The radical proposals would mean that a dog that escaped its backyard and was impounded two or more times in a year would be deemed a potentially dangerous animal.

The recommendations, included in a report to be released this week, also urge mandatory reporting to a national database by doctors, police and council workers of every dog bite so authorities can better track vicious animals across borders.

The Australian Veterinary Association's recommendations, backed by the RSPCA, would mean that a dog declared potentially dangerous would have to wear a warning collar and muzzle outdoors, be kept in an enclosure and enrol in socialisation and behaviour programs.

The proposals come amid a growing debate about the responsibilities of dog owners, and just days after four dogs, believed to be pit bulls, killed a guide dog and injured a cocker spaniel in Melbourne's north-east.

Last year, the Victorian government launched a crackdown on dangerous breeds after four-year-old Ayen Chol was mauled to death by a neighbour's pit bull mastiff.

Owners of dangerous, menacing or restricted-breed dogs now face up to 10 years in jail if their pet kills a person.

But the veterinary association wants the breed-specific dog laws to be scrapped and replaced with education programs, extensive temperament testing and mandatory reporting of dog bites, saying existing legislation does not protect the community.

There would be seven reasons why a dog could be declared potentially dangerous, including that the animal failed a temperament test or displayed high levels of aggression, even without biting. ''Potentially dangerous'' would replace the current law of ''menacing'', which applies when a dog rushes at or causes a non-serious injury to a person or animal.

''This is not meant as a punitive measure, but rather as a strong encouragement towards socially responsible dog ownership,'' the report says.

Owners would be able to clear their dog's name after three years if it had not been involved in any incidents, completed a socialisation and behaviour program and passed a temperament test. ''Dangerous'' dogs would not be able to have their names cleared and would remain on a national database that tracked dogs across the country.

''It's too easy to have a dog that bites in one jurisdiction and then crosses the border and all of a sudden it disappears from the radar,'' said the association's spokeswoman and veterinary behaviorist, Kersti Seksel.

The RSPCA agreed the current restricted-breed legislation does not work. ''I think it's a very sensible report and it really backs up what the RSPCA has been saying all along,'' said chief executive Maria Mercurio.

But Victorian Agriculture Minister Peter Walsh said the government was monitoring its dangerous-dog reforms and had no plans to change them at this stage.

''The current laws are focused on protecting the community from dangerous and menacing dogs. Mandatory reporting would be difficult to enforce as it would require bites that occur within homes to be reported,'' Mr Walsh said.

The report concedes it would be unlikely for bites from a known dog or bites that occur within a home to be reported unless the victim needed medical attention.

German Shepherd Dog Club of Victoria president Vince Ebejer said he supported the scrapping of breed-specific legislation, but lowering the bar for declaring a dog as potentially dangerous was unnecessary and would lead to more court cases.

According to the Victorian Injury Surveillance Unit, there were 717 dog-related hospital admissions in 2009-10 compared with 481 in 2006-07.

■ hcook@theage.com.au