New Zealand reconstructive surgeons are dealing with an average of two cases per week of facial injuries to children caused by dogs.

These injuries are in some instances so severe that permanent disfigurement is inevitable.

The most recent dog attack came in Orewa just a few days ago and by all accounts, this poor boy will never look the same again.

Coming as no surprise are the breeds most responsible for these attacks – Pit Bull, Staffordshire, and Rottweiler – prompting the query, why is this horror still being allowed to go on?

To some the solution is obvious: we know the offending breeds, therefore why not just impose a total ban on their ownership?

Would that really solve the problem though, or would it just serve to satisfy the parents of the victims of these injuries, in a sort of indirect retribution?

One thing’s for certain: an outright ban of known vicious dog breeds would do little to abolish this kind of injustice.

Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, Staffordshires, while they are indeed attack prone animals, once domesticated are typically no more attack prone than say, a Dalmatian, which, incidentally, is the same breed of dog that bit into my face when I was a lad…

I digress. The point is that dogs renowned for violence are not necessarily violent dogs by nature.

…Any domesticated, naturally wild, animal is capable of attacking a human; the idea is to tame them in the hope that this trickery will result in a lifetime of un-abusive friendship.

Some dog owners don’t do that though. Some dog owners endeavour to maintain their dog’s primal aggression. Some dog owners own dogs that provide that owner with a sense of empowerment. Some dog owners own dogs that, while placid enough to the owner, will readily attack an unfamiliar person on sight.

Some dog owners owned dogs that have been euthanized for harming people; but who should really have been punished?

Article by Tim Walker

Edited by Mutt Lee

Photography by Anne Grey Pooch