Marty
11-03-2004, 06:24 PM
Israel -- When the Canine Registration Law went into effect this week, Israel joined a group of 20 states, mainly in the West, that have passed strict laws against having dangerous dogs in the public domain. The law, erroneously known as the
"Dangerous Dogs Law," was debated for years in the Knesset's sluggish legislative process. Regretfully it took a tragedy six months ago (four-year-old Avivit Ganon died after being bitten by the family's Amstaff) to be the catalyst for the law's passage.
The law's regulations determine for the first time a list of breeds that may not be imported and those already here must be neutered by the end of the year. The Ministry of Agriculture is expecting that breeds such as the Rottweiler, the Amstaff and the Pit Bull will vanish from the Israeli landscape.
The regulations limit the age of an individual who can walk a dog defined as dangerous - someone 16 or older, and require any such dog to be walked with a muzzle and leash. It is a shame that one proposed regulation will not be implemented - the obligation to insure any dog defined as dangerous. This measure is customary in some Western countries.
Emotions are still running high among breeders of dangerous dogs in response to the new regulations. Some responsible breeders have come to terms with the evil decree, while others are calling for rising up in rebellion against the edicts. The latter group argues that most of the dogs defined as dangerous are actually harmless pets and that even a dog of a "friendly" breed will cause damage if its training and character have been ruined by an irresponsible owner.
The law calls for the establishment of a national registration center for all canine breeds, and not only dangerous ones. It is this provision that has delayed the law's implementation so far. Over the next few years, an electronic chip will be inserted into every dog that comes to a veterinarian to receive an inoculation or other treatment. Responsibility for this procedure will fall on the veterinarians of the local authorities. This will make it possible to fight the ugly phenomenon of owners suddenly tiring of their pets and abandoning the unfortunate dogs on street corners.
Implementation of the law in a manner that would ensure that it does not become a dead letter in the legal code, is highly dependent upon the veterinarians, local authority inspectors and police. The law makes it possible to easily define and locate a "dangerous" breed, but on the basis of the law, the veterinarians are expected to warn the citizens and also report to the Ministry of Agriculture about mixed breeds that have the same characteristics as those of dangerous breeds.
For example, a dog that is a mix of Rottweiler and German shepherd. The neighborhood vet is supposed to assess if the dog's characteristics answer to the definition of a dangerous dog, and explain to the client that the dog must be neutered.
Will veterinarians report clients that own such dogs and who refuse to have them neutered to the Ministry of Agriculture? The ministry is threatening that if a dog bites a person and it develops that a certain veterinarian had seen it and failed to report it as a dangerous dog - measures will be taken against the veterinarian. It is doubtful that this threat would sufficiently persuasive to veterinarians who could lose clients as a result of said report.
The new law contains one major failing, which Ministry of Agriculture officials re now working to rectify by means of additional regulations - a dog of a breed that is not defined as dangerous and which is not cross-bred with a dangerous breed is still liable to bite and even do serious damage, especially to children. In its current configuration, the law does not permit local authority veterinarians to declare such a dog "dangerous" or to invoke sanctions such as sterilization.
The role of local authority inspectors and the police is critical to the enforcement of the restrictions imposed on walking "dangerous" dogs in the public domain. Had the authorities meticulously observed the Mandate-era Rabies Law that the British left us, we would have been spared most of the vicious attacks on human beings by dogs in public areas in the past few years. The law, legislated 70 years ago, requires every dog owner to keep his dog on a leash in a public place. Inspectors and policemen did not enforce the law, however. Will they stop every person who is walking a dangerous dog, and make sure that he is the suitable age, and that the dig is on a leash and wearing a muzzle?
"Dangerous Dogs Law," was debated for years in the Knesset's sluggish legislative process. Regretfully it took a tragedy six months ago (four-year-old Avivit Ganon died after being bitten by the family's Amstaff) to be the catalyst for the law's passage.
The law's regulations determine for the first time a list of breeds that may not be imported and those already here must be neutered by the end of the year. The Ministry of Agriculture is expecting that breeds such as the Rottweiler, the Amstaff and the Pit Bull will vanish from the Israeli landscape.
The regulations limit the age of an individual who can walk a dog defined as dangerous - someone 16 or older, and require any such dog to be walked with a muzzle and leash. It is a shame that one proposed regulation will not be implemented - the obligation to insure any dog defined as dangerous. This measure is customary in some Western countries.
Emotions are still running high among breeders of dangerous dogs in response to the new regulations. Some responsible breeders have come to terms with the evil decree, while others are calling for rising up in rebellion against the edicts. The latter group argues that most of the dogs defined as dangerous are actually harmless pets and that even a dog of a "friendly" breed will cause damage if its training and character have been ruined by an irresponsible owner.
The law calls for the establishment of a national registration center for all canine breeds, and not only dangerous ones. It is this provision that has delayed the law's implementation so far. Over the next few years, an electronic chip will be inserted into every dog that comes to a veterinarian to receive an inoculation or other treatment. Responsibility for this procedure will fall on the veterinarians of the local authorities. This will make it possible to fight the ugly phenomenon of owners suddenly tiring of their pets and abandoning the unfortunate dogs on street corners.
Implementation of the law in a manner that would ensure that it does not become a dead letter in the legal code, is highly dependent upon the veterinarians, local authority inspectors and police. The law makes it possible to easily define and locate a "dangerous" breed, but on the basis of the law, the veterinarians are expected to warn the citizens and also report to the Ministry of Agriculture about mixed breeds that have the same characteristics as those of dangerous breeds.
For example, a dog that is a mix of Rottweiler and German shepherd. The neighborhood vet is supposed to assess if the dog's characteristics answer to the definition of a dangerous dog, and explain to the client that the dog must be neutered.
Will veterinarians report clients that own such dogs and who refuse to have them neutered to the Ministry of Agriculture? The ministry is threatening that if a dog bites a person and it develops that a certain veterinarian had seen it and failed to report it as a dangerous dog - measures will be taken against the veterinarian. It is doubtful that this threat would sufficiently persuasive to veterinarians who could lose clients as a result of said report.
The new law contains one major failing, which Ministry of Agriculture officials re now working to rectify by means of additional regulations - a dog of a breed that is not defined as dangerous and which is not cross-bred with a dangerous breed is still liable to bite and even do serious damage, especially to children. In its current configuration, the law does not permit local authority veterinarians to declare such a dog "dangerous" or to invoke sanctions such as sterilization.
The role of local authority inspectors and the police is critical to the enforcement of the restrictions imposed on walking "dangerous" dogs in the public domain. Had the authorities meticulously observed the Mandate-era Rabies Law that the British left us, we would have been spared most of the vicious attacks on human beings by dogs in public areas in the past few years. The law, legislated 70 years ago, requires every dog owner to keep his dog on a leash in a public place. Inspectors and policemen did not enforce the law, however. Will they stop every person who is walking a dangerous dog, and make sure that he is the suitable age, and that the dig is on a leash and wearing a muzzle?