A council in New Zealand has rejected a Staffordshire Bull Terrier owner’s attempt to overturn its ‘dangerous dog’ status after they claimed the pet has “a problem” with bike saddlebags which explains why he attacked two cyclists.
The dog called Max has an “extensive history of aggressive behaviour”, the Nelson County local authority hearing heard, and was responsible for three attacks on people riding bicycles last year. A 75-year-old woman was knocked unconscious when the Staffy jumped at her as she cycled past, while a postman was bitten on the finger having already been lunged at and bitten by the dangerous dog on a previous shift as he rode his delivery route.
While the dog’s owners admitted feeling “terrible” about the incidents, and said the adopted pet had “obviously been beaten” previously and carried “quite a bit of trauma”, New Zealand news website Stuff reports that Ricky and Monique Tasker suggested that “it’s the saddlebags that are the problem for Max” and that, the three cyclist attacks aside, he is “one of the most obedient dogs”.
The council rejected their argument and upheld the ‘dangerous dog’ status, which will require the animal to be muzzled in public and subject to stricter restrictions, such as higher registration fees and being unable to be taken anywhere for more than 72 hours without notifying the council.
“The dog has had a record of three attacks in recent periods, and the need to protect the public is paramount,” the hearing concluded, the dog’s owners claiming the measures were “over the top”.
The dog was previously ordered to wear a muzzle in public in May of last year, that coming after the two aforementioned incidents with the postman. On May 18, the New Zealand Post employee was lunged at and bitten twice by the dog as he rode his delivery route.
Just over a week later he was bitten again, this time on the finger as the dog was walked on a leash. The postman used his bike to create a barrier between him and the dog.
However, less than three weeks after being ordered to be muzzled in public, the dog ran at a 75-year-old woman riding a bicycle, jumping at Julie McLintock and knocking her unconscious in the impact as she fell from her bike.
The pensioner was left “very shaken” and unconscious for several minutes. When she came round she began vomiting and was treated by paramedics. The woman reported that it “seemed to take a while” to recover from the concussion and she was left feeling “shaky” from the attack which saw claw marks left on her jacket by the dog that had “leaped up quite high”.
A neighbour of the dog’s owner had been walking it during this third attack, the man recalling how her head had “hit the ground, bounced up, and then hit the ground again”.
Such was the impact, paramedics initially thought her neck may have been broken, the cyclist now very nervous around dogs and concerned that the animal could attack someone else.
The dog’s owners claimed the cyclists’ saddlebags were a common factor in all three incidents and were “what gets him”. Prosecution was considered due to the severity of the third attack, but it was dropped as McLintock did not want to press charges. The panel did however decide to uphold the classification of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier as dangerous.
Main image for illustration purposes only.
44 thoughts on “Owner claims dangerous dog is triggered by bike saddlebags after “aggressive” pet attacks two cyclists, knocking one unconscious and biting another”
In most states of Australia
In most states of Australia that dog would be put down after the that third attack, if not before. Due to the breed (Bull Terrior) there would be no avenue to appeal
As it should be. The owner
As it should be. The owner-dog combination has shown it can’t be trusted.
Incidents like this *are* a
Incidents like this *are* a result of owner and dog. It’s just a shame that no matter what the outcome, the penalty is always disproportionate towards the animal.
I love my dog, but she stays on a fixed lead 95% of the time we are out of the house, the only exceptions is in enclosed spaces with no through traffic, and I’m disgusted that it isn’t the norm.
Like most I suppose I’ve been
Like most I suppose I’ve been lunged at a few times but only once bitten. I was on my recumbent with the full length of my legs at dog’s jaw height. These jaws closed very gently on my calf with the dog’s owner running alongside saying “Sorry mate, sorry mate.”. No damage so I guess the dog meant it as a warning. This was in East Anglian farmland where I knew most of the travellers turning up regularly at yearly intervals and would stop & talk to them.
Never had a dog issue on the
Never had a dog issue on the recumbent fortunately but I’ve had some interest. The fix is probably like with horses get off and show it’s really a human, but with the dogs I haven’t been motivated to hang about and test that.
And why should it be up to
And why should it be up to the cyclist to provide the fix?
In the case of “taking
In the case of “taking skittish (but powerful) animals out in public” I do wonder. I guess there’s a small “priority” argument (brideways were not made for cyclists … horses were there first) but for me it’s because there’s a human on the horse. Even though they’ve obviously chosen to horse that trip.
And recumbents are sometimes startling even to humans.
Generally only encounter them when not transporting organs for donation though so short delays are acceptable.
Dogs are a different case. Difficult to avoid because a deliberate policy of “let them fight over scraps” where walkers, dog walkers, and cyclists are all competing for the few non-motor-traffic-filled spaces.
I’m sympathetic to other creatures and have no wish to be a dick but dogs are certainly someone else’s responsibility. Unlike horses there are generally no riders to worry about so if they’re not under control it’s protect myself first, worry about the owner’s feelings (or the dog’s bad choice of owner) later.
It’s a bigger issue – I’ve have had dogs come at me more times while walking than cycling. Though one time it was the height of the “hoodie menace” and I was wearing a shell suit so possibly that triggered it.
Never mind the dog, could the
Never mind the dog, could the owner be humanely destroyed?
I’m a dog owner and perhaps
I’m a dog owner and perhaps more aware to dog behaviour than many cyclists. There are some dogs that just don’t like people on two wheels. One dog I know well and who knows me and which is very good pals with my dog absolutely hates cyclists. When it sees me with my dog it’s super friendly and comes and looks at me for treats. But when it sees me on my bike it runs after me and growls. If I get off my bike it then recognises who I am and is ok. But as soon as I get on my bike it begins chasing and growling again. Neither me nor the owner who I know well have got to the bottom of this as it’s not as if the dog has ever been hurt by a cyclist.
Since when has a cyclist
Since when has a cyclist having hurt you been a prerequisite for threatening, aggressive or murderous behaviour towards cyclists?
OldRidgeback wrote:
Dogs can get triggered by all sorts of things. I recall seeing some dog training show where a dog reacted extremely aggressively to skateboards – possibly due to the noise they make. There’s some dogs that don’t trust men in hats or with beards, but ultimately, dogs can usually be trained to get over that behaviour if the owner is determined enough.
Totally. There will be some
Totally. There will be some cases where the dog has been abused, and associates certain things or types of people with that abuse, which will be harder to undo. But a lot of the time dogs pick up wierd learned behaviour and sometimes it’s not a big deal, but they can be trained out of it, which also benefits the dog, as they are presumably needlessly stressed by something. Often the dog thinks it’s protecting their family from something – often posties. They have learnt that aggressive barking works, because every time they do it, the postie leaves with the house and its occupants unharmed.
My friend’s dog would always run to and around a particular tree whenever a train past the local park. In her mind she was chasing the train away, keeping us all safe, and it always worked.
It’s up to the owner, probably with the help of a decent trainer, to train the dog not to be scared or react to whatever upsets them, before they do any harm.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Dogs can be weird: one I know absolutely hates men but is fine with women and children; one is fine with cyclists but you should have seen him the time a unicyclist went past (!!); my own dog growls at crying babies on the TV, but is worried and goes to try and comfort them in real life.
brooksby wrote:
There’s a friend’s dog that we occasionally look after and he’s both annoying and amusing when taking him for a walk. He starts off being well-behaved and so I let him off the lead when we reach the park, but after a while, he gets more confident and looks for an opportunity to make more friends. He’ll hassle me to throw a ball (he’s very ball obsessed), but when he gets the ball he’ll run off to a suitably friendly looking couple or family and get them to play with him. Meanwhile, I’m running after him and trying to explain to people that once you throw a ball, he’ll never stop.
Luckily, it’s more embarrassing than anything as he’s a good judge of character and doesn’t seem to hassle anyone who doesn’t like dogs. He also realises how cute he looks and makes a bee-line to groups of women/girls to get the maximum amount of attention (“he’s so fluffy!”).
hawkinspeter wrote:
dog has been trainied to be wingman for your friend. it’s all deliberate
The question there,
The question there, presumably, is why is a dog under close control in public as required by law able to run after you and growl?
This was in my local park and
This was in my local park and dogs are allowed off-lead. Cyclists are required to ride slowly and give due care and attention as it happens.
Having been bitten while on
Having been bitten while on (and off) bike and another once when I was forced to make an abrupt change lane without looking because of dogs attack, I believe that dog ownership should somehow be controled as with gun ownership. There is no hope otherwise.
To me having a dog without a responsible owner and a leash, is like giving a two year old infant (the rumored intelligence of an adult dog) a shotgun.
“The dog was previously
“The dog was previously ordered to wear a muzzle in public in May of last year”
The owner had already been ordered to muzzle the dog so what use is another order? Something effective needs to be done such as removing the dog from the owner and either destroying it or putting into care. And banning the owner from owning dogs.
In any case how can a dog be ordered to wear a muzzle? A staffie doesn’t understand instructions from a court. It is not a collie, which of course would.
I don’t think there’s any
I don’t think there’s any suggestion the dog owner hadn’t complied with the muzzle order. But claiming the measures are over the top seems nuts given what the dog has got up to so far.
john_smith wrote:
That’d be the biggest aggravating factor, right? The owner clearly isn’t taking the problem seriously, therefore isn’t taking adequate steps to protect other people. Putting a muzzle on is one thing, but allowing the dog to be walked by someone who is either unaware of its propensity to attack cyclists or unable to physically restrain it is a ridiculous dereliction of duty.
Agreed. Or maybe who is just
Agreed. Or maybe who is just too fixated on looking at things from the dog’s point of view. Maybe the dog is very sweet-natured and just suffering from traumas, but that’s hardly relevant if it occasionally goes beserk and injures people.
Pub bike wrote:
Agree 100%.
Either prevent the dog even having the opportunity to attack people in public (putting a muzzle on an aggressive dog is simply NOT good enough) or have it put down.
And the bloke should be banned from owning or being ‘in control’ of a dog. Should be told he will be kneecapped if he’s seen with one.
The problem is that people
The problem is that people even have dogs as pets
No, the problem is that some
No, the problem is that some people should not be allowed to be responsible for anything living beyond themselves.
Dogs can be fantastic animals for living with, but both dog and owner require adequate training.
The problem with dogs is that
The problem with dogs is that a lot of them have the ability to kill or at least seriously injure people, and their owners take them to places where there are lots of potential victims. That’s not something that applies to most pets.
john_smith wrote:
Wolves?
In fact, probably most cars, even well trained ones – and they do tend to be brought into public places…
Do you take the wolf with you
Do you take the wolf with you when you go to the shops or when you take the kids to the park though?
Pretty sure people drive to
Pretty sure people drive to the shops, and drive their kids to the park. They don’t usually drive around in the shops or park, I grant you – even using an Alpha Wolf.
chrisonabike wrote:
chrisonabike wrote:
Yeah… I know I wrote that,
Yeah… I know I wrote that, but
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_0DgnJ1uQ
The problem is people.
The problem is people.
Humans are 15x more likely to kill than dogs. 10/ 13M Vs 696/ 60.2M – 2022 UK Dog related deaths ¹ per UK canine population ² Vs England and Wales homicide numbers ³ per England and Wales population ⁴
If you want to dig even deeper, 9 of those 10 dog related deaths were by fighting breeds, descendants or crosses of fighting breeds. Those breeds were created by people (as are nearly all breeds) but importantly, they continue to be chosen by people to keep as pets.
¹ Wikipedia
² Statista
³ ONS
⁴ ONS
People who are not able to
People who are not able to look at things with nuance are a far bigger problem.
“He’s triggered by saddlebags
“He’s triggered by saddlebags” is as relevant as “I like drinking sarsparilla, and playing Scrabble”.
mattw wrote:
It could imply that as they know one of the dog’s triggers, they can train the dog to not be aggressive around them, but it doesn’t sound to me like the owner is any good at dog training.
mattw wrote:
Sounds like some councillors / MPs I could think of…
Staffordshire Bull terriers
Staffordshire Bull terriers are no more dnagerous than any other dog, probably less dangerous than many.
My little angel.
Nice. We’ve got a staffie
Nice. We’ve got a staffie cross (his father was a Jack Russell who may have been punching above his weight). He looks like a larger, more buffed, Jack Russell but with the Staffie smile.
Aboslutely love them, one of
Aboslutely love them, one of the few dogs that I’ll happily appoach on the street, she was my second and I’m considering another (but I don’t really have the room). I would take bones out of their mouths without problems, try that with another dog.
Not that I’ve had trouble
Not that I’ve had trouble with them myself, but people are peculiar in their choice of pet.
Are you trying to compare
Are you trying to compare this little darling with that?
A friend had one which may
A friend had one which may have been the product of something like Brooksby described, but the opposite way round. She had the boxy Staffie head on a more svelte body. Really nice dog and had huge stamina, just looked a bit odd. Could go through a thick branch like a hydraulic splitter though, always made me take thought.
In essence, that’s the
In essence, that’s the difference. I have been lunged at by numerous Collies and consider them the most dangerous breed I come across on the paths, I am aware that once a Staffy starts, they are capable of a lot damage. It’s a good job they have such a calm temperament and unfortunate that the aggression has to be trained into them.