Dangerous Dogs Act - Trinidad and Tobago

[RIPEBREDFRUIT]

KABFAST is not crap- im a firm believer in it.
Youre entitled to your own opinion so carry on..............

I hope you or no member of your family is ever killed or scarred for life by one of these supposedly calm and domestic creatures..........

[88sins]

so RBF what yuh think should be done about the stray mongrels roaming the nations roads? There was an incident where an elderly gent was killed by a pack of strays in south. Or the GSD? There was another incident where a GSD routinely left its owners premises on a regular basis and one time severely mauled a young by, causing a serious fracture to the child's cranium. Why no GSD & pot hounds on the list?

It's a game of numbers. The moment another breed not on the schedule becomes popular the maulings will start all over again with that breed. It's been proven by history. Pits & other molossers outnumber most other breeds in T&T, so statistically there is a greater chance of pits being involved in attacks, fatal or not. Add to that poor breeding practices by breeders, unstable breeding stock, immature & negligent owners acquiring dogs for the wrong reason, improperly trained dogs (dogs being given improper agitation & taught to bite anything & anyone indiscriminately without proper foundation work or proofing afterwards). After you add those aspects to the mix the odds of fatal incidents increase dramatically. Couple that with media sensationalism and that fuels public misinterpretation or negative perception. Pothounds bite ppl daily causing numerous ppl to visit the hospitals & health centers & occasionally the pathologist, yet those incidents never make the front page, guess why?

As an example, I'll use the American Bully. Tho the breed may appear intimidating, & that was the look the original breeders were going for btw, the original temperament they were bred for was that of a companion animal with no aggression. In simpler terms, they wanted to develop a mean-looking docile behaving dog.

I have an American Bully at home. He has absolutely no aggression at all, to the point where my wifes kitten cuts his arse regularly & thoroughly, without him making so much as a growl. He avoids the kitten as much as possible, & was never taught to do so, it's his natural instinct. Does that sound like a blood-thirtsy killer to you?

The problem is once this kinda BSL takes hold, by the time they're done adding breeds to their schedule all you will be allowed to own are toy breeds, & even there'll be restrictions, registrations & all kinds of other crap as a deterrent. I can say i appreciated certain aspects of the proposed law, but there are too many parts of it (dare I say the bulk of it) that were not thought out thoroughly.

You should take your own advice... You entered a serous thread with a worthless contribution more so than your usual kebabfest crap. Doh start, everybody getting cuss today.

Hoss cussin everybody ain't gonna help anybody. So why bother?

[JJ16]

long story short, blame the owners not the dogs....

Peter pay for paul going on here, mainly because of the fact that 90% of pit bull owners must now suffer due to the 10% of idiotic dog owners.

This law = garbage

[RIPEBREDFRUIT]

so RBF what yuh think should be done about the stray mongrels roaming the nations roads? There was an incident where an elderly gent was killed by a pack of strays in south. Or the GSD? There was another incident where a GSD routinely left its owners premises on a regular basis and one time severely mauled a young by, causing a serious fracture to the child's cranium. Why no GSD & pot hounds on the list?

It's a game of numbers. The moment another breed not on the schedule becomes popular the maulings will start all over again with that breed. It's been proven by history. Pits & other molossers outnumber most other breeds in T&T, so statistically there is a greater chance of pits being involved in attacks, fatal or not. Add to that poor breeding practices by breeders, unstable breeding stock, immature & negligent owners acquiring dogs for the wrong reason, improperly trained dogs (dogs being given improper agitation & taught to bite anything & anyone indiscriminately without proper foundation work or proofing afterwards). After you add those aspects to the mix the odds of fatal incidents increase dramatically. Couple that with media sensationalism and that fuels public misinterpretation or negative perception. Pothounds bite ppl daily causing numerous ppl to visit the hospitals & health centers & occasionally the pathologist, yet those incidents never make the front page, guess why?

As an example, I'll use the American Bully. Tho the breed may appear intimidating, & that was the look the original breeders were going for btw, the original temperament they were bred for was that of a companion animal with no aggression. In simpler terms, they wanted to develop a mean-looking docile behaving dog.

I have an American Bully at home. He has absolutely no aggression at all, to the point where my wifes kitten cuts his arse regularly & thoroughly, without him making so much as a growl. He avoids the kitten as much as possible, & was never taught to do so, it's his natural instinct. Does that sound like a blood-thirtsy killer to you?

The problem is once this kinda BSL takes hold, by the time they're done adding breeds to their schedule all you will be allowed to own are toy breeds, & even there'll be restrictions, registrations & all kinds of other crap as a deterrent. I can say i appreciated certain aspects of the proposed law, but there are too many parts of it (dare I say the bulk of it) that were not thought out thoroughly.

You should take your own advice... You entered a serous thread with a worthless contribution more so than your usual kebabfest crap. Doh start, everybody getting cuss today.

Hoss cussin everybody ain't gonna help anybody. So why bother?

if YOU as an owner takes a responsible approach to keeping and maintaining such an animal in a Properly SECURE environment then I have no problem, you pay what ever animal/pet insurance youre supposed to then fine.
The owners who have these animals for SHOW and gallery and who always have their dogs roaming the streets knowing prefertly well they would attack someone if given the chance are the ones I have a problem with.

[88sins]

RBF I see your point, but lets be honest here. There are a lot of hard working law abiding citizens within the low-middle income bracket that keep dogs as a means of property protection & chose this breed due to its relatively low maintenance costs.
There's nothing more frustrating than locking up your house & leaving to go to a hard day's work for not a lot of money, knowing full well there's a high probability that by the time you get home most of your possessions won't be there. And this kind of thing happens really often, one could say daily. When faced with the added cost of property insurance to keep the animal that protects them, the may not be able to afford that additional expense. So they'll have to either start over with a new breed (hoping they don't get robbed before the puppy develops enough to be a deterrent), remain defenseless, or use other not-so-lawful but cheaper methods of protecting their property & loved ones.
All I & others are saying is this bill is an attempt to discourage persons from the dangerous practice of keeping dogs they cannot control, & personally commend that. But it will have the side effect of leaving a lot of people exposed to harm from the criminal element, with little to almost zero legal alternative to protecting their homes & families.

But anyway, let's see what happens in the coming months-years

[RIPEBREDFRUIT]

RBF I see your point, but lets be honest here. There are a lot of hard working law abiding citizens within the low-middle income bracket that keep dogs as a means of property protection & chose this breed due to its relatively low maintenance costs.
There's nothing more frustrating than locking up your house & leaving to go to a hard day's work for not a lot of money, knowing full well there's a high probability that by the time you get home most of your possessions won't be there. And this kind of thing happens really often, one could say daily. When faced with the added cost of property insurance to keep the animal that protects them, the may not be able to afford that additional expense. So they'll have to either start over with a new breed (hoping they don't get robbed before the puppy develops enough to be a deterrent), remain defenseless, or use other not-so-lawful but cheaper methods of protecting their property & loved ones.
All I & others are saying is this bill is an attempt to discourage persons from the dangerous practice of keeping dogs they cannot control, & personally commend that. But it will have the side effect of leaving a lot of people exposed to harm from the criminal element, with little to almost zero legal alternative to protecting their homes & families.

But anyway, let's see what happens in the coming months-years

I agree

BUT above ALL, the owner MUST have the PROPER Area to secure their animals so that there is NO danger to innocent people.
And owners MUST agree that should their dog get loose and kill anyone OUTSIDE of their compound that they are 100% liable to stand a MURDER Charge(the owner).

[88sins]

I agree

BUT above ALL, the owner MUST have the PROPER Area to secure their animals so that there is NO danger to innocent people.

This is very reasonable to ask of any owner of any animal, but there will always be the chance of the occasional canine escape. Whether by owner negligence(leaving the gate open/unlocked), or by the resourcefulness of the dog. I've had dogs that climb trees to get at animals/intruders. If that tree was close to a fence, that'd be the dog's means of escaping its confines. Some dogs are determined diggers, while others can jump clear over a 6' fence if they have enough of a run. I'm not making excuses, just pointing out things that can & do occur. In life, there are no 100% ironclad guarantees in anything.

And owners MUST agree that should their dog get loose and kill anyone OUTSIDE of their compound that they are 100% liable to stand a MURDER Charge(the owner).

Killing a man because of the actions of a dog, to me, makes no sense. A manslaughter charge, coupled with the penalty of compensating the victims family for pain & suffering & loss of earnings would be more appropriate. If a dog is resourceful & escapes his confines despite his owners best/numerous efforts & mortally wounds someone, the dog's owner must be put to death? Leaving possible wife, husband, children, siblings, parents & relatives to suffer? From a DOG'S actions? Not reasonable, imho, & far more costly to the state as well. There are better methods than that

[kg494EJ-1]

RIPEBREDFRUIT, I am someone who tries to see the picture from all sides and I can see your point in addition to 88sins, but as someone from a working class family who has recently lost a 300K+ vehicle even though TTPS has been given all the information on a silver platter and they have yet to do anything but where quick to warn me and tell me I'm not police so if I act they will lock me up.

I rather have the ability to know that if someone enters my yard I may have some retribution, but seeing that the government seems to disagree with me in that case I may now have to face a court and fine if my dog is protecting what is mine.

I am all for deterring delinquent (possible delinquent) owners and promoting responsible dog ownership, but the law in itself is flawed, without the proper infrastructure there will be problems and not teething problems just problem, hell even corruption after all is Trini.
There have been no set guidelines to things as what is a secured property ,etc. an example of this as we all know is tint where it is judged by the person in-charge that day or happens to be passing.

There is still quite quite a bit left to be done. But as I have stated before in this thread Breed Specific Legislation has been tried in other nations including those that this bill was drafted from and in the end it failed and miserably.

Lets see if in TnT it works

[RIPEBREDFRUIT]

I agree

BUT above ALL, the owner MUST have the PROPER Area to secure their animals so that there is NO danger to innocent people.

This is very reasonable to ask of any owner of any animal, but there will always be the chance of the occasional canine escape. Whether by owner negligence(leaving the gate open/unlocked), or by the resourcefulness of the dog. I've had dogs that climb trees to get at animals/intruders. If that tree was close to a fence, that'd be the dog's means of escaping its confines. Some dogs are determined diggers, while others can jump clear over a 6' fence if they have enough of a run. I'm not making excuses, just pointing out things that can & do occur. In life, there are no 100% ironclad guarantees in anything.

And owners MUST agree that should their dog get loose and kill anyone OUTSIDE of their compound that they are 100% liable to stand a MURDER Charge(the owner).

Killing a man because of the actions of a dog, to me, makes no sense. A manslaughter charge, coupled with the penalty of compensating the victims family for pain & suffering & loss of earnings would be more appropriate. If a dog is resourceful & escapes his confines despite his owners best/numerous efforts & mortally wounds someone, the dog's owner must be put to death? Leaving possible wife, husband, children, siblings, parents & relatives to suffer? From a DOG'S actions? Not reasonable, imho, & far more costly to the state as well. There are better methods than that

LOL- I didn't say put the owner to death, I said the owner should stand trial for MURDER , yes animals that are strong willed will always try to find a way to escape, but in that process if they kill someone then I see no reason why the owner should NOT be charged and JAILED.

[JJ16]

I agree

BUT above ALL, the owner MUST have the PROPER Area to secure their animals so that there is NO danger to innocent people.

This is very reasonable to ask of any owner of any animal, but there will always be the chance of the occasional canine escape. Whether by owner negligence(leaving the gate open/unlocked), or by the resourcefulness of the dog. I've had dogs that climb trees to get at animals/intruders. If that tree was close to a fence, that'd be the dog's means of escaping its confines. Some dogs are determined diggers, while others can jump clear over a 6' fence if they have enough of a run. I'm not making excuses, just pointing out things that can & do occur. In life, there are no 100% ironclad guarantees in anything.

And owners MUST agree that should their dog get loose and kill anyone OUTSIDE of their compound that they are 100% liable to stand a MURDER Charge(the owner).

Killing a man because of the actions of a dog, to me, makes no sense. A manslaughter charge, coupled with the penalty of compensating the victims family for pain & suffering & loss of earnings would be more appropriate. If a dog is resourceful & escapes his confines despite his owners best/numerous efforts & mortally wounds someone, the dog's owner must be put to death? Leaving possible wife, husband, children, siblings, parents & relatives to suffer? From a DOG'S actions? Not reasonable, imho, & far more costly to the state as well. There are better methods than that

LOL- I didn't say put the owner to death, I said the owner should stand trial for MURDER , yes animals that are strong willed will always try to find a way to escape, but in that process if they kill someone then I see no reason why the owner should NOT be charged and JAILED.

I was following you, up 2 a certain point...

This suggestion is totally IDIOTIC, no disrespect to you btw.

but the idea is stupid...

If my dog (who is resourceful) escapes and it is NO fault of mine, why should i stand the charge of murder?

Thats like saying the mechanic was fixing your car, and for some reason when you mash the brake pedal u got no brake, killed a man and the mechanic now has to go to jail... in essence he was responsible, since he was suppose to ensure the operational safety of your vehicle....

Fact is, sometimes these things happen... and sentencing someone who did NOTHING wrong, to jail is similarly like stated "death" as life as you know it will come to a complete halt.



This law IMO is stupid, and premature.. Pitbulls (as stated before in this thread) are being placed in the spotlight because of the few negligent owners... As well as if you train your pit bull to attack a "man in a foam suit" and reward him for it, when he attacks a person, he thinks that it should be rewarded and not punished...

So if the dog escapes and it was no fault of the owner, you cannot / should not hold the owner responsible. If the owner is negligent or at fault in ANY form or fashion, then fair enough hold them responsible.

[snatman]

[88sins]

Nice specimen. Perfect example of piss poor handling, & most likely no real training given to the animal.

[src1983]

The sad cost of this bill

Hopefully he'll be ok enough tomorrow when they take him to the vet

[pioneer]

T&T Canine Advocates ripping that flawed bill to shreds on fb.

So many loopholes, AG knows it...this bill was just to please talknah society.

[Spitfir3]

and it will AG would also end up looking like some sort of hero and have something to brag about until he retires

[JJ16]

T&T Canine Advocates ripping that flawed bill to shreds on fb.

So many loopholes, AG knows it...this bill was just to please talknah society.

I would love to see some of the flaws .... if you have the link post it please, or if its a private page and you can just copy and paste the information.

[88sins]

@src
how that fella doing? he able to eat/drink/move? he looking real weak in that pic.

[src1983]

@src
how that fella doing? he able to eat/drink/move? he looking real weak in that pic.

He's at the vet recovering now, they're keeping him till he gains weight and strength.

And the really good news, he's soon to be adopted

[Cube God]

Have anyone read the completed act, a section states that any person working in the ministry is exempted from paying any insurance and can have his or her dog breed to secure there home or work........... Allyuh read the fine print in that sheit............. anand dumb-Logan has done it again....... He and aunty kamla safe........... And the poor and working class left to catch dey ass and fall prey to dem bandits......... Ah next ting the fine for havin such ah dog is wa $250000 I tink and d charge for ah illegal gun first offence is $200 wen I get rid of my dog cuz me eh paying dat insurance I goin n buy ah 9's I hav my family to protect to......

[src1983]

Post it please

Or link, I want to see that for myself

[pluggie]

Have anyone read the completed act, a section states that any person working in the ministry is exempted from paying any insurance and can have his or her dog breed to secure there home or work........... Allyuh read the fine print in that sheit............. anand dumb-Logan has done it again....... He and aunty kamla safe........... And the poor and working class left to catch dey ass and fall prey to dem bandits......... Ah next ting the fine for havin such ah dog is wa $250000 I tink and d charge for ah illegal gun first offence is $200 wen I get rid of my dog cuz me eh paying dat insurance I goin n buy ah 9's I hav my family to protect to......

Not a valid argument ... A gun is probably more lethal than a dog but a gun can't act on its own and dying by gunshot is probably less gruesome than being ripped to pieces by a dog (the dog doesn't always kill 'bad guys' )...

[DrunkenMaster16]

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
PRESS RELEASE

Proclamation of Specified Sections of the Dog Control Act, 2013
We wish to clarify certain misconceptions regarding the partial proclamation of the Dog Control Act, 2013 (as amended by the Dog Control (Amendment) Act, 2014.

As was previously indicated by the Attorney General it was the intention of the Government to proclaim those sections of the Dog Control Act, 2013, which did not require Regulations to be in place before it could come into force (see Trinidad and Tobago Express article titled “Ramlogan: Make Dog Control Act a law immediately” dated March 19, 2014, Trinidad and Tobago Newsday article titled “Mauled to death” dated March 26, 2014, and Trinidad and Tobago Express article titled “AG hoping for immediate proclamation of Dog Control Act” dated March 26, 2014).

Cabinet’s decision of March 26, 2014, that those sections which do not require Regulations will be brought into operation followed the fatal maulings of Ms. Lillian Bunsee, 82, and Ms. Sylvia Roberts, 84, who were both victims of vicious and merciless attacks by pitbulls.

The sections which were proclaimed included the offences which carry serious penalties and restrictions designed to protect and safeguard innocent members of the public.

His Excellency President Anthony Thomas Aquinas Carmona has, in accordance with the decision of Cabinet made on March 26th 2014, proclaimed specified sections of the Dog Control Act, 2013 (as amended by the Dog Control (Amendment) Act, 2014) shall come into operation on June 2nd, 2014. A detailed breakdown of the sections that have been proclaimed and are therefore now part of the laws of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is as follows:

SECTION PROCLAIMED
PURPOSE OF THE SECTION
1 Provides the title of the law.
2 Provides that the law shall come into operation on a date specified by the President.
3 Provides that the law shall have effect even though it may be inconsistent with certain rights in the Constitution.
4 Provides for the definition of certain terms used in the Act.
5 Provides that no dog is allowed to enter a public space where a notice is displayed prohibiting entry to dogs unless the dog is an assistance dog, the dog is being used to secure the location or the dog is being used by a person in the service of the State.
5A Provides that every person who owns or keeps a dog shall provide it with adequate and appropriate care, food, water, shelter, exercise, attention and veterinary care as may be required to meet the needs of the dog.

8 Provides that the owner or keeper of a class A dog who is unable to fulfill the requirements of the Act may inform the Ministry of Local Government of such and the Ministry of Local Government will take possession of the dog.

14 Provides that class A dogs shall be kept in the enclosed premises of its owner or keeper and that class A dogs cannot be kept in premises, either indoors or outdoors, that accommodate more than one household.

15 Creates an offence for any owner or keeper of a class A dog to abandon that dog. A person who abandons their dog is liable to a fine of fifty thousand dollars and to imprisonment for two (2) years.

17 Provides that the owner or keeper of a class A dog can be found liable in civil proceedings for any death, injury or damage caused by that dog.

18 Provides that a person who owns a class A dog must display a notice in a prominent place on his property warning of a dangerous dog. It also provides that the
owner or keeper of any other type of dog which has been dangerously out of control on at least one occasion must also display a notice in a prominent place warning of a dangerous dog.

19 Provides that the owner or keeper of a class A dog is liable to a fine of one hundred thousand dollars and to five years imprisonment if their dog unreasonably injures someone. It also provides that the owner or keeper of a class A dog is liable to a fine of two hundred thousand dollars and to ten years imprisonment if their dog unreasonably kills someone.

20 Provides that it shall be a criminal offence for a person to incite their dog to cause grievous bodily harm or death to another person.

21 Empowers the Court to make orders to deal with dogs that fall under the Act.

22 Empowers a police constable or officer of the local authority to seize and impound a class A dog which is in a public place in breach of section 5 or is on any premises without the consent of the owner or occupier of those premises.

23 Empowers a Magistrate to issue a warrant to enter and search premises under certain circumstances concerning the Act.

24 Provides for veterinary surgeons acting in their professional capacity to be exempt from holding a license for a class A dog. It also provides that the owner of an establishment for the reception of stray animals is not required to hold a license under the Act. However, in both cases the class A dog must be adequately secured to prevent the escape of the dog.

25 Empowers the local authority to issue notices to owners of keepers of class A dogs for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act. Where these notices are not complied with the local authority is empowered to put down the class A dog.

26 Makes it easier for the victim of a dog bite (caused by any type of dog) to sue the owner or keeper of the dog for compensation.

26A
Empowers the Minister to declare any other type of dog
7 to be subject to the same restrictions as a Class A dog.
28 Empowers the Minister to make regulations pursuant to the Act.
30 Repeals the Dangerous Dogs Act, 2000.

Schedule

Specifies the following six breeds of dogs as dangerous (or class A) breeds: the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, the American Bully, the Dogo Argentino, the Japanese Tosa and the Fila Brasileiro.

The Ministry of the Attorney General wishes to make it clear that it is the above referred to sections, and the above sections alone, which are currently in force in Trinidad and Tobago.

As was previously indicated by the Attorney General (see above articles), it is only those sections of the law that do not require supporting regulations which are being proclaimed. Regulations are currently being finalized. The draft Regulations will have to be laid in Parliament and a subsequent announcement will be made when the sections dependent on those Regulations are to be proclaimed.

The sections which have not been proclaimed and are therefore not yet part of the laws of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago are as follows”

SECTION NOT PROCLAIMED
PURPOSE OF THE SECTION

6 Provides requirements for the registration of class A dogs.
7 Provides requirements for the licensing of class A dogs.
9 Creates an obligation to secure premises to a degree to be determined in the Regulations.
10 Creates an offense for a person to keep an unlicensed class A dog.
11 Creates an obligation on the owner or keeper of a class A dog to obtain a policy of insurance of not less than $250,000.00.
12 Creates obligations on the owner or keeper of a class A dog with regards to the cancellation or lapse of a policy of insurance.

13 Provides requirements for the joinder of an insurer as a co-defendant in civil proceedings.

16 Creates an obligation on the owner or keeper of a class A dog to have the dog trained by a certified dog trainer.

25A Provides for a body corporate to be held liable to a fine of two hundred thousand dollars for offences under the Act.

27 States that a person who keeps more than five class A dogs is to be deemed as operating a kennel and shall be subject to Regulations pertaining to kennels.

29 Repeals sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Dogs Act.

Please be guided accordingly.

Dated: Monday 2nd June, 2014

Ministry of the Attorney General
Republic of Trinidad and Tobago

[1UZFE]

Where or who do 1 call to Euthanize dogs.? My friend hav a dog that got pavo he only have abt 2days to live but she cant bare to see him suffer so she want to put him.out of his pain..

[DVSTT]

My dog was in a similar situation, basically dead, however that was 7 years ago and she is still with us, thanks to our vet. You'd be surprised what they can come back from if you give them a fighting chance

[bossmann]

My dog was in a similar situation, basically dead, however that was 7 years ago and she is still with us, thanks to our vet. You'd be surprised what they can come back from if you give them a fighting chance

agreed.

[*$kїđž!™]

Guys what kinda dog os considered Class A that would fall in this dangerous dog act...
Looking to get a puppy for the kid so dont wanna get myself in any issues....

ok think i found it here....

http://www.ttparliament.org/legislations/b2014h01g.pdf

rottweiller not included?

[88sins]

rotties not included, but can be later according to the whims & fancies of local gov't officials at any time they see fit.
my advice, don't waste your time trying to study about what breed. Passing a law is easy, enforcing it when the majority of the population is against it is a whole other story

[DVSTT]

rotties not included, but can be later according to the whims & fancies of local gov't officials at any time they see fit.
my advice, don't waste your time trying to study about what breed. Passing a law is easy, enforcing it when the majority of the population is against it is a whole other story

Enforcement is always our down fall.

[src1983]

They still don't even know what chip they want to use. My vet said they are planning to use some outdated chip that no one in the world uses any more

[*$kїđž!™]

well the pup I may get is a rott mix ....mix with what I dunno....prob pot.....
guess I good to go there.....