The council is still investigating the Maungatapu attack. <\/p>\n
The couple, who asked not to be named for privacy reasons, said they were walking their dog on a lead through the Mission Cemetery on Marsh St and noticed a car with a covered trailer parked nearby.<\/p>\n
The husband said as they left the cemetery and walked towards Marsh St, a \u201cstocky, powerfully built dog\u201d suddenly burst from the parked vehicle and charged towards them.<\/p>\n
\u201cI tried to get between the two dogs, but within seconds, bang \u2013 it just went for our dog.\u201d<\/p>\n
A Tauranga couple’s dog was attacked at the Mission Cemetery. Photo \/ Sandra Conchie<\/p>\n
A man he believed to be the dog\u2019s owner ran over and tried to wrestle the attack dog off their pet, and was punching and yelling at it during the struggle.<\/p>\n
Two other dogs inside the covered trailer \u201cbarked loudly and aggressively\u201d during the attack.<\/p>\n
\u201cOnce the attack dog was dragged away, its owner bundled it into the car, and we left the area immediately with our injured dog,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Their cavoodle suffered a deep bite wound to the middle of its back, and also had bite marks on the top of its head. It was treated by a veterinarian and needed antibiotics and pain relief, costing $350.<\/p>\n
The couple said a council animal control officer responded to their complaint.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe were told the attack dog\u2019s owner had hidden it, but the officer later advised us that when she returned to the area, the dog was located and seized,\u201d the wife said.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe also advised that all three dogs were unregistered and that the seized dog was known to the officer and had a prior history. That led us to believe this was not the dog\u2019s first attack.\u201d<\/p>\n
The husband said they were \u201cnot revengeful\u201d people but wanted appropriate enforcement action taken, and signed an affidavit requesting that the attack dog be classified as dangerous. <\/p>\n
\u201cWe were told it would be presented to a district court judge. But a few days later, we received a letter from the council advising that action had been taken, but without detailing what that meant.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen we asked about what happened to the dog and its owner, the council cited the Privacy Act as the reason for refusing to tell us, and we were told we had no right to know.\u201d <\/p>\n
On February 27, the couple emailed the council expressing their anger about the lack of information. <\/p>\n
\u201cOur dog was registered, on a lead, and has never shown any aggression. We were doing everything right,\u201d the wife said. <\/p>\n
The couple questioned why lawbreakers were given rights that trumped their own. <\/p>\n
\u201cWe feel as victims of this scary and damaging attack, we\u2019re entitled to know, regardless of privacy rules,\u201d the wife said,<\/p>\n