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

Ban Pitbulls?

Will banning various breeds get round the dog attack problems. Of course not. Anyone with an ounce of commonsense will tell you that the owner has considerable input into how safe their dog is to handle. The three most dangerous dogs I have handled as I have stated before are a golden cocker spaniel, a beagle and of course the German Shepherd that so badly mauled me.
Both the Golden Cocker and the Beagle exhibited dangerous behaviours even whilst penned. We could only get into the Golden Cockers pen with some difficulty and a clear demonstration of how difficult the Beagle was- we were running an Access course and all the students selected for the course had had previous dog experience but when the Beagle came onto the property I marshalled the students all down to the pen that held the Beagle and told them very clearly not on any account to enter the pen but when whatever task they were doing required entering the Beagle pen they were to come and get either my husband or I and we would deal with the Beagle. One of the students who owned an English Bull Mastiff obviously decided that we didn’t know what we were talking about and proceeded to ignore our request and entered the Beagle pen and was promptly bitten. Needless to say I had Oosh etc down on my head until it was pointed out that all the necessary safety requirements had actually been met.
Over the years we have handled a number of pitbulls – none of which we have had to ban and when the dangerous dog amendment came out the only change to operations that we made was to ask to meet any dog on the dangerous dog list before we agreed to board it. To date we have yet to refuse admission to any – and yet we continually deal with extremely spoilt downright agressive small breeds i.e. chihuahua , etc that if they were the size of a pitbull would be extremely dangerous. Our answer to this problem is to point out to the owner that they need to imagine the afore said spoilt dog as being the size of a pitbull or rottie and then think hard about if they still see the behaviour as acceptable.Some owners are obviously afronted by this approach but we are quite unrepentant and I might add have always had this approach -long before I was attacked.
Many of my vet friends have stated that owners in general seem uncaring if a vet is bitten. I would be appalled if any of my dogs even growled at a vet and I would see it as a lack of socialisation and training on my part if they did.

And Yet more Glide Time

The recent spate of extremely serious dog attacks throughout New Zealand only go to prove one thing- Councils need to enforce the 1996 Dog Act and its amendments far more throughly than they have in the past. Almost consistently the dogs involved in the attacks are unregistered which only goes to prove that more legislation is not going to change the situation for the simple reason that only the law abiding dog owner is going to conform and they aren’t the problem.
It is very obvious from a recent article in the local Chronicle that the Wanganui District Council has done little to take on board the 1996 Dog Act and its various amendments.
The following are excerpts from the various amendments which apply to the situation discussed in the above article
The Dog Act obviously gives the Council power to declare the dog menacing- which then enforces it to be kept securely and only allowed out muzzled. The Council are able to fine the owner $300 if the requirements are not met and whats more uplift the dog if they deem it necessary- so where is the problem-short answer Council yet again on Glidetime.

Lies and yet more Lies

Relevant excerpts of Stuart Hylton’s report to Michael Laws dated the 17.8.06 are set out below.
So if you believe the report as the dog was released on the 15.8.06 even though Pleasants couldn’t get out because of the road conditions until the 18.8.06 – REALLY– and even stranger they managed to sign an agreement on the 17.8.06 that they were nowhere near –HOW– do share it with us Stuart.
I was notified of the decision as per the e-mail below 15.8.06
I am sure any court is going to greet these discrepancies with some considerable scepticism.
Footnote: Waikupa Rd., was closed to traffic 11.8.06

Legal Loophole

What few would realise is that the much proclaimed legal loophole was only made so by Michael Laws and the Wanganui District Council in the process of trying to make the whole carry on look legal. The reality is that both Namaia Mahuta and the Ombudsman Beverley Wakem had already said very clearly that whilst I had the legal duties of an owner there’s no way I could be the owner. Now the only way to prove this is of course to take it to court and if thats the case so be it.The ombudsman’s opinion was readily shared with the council and Michael Laws who not only said it was irrelevant but immediately went off and got another opinion that of course fitted more with his Vision. Sorry folks. For those not in the know Michael Laws party is named Vision. Unfortunately its been running very much one eyed in my case. I had a good smile to myself when I included Michaels little e-mail to me saying that the ombudsman was irrelevant in the complaint to the ombudsman- I wish I could have seen her face. I would like to be a fly on the wall when Michael finds out just how unirrelevant the ombudsman is. I wonder how far outside of the code of conduct he is what with telling me Im deluded , the Ombudsman is irrelevant and Nanaia Mahutua doesn’t count .The other interesting point is that the only part of the legal opinion that is tested in court is the very part that the council and Michael Laws have chosen to ignore-which reads as follows
6.1. In our view the dangerous dog classification which Council have agreed with the owner in addition to the further restrictions requiring the dog essentially to be kept securely on the property in the care of Mr and Mrs Pleasants go a significant way to achieving the objectives of the Dog Act in this case. The point could also be made that should Mr and Mrs Pleasants breach any of the terms of the dangerous dog classification they are liable for prosecution and destruction of the dog MUST follow unless there are exceptional circumstances. In those circumstances the publics interest in further prosecution action in light of the unusual circumstances of the case is arguably limited.
This of course begs the following questions- is a 4ft/1.2m fence termed secure. Is taking the dog off the property staying within the agreement.
Is not paying 150% of the required dog registration staying within the classification and agreement.Is taking the dog off the property into public places unmuzzled staying within the classification.
Obviously the Wanganui District Council thinks so I wonder why?

Breaking News

Had a phonecall from Phil Wallington of Topshelf Productions asking me to appear on his program “Nail the Bastard”. Naturally I have agreed and he and his team will be in Wanganui to film this coming week.There are two other cases that will be covered here in Wanganui -one the very sad case of two extremely elderly and frail people who have lost their home help and the poor man who put his car so he thought safely in the council carpark at the airport only to come back and find that it had gone awol. So the Wanganui District Council is going to be investigated twice over this week- they aren’t having a very good time. You have to ask yourself why?In my case they have operated outside of the Local Govt Act, their own code of conduct , the dog act and of course the agreement that they themselves wrote up with the owners of the dog that so badly mauled me Dot and Graeme Pleasants

Dog Attack

On the 16/7/06 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.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 (less the good owner rebate)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) 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. Mayor Michael Laws declared that the Ombudsman was irrelevant and sought other legal advice (again I wonder why-surely it wouldn’t be because the decision didn’t fit with the outcomes he had in mind)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 Disctrict Council have chosen to ignore this advice

Hello world!

Fo 32 years I have been operating a boarding kennel, cattery & grooming service in Wanganui New Zealand.