Ah cyar remember if it was discussed earlier in the thread and I didn't stop to read it over just now, but why hasn't the Dangerous Dogs Bill been assented to??
I keep hearing that it was passed by both houses waaaaayyyyy back when and is just for the President to assent and make it law. So why hasn't that happened?? 
They do that wit laws 2 hype people up. Theyu neva sent it 2 d Prez so he cyah assent what he eh get.
Suruj: Govt to take actionBy Ria Taitt Political Editor
Story Updated: Apr 14, 2011 at 11:42 PM ECT
The mauling of four-year-old Ezekiel Renne-Cambridge by two hybrid dogs on Tuesday night is a matter of "great concern" to the Government, Foreign Affairs Minister Suruj Rambachan said yesterday.
Speaking at yesterday's post-Cabinet news conference, held at the Diplomatic Centre, St Ann's, Rambachan said the matter of dangerous dogs would definitely engage the attention of the Government.
"To see that little boy suffer the fate he did, when you read the description of it, as a parent, as a citizen of this country it was very painful indeed. And I am sure that it is a matter that is not going to go unnoticed," he said.
He added: "The Attorney General will be looking at it. The whole matter of (the ownership of) dangerous dogs is something that emanated out of the crime situation. But citizens must feel safe to walk the streets of Trinidad and Tobago. They must feel that they can do so without being mauled by dangerous dogs. As a responsible Government it is something that will and must engage our attention."
Renne-Cambridge is still fighting for his life and is still listed in a critical condition at the San Fernando General Hospital's intensive care unit.
L
egislation to deal with dangerous dogs has been collecting dust for the past 11 years.
In 2000 under the United National Congress government, then attorney general Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj brought the Dangerous Dogs Act which was passed in both Houses.
But since then the Act has not been proclaimed. The People's National Movement Government took the position that the Act, which imposes a ten-year sentence and a fine of $100,000 on the owner/keeper of a dog which kills a person, was too draconian.
The Act only required owners of dangerous dogs to register their dogs and to take out an insurance policy.
It is noteworthy, however, that under the Dangerous Dogs Act, German shepherds and Akita were not classified as dangerous dogs.
It was Pitbulls, Fila Brasileiro and Japanese Tosa which were so classified.Jean Paul Llanos, of Guru Dogs, a breeding company and dog hotel, yesterday described the incident as "unfortunate". Llanos added that while the dogs are usually vilified, it is up to owners to be responsible and train and secure their pets.
"It is horrible that this happened," Llanos said.
"But the bigger problem is always left out. Had a proper containment system been in place this would never have happened. Owners must ensure that they have secure kennels or gates to keep their dogs contained."
Show Posts
