@ MikeNZ

Fair cop Mike, can't argue with that line of thinking.

The situation sucks. It needs to change.

@ Ben

I completely agree with you regarding following the rules or losing your dog. Unfortunately, for such strict enforcement to occur there needs to be the corresponding law allowing it and, relevant powers granted to the Animal Control Officers enforcing it.

At present, the powers conferred on Animal Control Officers is so weak that should they stop you on the street/beach/park with your dog etc and ask for your details, you can just say f--- off and continue walking and there is nothing they can do, short of ringing the Police and waiting 45mins plus for a Police patrol to turn up, if in fact said Police patrol ever do.

In the US many Animal Control units are part of the local Police department and Animal Control Officers are actually specialised Police officers with the all the relevant powers of Police Officers.

In New Zealand, Animal Control Officers are seen by most as little more than glorified security guards and are thus treated accordingly. Even fishery's officers have more powers than your local Animal Control Officer so how do you honestly expect said Animal Control Officers to actually stop dog attacks in your community when their hands are constantly tied behind their backs by public perception and political interference?

I think some people are missing the point here.

Fact: Dog attacks have increased on the Kapiti Coast by 100% Fact: The council has stated that it is not in its interest to prosecute as it doesn't recoup the costs (and time) it spends on taking legal action (personally I think they could have phrased that alot better - as it does sound a little like they are putting dollars over the safety of the public - but there you go).

It may well be that using fines as a method to 'encourage' dog owners to be more vigilant is the only way the council can control the issue. But the thing is - it obviously isn't working.

The message is just not getting through to dog owners. Idiots who let their dogs run loose on the beach when there are kids around should not be allowed to get away with it. How many times have people heard the excuse 'I don't understand it - he never bites anyone at home' after a dog has just taken a chunk out of their leg..?

A strong message of no tolerance to dog owners must be sent. The council, quite frankly, needs to harden up. If you follow the rules you have nothing to worry about. If you don't you lose your dog. Strict enforcement. Simple.

Fair comment from MikenZ - Cost saving by our council is kinda important right now particularly in light of the price for consultants for the expressway proposal ...What was it again? $265,000 and counting? Oh - and how much has been spent on the water supply debacle? the western link road? what is it exactly that I pay my rates for? Oh that's right - non-sensical resource consent granting (corrupt would be a better word) systemic incompetence and a complete lack of strategic foresight.

Incidentally - my son was minding his own business before the dog attacked him. The last thing he would do is stick his hand in a dog's face. That is dog management 101 for kids. Or should be.

@ "Stevo"

First of all, you can't have it both ways- you cant demand that Councils prosecute to the ninth degree and don't spare the horses yet on the other hand complain bitterly about wasteful expenditure by lazy bureaucrats.

The truth is, most councils, especially small rural Councils, simply cannot afford to go to court. Being that it can take up to 18 months to actually see a judge because our courts are clogged with criminal cases, during which the offending dog must be kept in custody at the expense of Council, it also cost thousands in legal advice/time and all for a limited outcome ie: most judges wont order destruction unless the attack is extreme, a conviction is not a criminal conviction so it means almost nothing, the dog owner almost always gets off with a slap on the wrist, maybe a small fine but hardly ever re-compensates the victim or pays the sustenance costs back to the Council while dog was in custody etc

Most ACO/DCO's try and avoid court by getting the owner to sign over the dog for destruction, swallow a fine and pay restitution to the victim for medical costs/damage. This method is quick, just and saves ratepayers time and money. This, I would have said, is an effective use of your money.

As a dog owner for many years (2 dogs at the moment) I know that a dog's behaviour is governed by its' owner. If a dog is vicious then it is the fault of the owner. The owner should lose their dog and never be allowed to have another dog. A lot of attacks are triggered by small children wandering up to a dog and poking their hand towards the dog's face; the dog feels threatened and attacks thinking that the child is just another animal and not a person - size of a human does make a difference to a dog's attitude...big person means 'boss', small person means 'animal'.

This is so so crazy. I can't begin to tell you how Outraged I am.

Dont get me wrong - as the owner of 2 dogs I in no way condone any dog attack whether it be a person or other animal and if I did not trust either of my boys I would have them at the vets getting a big blue needle without a second thought. I would like to know however the actual facts here - how many of the 121 attacks were on people and how many where on other animals? And given the locality how many were stock related attacks and does 6 sheep count as 1 or 6 attacks? Where are the proper and accurate figures?

If dog bites have doubled in a year, the animal control team has failed and therefore are incompetent. Council's do not have to pay lawyers to conduct prosecutions. Many Councils employ appropriately experienced officers to conduct prosecutions for traffic, litter, liquor-ban and dog offences. Kapiti Coast Council bureaucrats have an arrogant "closed shop" attitude. They shy away from new thinking and are locked into a mindset that if its been done a certain way for 20 years - it must be the right way. Lawyers treat Councils like cash cows and the ratepayers pay the opportunity cost of extravagant and lazy decisions by the bureaucrats.