeup

Inefficiency or Something More Sinister?

There is a considerable discrepancy in the paperwork covering the release of the dog which attacked me. The dog was released on the 15.8.06 as per the Enviromental receipt yet the S31 ( dangerous dog classification) wasn’t served until the 16.8.06 and even stranger the agreement wasn’t signed until the 17.8.06 by Pleasants and the 18.8.06 by Stuart Hylton (Agreement or Window Dressing)

Even stranger I have a witness who espied Stuart Hylton in the part-time ranger’s silver ute on the Waikupa road (20.10.06) the day I insisted that I be supplied with a signed copy of the agreement rather than an unsigned copy.Very unusual to supply an unsigned copy of an agreement when a signed copy exists.

Now wouldn’t you expect all the paperwork to be done on the one day and certainly before the dog was released.

Even stranger is the fact that Kensington Swan were also supplied with an unsigned copy of the agreement

after the agreement between the parties has been signed and (we assume) implemented

Surely after what went on i.e. hearing etc the Wanganui District Council wouldn’t have released the dog and not done the paperwork until I got on their tail in October-surely not

Promises! Promises! Promises!

If it wasn’t bad enough being so savagely attacked by a dog unjustifiably ( there is no justification for this degree of attack anyway) the whole miserable episode has been grossly accentuated by the Wanganui District Council inaction and even worse then promising action and not seeing the promise through.

A glaring example of this is after supplying Michael Laws with all the information on the attack and the hearing he then invited me to his office to discuss the matter.As my husband still couldn’t face even talking about the attack I took a good family friend.
(see statement below).

(name removed )
Michael Laws didn’t want to discuss keeping the community safe all he wanted to talk about was how he was going to put the dog in question down. I was told that a letter asking if I wanted a review would be forthcoming the following week and on my assertion that I did want a review , another hearing would take place and the Council would then seek the destruction of the dog.Of course Michael Laws reneged on this and went off and got the now famous or infamous legal opinion.

That wasn’t the only time that the Council changed tack- when it became apparent that Pleasants had no intention of adhering to the agreement they had signed a witness came forward and was spoken to by David Warburton. The cameo posted below I think says it all:
I am sure that viewers will agree that the Wanganui District Council performance for whatever reason has been abysmal and one is left wondering how these same people would fare out in the real world of employment?

Why do dogs Attack?

No doubt anyone who survives a severe dog attack is left with the question –Why?.The following article reproduced in full with the kind permission of Massey University goes someway to answering those very questions.

Why do dogs attack?

At the end of January 2003, seven-year-old Carolina Anderson was badly mauled by an American staffordshire dog while playing in an Auckland park. This was the first of a spate of dog attacks.

Quite simply we don’t know. One would need to have seen how the child, the dog and its owners behaved in the minutes before the attack, and one would need to know more about the dog’s background, specifically its breeding and training.

There is little information available on the background of dog attacks in New Zealand but international research suggests that the majority of dog attacks on humans occur at home with the victim a family member or visitor. This observation is supported by the stories reported in the media over the last two months, although in general dog attacks reported in the media are on strangers in public places.

Dog attacks on children in public places are more common in the summer or during weekends. Children under five are more likely to provoke dogs than older children, and the present thinking of many dog behaviour specialists is that when children behave erratically they provoke predatory behaviour in some dogs. Thus the dog that attacked Carolina may have responded as a predator to some aspect of her behaviour, but it is also possible that it was responding to something else, such as an unintentional behaviour of its owner. Running is known to trigger dog attacks, but the excitable behaviour and shrill squealing of young children may be interpreted by dogs as prey behaviour. Dogs that are used to children are less likely to attack and cause serious damage.

An analysis of children treated in A & E departments for dog bites found that the dogs involved were usually of the larger and more powerful breeds. Bites from pitbull terrier-type dogs are more often associated with serious injuries or fatalities. This is probably a consequence of the physical structure and abilities of these dogs, but is perhaps also influenced by the fact that these dogs may lunge, become airborne and injure the head and neck of the victims. The severity of injury influences the likelihood of its being treated and recorded and so there is a tendency for data to show large dog breeds as being involved in attacks. This does not prove that large dogs are more aggressive than small breeds, but that they are potentially more dangerous.

Dogs are social animals and attacks on family members are thought to be due to the dog being unsure of its status and using aggression to determine rank. This is generally why the majority of adults treated for dog bite injuries (75 percent) are injured by their own dogs. Dogs are also territorial: when visitors are bitten it is usually by dogs defending their territory. Posties and meter readers are often the victims of territorially aggressive dogs.

Attacks on strangers in public places may be predatory, may be due to fear, or may be a trained response. The trained response is often unintentional but aggressive behaviour may be encouraged inadvertently by the owner. A dog attack is the culmination of the dog’s breeding, its experience and training, and the circumstances immediately before the attack. The severity of the attack is influenced by the dog’s size and ability to injure and the size and ability of the victim. Thus when dog attacks become an issue of public concern, powerful dogs and small children are usually involved.

Karen Overall, a leading American dog behaviour specialist, recently reviewed the literature on dog attacks and concluded that the breeds most represented in dog bite data (1) vary over time, (2) are popular and (3) are not in proportion to their actual population. In almost all studies mongrels are the most common type of dog involved in attacks on humans. The variation in breed over time suggests that if specific dog breeds are legislated against, then another breed or type will be developed to meet demand for aggressive canines.

In the late 1980s a list of breeds involved in 40 serious dogs attacks on children in Adelaide included German shepherd dogs (10), German shepherd crossbreds (5), rottweilers (7), pitbull terrier-type dogs (4), Siberian huskies (3) and one akita, doberman pinscher, labrador retriever, chow chow and Australian shepherd. Pitbull terrier-type dogs have been involved in many of the recently reported dog attacks and are the target for those promoting breed control legislation. But dog aggression was a public problem in New Zealand before this type of terrier became common and some of the breeds listed above may come under scrutiny in the near future. In a 1995 study of veterinary opinion in New Zealand, rottweilers were considered much more aggressive in the veterinary clinic than any other breed of dog. Intact male dogs are also much more likely to be involved in dog attacks than females or desexed animals.

Protecting the public from dangerous dogs requires good legislation that is enforced, and public support. Many of the attacks that have occurred in the past few months could have been avoided if the 1996 Dog Control Act and local by-laws were enforced, and if people were willing to report inappropriate behaviour in dogs. Dogs were not supposed to be let off the lead in the park where Carolina was attacked. However, maintaining effective animal control services is expensive and enforcing breed control legislation, if it comes about, will also be costly. Local councils will expect dog owners to pay for animal control. Regardless of changes to the legislation, dog owners can expect a significant increase in dog registration fees in the future as councils attempt to improve dog control to reduce the risk of attacks such as that on Carolina. Dog ownership may easily change from a right to a privilege.

Associate Professor Kevin Stafford
Institute of Veterinary Animal and Biomedical Sciences.

It is worth noting that both the owner and the breeder have ducked any responsibility something they seriously need to revisit before someone else and more then likely a child is caught by their (the breeder and the owners )irresponsible behaviour.
Also available and of interest is the following article on attack behaviour in dogs:
Animal Behavourist says Dogs will be Dogs

Agreement or Window Dressing

The agreement struck between Pleasants and the Wanganui District Council is reproduced as follows:

The agreement had it been correctly enforced was robust enough to keep the community safe which is the first duty of any Council.
It should be appreciated by the owners that the grim reality is that the agreement they have signed means that they can never go away and leave their dog in the care of anyone else.

A Question of Ownership

What most people will not realise is that the dog that mauled me so badly is actually owned by Graeme Pleasants , President of the RSA and one of the citys 12 ambassadors.
As an aside many people have questioned the choice of ambassadors and are not impressed that there was no apparent public input- it would appear that it was yet another vision. For those not in the know the Mayors party is called Vision.
Note the owner as per the notes taken by Stuart Hylton at my hospital bedside on the 17.7.06.

These notes also neatly dispel another little “myth”
that I was ever made aware that I was the figurative owner as regards the Dog Act 1996 or its amendments.Up until the decision of the “hearing” that denigrated into a meeting courtesy of the lack of chairing on the part of Cr. Murray Hughes and the unchecked rampage of Graeme Pleasants I was left rightfully thinking that the Council would represent myself and the community- just shows you, you can always learn.Considering that I was told by Stuart Hylton (then Head of the Dog Section) that he would be very angry if the dog walked-I had no reason to think there would be any other outcome.Graeme Pleasants closing speech I’m sure would leave no doubt as to ownership.(as per minutes of hearing)

He is to retire next year and Ori was to be his retirement mate.

Now ask yourself the obvious question why would someone distance themself from their “retirement mate”?

Legal Loophole- Its Wasn’t an Attack!

It wasn’t an attack- 85 stitches ,two ambulances ,3 days in hospital and seven weeks district nursing – according to the owners Dot and Graeme Pleasants .(Closeup) .I could be sarcastic and say the obvious – of course– it was self defence by the dog.

• The fact that the dog came at me without warning or provocation counts for nothing obviously with the owners (longterm clients of some 12 years or so) or the Wanganui District Council.
• The fact that we had about 74 years (between my husband and I) commercial experience handling all types and temperaments of dogs and never been bitten- it doesn’t seem to have dawned on the Council or Pleasants (who acknowledged that they have been bitten by their own dogs in the past) that the only reason I wasn’t killed was simply because of our experience -when things went really wrong we knew how to handle it.
• The fact that what looks like skin fragments in the enlargement of injuries is actually ungloved fat which demonstrates the depth and force of the bites
• The fact that the dog had a choker and horse lead on made it possible to pull him off me- no lead and no experience what does the reader think the outcome is going to be.
• Even more serious is the fact ,if that had been a child ,no amount of experience would have saved it. The damage I incurred was through a coat,jersey and skivvy-what chance would a child have had.
• The fact that the dog bit me some 30-40 times-mostly with me on the ground and him on top of me -is that the behaviour of a normal dog?-and the owners are still trying to excuse it.
• The fact is the Council have released a dog to owners who obviously refuse to come to grips with exactly how dangerous their dog is- how safe does that make the rest of the community?
• The fact is that the Council have had their chance to enforce the agreement they struck with the Pleasants and uplift the dog.It was agreed that if the various clauses of the agreement weren’t adhered to by the owners they would voluntarily hand the dog over.Now you have to ask yourself as Graeme Pleasants is President of the RSA and one of the cities 12 Ambassadors what is his word or signature worth?
• You also have to ask yourself considering the cities stance on dangerous dogs-why the lack of fines and why the non enforcement of the agreement never mind the supposed “legal loophole.”