There may be more to the story than is publicly known, but more than one incident seemingly begged for prosecution, most notably perhaps a prolonged attack on a woman in Kaitaia, while the woman who was legally in control of the dog stood by and watched helplessly.
On that occasion the council had information including the identity of the dog, the address where the dog was living, the location of the attack and a comprehensive statement from the victim, who was familiar with the address and its occupant (but not the dog).
The council even required the victim to provide a photograph of her badly bruised breast, yet there was no prosecution.
Granted, court proceedings can be expensive (although the council does employ at least one lawyer of its own), and there is never any guarantee of success. And it could be counter-productive to prosecute cases that are likely to fail.
But the council is missing the point.
If it wants us to help by promoting the view that dog attacks, or the illegal dumping of rubbish, are unacceptable, then it needs us to believe that our assistance will have some effect. At the moment there is no reason to believe that at all.
Illegal dumping has come into the spotlight again thanks to Kaikohe-Hokianga Community Board member Louis Toorenburg and friends, who gave up a Sunday some weeks ago to pick up rubbish from alongside SH12 at Opononi.
They also did their best to clean up an illegal dump on Paika Hill, where they found a quantity of documents that, prima facie, identified the owner.
This was quite some dump. Bigger items, like fridges, were left for the council to deal with, while others had used the spot to get rid of paua shells and, apparently, a significant number of dead dogs.
If the council really wants to deter illegal dumping, this would not seem such a bad place to start. And, hallelujah, the haul included documents with at least one name and address.
Bingo? Not really, The council says it plans to issue infringement notices to those people who can be identified, but it has six months in which to do so.
That suggests, at best, a distinct lack of urgency, at worst that whatever it says about the cost of dealing with illegal dumping and its determination to stamp it out, its heart isn't really in it. Not good enough.
Council staff and elected members, who are themselves ratepayers, of course, might be happy to see tens of thousands of their dollars disappearing into the illegal dumping clean-up fund, but others aren't.
And it's not just about the money. Some who live in this district have no qualms at all about trashing the place, and it's time they changed their ways.
No offence, FNDC, but opening more recycling stations isn't going to do it.
These people need to learn a lesson that only the council can teach them, and it's time the council accepted that.
It has to be acknowledged that the council is making some effort.
It says that in the year to June 30 it issued 77 infringement notices. Problem is, only five of those fines - 6.5 per cent of them - were paid. Fifty were ignored, and 22 were waived. There were no prosecutions.
It is also accepted that a certain standard of evidence is needed before anyone can be prosecuted, but the council seems to have set itself a very high bar.
Prosecutions, it says, generally require video or photographic evidence of the offender in the act of dumping. Really?
That's a higher standard of evidence than is required by the police in prosecuting, for example, a receiver of stolen goods.
To the layman it would seem reasonable to expect that documents naming the owner of the rubbish would suffice, unless some exceptionally good explanation was forthcoming.
Nor would it seem unreasonable to expect the council to pursue unpaid fines imposed by way of infringement notices through the court. The council says that process can take up to seven years. That is outrageous.
Whatever enforcement action is taken, however, the most powerful tool available to the council is publicity, and its attitude to that is puzzling.
The council has told the writer that it would be unlikely to discuss action taken over the Opononi dump before or during a prosecution. Nor would it be likely to make it known publicly that the culprits had paid a fine. Why not?
It's common practice for the police, Fisheries and every other prosecuting authority to state publicly that charges have been laid, so why can't the council?
Is the council subject to different rules? Does it understand the rules? Or does it not want the public, whose support it seeks, to know that its enforcement measures are largely ineffective? They can hardly be viewed as effective when 65 per cent of infringement notices are simply ignored.
Ironically, the council sees no problem with this newspaper publishing a story about those responsible for the dump on Paika Hill, if it has their details. We don't have their details. The council does.
Opening more refuse transfer stations isn't going to achieve anything. Ahipara offers all the evidence anyone needs of that.
Illegal dumping in the dunes behind Ninety Mile Beach - earlier this year even on the beach itself - has been an issue for years, and still is, despite the fact that there is a station and landfill just a few minutes' drive away.
Some people obviously prefer to despoil the local environment rather than spend a few bob on disposing of their rubbish properly.
They're not going to change their ways because the council's providing more facilities.
The council would achieve much more if it named and shamed those responsible for illegal dumping, and to do that it has to prosecute them. We need to see a change of attitude, from trotting out reasons why it can't do something to how it can.
The stated aim of ensuring that most residents are no more than a 15-minute drive from a recycling facility is ridiculous.
At that rate we'll have a recycling centre on every corner, and some people will still be chucking their rubbish over the nearest bank.
We know, and the council knows, that most people in this district find the illegal dumping of rubbish offensive. We don't need to promote that message.
What we do need is to see the council doing something effective to combat it. Public-spirited people will continue to pick up after others, but they would do so with greater alacrity if they knew the council was going to make a better effort to punish the culprits.
The ball is in the council's court, and it's time to give it a decent whack.
