Dog Attack- WDC Explaination

The WDC explaination of the release of the dog that so badly mauled me came by way of a reply to a letter (Debacle)which I had published in our local paper .

Selfish Attitude

The recent dog issues further illustrate to me why a law change is required.

I believe the court needs to be removed from the equation and councils empowered to make decisions over destruction just as they do on classifications. Councils have a dog policy but the court is able to, and often does overturn it.

As hearings committee chair in the previous council I adjudicated the mediation process over one horrific attack that severely maimed the person looking after it to the point where hospitalisation was required. I am sure this is one of the cases Carol Jones refers to in her recent letter.

The absentee owner of the dog refused to voluntarily put it down and could not be persuaded to change this selfish attitude.

In this instance if the law was followed and prosecution sought the person charged would have been the person attacked. they were the temporary dog owner. How fair is that?

The decision that I had to make was to seek destruction and risk a judge declining allowing a dog to go free ( subsequent legal opinion indicated this would have been extremely likely) or make a decision that endeavoured to give the public some protection.

The latter was chosen and the offending dog given virtual house arrest by being confined to the owner’s farm.

This dog must never be allowed out in public and the house arrest decision removed any risk of the court possibly releasing it. Council officers must enforce this ruling.

It was not possible to speak out at the time as committee members must not have an opinion but judge cases on the facts presented. To speak publicly on issues could be deemed predetermination or bias putting future hearings at risk.

MURRAY HUGHES
Westmere

Footnote: The owner referred to here is
Graeme Pleasants President of the Wanganui RSA and one of the cities 12 ambassadors- the dog was unregistered at the time referred to in this letter!
The registered owner is Dot Pleasants -his wife!

Yet Another Dog Attack

The Wanganui District Council has let yet another dangerous dog loose on the community. Three strapping young policemen doing their job couldn’t contain the dog and one was extremely badly hurt. The Courts refused to put the dog ( a pitbull) down but fined the owner and at a subsequent hearing of the dangerous dog qualification the hearings committee rescinded the dangerous dog qualification and left the dog as menacing. The fallout of this stupid decision has been immense but at the end of the day there are now two very dangerous dogs in our midst. It really boils down to the fact that Council officers are not doing their job- this dog could have been put down at the time of the attack and the action would have been well within New Zealand law. The other point of concern is that the owner of this acknowledged menacing dog has been receiving a good owner rebate – has the world gone mad.
Links:Neither court nor council ruled the dog dangerous

Two rulings, same outcome … the dog is still alive

Laws promises changes to council’s handling of dangerous dog cases

Dog Attack -The dogs story