Mods - I wasn't sure where to ask this, so I have done so in 'Daily Life', as this legislation would radically affect my day to day existence. Please feel free to move wherever you feel more appropriate.

----

A draft of a proposed new "Bundesgesetz über den Schutz vor und von Hunden" (Federal Law on Protection of and from Dogs) has recently been published by the Tiere im Recht (Animals in Law) foundation. The text can be seen at:

http://www.tierimrecht.org/de/downlo...etz_111006.pdf

-----

I am confused about several aspects.

First question: In early October, the Nationalrat (House of Parliament) passed a motion giving the go-ahead for a federal level dog control law. (Current regulation is at the cantonal level.)

I'm a bit hazy on the legislative process here - is this now a done deal, is this draft what will be implemented, or will the specific proposal have to be voted on again before becoming law?


And before I start panicking over some of the provisions, can I ask how those of you with more knowledge - or better German - than I would interpret the following?

Second question:

This draft puts restrictions on dogs based on size and 'potential danger'. It defines a' big' dog as any dog over 40cm in height or 20kg in weight. (Yep, even my little sheltie is now a big dog...)

"Art. 8 Ausführen
1
Grosse Hunde dürfen ausserhalb des gesicherten Privatgrundes nur an Personen
überlassen werden, die in der Lage sind, sie sicher an der Leine zu führen."


(Big dogs, outside of secure private property, may only be put in the care of people who are capable of leading them securely on the leash.)

So, would you interpret this to mean that dogs over 40cm may no longer be let off lead in public?

Third question:

"Sechster Abschintt: Potenziell gefährliche Hunde, Art. 9 Begriff

2
Im Einzelfall gefährlich ist ein Hund, wenn:

d) er gezeigt hat, dass er unkontrolliert Wild, Vieh, Katzen oder andere Tiere
hetzt, beisst oder reisst. "


(In individual cases a dog is dangerous, if ... d.) it shows that he uncontrollably chases, bites, or tears game, cats or other animals.)

My question - cat chasing. So does this really mean that a dog which chases after a cat - without catching, or harming in any way - is now deemed dangerous? Would that include situations where a cat enters one's private fenced-in garden?

Fourth question:

"Art. 3 Aus- und Weiterbildung von Hundehaltenden
1
Wer einen Hund hält, muss eine theoretische Hundehalterprüfung bestanden haben. "


(Training and further education of dog owners. 1 - Dog owners must pass a theoretical exam.)

Have any of you seen a copy of similar exams? I couldn't find anything from googling. I have no doubt as to my ability to pass an ownership test... but I have grave doubts as to my ability to write anything sensible in German.

Your interpretation or comments would be much appreciated.

As would any discussion of this issue....

----

edited for clarity... or at least attempted...

from a quick read, on your property, you're in the clear cat-wise. Let's not confused psycho mishandled dogs with natural pursuit of cats

one person cannot walk three or more "big" dogs alone
there seems to be some mention of dogs off-leash and they have to be in sight and have to be able to respond to a call to return
you can't go walking your dog in a schoolyard or playground (duh)
there is a theory test - I assume this will be handled by the vet?
www.bvet.admin.ch seems to have no mention of this - it's certainly not come into law yet and from what I've heard in the past, they did not want to legislate at Federal level

there are no bans on breeds (good)

I'm researching now but I think the thread's fine where it is.

Do you have a vet to ask? This would be the best source of information.

have a look on this page - it highlights the approach different kantons are taking:
http://www.tierimrecht.org/de/tiersc...echt/index.php

it is draft btw, I can confirm this. I don't know the timescales involved in the process.

I did recently check that my private liability insurance covers bad acts done by my evil, dirty, killer dogs

• insurance cover - 3 million minimum with more cover needed when you have more dogs
• training - theory test plus for those with "big" and "dangerous" dogs have to do further training (but they will accept foreign similar qualifications)
• how to control your dog - do no damage to the environment, don't scare people, act correctly (duh)
• walking your dog - not in the school, playground, sport fields and bathing areas (double-duh)
• government and kantons should educate people how to interact with dogs
• big dogs are 40cm or > 20kg weight
• you can let 'em run wild on your private ground (as long as they can't leave it) and should be on the leash where poeple are (so this kind of procludes big dogs running free)
• you can't walk three big dogs alone. Actually, making this law is good - I can say two on the leash is a pain!!
• a dog is dangerous when the aim of you having the dog is to make it more aggressive (treating/breeding)
• a dog is dangerous when he's big and wants to attack people, animals or the environment
• a dog is dangerous when it has bitten another dog (and caused injury)
• a dog is dangerous when it wants to relentlessly chase animals, cats, etc and bite or harrass them (I think a dog chasing a cat off your property and then stopping makes the dog OK)
• licence to own potentially-dangerous dogs will only be given to people of moral fibre, > 18 years, and done a theory and practical test. And you can't walk more than 2 of them at once (yes, because they pull in opposite directions, get under your feet, are generally annoying)

I think that's a summary of the main points.

I spoke to a pal at work who has 4 dogs and told him to read it - he said it'll never sail through as it is. And he's Swiss!

He found the fact that he'd have to buy leashes upsetting

My dog is obsessed with cats, except our own. He's always leashed, so I haven't been able to satisfy my curiosity as to what he would actually do to a cat once he caught it.

Assuming we buy a house here I'm going to get myself another great dane from the same breeder my first one came from. My original Dane was 80Kgs and when I came home he would greet me by standing up and putting his paws on my shoulders and looking down into my face. Fortunately he was a big softie because I couldn't have stopped him if he wanted to go somewhere, so the responsibility thing seems like a damned good idea to me.

I don't see any of these proposals as a bad thing. I certainly wouldn't have trouble complying. I am just relieved that there's no obligatory muzzle for big dogs as my dogs have never needed one, but having a muzzled dog makes them unhappy and susceptible to attack by unmuzzled dogs.

Actually, certain breeds are required to have a muzzle in public... or thats what I've been told...

I would love to have a great dane but there is no way I would be able to feed him well here in CH... just imagine the cost! I guess thats not a problem for you Bruce

Certain breeds in Zurich have to have muzzles....it's all referenced here:
http://www.tierimrecht.org/de/tiersc...echt/index.php

It's unlike Bruce to have the biggest available of something, isn't it?

Just wanted to add a link to a (sort of) related thread here. This thread is a bit strange. It starts in a strange way, and somewhere along the line there was some useful stuff about the way dog laws might work in Switzerland. So I just added it to this thread for the sake of completeness. But please do keep the dog legal discussions here in this thread, that other one was just too strange

This is a good thread by the way - I'm sure many people will find it useful. Seems nobody really understands what's going on with this issue here in Switzerland.

That's all in German, which I am learning, mais tres lentement. Does the site say that Great Danes (Hund Allemande?) have to be muzzled? I have never met a bad Great Dane and I 'm not sure you can get muzzles that big.

I want the big Corsican x Rotty I linked to in the Chinchillas thread. 84 Kgs! Can you imagine how much that thing could eat? and it's a growing lad, still a puppy.

Have you been looking in my trousers?

You'll be glad to know that Great Danes (Deutsche Doggen) are not on the list of breeds that require muzzling in any of the cantons. They are usually very gentle dogs , but people who don't like dogs (there are some of those around) are often disconcerted by their size! My medium-sized dog -a soft-coated wheaten terrier -has been told he ought to wear a muzzle when he barked at some in-line skaters. People have become very sensitised to leashes and muzzles during the past year in view of the tragic accidents that have happened here and in Germany, too. Taking young dogs to obedience school and getting some kind of a certificate will probably become mandatory. Chinchillas should be alright,though.

Neither of my dogs has a pedigree certificate but it's quite apparent that both are American Staffordshire Terriers - on the list of 13 "banned" breeds and on the muzzle list of quite a few cantons.

I do actually wonder how they could prove my dogs are this type, though, with no certification? I did register them as Amstaff with ANIS but frankly I could have chosen something else....

Thankfully, just before the muzzle ruling came into effect, I left Zurich. How could I explain to my puppies that they'd have to wear a muzzle and look fierce?

The one I got from the rescue centre two years ago would have a fit every time I fitted it too - but they don't legislate as well against the ******* ***** who beat the dog, used food as a lure so that he could beat the dog and generally beat the dog out of the dog. He's actually still scared of people and the manager of the rescue centre only let us have him because we had a similar dog and we understood the complications that might occur.

Good for you Lob. I think it's a great thing to rescue animals and the vast majority of my pets were rescued. Your taking on a psychologically scarred 'dangerous breed' is a noteworthy and noble act.

Heya

Lob you almost make me cry with that story .

I know this is a little off topic but all of these new laws seem to be aimed at protecting the mindless idiots who have no desire to learn about dogs from what they consider to be "dangerous and agressive " breeds.

But what I would like to know is what is being done about protecting the dogs from these idiots ??

kt

What is shocking about domestic animals is this legislative laziness that causes so many of them to pursue a reproductive-organ free life. There is some outrage currently in Westschweiz due to some very strict leashing guidelines. I wish folks there realize sometime that a dog can have his mouth bound and be happy, but certainly not his B. taken and be, one more minute of his life, happy.

eh?

You're upset that dogs are neutered? Frankly, it's better for the female animal unless you're going to breed and it's often better for the male animal as it can curtail certain instincts.

Well I don't think it is really possible for us to say whether they would have been happier before or after castration since they can't tell us about their feelings compared to before.

If your comments refer to male dogs only (since having tubes tied doesn't involve removal of anything) are you proposing that it is wrong to castrate dogs? Since dogs would then be unhappy, should the same sentiment be extended to cats? Should we refrain from interfering with their desire to procreate?

A swiss person was telling me once that the legal situation in Switzerland is such that a dog is considered someone's property. This means if you kill your neighbour's dog because it is annoying you then technically you've damaged his property, rather than a living thing. I think the legal situation is different in Germany (a German law student was explaining it to me once) in that if you harm any kind of animal you are committing an offence. This isn't a subject that I've researched in any great detail - so I could in fact be talking complete BS - just what I heard.

Dog control legislation is not about dogs. It's about stupid owners, surely?
As has been said...

On to neutering:

I'd say the best case for neutering both sexes of animals (not just dogs) is the sheer number of unwanted, homeless animals around.

Bruce has the right idea: adopt one. Top man.

So Fido will smell a bitch in heat miles away and off he goes...

Keeping your pet safe and sound and taking him to the vet etc is *also* not natural.
You want natural with no neutering, then stop protecting him and allow nature to act.

You allow excess animals to survive, but you then leave the species continuation breeding imperative. Interfering with the natural order...

Now, that may be harsh but I think it's damn fair.

Oh and we have pets. The male is neutered, the female aint

Another example:
Cats in the UK - Millions of the wee bastar*s: so much that it's affecting the wild bird popluation. But we can't chop poor Tiddles...

Many of the provisions in the proposed law are common sense - and things most responsible dog owners already follow. The provision to promote dog safety/handling education among the public is very positive.

But I am concerned that the notion that dogs are inherently good or bad, and that a 'good' dog must be able to tolerate any stressful situation is widepread here; I have seen a tendency here in Switzerland to expect more of dogs than we do of humans. I fear many dogs will be unnessarily condemned under this law.

I would welcome a test of my abilities as a dog owner - whether I am able to correctly assess my dog, to train him, to provide an happy life for him that does not infringe on the rights or safely of others. But I worry that the practical test mentioned in the draft would be a test of the dog along the lines of the Wesenstest (character test) used widely in Germany as was suggested in the press last spring.

A few Swiss trainers - who seem to have the politicians' ear, if the newspapers can be believed - advocate a test which puts a dog in a variety of stressful situations and judges his/her reaction. A dog showing aggression when put under stress - even fear aggression - fails the test.

I have some experience rehabilitating dogs who been badly abused. Many come out of their shells, and could sail through such a test. Some could not - this does not mean that these dogs are dangerous. It simply means that an owner must understand the dog's special needs, and structure his environment accordingly.

(And yes, there are many numpty owners out there who can't or won't recognize this, and should not be in charge of such a dog. But most dogs deserve a chance to live peacefully in the right environment.)

My first collie is a perfect example. Thanks to horrific abuse in his early years he was very fear aggressive. I worked with him for nine years to overcome his past, and when handled correctly, he became a wonderful pet. Even so, to the day he died there were many stresses he simply could not handle - my job was to make sure that he was never put in those situations.

My sweet old boy would not have been able to pass a Wesenstest, and might have been order euthanized under this law. As would several of the foster dogs I've taken on since then. (All of whom have found good, responsible homes...) I can only hope that we'll see some common sense in the application of this law. Test the owner, test the handling, not just the dog's 'character'.

During the heat of the anti dog hysteria last winter and spring many dog were dumped; pressure from neighbors and landlords was a reason often given. Shelters are full to bursting; the homeless situation here is critical. I fear it's only going to get worse.

---edited for spelling