Amaya Quincoces Riesco |
Madrid (EFE) of the last almost 25 years.
After the hangover over hunting dogs, finally excluded from the Animal Welfare bill in Congress, progressive groups will try in the Senate to readjust “technical aspects” to “destigmatize” the dangerousness that a dog is wrongly assumed just because of its race and not according to their actual behavior, according to socialist sources.
The objective is to more accurately classify the nature of each specimen when designing the best regulatory measures for safety reasons, within the framework of the bill, without being limited to one type of lineage, but more broadly, depending on the real behaviors of the animal and far from stereotypes limited to breeds.
The stigma of the breed
The reality is that certain dogs now considered potentially dangerous “will never attack” and yet are “stigmatized”; On the contrary, it may happen that some apparently kind canine specimen according to his lineage can become more irritated than necessary under certain circumstances, explain the socialist sources.
There is also a broad consensus in the veterinary and scientific sector regarding the advisability of regulating the dangerousness of dogs for other factors than just their breed; In any case, add the sources, the improvements imply reflection and cannot be done “quickly and running” or in a scattered way.
Law 50/1999 on the legal regime for the possession of dangerous animals, which for the moment will remain in force, includes canine animals “within a racial typology, which due to their aggressive nature, size or jaw power have the capacity to cause death or injury.
The regulation that develops it considers potentially dangerous dogs (PPP) to Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Rottweiler, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Tosa Inu and Akita Inu.
Potentially dangerous dogs become “special handling” dogs
Faced with this classification, among its novelties, the new law in process will call the PPP “special handling” dogs and will extend the obligation of civil liability insurance for damages to third parties to also copies that are not potentially dangerous and will be included in its coverage to those responsible for the animal.
In addition, the holders together with their dogs must take a “test” or test to assess their aptitude when it comes to functioning in the social sphere; the terms regarding the minimum age and weight of the dog and its content and characteristics will be developed by regulation.
Likewise, for the possession of dogs in general, the new animal welfare law will require a training course for those responsible, which will be free and valid indefinitely.
A troubled parliamentary process
In the last debate in Congress on the Animal Welfare bill, prior to its passage to the Senate, the plenary session approved a compromise amendment by Bildu, endorsed by Unidas Podemos and ERC, which curiously was approved with the votes in favor of the Popular Group and the abstention of Vox, but with the rejection of the Socialist group.
In it, it was requested to reverse the proposal to repeal the 1999 law on potentially dangerous dogs, as part of a package of measures on these animals that would be processed within the framework of the development of the bill to improve their classification. .
The proposal of the progressive groups went ahead in Congress thanks to the support of the Popular Group, because it coincided with another amendment of this formation raised at the beginning of the process, but which had been rejected by the groups that were now raising it.
Given the change of course at the last minute of events in said process, the PP spokesperson in Congress for the Animal Welfare bill, Milagros Marcos, perplexed but satisfied, warned that “those same ones who rejected our amendments ended up presenting another literally” like that of the PP to maintain the 1999 law, but “quickly and running” at the last moment in Congress.
Said proposal of the progressive groups was voted for separately and was approved but, according to those responsible, it was part of a broader set of amendments that did not prosper and that together represented an adjustment to the issues related to Law 50/1999 in question. of dangerous dogs.
Now we will have to see what happens with the “special management” dogs in the next debate in the Senate, where the weight of the parliamentary forces is different from that of Congress – without representation from United We Can, although from other progressive groups defending also of the animal welfare bill as it came out of the Government.
From the Ministry of Social Rights, led by Ione Belarra, from Podemos, promoter of the Animal Welfare bill, they assure that the amendment of potentially dangerous dogs “needs to be technically adjusted in the Senate and in subsequent regulations to give it the same coherence that it originally had.
“It will be retouched so that it remains as we had agreed in the original text that came out of the Council of Ministers”, which was reached with the agreement of the entire Government, add the same sources.
