as they work their constituencies -- yesterday passed measures designed to tighten controls over dangerous dogs.

The most significant change would make the "keeper'' instead of the "owner'' of a dog responsible and liable for its behaviour.

Dog licence holders would have to be at least 18 years old under the amendments, and a licence would have to be obtained before a dog is acquired.

Other changes would require the operator of a breeding premises to be licensed as well as the premises themselves, and would enlarge the number of factors that can be looked at to determine whether a dog is legally "out of control.'' Under the changes approved yesterday, a person who keeps a dog commits an offence if it: Causes injury to another person or animal Damages vegetation belonging to somebody else Repeatedly strays onto another person's property Repeatedly defecates on another person's property without that person's consent Repeatedly makes noises to the annoyance of one or more persons in the neighbourhood.

It would provide for a defence that the dog -- or the owner it was guarding -- was provoked in a criminal or unreasonable manner.

The changes would allow Police officers or an authorised Department of Agriculture officer to seize a dangerous animal in an emergency without first obtaining an order from a magistrate: An emergency order could be obtained after the seizure.

Many MPs mentioned the dangers and fears of canvassing their constituencies as they debated and unanimously approved the changes.

But Shadow Environment Minister Mr. Julian Hall , who said he actively disliked dogs and had been bitten four times, was worried the term "keeper'' was not adequately defined.

Environment Minister the Hon. Ann Cartwright DeCouto said the problem of dangerous dogs had become worse in recent years, as a result of "breeding patterns'' and the fact that Bermudians are living closer and closer together.

The change from "owner'' to "keeper'' overcame a significant loophole in enforcement, she said.

"What we have found more and more is that when we get these dangerous dogs, the owner turns out to be a little two-year-old, and the real keeper of the dog is an adult who is trying to avoid responsibility by licensing it in the name of a nephew of someone like that.'' Requiring a licence to be in force when a dog is acquired prevents people from saying they had just obtained the dog, or had forgotten to get it licensed.

The former requirement that officers obtain a magistrate's order before seizing dogs sometimes caused "significant delays'' and was often "totally unworkable.'' Mr. Hall said he actively disliked dogs "and dogs do not much like me.'' He had been bitten three times as a child, and a fourth time while campaigning unsuccessfully in St. George's South ten years ago.

He agreed that measures were needed to protect dogs from abuse, and humans from dogs. But he was concerned that the term "keeper'' was not adequately defined. The possible penalty -- fines of up to $5,000 -- were severe, he reminded the House, and the definition of keeper ought to be clear.

NLP Leader Mr. Gilbert Darrell suggested requiring third party insurance for the owners of breeds viewed as particularly vicious.

Mr. Dennis Lister (PLP) suggested handing out information on dog owners' responsibilities when licences are issued.

Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto said the philosophy of the act was that a breed of dog was not necessarily dangerous -- it was the training and handling that was important.

And experience showed that most of the dangerous dogs were cross-breeds, she said.

Miss Jennifer Smith (PLP) said there was a problem with wild dogs in St.

George's, and wondered what responsibility people assumed if they fed them.

"There are people who feel they are not keeping a dog if they just feed them or throw out scraps to them,'' she said.

Mrs. Cartwright DeCouto said citizens are obliged by other laws to report stray dogs.

Mr. Hall urged authorities to be reasonable and "even-handed'' in how then enforce the act, noting that standards that apply to low density neighbourhoods may not be reasonable in neighbourhoods were houses are close together.