Saying that the relationship between people in T&T and their pets have changed, Justice Minister Christlyn Moore says pet-owners have a responsibility to not only themselves and the communities within which the pets are raised but also “to treat with our pets to secure them, to safeguard them.” Moore made the statement during her contribution to yesterday’s debate on the Dog Control Bill 2013. She also spoke of her personal experience after her dog was shot by police when it entered the premises of a neighbour at Grapefruit Avenue, Maraval.
She said there is a financial cost to safeguarding any animal. Speaking on the matter of insurance for Class A dog-owners as outlined in the bill, Moore said: “There has been a lot of murmurs made about the requirements for insurance. “There have been perhaps utterances in other places with regard to the size of the insurance with regard to, perhaps, it targeting certain persons (sic) and it making pets now the purview of perhaps the affluent… with responsibility comes obligation.
“The fact is that if you are going to elect, because it is an election, to be the owner of a Class A dog, with that election must be the preparedness to bear the financial responsibility, the complete financial responsibility for that ownership.” She said a Class A dog requires a lot of care and attention. She said there were four types of dogs in the Class A category. The minister identified only three —pitbulls, fila brasileiro and Japanese Tosa. She did not name the fourth.
Moore said shots, examinations, among other things, were quite expensive. She said she knew of friends who air-conditioned spaces for their pet. Responding to concerns that Class A dogs might only reside in perceived affluent communities or belonging to only the middle-class or “so-called” upper-class, Moore suggested that was how it should be. “I want to suggest if you can’t put food on the table, then you ought not to own a pitbull.
She named the Doberman and Akita as examples of dogs that appeared fearful. She said if one chose one of the four Class A dogs then one brought on the financial obligation associated with it. She spoke about her own experience with her dog, Bo, when discussing the Section 22:2 of the bill. She said if the bill had been enacted then her dog would have still been alive. That section of the legislation states if a dog is seized it is required to be destroyed with as little pain as possible.
Moore said under the bill, Bo, a rottweiler and Class B dog would not have been shot by the police. She said Bo went looking for love in all the wrong places and was seized when it entered the premises of a neighbour. The dog, she said, was detained in a pen and shot by police. Under section 22, she said, Bo would not have been shot. Under the legislation, she said, the constable would have known that Bo was a Class B dog and would not have shot him.