By Eileen Cox
Much has been said and much written about pit bulls and dangerous dogs. Consumers wait to see what measures will be put in place to protect them from injury or even death from dangerous dogs when they are going about their legitimate business.
The Sunday Stabroek on April 20, 2008 carried an editorial on ‘Dangerous dogs.’ It was stated:
“Where Guyana is concerned there are two issues for immediate consideration. The first relates to whether special breeds should be outlawed or restricted and the second is the control of dogs in public areas. The first issue is clearly related to the matter of dog fighting which is a cruel sport and even under current legislation dealing with cruelty to animals is illegal. If the police made any headway in stamping the practice out, one suspects that the popularity of pit-bulls would decline.”
The editorial refers to the current law in Guyana, the Dogs Act, and suggests that the law is probably in need of upgrading where the control of dogs is concerned. It states:
“A magistrate can hear a complaint about a dog being dangerous and not being kept by the owner under proper control. And he can make an order directing that the dog be kept by the owner under proper control or destroyed. In our present circumstances one cannot help but feel that where a dog has seriously injured a person and more particularly has killed someone, a magistrate should have no discretion and the animal should be destroyed.”
There has been a recommendation by the Head of COPS that dangerous dogs should be muzzled. This defeats the purpose of keeping a dangerous dog, which is to protect the owner against intruders.
The Guyana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, GSPCA, is considering amendments to the present legislation and has suggested that the public offer suggestions. The suggestion that I would like to make is that owners should have concrete fences to their yards high enough to prevent the animals from escaping. I say this because in one area where pit bulls are kept pedestrians are terrified when the animals observe them through the fence and keep barking.
Even mongrels can be a hazard to cyclists and pedestrians. They emerge from their yards and chase cyclists down the street. Pedestrians protect themselves with sticks and stones.
The barking of dogs may have a deleterious effect on a pedestrian. On one occasion I was standing with a neighbour on my parapet and his dog escaped from the yard and barked ferociously at me. I took fright and lost my balance. Luckily I fell on the parapet. Had I been standing on the road there could have been an accident with a vehicle.
Barking dogs also create a noise nuisance. On one occasion a consumer complained bitterly that dogs in his neighbour’s yard prevented his ailing mother from enjoying a good night’s rest.
The two recent incidents with dangerous dogs point to the need for immediate action. The jogger who was attacked by two pit bulls now reports that he is like a vegetable. Here was a healthy man taking his morning exercise when he was attacked. One wonders whether the owner of the dogs did not hear the commotion on the road and why it was left to a chance passer-by to rescue the man. The other case of a guard being mauled to death is so horrible that one dares not spend too much time thinking of it. No monetary compensation can suffice for the injuries and death. Changes in the legislation for the protection of those who use the roadways are urgent.
* * * *
There is much being done to make life tolerable for those who are indigent. Yet no consideration is being given to the pensioners under the Dependants Pension Fund. There has not been one cent increase since VAT came into operation. One expects better from Dr Nanda Gopaul and Mr Patrick Yarde who sit on the Board of Directors.
We do hope that they will awaken to their responsibility.
