I wish to add my voice to the many opinions that have been expressed on the recent Dog Control Act 2013, and amendments. Let me make something abundantly clear: my dogs are pets, but that is their secondary function. First and foremost my dogs are there for security.I don't have my dogs because they are cuddly and cute and great companions (even though they are) I have them because they are big, savage-looking and ferocious defenders of me, my family and our property.And 90 per cent of all owners of Pit bull Terriers (and all large breed dogs for that matter) feel much the same way.
Between 1987 and 1996 my home was broken into 13 times! In 1996 I bought my first dog. I have not been robbed since.Now I have three. For the uninitiated let me describe what services my dogs provide: an early warning system against potential intruders; a deterrent against potential intruders; and a rapid response to intruders.For the past 18 years this system has been 100 per cent successful in keeping my home and my family safe from criminals. Now, under the provisions of the Act, I am required to pay a license fee of $1,500 per dog for the right of owning my dogs. A total of $4,500 annually.
What this means is that I am paying the Government $4,500 annually to provide my own security to my own home, a service that this, and previous governments, have failed to provide. This is, quite frankly, absurd.If the fee was inclusive of an insurance premium that would compensate potential victims of dog bites, I could justify it. It does not.If the fee was inclusive of the cost of micro-chipping my dogs, I could justify it.It does not. If the fee was used to subsidise the costs of spaying and neutering my dogs, I could justify it. It does not. This license fee is nothing more than an insidious tax to punish owners of Class A dogs. It serves no purpose except that of raising revenue. It is as odious and reprehensible as Mr Manning's Property Tax. To put it simply, in order to protect my home from bandits, I must pay off the Government. This is generally known as extortion.
Owner of pit bulls have been accused of being uncaring towards the victims of attacks. On the contrary, we care very much. Mostly because we know that "there but for the grace of God go I".We examine every single tragic incident to see if there was some mistake, any mistake that we could have made. You see, we have no margin for error. One second of forgetfulness, one second of carelessness, could have tragic consequences.And the gory details of these failings are gleefully reported in bold headlines on the front pages.Governments, on the other hand, have an infinite margin for error. If I, or any member of my family, becomes a victim due to abandoning a security system that has been 100 per cent successful to date, because we cannot afford to maintain it, the only compensation that we will get is the dubious honour of becoming another crime statistic. If we are very lucky, or more accurately very unlucky, we may merit a passing mention on page 20.
Consider this. Based on the recent T&T experience, the average citizen is 176 times more likely to be killed by intruders in their home than them being killed by a Class A dog. Every citizen who is killed by intruders is the responsibility of the Government of T&T. Does the Government ever compensate the victims' families?Unless the Government provides an environment in which citizens do not have to take extraordinary measures to protect themselves within their homes this, or any, government has no moral authority to determine what measures they use, let alone extort payments from them, once these measures conform to the laws of the land.
Woodbrook Resident