Repeal Dangerous Dogs Act

THE EDITOR: The unfortunate incident in which a D’Abadie woman was mauled to death brings into sharp focus the need to repeal and replace the existing Dangerous Dogs Act. Not only is the current act arbitrary, but it does not address the core issue of responsible ownership.

The proclamation of a replacement bill, one that places focus on responsible ownership as opposed to arbitrarily declaring a specific breed as dangerous and not permitted, is to be encouraged.

My advocacy is for the provision of a bill to cover the circumstances under which companionship animals, birds, reptiles, fish or any other living organism may be permitted. While this will not eliminate the occurrence of such incidents, it will certainly contribute to a reduction.

There is no doubt danger in companionship, even among human beings, and the act in its current form also ignores the element of nuisances. The proposed bill I am calling for will simply seek to: assert the primacy of the welfare of the companion animal and; balance the owner’s welfare against the community welfare.

In this regard, the welfare of the companion includes its food, shelter, physical and reproductive health and waste disposal together with final disposal of remains when it dies. On the other hand, community and owner welfare places primacy on the physical and emotional-allied safety issues associated with the animal.

These are all heady issues and would require careful and objective assessment. My recommendation is that there should be a regulatory authority of between five and seven people with the requisite background training and the power to co-opt resources when required. The burden of responsibility will reside with the applicant seeking to own a specific breed.

The assumption here is that the applicant will provide evidence of both his/her knowledge and capacity to satisfy the two previously identified primary welfare issues.

SAMUEL HOWARD

Via e-mail