It’s not only angels who fear to tread on the debate over the importation and breeding of dangerous dog breeds.Few subjects generate such fierce emotions, and the divisions cross all boundaries.In a nutshell, the arguments comes down to “nature versus nurture”.There are those who feel dogs such as mastiffs and pit bull terriers are innately dangerous, unpredictable and liable to turn on humans or other animals with little provocation.And there are those, many of them owners of the breeds, who say they make gentle and caring pets, provided their owners take time to train them and that they are not abused.The 2003 ban was put in place by then Environment Minister Dennis Lister following a number of vicious attacks and amid reports that the dogs were being bred for dogfighting.Now Minister Marc Bean wants to take up the recommendations of a committee struck to look at the question, and ease the restrictions.The proposed lifting of the ban, which does not apply only to pit bull terriers, although they invariably become the focus of the debate, comes with a number of conditions, including inspections of the owners’ properties and provision of an escape-proof enclosures.Despite that, the proposals have met with heavy criticism.Most importantly, the number of recorded dog attacks has declined substantially since 2003. Overall, despite the unhappiness the ban has caused some dog-owners, it has worked, and many of the fears surrounding it have been dispelled. One unintended consequence, according to veterinarian Dr Andrew Madeiros, has been the inbreeding of the remaining dangerous breeds, sometimes leading to more vicious animals. But that has been offset by the decline in numbers and therefore attacks.In 2003, this newspaper suggested the adoption of some or all the following measures, not only for dangerous breeds, but for all breeds as a licensing condition:Licensing of dog-owners.Hold owners liable for the behaviour of their animals and to make the punishments sufficiently harsh to deter them from allowing their animals to strayA condition of licensing dogs could be to have them undergo obedience classes within a set period of time or the owner would lose their pet.Certain breeds could also be required to wear muzzles when they are out in public areas.This newspaper said then that law-abiding owners would go along with these requirements, while bad owners, who in the main would be the owners of the most dangerous animals, would not.For them, strong laws are required as deterrents, with jail time for owners and euthanasia of dogs that are repeat offenders being put in place.These suggestions are not made lightly, but this is not a light issue. A dangerous breed has the capacity to kill or viciously maim a human or another animal and has done so before. Relaxing the ban would likely see it happen again. In those cases, promising harsh action after the fact is not enough, and while it is true that any dog is capable of bring vicious, it is these breeds that have the greatest capacity to do serious damage.When confronted with a clear and present danger, a government has an obligation to put in preventive measures and not to wait to react.As it stands, the conditions for lifting the ban do not go far enough. Some of the ideas outlined above need to be implemented before consideration, let alone action, is given to lifting the current ban.