"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated," said Mahatma Gandhi. Based on the above quotation, I leave you to draw your own conclusion about the greatness of our nation.
Far from implementing animal welfare legislation, the government of T&T is instead on course to proclaim an act which I would class as "anti-animal welfare legislation". Let's pick the bones of the Dangerous Dogs Act 2000 to see why:
Section 3 interprets a "dangerous dog" as "a dog or a bitch of the type listed in the schedule". Is this not tantamount to the Holocaust where Hitler segregated and persecuted people based on their ethnicity? How can one class a "dangerous dog" based on breed? Why not consider the reasons why a dog is motivated to attack humans and define a "dangerous dog" accordingly, ie based on behaviour (inherited and trained)? Section 5(1) of the act specifies the "spaying or neutering by a veterinary surgeon within three months of the coming into force of this act". The recommended age for neutering a canine is six months of age, which is the average age that a dog becomes sexually mature (a female dog comes "into heat" for the first time and the testicles descend in a male dog). Does this act mean that a three-month-old puppy must be neutered? Section 10 (b) states that "the registration number must be branded onto the pinna (lobe) of the ear of the dog". Branding is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "an identifying mark burned on livestock or (especially in former times) criminals or slaves with a branding iron".
Most individuals of one of the "breeds" listed in the schedule (Pitbull Terrier) are subjected to mutilation of the ears (cropped ears-which is unkind in itself) resulting in no pinna to brand, and surely burning a mark on to an animal is painful, causing unnecessary suffering and therefore is logically cruel. Section 13(6) prohibits a veterinary surgeon from administering treatment to a "dangerous dog" at the office of the surgeon (except for the purpose of neutering the animal) unless he/she certifies in writing that the attention cannot be administered other than at the office. A "dangerous dog" requiring emergency care must therefore wait for a veterinary surgeon to do a house call, wait while the vet writes the certificate and wait for first-aid and treatment. In cases where time becomes a matter of life or death, the government seems to be choosing death for that animal. Section 13A(1) places restrictions on the transportation of a "dangerous dog" and states that (d) the dog must be securely fitted with a muzzle. The use of a muzzle is what I refer to as a "catch-22" situation. Any citizen walking in public with a large-breed dog is often subjected to humiliation and derision from passers-by shouting at them (from a "safe" distance) to muzzle the dog, but the moment a muzzle is put on to a dog, the average human being immediately assumes that the dog is wearing a muzzle because he is "dangerous", regardless of the temperament of the animal. Dogs use their mouths for everything: to explore, to smell, to lick, to express their emotions, etc. and putting a muzzle on to a dog can be compared to putting a straitjacket on a human.
A muzzle restricts the natural behaviour of a dog much as a straitjacket will limit the ability of a human being. And there is a welfare concern because a dog wearing a muzzle cannot pant or breathe normally and this risks heat exhaustion and/or suffocation.
Most dogs therefore dislike the muzzle and form a negative association with wearing one. This negative emotion can be expressed through frustrated aggression or stress. Therefore, instead of a muzzle preventing aggression, it can actually result in a very angry and highly distressed dog. I agree that some dogs should be muzzled for public safety, but all dogs should be muzzle- trained (to form a positive association with the muzzle instead) and the public educated that not all dogs need to wear a muzzle. Dogs can be born with aggressive tendencies when one or both parents are aggressive, since aggression is a genetic trait. However, the main contributor to aggression in a dog is environmental-the manner in which the dog is raised. Two vital requirements to avert aggression include socialisation (to humans and to other animals) at an early age and exercise. This act prevents opportunities for socialising the dog by not permitting the animal to be taken outside of his home and takes away the right of the animal to exercise. Dogs need to walk to burn off energy and when prevented from expressing this natural behaviour, that energy can be vented inappropriately through destruction of the animal's immediate environment (uprooting plants, chewing vehicles etc.) or more dangerously, can be expelled through frustrated aggression. What is the government thinking by proclaiming an act that will lead to a more aggressive animal due to pent-up energy? Throughout the act, any owner unable to or incapable of keeping a "dangerous dog" is required to impound the dog.
Only one dog pound currently exists in T&T, the San Fernando dog pound. Welfare is extremely poor at this pound, with limited and unhygienic food supplies (the dogs are reportedly fed on hops bread which is thrown onto the floors of the kennels); un-trained staff (therefore incompetent to handle potentially aggressive animals); and heartless housing conditions (the kennels are hosed from the outside with the dogs still inside). Is the government assuring the dog owner that if their dog must be impounded, the animal will not be subjected to such an inhumane environment? Will the Ministry of Local Government have infrastructure and qualified staff in place within the next two months to house the thousands of dogs which will no doubt be abandoned by owners unable or unwilling to pay the required registration fee? The act also repeatedly mentions the destruction of "dangerous dogs" but fails to specify how these dogs will be destroyed. Section 11(5) alone declares that "if an owner is convicted, the relevant local authority shall have the dog destroyed by a licensed veterinary surgeon". Only a few years ago, dogs impounded at the San Fernando dog pound were "executed" via an electric shock. I say execute rather than euthanise because a "dangerous dog" is not suffering and does not need or want a merciful death. To the government of T&T, I again appeal: please think before you act.