An English bull terrier who attacked two boys playing on a flying fox near Queenstown will not be put down, a judge has ruled.
However, Judge Russell Walker told owner Glyn Wilkinson he was “lax” in allowing the attack, and fined him $500 at Queenstown District Court on Monday.
The court heard Wilkinson took his dog Reggie, then 17 months old, for a walk on Bob's Cove running track at around 5pm on March 22 last year.
After passing a park in Glentui Heights where the victims, then aged 10 and 12, were playing with the flying fox, he continued to the beach where he took Reggie off his leash.
Wilkinson lost sight of the dog after he ran into the woods to chase rabbits, but when he returned to the top of the loop course, Wilkinson saw him with the flying fox.
Knowing that the dog was inclined to jump at the flying fox, he shouted at the boys to get out.
However, Reggie jumped at the boys and bit them both in the legs.
The victims, who “screamed” as they fell from the flying fox, were treated at a medical center for multiple leg wounds and bruises.
The council immediately classified Reggie as a menacing dog and later charged Wilkinson with owning a dog that attacked a person.
Counsel Michael Walker said Wilkinson was “extremely remorseful”, and that he and his partner had made a genuine effort to put matters right.
The defendant had voluntarily paid the boys' family $1,500 in damages shortly after the attack, cooperated with the city's investigation and admitted the charge at the first opportunity.
He and his partner accepted that they had been “somewhat naive” about their dog's breed, and arranged for the dog to undergo behavioral training.
However, they opposed any order for its destruction.
The training he had undergone and the fact that he now had to be muzzled in public made another attack “highly unlikely”.
Judge Walker told the defendant the attack was the result of a “one-off failure on your part to maintain effective control”.
Even though Reggie was allowed to run free in the private park, he knew he was turned on by the flying fox.
“That was lax on your part.”
A dog expert's report found that key factors in the attack were Reggie's youth and the defendant's lack of awareness of the breed's “behavioral needs.”
Reggie was normally friendly and good-natured, and had no “malicious intentions” towards the boys, but was attracted to fast-moving objects.
A destruction order was a normal consequence of a threatened dog classification, unless there were exceptional circumstances.
He found that such conditions existed “by a narrow margin”, and did not order Reggie's destruction.
The defendant had no history with dog enforcement and was a “man of good character and a contributing member of the community.”
After applying discounts for his good character, “genuine remorse,” early guilty plea, and efforts toward Reggie's rehabilitation, he convicted the defendant and imposed the $500 fine.