Attack on ram may end in courtroom | Rural

A Pyes Pa farmer intends to take a private prosecution to have a pit bull terrier destroyed after it savaged a polytechnic animal studies ram.

Paddy Sheely's ram was attacked by two pit bull terriers next to the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic.

The dogs were swinging off the ram's neck and hindquarters, inflicting deep wounds before staff managed to chase them away.

And although the ram eventually recovered from its wounds after being operated on by a vet, Mr Sheely believes the dog's owner should have put them both down.

One of the dogs was rehoused by the SPCA, but later destroyed.

Mr Sheely disagreed with the decision by Tauranga City Council's dog control section not to pursue an order for the destruction of the remaining dog.

"It was a clear-cut case of a sheep getting severely mauled and one of the dogs getting off scot free.

"I intend to take court action ... this is a disgrace."

He also intends taking a claim to the Small Claims Tribunal to recover the loss to the value of his stud wiltshire ram caused by the dogs biting the ram's testicles and making him worthless.

Mr Sheely said he understood the woman's emotional attachment to the surviving pit bull terrier, but the dog could no longer be trusted and it could go on to kill.

The attacked happened after the dogs wandered off while the woman who lives in Windermere was in an orchard near the polytechnic on April 6.

The owner voluntarily agreed to destroy the dog, which appeared to lead the attack.

She also agreed to repay the vet bills and make sure that her remaining pit bull wore a muzzle and was on a leash whenever it was off her property.

But Mr Sheely feared the surviving dog had learned bad behaviour from the other dog, which took a dominant alpha male role in the household after it was re-housed.

He was told that the re-housed dog had crashed straight through a plate glass window at the woman's home and killed her cat. "You would think this would have rung a few bells."

Mr Sheely said it was obvious that dogs were number one and sheep number 10 in the council's pecking order.

Dog expert and council environmental compliance manager John Payne said this was the sort of situation that the council was dealing with all the time.

Each case was weighed on its merits and in this case both dogs were registered, the owner agreed to put down the ring leader, her other dog had not attacked before, she was paying off the vets bill and she had agreed to take all measures required for a dangerous dog including muzzling it.

Mr Payne said that if the council had put all these facts before the court, it was unlikely the judge would have issued an order for the dog to be destroyed.

Letting the dog stay with the owner was the most appropriate course of action in all the circumstances. Educating owners to help them understand the true nature of dogs was far more beneficial, he said. "We feel the owner did not get away scot free."

Mr Payne said he would provide Mr Sheely with any data held by the council if a private prosecution was taken.