Dangerous dogs or Fierce Protectors - Where is the line drawn?

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated,” Mahatma Gandhi once said. The country’s current progress is not my place to judge but I do have some issues with the Dangerous Dogs Act 2000. First of all, what constitutes as a “dangerous dog”? What breed do we consider so dangerous that law must be put in place to keep the lovers of these dogs away from them? The “dangerous” species, as announced in the bill drafted in June 2000 but made into law in August 1 2012, are Pit bull terriers, Fila Brasileiro and Japanese Tora. These species have been responsible for murders but only because their owners wanted them to be protectors of their property. A dog is only what it is groomed and /or conditioned to be. An unruly dog is a direct product of an unruly owner. Therefore, in the same manner it is a crime to punish a person for a crime they did not, it is the same case to punish an animal for actions they were conditioned to do, intentionally by the owner or otherwise. What is even more surprising is that the Trinidad and Tobago Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (TTSPCA) and the Animal Welfare Network (AWN) agreed with this when it is blatantly ignores the rights of the animals the swore to protect and goes against their “mission”. The Dangerous Dog Act of 2000 states in Section 10 subsection (b) states that “dangerous” dogs are to be “branded onto the pinna of the ear”. The treatment is reminiscent of ecomienda system practice in All dogs cannot be ranked on a danger level because of their species. Though there are certain distinguishable features between certain species such as the pompek and the pit bull that may cause the pit bull to look more intimidating, both species can be considered dangerous because of their ancestral background to the wolf. By the manner, all dogs have the potential to kill but the interference of man is the factor that crosses the silver lining.