Postby DrunkenMaster16 » March 18th, 2014, 11:04 pm
Dr.Kriyaan Singh
The basis of this Dog C ontrol act is that we assume that certain breeds of dog, pitbull and its types and three other breeds which there are only about 10 in Trinidad , are in fact the breeds capable of causing grievous bodily harm by bite and death.
We must accept that this assumption by the government is based not on scientific data; but rather on scandalization, perversion and reckless inaccuracies of dog attacks by the Media. Their inaccuracy can be seen just from all the reports of " Dangerous Dog Act passed " the act isn't even called that. We cannot use the Media reports as a database to make these decisions and law. The much referenced attack on a pregnant woman has been incorrectly highlighted as being pitbulls without any breed standard being used to determine the breed of the dogs involved.
Another attack reported it was perpetrated by a pitbull, published a photograph of a pitbull in the newspapers when the actual dog attack was by a German Shepherd crossed with Akita. So I ask this senate to take these " local statistics" for what they really are; not facts but glamorization and scandalization to sell newspaper and inadvertently target the pitbull. Accurate headlines should have simply and correctly stated " A dangerous Dog".
The attempt by the MP who is also a veterinarian to paint a picture of gore and relentlessness of the pitbull breed should also be disregarded this honorable MP Dr Glenn Ramadarsingh tried to highlight and insight fear against this breed by stating it can bite on and hang its entire body weight by the strength of its jaws. What this honorable Dr Glenn Ramadaesingh failed to mention, probably he is not educated in the field sufficiently, that all breeds of dogs can hold up their entire body weight by their jaws! I reference Millers Anatomy of the Dog, a text used worldwide at veterinary schools: that it is in fact " an evolutionary trait to enable a dog, descendants of the Grey Wolf, to hunt prey that are attempting to escape after being bitten. Must I remind this honorable MP that dogs and the grey wolf , hunt in packs and can only bring down a prey larger than itself when sufficient members of the pack collectively have a body weight , pinned by the jaw, heavier than the prey animal.
It would therefore stand to reason that a dog be classified as potentially " dangerous" not by its breed but by its body weight. It's weight would be a representation of its size and its ability to bite, hold on and overpower a human being. Seeing as the average weight of an unsupervised child should be around 25kg I would recommend such a weight as the lower
limit for a Class A dog
The intention of this Dog Control Act to use kennel clubs' description of a breed standard is also controversial. The intention to use the Canadian and American kennel club is ridiculous considering that American pitbull terrier and American bully is not recognized by either club! The United Kennel Club recognizes the American Pitbull Terrier as "excellent family companions and have always been noted for their love of children....it is not the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers." It fails to reach the breed standard for " viciousness or extreme shyness". So how can we use a breed standard that says this breed is harmless to then implicate it as a " dangerous dog". Further more the complexity of measuring for Breed Standards is very time consuming and vets are not trained to do this. This is however the job of a qualified Breed Judge of which only 3 exist in Trinidad. With this factor in consideration I again put forward the suggestion of the TTVA and myself to use a dogs body weight as determination of class.
Could I for the record state that it was never the private veterinarians intention to use this act to make money. In fact it was the TTVA suggestion that registration and certification be done by the local government council. And I suggested the microchipping be done by Government Veterinarians who are paid a fixed salary regardless of the number of dogs they see. This will remove this ridiculous connotation that vets are trying to make money by this act. Furthermore the euthanasia and death certification of these Class Adogs should be done by the government veterinarian not a private practitioner. In the same way humans are registered by the government and certified dead by a DMO. This would remove any conflict of interest between the private vet and clients.
It would then be the government authority who will delegate over its own employees. As for the expected argument that there aren't sufficient government vets to deal with this problem, my simple suggestion is to creat more position! Employ more Vets in the Government Service. Each year an average of 30 new Local veterinarians are graduated all of whom have had their tuition fully paid for by Tax Payers. According to GATE they are suppose to work back for the government for at least 5 years. Remember when medical doctors are needed in the public health care positions are created. So I say hire new graduates in the government service and let the government service handale the needs of this act.
The role of the local government council has to be seriously addressed. The Dog Act 1918 called for the registration of all dogs at the local council. Has anyone in parliament attempted to register their dogs? Since the answer is " NO" are we all criminals? If you go to the local council in San Fernando they will tell you they have no system for registering dogs. And this is infrastructure tat has had 96 years to be in place. So how can we now claim suddenly the infrastructure will be there. If you call the dog catchers to deal with a stray dangerous dog they will tell you they have no vehicle and to call the police. If you call the police they will tell you they are not trained to deal with that situation and to call a vet. So infrastructure needs to be first put in place to deal with the existing Dog Act 1918 before we claim this new act will be properly enforced.
To say here that there is no money to do this demonstrates an unwillingness to try but also a direct admission that this proposed law will not work. $24 M could have paid for the infrastructure instead of renting and securing an empty building. We cannot be claiming there is no money for this infrastructure when money is being thrown away. Infrastructure that the Dog Act 1918 , 96 years now, has called for. Furthermore what infrastructure has been put in place since the Dangerous Dog Act 2000 and its re-emergence in 2012 and then now . Nothing has been done.
The hope that the pound in San Fernando ( which is in deplorable condition) and other shelters would rescue these discarded and relinquished dogs is a fairy tale. Currently the San Fernando pound is in shambles both infrastructural lay and organizationally. No dangerous dog can be securely or humanely kept there. The TTSPCA is overcrowded currently and cannot accept any more dogs. Animal Alive who were given a grant has only 50 kennels and intend to build 50 more. However their policy is no kill so those 50 kennels will be occupied for the dogs entire life. Their figures show in excess of 300 pitbulls needing to be rehoused in the last two years. So they clearly cannot be expected to play an adequate role in dealing with the subsequent release of pitbulls this act will cause.
The result is that these dogs will in fact have to be euthanized. Which leads me to my next point.
There is again an MP who is a veterinary surgeon and who I would hope have alerted the government of the flaws in the Veterinary Surgeons Act. I wonder if this honorable MP Dr Glenn Ramadarsingh made the Minister of Food Production aware that currently in Trinidad there are a number of quacks who are not veterinarians , that fraudulently portray themselves as veterinarians and doctors of veterinary medicine. For example a Mr Manmohan Ramnarine of Matilda issues Vaccination Certificates and signs prescriptions in the name of the owner or veterinarian of Centaur Veterinary Services. Gail in Point Fortin and Rousillac is doing the same in the name of the owner of Centaur Veterinary Services. Neither of which are veterinarians! I wonder I the honorable Dr Glenn Ramadarsingh who is a veterinarian and stated during the Dog Control act debate stated " I am no longer actively involved in the profession" , can recall or is aware of which veterinarian is the owner if Centaur Veterinary Services. I am sure the media can investigate and inform the public with an upcoming headline.
And there are many more. Chad Dixon, working fraudulently as a vet using the vaccination certificates of the long deceased Dr Ernest Caesar. Chunilal Narine in Rio Claro, Raymond Ramnarine in San Francique and Lisa Rampaul in Garth Road. All of whom are fraudulently working under the guise of being certified veterinarians.
Mr Raymond Ramnarine was recently advertising Husky puppies for sale which were smuggled into the country from Venezuela. Is the Minister of National Security , Senator the Honorable Gary Griffith aware if this, because I know he has a fondness for venezuelan Huskies. Huskies which are one if the top 5 breeds of dog responsible for the majority if dangerous dog attacks in the USA cited by Mr Colm Imbert. Coming unvaccinated from a country which has canine Rabies!
The Fyzabad Veterinary Clinic owned by Dr Anil Ramnanan the Conciliate for Miami is run by a non veterinarian Terrence Mark for over 12 years. And Dr Anil Ramnanan ordered the dismissal of an employee of the conciliate for lying on his résumé.
And my point is that when a dog owner is faced with having to certify his dog at a Registered and Certified Veterinarian and insurance he will seek out these quacks. He will go to all attempts to avoid cost and legal implication. He may even seek euthanasia for his dog at the hands of these non- vets, who are writing fake prescriptions for the lethal injection drug or stealing ketamine, one of the date rape drugs, from the government veterinary services to euthanize dogs illegally.
I recognize that the Dog Control Act specifies euthanasia is to carried out only by veterinarians but what is being done to ensure the " vet " that dog owners are seeing is in fact a qualified veterinarian. So I ask that before any attempt is made to pass a Dog Control Act we must review the Veterinary Surgeons Act and enable the proper control of the veterinary field and the eradication of quacks.
As for veterinarians being willing to euthanize healthy dogs on the basis of them being classified according to breed as dangerous without showing any tendency to attack; it goes agains the veterinary oath and what we are taught. "Primum non nocere" - Above all do No Harm. So I assure you that any ethically sound veterinarian would not be euthanizing dogs to enforce this act.
The veterinary fraternity of Trinidad and Tobago recognizes the need for dog control. They have been told that the government has taken into consideration their suggestions but the government is adamant that its policy is against dangerous breeds, in particular pitbulls. So in other words they have by and large thrown out the suggestions of the professionals but expect the same professionals to carry out the law. The TTVA has suggested a dog registration based on a dogs weight and body condition score. I must remind the government that without the cooperation of the veterinarians this law cannot work. They have already said they will not certify any dog by breed for the purposes of this law.
My Advice to the government is as follows:
1. Completely repeal the Dog Control Act and Dangerous Dog Act
2. Put the necessary infrastructure in place first before trying to pass an act like this. It's intention can already be enforceable by the Dog Act 1918, with minor amendments to the technological requirements for registering such as microchipping and increasing of the fines and penalties.
3.Subsequently amend the act to classification of a dogs potential to be dangerous in terms of Weight and Body Condition Score, NOT breed.
4.Let all registration , certification, microchip ping and euthanasia of seized, stray and relinquished dogs due to this law be by the local government council authority and government veterinary services. A dogs registration permit or license must be presented to any attending veterinarian.
5. Let death certificates also be issued by the government veterinarian services for class A or dangerous dogs.
6.Expand the government service to employ more vets and include small animal or companion animal services for the needs of such an act.
7. Just as with farmers registering and receiving subsidized veterinary care and reductions in vat and duties on equipment, so to registered dog owners may be able to access subsidized pricing for the microchipping, fencing, dog food etc. This would encourage owners of non class A / dangerous dogs to also seek to register their dogs.
8.Empower the police and local authority with proper equipment,training and facilities to seize from a delinquent owner any dog kept in an unhealthy or inhumane manner. Fines and imprisonment should be strictly enforced.
9. In the event that insurance becomes a necessary part of a dog control act it should be afforded to all persons owning a dog and not based on house insurance. Keep in mind house insurance only covers for incidences occurring within the confines of the house, not dangerous dogs outside their yard. Written assurance must be established before the law that ATTIC has in place Dog Insurance.
Only after these changes are made should veterinarians be obligated to :
1. Educate their clients about their ownership of a class A (according to weight and BCS) and the need to have it certified and registered by the local authority.
2.Issue a referral for certification that is recorded by the veterinarian.
3.Report to the relevant authority the failure of such clients to have their dog registered after a stipulated time.
These amendments would make a Dog Control Act a stepping stone to the ideal of all dogs being registered, identifiable, traceable, humanely treated and at the same time achieve the government's' and veterinary surgeons' intention to have a safer dog population and responsible owners.
It is with all these factors in mind that I cannot as a Veterinarian, Trinidadian, animal lover and an independent senator agree with these amendment or Dog Control Act. And I ask my fellow senators , independent, oppositional and government to oppose it in its current state.
Couldn't be happier my vet is an independent senator!