JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

WHO LET THE DOGS OUT?

by

20110416

The sad sce­nario of four-year-old Ezekiel Re­nee Cam­bridge who was mauled by two dogs this week and had to be rushed to hos­pi­tal for emer­gency surgery brings to the fore again our lack­adaisi­cal and lack­lus­tre ap­proach to pro­claim­ing and im­ple­ment­ing laws in our land. From re­ports, the child's back and ab­domen were ripped out as he was knocked to the ground by the dogs in their fren­zy. What ap­pears from the news re­ports is that the dogs were able to es­cape from their yard and pro­ceed up­on this vi­cious at­tack, some nine months af­ter an­oth­er at­tack had been made on an­oth­er young boy by one of these very dogs.

How could the own­er of these dogs, in cir­cum­stances such as those, not re­alise the prob­lem posed by the un­re­strained, un­muz­zled pres­ence of these dogs out on the streets? Would it not have been in­cum­bent on this own­er, af­ter the first at­tack, less than a year ago, to en­sure that these dogs were prop­er­ly and se­cure­ly con­tained with­in her yard and that they not be al­lowed on­to the streets with­out muz­zles and leads? By all ac­counts it ap­pears that she is send­ing the dogs away nine months too late, since she says that she is now send­ing them off to live on a ranch in Pe­nal. So, in­stead of deal­ing with the is­sue, it ap­pears that the prob­lem is be­ing moved to Pe­nal. Heav­en help them if there are any lit­tle chil­dren liv­ing near­by in Pe­nal.While we are all for per­sons hav­ing their pets, to whom they may be the sweet­est and most lov­ing and gen­tle an­i­mals, if these "pets" have a propen­si­ty to at­tack and maul oth­er hu­man be­ings then it be­comes a se­ri­ous so­ci­etal prob­lem.

In the Unit­ed King­dom, af­ter a spate of at­tacks on per­sons by Rot­tweil­ers and Pit­bull Ter­ri­ers, they in­tro­duced leg­is­la­tion in 1991 which formed the ba­sis of their Dan­ger­ous Dogs Act 1991. This Act was lat­er amend­ed in 1997 but the gist of it was to name four types of dogs be­ing the Pit­bull Ter­ri­er; Japan­ese Tosa; Do­go Ar­genti­no and Fi­la Brasileiro. This is more than we have in our Dan­ger­ous Dogs Act which lim­its it to three of the four by leav­ing out the Do­go Ar­genti­no. An­oth­er area in which the UK leg­is­la­tion dif­fers from ours is the fact that their leg­is­la­tion con­tem­plates and cov­ers cross breeds of the above four types of dogs and they thus cat­e­gorise their Dan­ger­ous dogs by types and not by breed. This means that whether a dog is pro­hib­it­ed un­der the Act in the UK will de­pend on a judge­ment about its phys­i­cal char­ac­ter­is­tics and whether they match the de­scrip­tion of a pro­hib­it­ed type as as­sessed by the Court through ev­i­dence pre­sent­ed to it.

This is a more prac­ti­cal ap­proach than the rigid­i­ty of our Dan­ger­ous Dogs Act No 32 of 2000 which by Sec­tion 3 there­of, lim­its the de­f­i­n­i­tion of "dan­ger­ous dog" to mean, a dog or bitch of the type list­ed in the Sched­ule and it lists the three as above and omits the Do­go Ar­genti­no. Now while this is an­oth­er dif­fer­ence, the most fun­da­men­tal dif­fer­ence be­tween the UK Dan­ger­ous Dogs Act 1991 and our Dan­ger­ous Dogs Act 2000 is that their leg­is­la­tion is in force and ac­tive­ly used while ours lies dor­mant, un­pro­claimed and un­used. So there is ab­solute­ly no ba­sis for ac­tive com­par­i­son be­tween the two types of leg­is­la­tion be­cause while one is ac­tive­ly pa­trolling and guard­ing the con­duct of own­ers in the UK, ours re­mains a tooth­less bull­dog, that is not even a "bad in yard" as is said in the lo­cal par­lance.

Procla­ma­tion is­sues aside, we have to con­sid­er just how ef­fec­tive this leg­is­la­tion would be even if pro­claimed. The UK ex­pe­ri­ence has shown that there have been sev­er­al chal­lenges with the ap­pli­ca­tion and pros­e­cu­tion of of­fend­ers un­der their leg­is­la­tion. There have been com­plaints about the ex­tra strict­ness of the leg­is­la­tion which leads to re­sults at times which the pub­lic found to be un­fair. The most fa­mous and high pro­file of these was the case of the Pit­bull Ter­ri­er, Dempsey. In this case Dempsey was be­ing tak­en out for a walk with his muz­zle on and start­ed act­ing up like he was ill. His muz­zle was re­moved so as to al­low him the op­por­tu­ni­ty to vom­it and an ob­ser­vant po­lice of­fi­cer saw the un­muz­zled Dempsey and im­me­di­ate­ly pressed charges.

Three months lat­er, the Court made an Or­der for Dempsey to be eu­thanised un­der the law and put to sleep. The own­er ap­pealed and then the en­tire case be­gan to spin out of con­trol with an­i­mal rights ac­tivists and pro­test­ers on both sides of the di­vide voic­ing their opin­ions. Film stars got in­volved too, with some of­fer­ing a home for Dempsey out­side of the UK so as to have the dog es­cape the sen­tence of death which hung over its head. The case went all the way through the Ap­peals process and was even­tu­al­ly won by the own­er on a le­gal tech­ni­cal­i­ty, but the point is that their laws are so strict that just for hav­ing a muz­zle off, this dog was or­dered to be killed. It hadn't at­tacked any­body, it hadn't threat­ened any­body, yet here in T&T we con­tin­ue to fid­dle while Rome burns.Maybe the fid­dlers should change their tune and get per­mis­sion from Anslem Dou­glas to play for us his mon­ster hit, Who Let the Dogs Out?


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored