An animal advocacy group claims dangerous dog regulations need to be enforced in order to crack down on irresponsible owners.The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals spoke out after a 13-year-old boy was attacked by a rottweiler.The teenager needed surgery following the July 30 incident, and on Wednesday owner Reuben Waldron was fined $7,000 by a magistrate after pleading guilty to owning a dog that injured another person. Waldron, who owned two rottweilers, was also ordered to pay any medical costs for the child up to $10,000. The dog was put down.Yesterday SPCA chairman Andrew Madeiros approved the fine, saying that in the past, lighter punishments had not deterred irresponsible owners from breeding dangerous animals.But he dismissed suggestions that rottweilers should be added to the ‘banned’ list of dangerous dogs, saying that a ban would only drive the problem underground.“If the trend is going to be to increase the penalties then I don’t have a problem with that,” Dr Madeiros said.“There are rules and regulations governing how these dogs have to be kept, but the problem we have had is that these rules don’t appear to be implemented.“I think Government could firstly do a lot more to make people aware of what the laws are, but it also has to enforce the regulations and make fines more significant. For some people who continually break the law by, say, illegal breeding, there is no financial incentive to stop doing it.”“Back in the day when we had tonnes of pitbulls on the Island that were being illegally bred and not licensed, we were pushing for those people who broke the rules to pay the price while allowing people who were responsible owners to have the dog of their choice.”Dr Madeiros said that under current laws, breeds are categorised into three tiers — banned, restricted and free. Rottweilers were once on the banned list along with pitbulls, but were moved to the restricted list.“The restricted list is much larger than the banned list and owners of dogs on that list have to follow certain rules, such as having secure fencing and locked gates,” Dr Madeiros said.“The issue with banning certain breeds is that the problem can then go underground. For example, there are still pitbulls out there so we don’t know how effective the ban has been in removing them completely. We do have strong rules but it’s a question of enforcement.”Dr Madeiros refuted suggestions that certain breeds of dog are naturally aggressive, but acknowledged that some owners deliberately bred dogs to develop certain traits. Poor training and care also meant that some dogs could develop unpredictable behaviours.“Historically, when it comes to banning breeds, the SPCA has always put the onus on ownership and a proper enforcement of the current rules and regulations.“Any breed of dog can become messed up and turned into a fighter through selective breeding and inbreeding — we have a pretty small gene pool here,” he said.Dr Madeiros said he did not believe that both of Waldron’s dogs should have been destroyed, arguing that it would be unfair to put both dogs to sleep because of the behaviour of a single animal.And he pointed out that no statistics are kept monitoring or recording dog attacks or what animals are more likely to be dangerous.“There are always going to be these occasional high-profile cases, but the bigger picture is that we have to enforce the regulations we have and also try and improve levels of care and training and breeding — getting dogs from a good source. Otherwise the problem will just go underground.”