I am very pleased that the de­bate has be­gun in the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives on the Dog Con­trol Bill 2013. It is ur­gent­ly need­ed leg­is­la­tion.How­ev­er, while I have not read the Bill, the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al has stat­ed that on­ly three dog breeds have been clas­si­fied as dan­ger­ous dogs. This sur­pris­es me since a vis­it to the var­i­ous dan­ger­ous dogs Web sites on the In­ter­net will show that a greater num­ber of dog breeds are clas­si­fied as dan­ger­ous dogs in most of the de­vel­oped coun­tries.

In some coun­tries dan­ger­ous dogs are pro­hib­it­ed from be­ing im­port­ed while in oth­ers it is an of­fence to breed dan­ger­ous dogs.Why has Trinidad and To­ba­go not tak­en ad­van­tage of the ex­pe­ri­ences of these much larg­er coun­tries which have had the prob­lem of dan­ger­ous dogs for many years and have had to en­act leg­is­la­tion for the con­trol of these an­i­mals? Why do we have to al­ways do we own ting?

Neil Alexan­der

via e-mail