Dog seized after complaints

Photo by Craig Baxter.
Photo by Craig Baxter.
A dog is taken from St Kilda by animal control staff yesterday after it was reported as harassing a cyclist and ripping a pedestrian's jeans.

Southern District Command Centre deployment co-ordinator Senior Sergeant Dave Scott said police were called to two dog attacks in Plunket St about 2.30pm.

Animal control team leader Ros MacGill said the Dunedin City Council impounded a Staffordshire bull terrier-cross dog yesterday.

The council was called about two incidents in the street. The terrier ''raced'' towards a male cyclist and the terrier and a boxer ''bailed up'' another man, whom the terrier tried to bite.

''It didn't touch any skin, as far as I know, but jeans were ripped.''

Animal control staff deemed the terrier to be aggressive and impounded the dog, which was the subject of previous complaints to the council, she said.

The council was trying to contact the terrier's owner and would ask them to ''sign the dog over''.

''If they don't, then we will classify the dog as dangerous and issue an infringement fine.''

The dog would need to be signed over before any decision to euthanise the dog could be made, she said.

Owners, not dogs

Maybe animal control should lock up owners before locking up dogs.

Sure, a dog might be a menace to society, but they get that way because owners don't train them properly and don't have a secure property. [Abridged]

Get over yourselves

More like an excitable dog got out of its property and didn't know how to interact. This city is so dog-phobic! If this is a genuinely dangerous dog do you think that little old lady could ever be leading it anywhere? It had the guy by the jeans, not the throat - didn't even touch his skin. The owner needs to be property assessed, fined and ordered to attend a course on dog control, but as ever the animal pays the price for being a dog amongst people who dont like them. Sign over means licenced to kill.

Timing?

gazsouth: the dog you reference was put down on the 7th day. It was only the 8th if you count day zero as day 1 like the council does, and it's not clear if 186 hrs had even passed. Even then, most of us would assume the the end of the day was the deadline. It hadn't attacked anyone (the dog in the article did ie the ripped jeans). Also, the family had been in touch with the council and arranged payment (although they should have contacted the council to say payment would be delayed due to pay issues).

Also i find it interesting that they now state "The dog would need to be signed over before any decision to euthanise the dog could be made". How then did they decide to put the other one down? Or is this a result of the last case in which at least something good has resulted from the other case?

So far the two cases are completely different except for them being loose. 

Timing

I find it interesting that two weeks ago, we had a family abusing the DCC for putting their dog down after the 7 day deadline.

Here we have a example of why these laws are in place.

The dog two weeks ago had a history of escaping, what's to say that dog wouldn't have done the same as this dog?

I wonder how the family feel about this story? Would they agree same rules for everyone? 

Dogs must be pretty safe

There is an old hack's dictum: dog bites man isn't news, but man bites dog ...

If a dog biting someone (and not causing an injury) gets into the paper, then dog control must be pretty, good I reckon.

 

Get these dogs off the streets

Just luck I guess that it wasn't yet another child that was attacked.

ODT/directory - Local Businesses

CompanyLocationBusiness Type
Globe TheatreDunedinTheatres
Williams Signs & Graphix LtdDunedinSigns & Signwriting
Gardens Vet ClinicDunedinVeterinarians
Hewitts Tractor Services LtdBalcluthaFarm Machinery