A Tauranga couple say their dog was attacked by another dog as they left the Mission Cemetery in Marsh St on February 2. Photo / Sandra Conchie
“The dog that attacked and injured our dog has more rights than we do.”
That is how an Ōtūmoetai couple say they felt after learning Tauranga City Council would not disclose the fate of a large dog that attacked their 6-year-old cavoodle on February 2.
The council says it is prohibited by law from revealing what happened to the dog.
The couple, in their 70s, contacted the Bay of Plenty Times after reading about a dog attack in Maungatapu that killed one dog and seriously injured another. Their owner was also injured.
The council is still investigating the Maungatapu attack.
The couple, who asked not to be named for privacy reasons, said they were walking their dog on a lead through the Mission Cemetery on Marsh St and noticed a car with a covered trailer parked nearby.
The husband said as they left the cemetery and walked towards Marsh St, a “stocky, powerfully built dog” suddenly burst from the parked vehicle and charged towards them.
“I tried to get between the two dogs, but within seconds, bang – it just went for our dog.”
A man he believed to be the dog’s owner ran over and tried to wrestle the attack dog off their pet, and was punching and yelling at it during the struggle.
Two other dogs inside the covered trailer “barked loudly and aggressively” during the attack.
“Once the attack dog was dragged away, its owner bundled it into the car, and we left the area immediately with our injured dog,” he said.
Their cavoodle suffered a deep bite wound to the middle of its back, and also had bite marks on the top of its head. It was treated by a veterinarian and needed antibiotics and pain relief, costing $350.
The couple said a council animal control officer responded to their complaint.
“We were told the attack dog’s owner had hidden it, but the officer later advised us that when she returned to the area, the dog was located and seized,” the wife said.
“We also advised that all three dogs were unregistered and that the seized dog was known to the officer and had a prior history. That led us to believe this was not the dog’s first attack.”
The husband said they were “not revengeful” people but wanted appropriate enforcement action taken, and signed an affidavit requesting that the attack dog be classified as dangerous.
“We were told it would be presented to a district court judge. But a few days later, we received a letter from the council advising that action had been taken, but without detailing what that meant.
“When we asked about what happened to the dog and its owner, the council cited the Privacy Act as the reason for refusing to tell us, and we were told we had no right to know.”
On February 27, the couple emailed the council expressing their anger about the lack of information.
“Our dog was registered, on a lead, and has never shown any aggression. We were doing everything right,” the wife said.
The couple questioned why lawbreakers were given rights that trumped their own.
“We feel as victims of this scary and damaging attack, we’re entitled to know, regardless of privacy rules,” the wife said,
The husband said the Government’s recently ordered full review of the Dog Control Act was long overdue.
“But there is no point giving councils more powers if they are not going to enforce them to protect decent people and their animals from these types of attacks.”
Tauranga City Council animal services team leader Oscar Glossop said the council recognised the impact the attack would have had on the couple.
“We understand how upsetting this situation has been and why they are seeking clear answers about what action was taken. We take all reports of roaming dogs seriously.”
The complaint was investigated and “appropriate action” taken under the Dog Control Act.
However, Glossop said the Privacy Act prevented the council from disclosing personal information about another individual, including whether a specific dog had been classified as dangerous or its owner had faced enforcement action.
“While this information is understandably of interest to the complainants, it is considered private and cannot lawfully be released.
“We have considered whether any exceptions apply, and in this case, they do not.”
He said the council’s actions were guided by the law, with community safety being the primary focus.
“We are confident the most appropriate steps have been taken.”
Sandra Conchie is a senior journalist at the Bay of Plenty Times and Rotorua Daily Post who has been a journalist for 25 years. She mainly covers police, court and other justice stories, as well as general news. She has been a Canon Media Awards regional/community reporter of the year.