20

Nanaia Mahuta needs to apologise

by Whaleoil on December 26, 2011

Yet another dog attack that Nanaia Mahuta said wouldn’t happen after dogs were chipped:

“The changes are aimed at better dog control, such as addressing dog attacks on people and, as often happens in rural areas, dog attacks on other people’s stock. Any dog can potentially bite – even family pets.”

That is what she said in 2006 when sponsoring the dog-chipping law. Like Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law it hasn’t worked as it was intended. It was spurious then and it is spurious now to suggest that chipped dogs are safer and child abuse will stop because of silly misguided laws.

A 15-month-old boy was savaged by a pitbull as he wandered into the dog’s yard to play with a Christmas present he had received hours earlier.

The vicious Christmas Day mauling of Ozyris Beeching – whose family say he is lucky to be alive – came after the local council had been warned several times about the dog’s temperament, his distraught mother told the Herald yesterday.

Tracy Beeching said her family were getting ready to drive a few blocks across Edgecumbe in the Bay of Plenty for a Christmas breakfast with her brother’s family when little Ozyris wandered next door with his new toy lawnmower.

He entered the front yard shortly before 10.30am and came within reach of the tethered pitbull, which attacked the infant, biting him on his face and stomach.

Nanaia Mahuta needs to get in her car and drive down tot he Bay of Plenty and go and apologise that her law hasn’t stopped another child being mauled by a dog. She would have been far better sponsoring a law to stop people having silly first names…it may have saved this child.

Tagged: • • • • • •

Related posts

  • Tristanb

    We need to stop people owning dogs that are bred solely to fight. It’s only white trash who own these nasty creatures.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      No it isn’t, pop down to clendon park and check out the non wire trash and their dogs. Also this story is from kawerau, they won’t be white trash in this story for sure.

      • Tristanb

        Sorry for being racist. I’m sure Joris De Bres would take exception to me ignoring the trash of other races. I’ve even met Asian trash and Indian trash! (generally NZ born).

        So Take 2. (I admit I felt too much like a leftie starting a sentence with “ban them”!)

        We should ensure those who are receiving most income from the generous taxpayer are unable to register and own dogs. It’s not really fair that people are working to pay tax, to pay for dog food for generally ill-treated and dangerous pets.

        That would probably kill a few birds with the one stone:
        1. The predisposition of the unemployed to get killer jaw-locking, baby-eating dogs.
        2. Bringing those dogs up in environment that makes them even more aggressive.
        3. Having these dogs in overcrowded houses with multiple young and essentially unsupervised children.

        The answer that would help accomplish this, is of course the BeneCard (or whatever you want to call it).
        If you’re getting money from the taxpayer, we should not be paying for your alcohol, your dog-fighting competitions, your P, or your SkyTV.

  • The Gantt Guy

    ”
    Like Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking law it hasn’t worked as it was intended”

    Disingenuous, Whale.  It’s John Key’s anti-smacking law. It never would have passed without him, and if he had listened to what 88% of his employers told him, it would be gone. It’s a lie to call it Sue Bradford’s law.

    And saying Nanaia Mahuta should go apologise to this boy’s parents is exactly the same as saying John Key should get in his car and travel the country apologising to every child maimed or killed when his law was supposed to stop the slaughter.

    • Apolonia

      There are only 2 things wrong with Bradford/Key’s anti-smacking law.
      1) What it doesn’t do. Protect vulnerable children
      2) What it does do. Turns good parents into criminals

      But then 88% of New Zealanders know that anyway.

    • Peter Wilson

      Yeah, but Bradford was it’s biggest advocate and the only one to claim it would stop rampant child abuse.

      • Paul Rain

        True.. but on the other hand it is the responsibility of an incoming left-less wing government to repeal damn near every bill, certainly every ‘social’ one, passed by the outgoing regime. The Greens and Labour can’t help doing stupid things like passing the anti-smacking bill- the party with the responsibility to get rid of them owns them.

      • Apolonia

        Didn’t the entire National caucus and the majority of NZ first MP’s also support Bradford’s undemocratic and unnecessary law?  

      • The Gantt Guy

        @Apolonia, yes they did. Without their craven caving this travesty would never have made it into the law books. That’s why it’s a lie to call it Bradford’s Law. Itis Key’s law, Key’s failure and Key’s shame.

  • Anonymous

    She never said that it would stop dog attacks. The issue really is whether chipping has reduced the number of repeat attacks or first time attacks from dogs declared to be ‘menacing’.

  • Andrew (MitchellAndr)

    Too many kids are dying, after wandering away form their homes or guardians/parents. But even so, I have seen the confrontation between mother/baby and a pitbull, while the fighting-dog owners look on, leaving the mother/baby to defend for themselves. Why people place themselves in these situations is beyond me.

    • Mike

      “Too many kids are dying, after wandering away form their homes or guardians/parents.”

      Exactly. Sure the dog is dangerous, but what about parental supervision, which seems to have been lacking in this instance? Given that the neighbours dog was known to be dangerous you’d think the child’s mother would be extra vigilant.

      • Anonymous

        If the attack occurs in the street or an unsecured section, the issue is the dangerous dog, not an unsupervised child. If a neighbour feels there is a need for extra vigilance because of a nearby menacing / dangerous dog, the dog is not being kept secure or under control.

  • Anonymous

    Tether kids who wander. The common factor with all these deaths by drowning and being run over by reversing cars or dog bites is that the parents are not superviising their bloody kids. Then they blame everybody else. The dog may be bad but the kid should not have been near it or over the neighbours place. At 15 months, his parents should be doing a better job of knowing where he is.The dog was just doing what some dogs do, it was tied up ,not wandering. Let the blame lie where it belongs.

    • Anonymous

      Drowning – is pool fenced and gate secure? This saves many drownings.
      Reversing vehicles – If driver is aware kids may live on site – driver should ask parent / caregiver to safeguard children or take similar precautions such as having a look before backing out. Legal requirement to avoid a careless driving causing injury/death conviction – at least 6 months loss of licence.
      Dogs – see my above comment.

  • Guest

    Silly Name Syndrome strikes again. 
    Ozyris - the kid is doomed regardless of dog laws, anti-smacking laws, CYF intervention, (if any), or any other hand-wringing exercise undertaken. 

    • Petal

      +1 (came here to say that)

  • Bea

    A dog that attacks a 15-month old is not “doing what dogs do”.  Dogs aren’t completely stupid – if they’re trained appropriately and have a proper disposition, they recognise what is a genuine threat and what isn’t.

    Aggressive breeds are harder to train appropriately and I think the SPCA can accept a fair portion of the blame for propagating aggressive breeds.  Look on Auckland SPCA’s website at the number of dogs that are some sort of bulldog/terrier combo, not to mention the sharpeis.  I note too that they have the tendency to call anything with a snub nose a staffie cross, which presumably sounds gentler – they still come from the same roots as pit bull terriers though.

    SPCA should be putting more dogs down and adopting out fewer.

  • Brian Smaller

    @0a5de2463f329898f444b0df20447357:disqus – exactly what I thought. Cam could have easily tagged this SFNS. 

    The types of people (white or brown trash – take your pick) who own these sorts of dogs don’t generally register and chip their dogs anyway. When was the last time you saw an article about middle class family have kid mauled at family gathering by Old Spot the family Lab?  I am sure it happens, but it must be pretty rare because I cannot remember the last time I saw such a report.

  • kehua

    Terrible situation and my thoughts and prayers are with the child, but surely a 15month old toddler should be behind a child-proof fence or under supervision if there is no fence. Plain old logical common sense this is could have been worse if the neighbour had had a swimming pool. The bloody parent is the one at fault here.