On the 16th July 2006 I was badly mauled by a German Shepherd dog that I was exercising. The dog bowled me to the road and continued mauling me until my husband arrived on the scene and pulled the dog off. He was exercising the second dog owned by the same owners Dot and Graeme Pleasants (President of the Wanganui RSA and one of the 12 ambassadors to Wanganui City).I ended up in hospital for 3 days with 85 stitches.The medical care I received was excellent but it still took 7 weeks for the wounds to heal.A subsequent “hearing” held by the Wanganui District Council released the dog to the community with a robust agreement which if it had been enforced would have been adequate. Unfortunately the agreement was never enforced.( something I am determine to change)The main requirements of the agreement included the requirements of the dangerous dog act including some extra restrictions such as the dog was only ever to be handled by the owners and never to leave the property except under extenuating circumstances. The Wanganui District Council are satisfied with the dog being secured by a 1.2m fence- Ive dealt with pugs and foxies that would make light of a fence that height never mind a very dangerous dog.Both dogs were unregistered. The fine for not being registered was never charged ($300 per dog) The requirements of the existing agreement also listed a registration of 150%-mysteriously a normal fee was charged with a neutered rebate being given before the dog was even neutered.The owners were given a good owner rebate on the second dog -they weren’t entitled to it.
The interesting legal situation is that as the dog in question was unregistered and therefore did not have an owner it could have been easily euthanaised by the Council- a fact they never acquainted me with at the time.(I wonder why). I might add that I would still have waited for the owners decision and believed that they would do the right thing .How wrong can you be. After the hearing when I rightly made it very plain that I was disastisfied with the Councils inaction they then went and got a legal opinion which stated that I was the owner – something voluntarily disputed by the ombudsman who has yet to give a full legal opinion on the actions of the Wanganui District Council. The question of ownership has also been disputed by the Associate Minister for the Enviroment Nanaia Mahuta
The legal opinion proffered by Wellington firm Kensington Swan also included the very sound advice that the dangerous dog act and the agreement must be enforced and their opinion was actually based in good part on this premise. For reasons that now may be dawning on the reader the Wanganui District Council had chosen to ignore this advice. I wonder why?
Since then Nanaia Mahuta has become involved and as a result the WDC now have to check on the dog in question every week for the rest of its life. Now you have to ask yourself how much money has the WDC actually saved the ratepayer. If the dog attacks someone else other than the owner and there is fairly good chance of that as the owners refuse to recognise that the dog is dangerous not only will the owners then be liable for a fine of around $20,000 and/or 3 years in jail but the Wanganui District Council can expect to become embroiled in it all also. The other interesting aspect is that as the dog is registered in Dot Pleasants name and not her husbands ( he distanced himself rather promptly- I wonder why?) it will be her that will shoulder the charges- what some husbands will do to their wives.
Footnote: All postings and proof are still present on the site- albeit archived
Whatsup 