Sunday, August 01, 2010
Top dog supports pitbull ban

The man in charge of Tauranga City Council’s animal control department is supportive of banning pitbull dogs but says any ban would be difficult to enforce because of the large variety of bull breeds.
His comments follow the vicious attack on 34 year old Ohauiti man Brent Johanson, who was left with serious head and arm injuries after he was mauled by his two dogs in his home last Friday.



The two dogs were a 16 month old American pitbull terrier and an eight year old Staffordshire bull terrier cross, which were destroyed on the day of the attack.
Brent is now recovering in Waikato Hospital after a five hour surgery operation and a period in the hospital’s High Dependency Unit.
Tauranga City Council’s manager of environmental compliance and monitoring, John Payne, says bull breeds cause horrific injuries when they attack.
“I’m always concerned about the level of aggression and injury these dogs can inflict.”
He says the only problem with a ban on bull breeds is that it would be hard to distinguish if a dog comes under that breed category.
“There’s just so many of them and so many that are closely related. It would be quite hard to enforce.”
He gives a few examples including the English bull terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier and the American Staffordshire bull terrier, which also have a variety of closely related cousins.
But John says bull breeds, like any other dog breed, can be lethal in the wrong hands.
“I think it’s a people problem more than a dog problem. The owner tends to have a bigger impact on the dog than the breed.”
“The criminal and social background of the owner has the greatest impact on the behaviour of the dog,” says John.
American pitbulls make up the majority of unregistered dogs in Tauranga, says John.
Animal control will not be investigating how the dogs were treated before they turned on their owner last Friday.
“The dynamic of the relationship between the dog and the owner is key to the aggression but we just don’t know what happened.”
The younger 16 month old American pitbull terrier had just reached puberty and John says often dogs will start asserting dominance at that stage.
He says this could have been a key factor that eventually led to the attack.


Only registered users can post comments. LOG IN to post a comment.
  

Comment by brilleaux@xtra.co.nz - added on 11 Feb 2010 09:48AM
Ban Councillors who don't think
oh dear - here we go again!

Park the brain in neutral, and utter the magic words BAN IT", and everything will be fixed - just like banning things has fixed (not) things in the past.

Just like "Communism has only killed 100 million people - why not give it another chance!"

I would like to BAN the word BAN, which would then require people like Murray Guy to give his brain cells a bit of a workout and think of an alternative solution - preferably one that does not require the use of force and threats, and one that encourages personal responsibility as opposed to destroying it.

In the absence of any council members using their minds for thinking with, how about this idea.

Why not register the owners of the dogs.

To qualify to be the owner of a dangerous dog, you must show you have the required responsibility and premises to house them.

If the a dangerous dogs owner is not registered the animal would be confiscated.

If an animal mauls anybody the owner should be held responsible, and made to pay retribution.

People must be protected from these dangerous animals, and therefore if you wish to own one, you must be prepared to protect the public from them, and be insured against such a thing happening.

The owners of dangerous animals should not be subsidised by the state if their animal mauls a person and they need medical aid - this should be paid for by the owner of the animal.

If you cant afford to do this or have insurance to cover this, then dont have the dogs.

As it stands they have no responsibility - and get slapped by a wet bus ticket if something happens - which is no deterrent to be either responsible for anything.



Has the government made the right decision by tolling the Te Puke bypass?

Yes, it's great for business to build it fast.
No, it's just another increased cost for households.
Yes, it will make the roads safer sooner.
No, there is no need to rush.
© Copyright 2009 Sun Media Limited. All Rights Reserved