Editorial: Owners still don't heed dog danger

It was the kind of scene that leaves you paralysed with indecision, not knowing if you should step in or walk on.
One child held the dog's lead casually in one hand.
The other child, smaller by about half, was taunting the dog with a stick.
A few adults were nearby, but none was watching the two kids playing with the family pet.
The dog - possibly some kind of bull mastiff - clearly didn't like being whacked on its snout, and had pinned its ears back and started growling.
When is it okay to step into situations like this? What's the polite way to tell a stranger that their child is about to get mauled?
After this weekend's news of two more vicious dog attacks on children, I might not have hesitated so long.
Two little girls, one 2, the other 4, underwent surgery this weekend after being bitten on their face by dogs in separate incidents.
Both were savaged by a family pet while visiting the dog's owner.
A few weeks ago, another story on research about dog attacks showed small children were the most common victims and their attacker was likely to be a dog they knew.
In the Hastings district, the hard line led by Mayor Lawrence Yule on dangerous dogs seems to have had good results in reducing the number of dog attacks and incidents of dogs rushing strangers.
But what is happening in the homes of people who still own these dogs?
What about the kids who live there? Is anyone teaching them that the dog they think of as a family pet could turn on them in a heartbeat?
And is there even any point in more education for dog owners? Because it seems that with all the evidence already out there, if you're still choosing to have a dangerous dog breed, you're also choosing to bury your head in the sand.
Thankfully, things did not end badly for the children I saw playing.
The older boy came to his senses and pulled the dog away on its lead.
He even gave the younger one a telling off for teasing it.
Smart kid. I hope there are more like him around.