Editorial

NEWS for this issue has to cover the recent spate of dog 'maulings' that have been reported in New Zealand, and the 'dog attacks' that followed in the wake of publicity and hysteria.

First, to get the happenings in perspective, the initial vicious attack in a public park used by families and children was disastrous - little Carolina Anderson's injuries were horrific and the attack came without warning from an American pit bull terrier that was not on a leash (the news reports called it a Staffordshire terrier, but its photo did not fit that description).

The dog was rightfully destroyed and the owners - one of whom gave a false name and address after the attack - prosecuted. But surely the whole incident points to one thing ... some humans are simply too stupid to own dogs! To take an unleashed pit bull terrier into a family playground for a run is to tempt fate just too much.

Any dog owner who cares for the welfare of his/her dog would not take it anywhere in public without a leash ... for its own safety! It may meet another dog and a fight could develop; it may meet someone who teases it when nobody is around and a bite results; it could chase a hare or such animal across a road and be killed by a car; or any one of a thousand other situations that happen every day. But then, I am probably through the magazine talking to those already converted - owners (a minority of course) who would let those situations develop have no real feelings for their dog or for anyone else and would not bother to read a dog magazine.

However the second case, where an even younger child had the end of her nose bitten off by a Jack Russell terrier, I have to say was carried along by the hysteria of the first mauling and by a council wanting to prove itself to a public already highly emotional from the mauling of the day before.

This was a dog on its own property that had never given any trouble. It was well cared for and loved by its owners - registered, inoculated, wormed, and lived on a fully fenced property ... the works. But there was a hole in the fence! Children being children, I am sure that many on the way home from school had poked sticks through the hole for the little dog to chew and some would even have had a tug'o'war with the sticks through the hole. Some may even have fed it the remains of their school lunch through that hole. Whatever had gone on, the little dog would have learned that what came through that hole from kids was always food or a tug game. Then one day what came through the hole was the nose of a four-year-old!

The council acted with speed and heavy-handed authority, taking the little dog and killing it so quickly that the owners scarcely had time to recover from the shock of the accident (and incidentally, have the owners had any victim support ... I am quite sure that they miss their little companion dreadfully and feel nothing but animosity towards the council. Were they offered any options, or could they perhaps not afford to take the council to court to prove the dog's innocence?).

While I am very sorry for the little girl, I have to say: "What was a four-year-old doing wandering the streets on her own, unsupervised? If a parent had been with her the whole incident would not have happened (well, would you let your own four-year-old poke her nose through holes in fences as you walked along the footpath?).

There could have been anything behind the fence when her nose was poked through - the garden could have had a potent spray trained on a plant in the vicinity and the girl's lungs and throat could have been damaged; a cat playing in the yard could have caused almost the same damage; another child could have been on the other side, throwing stones at the hole in which case the nose could have been broken; and isn't it significant that in none of these other cases would anyone (not even the cat) be held responsible!

The death of that little dog was a direct result of an emotion-charged council's heavy-handedness, parental stupidity, and probably the owners being in too shocked a state to say to pushy, authoritarian dog control people "No, I will not surrender my dog to you until it has had its day in court - I advise you to set a date for the case"! In no way should a dog ever be destroyed without its case being heard in a court of law (and each case MUST be considered on its merit, not by some council-paid judge who states that he is unable to change council judgments and protocols as one in that same city, Christchurch, has said - why bother to go through the motions of such a case for heavens sake!).

Auckland council, being hugely more progressive, proactive and in tune with the new millennium, has a "dog day" in court every month and any destruction orders must come from proceedings there - after all parties have had time to think logically. Christchurch could perhaps try to catch up with the times or it may find itself regarded as a "lagging, backwater town".