The attack on veterinarian Dr. Maureen Ware-Cieters last week by a mastiff cross should bring the debate on dangerous dog breeds to the fore.

In Dr. Ware-Cieters' case, she was attacked when the dog mistook an innocent action by her colleague for either a threatening action or a training exercise.

Dr. Ware-Cieters says she was lucky not to lose her life in the attack, and it is only a matter of time before someone does.

What to do about dangerous dogs is tangled in the eternal argument about whether dogs are dangerous by nature or whether they are turned into killers by either training or abuse.

Thus, for every story of a dangerous dog, there is another about a Pitbull terrier, Rottweiler or Mastiff that is the sweetest and kindest animal in the world.

Before the July 24 election, then-Environment Minister Dennis Lister announced plans to ban a range of breeds and cross-breeds that were deemed to be dangerous and the reaction was immediate.

Even the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Island's vets opposed the idea, arguing that it would cause more problems than it would solve.

There are other answers. One is to require licensing of dog-owners. Another is to hold owners liable for the behaviour of their animals and to make the punishments sufficiently harsh to deter them from allowing their animals to stray.

A condition of licensing dogs could be to have them undergo obedience classes within a set period of time or face losing their pet.

Certain breeds could also be required to wear muzzles when they are out in public areas.

Of course, law-abiding owners would go along with these requirements. Poor owners, who are at the root of the problem, would most likely ignore them, just as they ignore existing dog laws now.

That is where strong laws that provide real deterrents come in. Making the law sufficiently harsh to prevent dogs being turned into killing machines is they to preventing any more attacks.