Geisha Kow­lessar

As the de­bate on the Dan­ger­ous Dogs Act of 2000 rages, a for­mer Unit­ed King­dom po­lice of­fi­cer is brand­ing the leg­is­la­tion as flawed and can­not be im­ple­ment­ed in its present form. It is ex­pect­ed to be en­act­ed on Au­gust 1. Lo­cal groups have ac­cused the Gov­ern­ment of us­ing a cut-and-paste method to fi­nalise the 12-year-old leg­is­la­tion and are de­mand­ing it be re­pealed.

The for­mer po­lice­man, who was as­signed to a ca­nine unit for 26 years, has added his voice to the nu­mer­ous crit­ics of the Act. He ex­pressed his con­cerns in a ten-page let­ter which said in the UK the Gov­ern­ment had found it­self in a very sim­i­lar po­si­tion. He stat­ed: "The Gov­ern­ment (UK) of the day made ma­jor mis­takes with re­gard to the leg­is­la­tion that they in­tro­duced.

"Al­though ini­tial­ly the pub­lic was in favour of an act to con­trol dogs this soon re­sult­ed in anger due to the poor leg­is­la­tion that was in­tro­duced." He said the Dan­ger­ous Dogs Act 2000 was sim­i­lar to Sec­tion One of the Dan­ger­ous Dogs Act 1991. "The in­ten­tion of the UK Act was to elim­i­nate breeds of dogs used for fight­ing. It has failed to do this and peo­ple con­tin­ued to get in­jured and killed by these breeds of dogs," the for­mer of­fi­cer said.

He said the UK Act was sim­i­lar to T&T's Act in the sense that there was no de­f­i­n­i­tion of "pit bull-type dogs." He added: "As a re­sult there was wide­spread con­fu­sion among the pub­lic and po­lice. "The UK Act was then amend­ed and it ac­knowl­edged the fact that not all dogs deemed to be of a 'type' posed a threat to the pub­lic and as such need­ed not al­ways to be put to sleep," the for­mer of­fi­cer not­ed.

He said af­ter be­ing in­tro­duced in the UK in the mid-1970s, by the ear­ly 1980s the pit bull ter­ri­er be­came a sta­tus sym­bol for crim­i­nals and un­for­tu­nate­ly the dogs al­so were tak­en in­to the homes of or­di­nary cit­i­zens, where they be­came loved pets. On T&T's Act, the po­lice­man said the fol­low­ing should be ex­am­ined or im­ple­ment­ed:

1. This Act does not pro­mote re­spon­si­ble own­er­ship by all dog own­ers. There are many breeds and cross breeds in T&T that are ca­pa­ble of caus­ing se­ri­ous in­jury and death;

2. con­sid­er­a­tion should be giv­en to in­clude a sec­tion sim­i­lar to Sec­tion Three Dan­ger­ous Dogs Act 1991 (UK), on non-breed spe­cif­ic con­trol meth­ods;

3. it should be made clear that the bur­den of proof is re­versed in these cas­es;

4. the Act should con­trol breed­ing of all types of dogs;

5. dogs should be muz­zled in pub­lic places;

6. is there an in­sur­ance com­pa­ny in T&T that will in­sure "pit bull-type dogs?"

7. many peo­ple may not be able to af­ford the fees and oth­er as­so­ci­at­ed costs of reg­is­ter­ing a dog. This may re­sult in dogs be­ing put on the street and in­creas­ing the dan­ger to the pub­lic; and

8. all dogs should be mi­cro-chipped so that own­ers can be iden­ti­fied.