A muzzle for a companion
If you are the owner of American pit bull Terrier, South African Boerboel, Karelian bear dog, Anatolian Karabash, American Staffordshire Terrier, Caucasian shepherd, Alabai (and mixes of these breeds), you should prepare for in the near future they can be equated to the traumatic weapon. With all the consequences from incorrect ownership of such a “weapon”.
To the State Duma for the second reading (it is expected that it will be held in this parliamentary session) the bill “About responsible treatment of animals”, where the owners of the above “potentially dangerous” fighting dogs is mandatory to register them and undergo pre-training in the treatment of them. In addition, as written in the bill, “the owner of a potentially dangerous dog breeds over 18 months must have a certificate confirming the passage of the General dog training course (dog training),” and walking these dogs without a muzzle and without a leash is prohibited everywhere, even in the designated dog walking areas.
By the way, once it came to fighting breeds. The bill prohibits the organization of fights of animals, including human, and even “passionatecutie” (presence) on these fights — what would animals for any purpose as fighters, though the roosters, even dogs, and all other circuses, in which animals can cause injuries, too, fall under the ban.
However, short stories about dogs fighting breeds and the rules of conduct with them is just a small part of the draft law. It mentions a variety of animals.
“Pets”, or, in the usual way, Pets. There are chapters on farm animals; commensal (wild, which doesn’t contain people, but they live in conditions fully or partly created by human activities); office and so on.
Someone will be indignant that MPs strive to regulate, but not to argue that abnormal is just the current situation, when in this area of regulation is not at all. The pet owner should be responsible for his fate and the negative impact of your pet on the surrounding world.
But, in my opinion, the proposed legal instrument not respond to all the questions stated in the topic, and despite the fact that from the first reading it has been almost 2 (!) year, new proposals in his little canvas was born.
For example, it is unclear who will prescribe in detail the rules of the treatment of animals in the field. Again, because the bill is largely a “framework” — the development of specific legal acts is relegated to regions and municipalities: but, say, in the law on local self-government in the powers of the municipalities do not have a position on the treatment of animals. Accordingly, is not visible and the financing of all this work — and to regulate the number of stray animals and shelters for them, and for the maintenance of services that could enforce the actual law.
If we talk about registration of animals, the responsibility for which rests with the level of state power of subjects of Federation, and it is not clear who is going to create a database, after all, where else is going to make information about registered animals? If of course, we want to make accounting and control, and not engage in profanity.
There are plenty of questionable legal maxims, but will state one of the main claims. The authors of the bill in the explanatory Memorandum argued, against many positions that the promulgation of a rule “will not entail financial expenditure”. But even a cursory view of the provisions of the draft law shows that without budgetary funds, in most cases, not do. Does this mean that the authors of the draft law hold in mind that the financing of all works will go through fees to dog owners, hedgehogs and cats — that is, not whether there is in mind the introduction of new types of taxes, specifically on the owners of “companions”? But then it is necessary so directly and to tell or say, how to make the municipalities money on catching stray dogs, and the regions for the grant of certificates of registration of domesticated.
It seems to me that where better to get away from practice “framework” Declaration of intent and to follow the way of specific counts of the rights, duties, powers and responsibilities of various stakeholders — dog owners, other state institutions and local authorities, public organizations and law enforcement agencies. To achieve all compliance with rules, whatever they touched, only when those reasonable, simple, spelled out in detail. To oblige to put on a muzzle of the companion is half the battle.