Dangerous Dogs Act - Trinidad and Tobago

[Sumana.00]

This is one of the many flaws of the bill. Another one being how are they going to determine what ia a pit bull as tradionally it was not a registered breed. Are they going to dna test my dog? Does any dog resembling a pit going to be ahot as well? We contacted a few insurance companies today that said NO they are not going to provide coverage for us. I wonder if mr Winston Peters ia goibg to get rid of his dogs also.

For general knowledge, an idea of how the Act has been dealt with in UK Courts:

Parker v Annan whether dog a "pit bull terrier type"
Abstract: P appealed against conviction under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, s.1(3), arguing that the sheriff should have held that she had established under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, s.5(5) that her dog was not of the pit bull terrier type. P had led evidence that while her dog looked like a pit bull terrier, its mother was a pure bred Staffordshire bull terrier and its father a Staffordshire bull terrier-cross dog. Her witness had opined that "the type known as the pit bull terrier" in s.1(1) meant the American pit bull terrier, which could be distinguished by its gameness or aggressive characteristics. He had attempted to provoke the dog, which had failed to respond.

Held, appeal refused. In referring to "type" and not "breed" of dog the Act suggested a general test by reference to recognised characteristics rather than a particular test by reference to breeding or pedigree. It did not refer to "American" dogs and was not intended to be so confined: a broad and practical approach should be taken. It had been established that the dog resembled a pit bull terrier more than any other type of dog. The evidence as to its behavioural characteristics was for the sheriff to assess and his conclusion was not unreasonable where he found that not all pit bull terriers by pedigree possessed the gameness characteristic.

R. v Knightsbridge Crown Court Ex p. Dunne pit bull terrier; definition of "type"; whether equivalent to "breed"
Abstract: The phrase "type known as pit bull terrier" in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s.1 applies to any dog having a substantial number of the physical characteristics of a pit bull terrier. D applied for judicial review of a decision on the meaning of s.1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. D contended that the words "dog of the type" should be construed in a technical sense so that "type" was equivalent to "breed" Held, dismissing the application, that the word "type" in the section is not synonymous with "breed". Section 1 applies to any dog having a substantial number or most of the characteristics of a pit bull terrier.


Annan v Troup
Abstract: A, a procurator fiscal, appealed against the decision that T's dog was not of the type known as pit bull terrier, arguing that the sheriff, having held that it looked like a pit bull terrier, had erred in taking into account that it was a domestic pet with a placid temperament and was in good bodily condition.
Held, appeal allowed and case remitted to the sheriff withdirection to convict. The sheriff has misdirected himself (a) in regarding it as significant that the dog's mother had not been impounded where there was no evidence of the reason for this (further, the fact that one parent was not of the requisite type did not establish the same for its offspring), and (b) in taking into account the factors referred to, which had no bearing on the question (Braintree DC v Howard [1993] R.T.R. 193, followed). There was insufficient evidence to displace the presumption that the dog was of the type named in the charge.

Briscoe v Shattock Meaning of Dangerous
Abstract: B appealed by way of case stated against an order of justices requiring him to keep his two large dogs under control. B had tried to ensure that the dogs were under control by erecting a fence at his property, using a special lead when walking them and taking them to dog training classes. However, after the dogs attacked a neighbour's dog which died as a result of its injuries, the justices issued an order on the application of S, the Chief Constable, having concluded that the dogs were "dangerous" and "not kept under proper control" in terms of the Dogs Act 1871 s.2. B argued that s.2 was not intended to apply to fights between dogs, and that "dangerous" meant dangerous to humans or to specific animals, such as cattle, sheep, horses or poultry, which were expressly referred to in the Dogs Act 1906 and the Dogs (Amendment) Act 1928 in relation to a dog owner's civil liability for injuries caused by his dog.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that the justices had been rightly advised that "dangerous" was to be given its ordinary everyday meaning, and there was no justification for construing it in the way B suggested. The proper approach was for the justices to ask whether a dog was dangerous by reference to its nature and disposition.

R v Baballa (Moses)
Abstract: The appellant (B) appealed against destruction orders made in respect of three dogs following his pleas of guilty to three offences of having in his possession a pit bull terrier contrary to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s.1(3). B had been in a public park with four dogs: three terriers and a mongrel. The dogs, who were not leashed, had surrounded a passer-by (X) who had run towards B. They had barked and jumped up at him and the mongrel had bitten him a number of times. There was no dispute that that dog should be destroyed. A police dog-handler examined the three other dogs and concluded that they fell within s.1 of the Act. He noted that while being examined they had a good temperament and showed no signs of aggression. A defence expert, a retired veterinary surgeon and the former chief veterinary officer at Crufts, considered that the three dogs did not constitute a danger to the public if properly restrained by a responsible adult, and that the incident could have happened with any type of dog in similar circumstances. He recommended that the dogs be entered onto the index of exempted dogs pursuant to s.1(5) of the Act. The judge took the view that the dogs were attack animals, and was not satisfied that they did not cause a danger to public safety. B submitted that the evidence of his expert witness was clear and there were no grounds for the judge to reject it. He argued that any risk of the type envisaged by the judge would be met by the dogs being made the subject of certificates of exemption, subject to appropriate conditions.

Appeal allowed. The destruction orders would be set aside and replaced with orders under s.4A(1) to the effect that unless each dog was exempted from the prohibition under s.1 within two months, it was to be destroyed. It was only the mongrel who had bitten X. Though the remaining dogs had barked and jumped up at him, it might well be that his actions in running at B and grabbing at his clothing appeared to the dogs to be a threat or an act of aggression. The Act did not require the destruction of every dog to which it applied, only those whose individual characteristics meant that the court could not be satisfied that they did not constitute a danger to public safety. The real mischief in the instant case was that B had attempted to take out four dogs without leads, thereby putting himself in a position where he was unable to control them effectively. The position would have been entirely different had the dogs been muzzled and properly restrained on leads. The principles enunciated in the case of R. v Flack (Michael James) [2008] EWCA Crim 204, [2008] 2 Cr. App. R. (S.) 70 were applicable to s.1(3) of the Act as they were to s.3(1), Flack applied. Before ordering the destruction of the dogs the judge should have considered whether to make contingent destruction orders under s.4A(1). He should have considered whether he could be satisfied that the imposition of the conditions which would be attached to a certificate of exemption would be sufficient to ensure that the dogs would not constitute a danger to public safety. Had Flack been brought to the judge's attention, and had he followed the approach therein, he would have been satisfied that a contingent order of destruction would suffice. The expert evidence before him was to the effect that the dogs would not be dangerous if properly restrained. There was no evidence that B had failed properly to restrain his dogs on any other occasion and the judge had made no order disqualifying him from owning or being in control of dogs. Were a certificate of exemption in force, with requirements to keep the dogs muzzled and on a lead in a public place, B would have every incentive to keep them under proper control in the future, lest further proceedings be brought against him for breach.

[MG Man]

soooooooooo.............what would all you guys propose instead, to ensure another person is never mauled by someone's dog ever again?

[Dizzy28]

soooooooooo.............what would all you guys propose instead, to ensure another person is never mauled by someone's dog ever again?

Why you be asking a logical question??

[Habit7]

soooooooooo.............what would all you guys propose instead, to ensure another person is never mauled by someone's dog ever again?

Get this guy to lobby for them, I havent yet heard a cogent arguement against the smelter but those who dont want it as surely convinced.

[Chimera]

TTSPCA: T&T Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - North Branch
7 minutes ago
It begins....the relinquishment of Pits has begun - Vets and the TTSPCA have their phones ringing off the hooks with people that want to give up/put to sleep their pet Pits....It is a sad day for Trinidad..

[MG Man]

^^^not as sad as days for families of those who were mauled

[Mudboy]

TTSPCA: T&T Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - North Branch
7 minutes ago
It begins....the relinquishment of Pits has begun - Vets and the TTSPCA have their phones ringing off the hooks with people that want to give up/put to sleep their pet Pits....It is a sad day for Trinidad..

It was a sad day when small man get his jaw eaten up by a dog too......a four year old

[Halfbreed07]

soooooooooo.............what would all you guys propose instead, to ensure another person is never mauled by someone's dog ever again?

a bill that punishes the act not the breed, the irresponsible owner is responsible for the dog mauling its he? the dog is doing what it was trained to do, that like saying you are killing all cows cause they sheit in the road.
the owner is liable not the dog breed.

[Mudboy]

soooooooooo.............what would all you guys propose instead, to ensure another person is never mauled by someone's dog ever again?

a bill that punishes the act not the breed, the irresponsible owner is responsible for the dog mauling its he? the dog is doing what it was trained to do, that like saying you are killing all cows cause they sheit in the road.
the owner is liable not the dog breed.

Cow sheit don't bite and kill kids.....don't see the correlation there.....

[Chimera]

^^^not as sad as days for families of those who were mauled

its the "responsible" owners who going to send their dogs to the TTSPCA for adoption or really to put to sleep because who gonna adopt a pit now considering the cost?

the fellas on the block just going to dump their pits on the side of the road to maul the public at large.

[Mudboy]

Nobody say to give away your dog or kill it......if you love your animal oh so much...get the permit and get the insurance....and save the dog....simple.

[Halfbreed07]

soooooooooo.............what would all you guys propose instead, to ensure another person is never mauled by someone's dog ever again?

a bill that punishes the act not the breed, the irresponsible owner is responsible for the dog mauling its he? the dog is doing what it was trained to do, that like saying you are killing all cows cause they sheit in the road.
the owner is liable not the dog breed.

Cow sheit don't bite and kill kids.....don't see the correlation there.....

how are the dogs able to bite people?
does only the pitbull bite people?

[MG Man]

either way, the end result is that people will be less at risk..............as to the price we have to pay........well it's the life of a few humans weighed against several hundred(guessing) dogs..........but keep in mind, there are many 'respectable' people who have such dogs without proper security, so it will always be a grey area..........I love my dogs too, and am happy one is a pothound and the other is a callalloo of shepherd, belgian shepherd, rot and doberman.........so yes it saddens me the fate of so many dogs, but a line has to be drawn at some point, and wherever it is drawn, there will be casualties...........which brings me back to the question...........what other solution is there, from those in opposition to the act?

[S_2NR]

This reminds me of when this young boy got his hand bitten off trying to thief mangoes from our yard. Youth man stand up on a 8 foot fence trying to reach mango. German shepherd take notice and jump and grab he hand. I was right there watching with my bag of popcorn.
:lol:

[Chimera]

^^^ can you really say "too cheap" when you basically hadda insure something to the tune of $250k PER animal, plus $500 a year for a permit per animal

now two kinds of people alone will have the dogs, the rich and the drug runners.

[Mudboy]

soooooooooo.............what would all you guys propose instead, to ensure another person is never mauled by someone's dog ever again?

a bill that punishes the act not the breed, the irresponsible owner is responsible for the dog mauling its he? the dog is doing what it was trained to do, that like saying you are killing all cows cause they sheit in the road.
the owner is liable not the dog breed.

Cow sheit don't bite and kill kids.....don't see the correlation there.....

how are the dogs able to bite people?
does only the pitbull bite people?

Betsy run down CBH already...but never bite him up......

[Greypatch]

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2012-04-16/dangerous-dogs-act-goes-force-august-1

Twelve years after it was debated and passed in Parliament with a three-fifths majority, the Dangerous Dogs Act will take effect from August 1. This follows a Cabinet decision last Thursday to enforce the law by Proclamation of the President. The Act prohibits importation and breeding of three categories of dogs, the Pitbull Terrier, Fila Brasiliero and Japanese Tosa.



The Minister of Local Government will have the power to declare any other type of dog dangerous if they present a serious danger to the public. In a release yesterday, the Ministry of the Attorney General said the law was being enforced because of recent and growing attacks on citizens by pitbulls. “The facts show that often these dangerous dogs are not properly trained or secured. In recent times, dangerous dogs have been allowed to escape onto the road and attack persons, causing severe injuries and, in some cases, death,” the ministry stated.



Within three months of the law coming into force, owners of dangerous dogs must have them spayed or neutered by a veterinary surgeon and they must be registered with the Ministry of Local Government. Dog owners must also obtain an annual licence from their municipal corporation at a cost of $500 a dog.
In addition, they must have at least $250,000 worth of insurance for each dog. Citizens who keep or own unlicensed dangerous dogs will be liable to be fined $50,000 and one year imprisonment on summary conviction.

PDF Download of Dangerous Dogs Act
http://bit.ly/ISXoMl

enforcement will be key

[pete]

I don't think 250k of insurance would have such a high premium. The question is whether any insurance companies would actually give out this insurance or if the Government will force them to provide this kind of insurance.

[wagonrunner]

I don't think 250k of insurance would have such a high premium. The question is whether any insurance companies would actually give out this insurance or if the Government will force them to provide this kind of insurance.

and I cyah insure meh $30+k, LeMansGTRDakarSported Wagon full comp.

[Sheriff]

Halfbreed07, the rate they going they might charge guns and cars for murders. The murders in prison who gruesomely killed ppl are living happy in jail(no justice there), rapist on the street, 20yr old mother killed her child and on $75000.00 bail. Why don't they spayed some of those females who have so many children they can't take care of with and no father's to.
I don't plan to be punished for the wrong doing of others.
I standing up for my dogs.


[quote="Halfbreed07"][quote="MG Man"]soooooooooo.............what would all you guys propose instead, to ensure another person is never mauled by someone's dog ever again?[/quote]

a bill that punishes the act not the breed, the irresponsible owner is responsible for the dog mauling its he? the dog is doing what it was trained to do, that like saying you are killing all cows cause they sheit in the road.
the owner is liable not the dog breed.[/quote]

[RIPEBREDFRUIT]

Owners of ANY animal should be Held FULLY responsible for their actions, if your dog gets away from YOUR secured compound- its YOUR responsibility, IF your dog bites someone-the OWNER should be MADe to pay ALL medical expenses or be JAILED immediately failing to do so .
If someone is KILLED by your animal then you shoudl suffer the similar fate by being JAILED for the rest of your life.

SImple maths!

[Sheriff]

RIPEBREDFRUIT, agreed.

[killersuzuki]

I have a question, how are they going to prove that a particular dog was bred from a pitbull? especially if the owner doesn't have papers?

[civic minded]

Please sign the petition!

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/figh ... gislation/

[civic minded]

it started....................

TTSPCA says no pitbulls at shelter
Wednesday 18th April, 2012

The Trinidad & Tobago Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (TTSPCA) wants pitbull owners to know that there is no more room for dogs at the shelter.

The confirmation comes from the President of the TTSPCA, Ms. Sita Kuruvilla.

She said: "We are certainly not in a position to have our shelter facility flooded with pitbulls."

Ms. Kurruvilla's comments comes two days after the Ministry of the Attorney General announced that the legislation which prohibit dogs that pose a threat to the safety of citizens will take effect from August 1st 2012.

According to the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Act claims to tackle the problem of harmful dogs, which they have identified as the Pitbull Terrier, Japanese Tosas, Fila Brasileiro or any bred of these.

However, Ms. Kurruvilla said already pitbull owners have began donating their dogs to the shelter in light of Government's announcement.

The Act calls for licensing of dangerous dogs at a fee of $500 annually per dog, once certain conditions have been satisfied. One pitbull owner, Angelica, said she donated her dog because she's unable to pay the fee.

[Chimera]

they could always donate them to chinese restaurants I guess.

win win for everyone

char su bow wow anyone?

[Habit7]

Man dies after attack by dogs
Thursday 10th January, 2008
Deadly bites

Man mauled by two “pothounds” on Saturday
Suffers some 80 bites
Died on Monday at hospital

BY RADHICA SOOKRAJ

Dogs attacked and killed a pensioner at Cap-de-Ville in Point Fortin.

The deadly attack occurred on Saturday, but it was only on Monday that 69-year-old Michael Charles succumbed to his injuries. Police said Charles, of Maharaj Trace in Cap-de-Ville, was bitten some 80 times by the dogs. He died at around 8 am at San Fernando General Hospital.

Police said Charles had gone to purchase cigarettes from his landlady Seeta Maharaj around 5.30 am on Saturday, when the two dogs attacked him. The “pothounds,” named Angel and Blackboy, were on Maharaj’s premises at the time. Angel recently gave birth to six pups, while Blackboy was tied in a kennel at the back of Maharaj’s home at the time. Maharaj’s home and businessplace are not fenced.

In an interview yesterday, Maharaj said she was always careful to keep Blackboy chained. “He is a bad dog...He does bite and that was why we put him in the kennel,” she said. Recalling the incident, Maharaj said she was asleep when she heard the dogs barking loudly.

“I came out but I didn’t see anything,” she said. Maharaj said she walked to the back of her home at dawn and saw someone lying on the ground, feet in the air. “I see the foot and I called my son...When we looked, we saw it was the neighbour,” she said. “I don’t know what he was doing in the back there.” Maharaj said Charles’s son Uristar took him home. Uristar said Charles was bleeding from the back, legs, face and arms. Part of his ankle had been ripped off. “He didn’t want to stand up, he wanted to lie down and he was not talking,” Uristar said.

Residents abuse dog owner

Charles’ common-law wife Jennifer Dickson said they could not get a taxi to take him to the hospital. “People didn’t want him in the car because he was bleeding and he would make their car smell fresh,” Dickson recalled.

She said Charles was eventually taken by ambulance to the hospital. Dickson said she never believed Charles would die. “I thought he would come back home soon...When we heard he died, we couldn’t believe it,” she said. Since the attack, residents said they were afraid to pass near Maharaj’s home. Maharaj said people had been abusing her, saying that she was breeding killer dogs. Police were yesterday investigating the attack, but said they were uncertain whether charges would be laid.

PC Odel Gupta of the Point Fortin Police Station is continuing investigations.

Angel relaxes at her owner’s Cap-de-Ville home yesterday.
Blackboy is chained in a kennel at his owner’s home.

http://legacy.guardian.co.tt/archives/2 ... ews11.html

[Chimera]

my pothounds more ferocious than my rott. Rott does jus wanna shake hand and play

pothound wanna rip yuh hand off.

so I does tie the rott behind the pothound, ppl does think they could pass by the pothound but to avoid the rott.

[Pretender]

It sad to hear people like MG Man say what they say. Do you really think that banning a particular breed of dog will put an end to a person ever being mauled or bitten by a dog?

Soooo many people think this way. [b]NEWSFLASH!!! ALL DOGS HAVE TEETH!!! ALL DOGS CAN BITE.[b]

And to answer your question good sir, we are not against legislation governing dogs and/or owners of dogs. We are against the law in its current form. I sympathize with any family who has been hurt by any dog. But banning 3 specific breeds of dog will not in any small way completely remove the chance of being bitten.

[Habit7]

If not specific breeds this guy has to get insurance too?