Another dog owner from the Hawarden/Waikari area, Sarah Quigley, loads her pet, Ziggy, into the car and leaves the area to exercise after they were attacked by a neighbour’s dog, leaving the pair battered, bloodied and bruised.
Sarah, who is a novelist and journalist, remains scared to walk Ziggy on nearby streets, in spite of her neighbour having to raise their fence and gate to keep their dog secure.
‘‘I live at the end of a cul-de-sac.
‘‘I have to drive out of my street so we can reach a safe place to walk - if there is any such thing now in Hawarden and Waikari where dog attacks seem to be multiplying due to irresponsible dog owners who fail to give their dogs adequate exercise or training, and fail to adequately contain them.’’
Sarah is critical of the Hurunui District Council’s response to the attack on Ziggy, particularly the length of time it took for anything to be done.
She says it only took action due to her constant persistence.
‘‘There is a growing feeling in the community that we are not being protected by council regarding dog issues.’’
Sarah’s experience and her battle to get some action has prompted the Hurunui District Council to review its process in dealing with dog incidents in the district.
District council chief executive Hamish Dobbie says the review will help determine how effective the council process is in dealing with incidents, its communication with parties involved, the timeliness of dealing with complaints, and if there needs to be a change to its education focus.
Sarah is also critical of the Dog Control Act 1996.
She says it lacks teeth and is ‘‘completely outdated and seriously inadequate’’ for the situation in New Zealand today.
‘‘Thirty years on, dog ownership has grown massively, yet restrictions on and education of dog owners are issues that have never been readdressed.
The attack on Sarah and Ziggy, who was three months old at the time, took place on July 21 in Hawarden.
Two months later the neighbours raised their gate to the required height.
This followed the fence around the property being raised, and a stump being cut out, which the dog had been launching itself off to escape the property.
‘‘This only happened because I persistently followed up on this matter, writing to the animal management officer (AMO) after he had already closed the investigation, asking if he had checked the gate had been raised.
‘‘He admitted that he had not. Clearly he had not done a thorough property inspection before signing off on his investigation.’’
Sarah says during the intervening weeks no statement was taken from her or from the witness to the attack.
‘‘He (the AMO) never once met me face-to-face, in spite of going to my neighbours’ place more than once to meet them. He allowed the situation to remain as it was on the day of the attack for four days afterwards; refused to do anything to ensure another attack didn't take place, and he predetermined the outcome of the investigation.
‘‘On the morning after the attack, when I was at the vet with Ziggy, he rang me and said he would ‘probably give the dog owners a warning.
‘‘This was before he had even made a site visit or spoken to the dog owners, myself or the witness in depth,’’ Sarah says.
She said the AMO never once asked about the puppy’s welfare, or her own.
‘‘In short: the case is now closed. The neighbours received a formal warning, had to cover vet and medical bills, and had to raise their fences and gate: no other penalties. The attacking dog is still kenneled a metre away from my boundary.’’
Dobbie says an experienced dog control officer was satisfied with the way the owner of the dog, which attacked Ziggy, had cooperated and handled the situation.
Dan Harris, the district council’s chief operations officer, said in a letter to Sarah on September 25, since looking into recent incidents, he had ‘‘identified some improvements to the way we are managing them’’.
‘‘To that end, I am kicking off a full review in the near future. Of which, will be reported to the Operations Committee (subcommittee of council) for verification.
‘‘In-the-meantime, we will be making some changes imminently to how we engage at that first response stage, and how we decide on dog classification post event.
‘‘I cannot commit to a date yet due to the local elections. However, it will be a public agenda, available and transparent to all.’’
