After a couple attempts to finalise an advance on the Dangerous Dogs Act 2000 it would seem that the legislators in the House of Representatives are closing in on agreement on the Dog Control Bill of the present Parliament.Co-operation between Government and Opposition was very evident at Monday's sitting of the House. The expectation is that the same will continue with the planned return of the bill to the House Friday to finalise further proposals put forward by opposition Member of Parliament, Colm Imbert.Already, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan has indicated that the Opposition proposals could add value to the Bill.
It has been too long, too many deaths, too many injuries for the spread of fear in the society for the breeds of dogs that are ultra aggressive and capable of inflicting serious harm on innocent persons, mainly children, to continue.The proposed fines and prison sentences are heavy–$200,000 and a ten-year jail sentence for the owner or keeper of a pit bull which attacks and kills an innocent person.But then, if the owner/keeper of such a dangerous animal does not do his or her duty to protect the public from the dangerous breed of dog, then there must be serious consequences for the individual. It must be that the society continues to regard human life as the most important and so prescribe serious penalties for careless owners.There are dog associations and animal rights activists that advocate one or the other, fine or imprisonment. However, the jail term prospect must surely place even greater emphasis on the individual owner to practice higher levels of responsibility.
Under the Class A category of dangerous dog, is the well-known pit bull terrier and any such inter-bred animal. Also included in this class are two other lesser known breeds, the Fila Brasileiro and the Japanese Tosa. However, dog experts say these two last breeds do not exist here.One consistent commentis that there are other breeds of dogs in T&T which also have the temperament and capacity to be aggressive and vicious but they not been included in the Class A category.That is an argument which is expected to be pursued, not only in the House of Representatives on Friday, but when the draft bill gets to the Senate. The current bill is a come-down from the Dangerous Dogs Act which effectively sought to ban and eventually eliminate all dogs deemed to be aggressive and potentially deadly. Attorney General Ramlogan told the House in his piloting of the bill on Monday that Government had listened to the protests over its original draft legislation and has compromised.
But as the AG pointed out in this debate, the core of the legislation aims at making dog owners responsible for their dangerous animals, so categorised in law.Rightly so, the bill does not deny home owners the right to keep dogs as protection for their lives and property from the criminals. The only thing they must do is to be aware that their animals also can pose a danger if they are not properly kept on their properties, or when they take them out in public.Moreover, given the requirement for owners of dangerous dogs to provide insurance coverage to cover the cost of expensive medical treatment for persons injured by their animals, the legislation must be considered rational and reasonable. In too many other areas of national life, individuals and groups seem to think they do not have to be responsible for the consequences of their actions.