Once again there is what, on the face of it, appears to be a surge in vicious attacks by dangerous dogs either resulting in death or serious maiming and the subsequent broadcast of close-ups of the victim lying in the street stripped of flesh and dignity. This was, of course, important so that the television station in question could monetise the tragedy in an orgy of blood and insensitivity. Not even in the nightly reports from war-torn Libya do such images make the editor's cut. I suppose that is what makes us special in this part of the world. There is no length to which we will not go to demonstrate how stupid we can be.
It is important to note the trend, however; one person is savaged in the streets, several others follow in rapid succession. It might lead you to think that particular phases of the moon elicit virulent responses in some dogs and, unfortunately, humans place themselves in the way of some uncontrollable biological trigger. The truth here is, perhaps, too pedestrian and, therefore, escapes mention in the media. It is more likely that incidents involving the offending animals in the past have simply gone unreported and that only the really sexy stories that involve death or severe brutality qualify for coverage. Indeed, reading the remarks of the witnesses to these terrible attacks, one gets the impression that in most cases a serious attack was inevitable because of the frequency with which the dogs or dog in question had menaced the neighbourhood.
So the next question is as obvious as its own answer: Why hadn't these "concerned" residents reported the looming threat to the "authorities" before someone was maimed or killed? Well, in this country we can barely get the police to respond to man-on-man violence, so you are likely to be laughed out of the charge room with a story about dog-on-man violence. So many years after the UNC administration rushed and pushed for the Dangerous Dogs Act, it still has not been proclaimed, though even if it were it would not make any difference. We cannot even enforce simple traffic laws so what hope is there of enforcing legislation that, at best, was merely well intentioned.
The reaction to news of the impending law at the time was indeed curious and a very good yardstick for how people in this country treat dogs. The popularity of the pit bull spiked at that time, in part due to a frustrated population's misguided strategy to combat rising crime. This is one of three dogs identified in the legislation, the others were the Rottweiler and the Japanese Tosa. When the spectre of a $1 million insurance policy was raised as a requirement of ownership of such dogs, Trinis reacted in the only way their limited minds would allow. They released the dogs back into the wild from whence they came! I kid you not; the photographs were there for everyone to see. Starving emaciated pit bulls were walking along the road, their sides looking like an accordion.
I came across one such "release" on the Caroni Savannah Road while in pursuit of that story. This wizened creature, stripped by hunger of all of his power, whimpered and approached the car, watery eyes begging for sympathy. His now frayed collar spoke to a time when he was perhaps bulked up on the best dog food. Yes, the stuff out of the can! That speaks volumes about how we are prepared to treat our dogs. This, of course, has repercussions for the kind of behaviour that is exhibited by these animals. The pit bull is often the villain in this jump-up, notwithstanding the fact that the four-year-old boy, whose mauling resurrected this pointless debate, was nearly torn apart by German shepherds; a breed not readily associated with such vicious attacks. The simple fact is that any dog has the potential to be dangerous.
Several years ago I was riding in the Blue Basin area when I was tag-teamed by two large mixed breed dogs on the street. I spun my bicycle like a carousel, struggling to keep it between me and these dogs that were most assuredly bent on biting me. The owner, busy working on a car in his garage, called out to them faintly, as if he were speaking to someone in a church. It was his neighbour who ran to my assistance and chased them with a large piece of wood. The owner then said to me, "Aye, daiz Pallo? Pallo doh study dem dog nah! Dem jess chupid!" Well, I cursed that man like I have never cursed in my life before. Like a surly stevedore, I used multiple hybrids of old favourites to concoct an expletive diatribe so venom-filled I made myself blush and nearly made everyone on that street pregnant. How many times have we gone to someone's home and have heard: "Come inside nah, dat dog iz ah imps, he ain't go do you nutting!"
While it has been accepted that pit bulls and other select breeds have a genetic predisposition to violence, most research generally finds fault with the environment in which the dog is raised or trained. So how then do we safeguard ourselves? In the UK, the Dangerous Dogs Act of 1991 bans the breeding and sale or exchange of pit bulls, Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinos and the Fila Brasileiros. The legislation also covers any cross breeds of these animals. Also under the act, any dog deemed to be dangerously out of control in a public place can be destroyed. The owner can be fined or imprisoned for six months. In the UK if a dog injures someone, that individual can be jailed for up to two years. These laws have their critics as many felt the Government's swift response was overkill and unfairly targeted specific breeds. Curiously, others have suggested that the laws have had no impact as the number of people in the UK being treated for dog bites jumped by a third after the breed bans went into effect.
Unfortunately, there are flaws in the legislation. While the law applies to any dog out of control, it is only triggered if the dog is in a public place or somewhere it ought not to be. So if you are mauled in an apartment building that allows pets, take yuh bite and keep yuh a-- kwart! Still, I would rather have some law than none, more specifically a law that places the burden of responsibility on the owner. It is always laughable when we put down dogs that have killed people. This is a lot like fishermen hunting and killing sharks that have killed people. Are the sharks expected to learn that this is unacceptable behaviour? When we execute dogs, do they understand our death penalty laws? Were they given appropriate legal representation? The bottom line is if our laws do not make the owners responsible for the actions of their animals in a severe way, we will be having this pointless conversation again in a few months.