Pitbulls’ bad press

Editor,

I read with frustration the article about Grant Stone’s opinion that the dog that attacked his earlier this year should have been put down [KMN, August 14].

The biggest issue is his idea that it would have next attacked a young child when dog and human aggression are completely unrelated and the injuries the caregiver received would not have been a case of the dog going for the human too.

Provided the owners complied with the requirement to muzzle in public, and had already seemed to act responsible in apologising and paying the vet bill, suggesting they should have killed their pet for this is unfair.

Sometimes, especially in the cases of rescue/rehoming dogs, aggression problems can never be fully gone from a dog despite training and socialisation, and it becomes a case of managing that dog appropriately.

Obviously the dog being able to attack Jaksy suggests this didn’t happen once, but from what the council said it doesn’t seem there were any prior issues so it seems they were. Also, was it necessary to mention the breed again? Can the media not, for once, jump on the “evil pit bull” bandwagon. Regardless of what breed the dog was, it was no benefit to the article (which was really just giving someone attention for unjustified and unreasonable claims), and doesn’t do the responsible owners of pitties any good.

If it means anything, the offleash dog that went to attack mine on a walk once was a golden retriever, and they have such a “family” reputation. Breed does not matter in these situations, so is encouraging even more stereotyping really necessary?

SARAH PIPER, Whitby public money. It is his success, or otherwise, in doing this which should be a primary focus of the committee which reviews his salary on a performance-related basis.

That we have learned this week that Keep Porirua Beautiful has recently had its annual dollop of public money cut from approximately $70,000 to $32,000 and now had this completely suspended, is edifying.

We are told that there is no constitution in place for KPB. There is no record of such an organisation on the register of societies, nor on the register of charities.

However, in its latest annual report which, to the credit of those involved, records a considerable amount of positive activity in our community, our mayor Nick Leggett is recorded as KPB’s patron.

But just what is KPB? Is it just the thought of a previous ‘‘chairperson’’ and like-minded public spirited citizens, or does it have some actual legal standing? How is it that it seems that our mayors and chief executives have seen fit to support a name with public money (for 20 years) without properly completed applications for funding?

Why have no financial statements been produced along with the annual reports, and who provided the ‘‘contracted services’’ worthy of $32,895 in the 2011 year or received the $17,383 in ‘‘internal charges’’?

Our mayor says the funding has been suspended ‘‘until the functionality and constitution are sound’’ but why did PCC’s chief executive allow funds to be disbursed when this hasn’t ever been the case?

And with regard to Mr Nash ‘‘laying off’’ the KPB co-ordinator, who signed a contract of service with Mr Poppleton? Who is in the firing line if there is an ‘‘employment’’ dispute. Is it PCC?

BRIAN COLLINS, Papakowhai because of Te Rauparaha we should call our arena another name. Let our Kiwi people, Olympic athletes stop doing the haka. Doesn’t seem right does it?

I take your point Mr Clark, however, I guess people like you will always find an excuse. History can be damning, I should know with my English, German, Scottish and Maori bloodlines.

All with skeletons in the closet, Mr Clark. I say move on, embrace, and be part of a city and a country to be proud of.

Te Rauparaha is here, he won’t go away.

What skeletons are in your closet, Mr Clark, or don’t you have any? It’s not just a Maori ‘‘thing’’ is it? ARTHUR HOKENA BRIGHTWELL,

Porirua