‘Why Penalise All Pet Parents For The Fault Of A Few Bad Apples?’

Tushar Srivastava, a pet parent, says a blanket ban on supposedly ferocious dog breeds is akin to throwing baby out with the bathwater. His views:

As a devoted parent to a Rottweiler, lovingly called Gabbar, the recent ban on 23 dog breeds has left me deeply troubled. This blanket prohibition not only unfairly targets responsible pet owners but also promotes misconceptions about certain breeds, casting a shadow on the future of canine companionship. As I am trying to recover through all-round stigmatization and prejudice against select pets, I implore society to reconsider its approach to our furry companions.

This ban not only penalizes responsible pet parents like me but also threatens to erase these majestic creatures from our communities. It is heartbreaking to witness the misguided belief that banning breeds will solve behavioral issues, as it neglects the root cause of canine misbehavior and neglects the responsibility of owners. Such an approach is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The imposition of fines on pet owners whose dogs misbehave is a reasonable measure to encourage responsible pet ownership. However, banning entire breeds only serves to perpetuate fear and discrimination. It is akin to punishing an entire classroom for the actions of a few disruptive students. Instead, we should focus on education, training, and support for pet owners to foster positive relationships between dogs and their communities.

We must encourage our children to form meaningful bonds with dogs

Moreover, the notion that certain breeds are inherently dangerous is not only scientifically unfounded but also unjust. Rottweilers, like any other breed, thrive in loving environments with proper socialization and training. They are not born aggressive; rather, aggression is often a result of neglect, abuse, or lack of socialization. By condemning entire breeds, we risk endorsing stereotypes and depriving our future generations of the joy of canine companionship.

ALSO READ: ‘Don’t Judge A Pitbull By One Stray Incident’

As a dog parent, I refuse to let fear dictate my love for the furry companions. My Rottweiler is not a threat to society; he is a beloved member of my family, showering us with unwavering loyalty and affection. He deserves to be judged based on his individual temperament and behavior, not on misguided perceptions of its breed.

Furthermore, the consequences of a blanket breed ban extend far beyond the realm of pet ownership. By prohibiting certain breeds, we send a message to future generations that dogs are to be feared and avoided rather than being embraced as loving buddies. We risk depriving children of the opportunity to form meaningful bonds with these incredible animals and instead perpetuate a culture of fear and mistrust.

Instead of resorting to draconian measures, let us work together to promote responsible pet ownership and create communities where all dogs are welcome. This includes providing resources for training and socialization, implementing stricter penalties for irresponsible owners, and challenging harmful stereotypes about certain breeds.

In conclusion, the recent ban on 23 dog breeds is not only unjust but also counterproductive. As a Rottweiler parent, I urge society to reconsider its approach to pet policies and embrace a more compassionate and rational approach. Let us not condemn entire breeds based on fear and prejudice but instead celebrate the diversity and beauty of our canine companions.

Together, we can build communities where all dogs, regardless of breed, are valued and cherished members of society.

As told to Deepti Sharma

Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC)

Delhi HC Asks Centre To File Response On Plea Challenging Ban On 23 Dog Breeds

The Delhi High Court on Thursday sought a response from the central government on a plea challenging a circular asking all states to ban 23 dog breeds posing dangers to humans.

Justice Subramonium Prasad issued a notice to the Centre. The matter was listed for further hearing on August 9. This petition was filed by Sikander Singh Thakur and others through advocates Nikhil Palli and Kshitij Pal.

However, the court, while admitting the plea, said the government circular was a policy decision.

Justice Prasad said, “We will examine the portion of the circular that mandates that even the current owner shall get their such pets sterilised.”

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the circular was ‘without rationale’.

“A high court issues a notice in this matter while the Karnataka High Court has stayed the circular (banning 23 dog breeds). A detailed response must be filed,” the counsel for the petitioner argued.

The petitioner challenged the circular issued on March 12 by the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, asking all states and union territories to ban 23 ‘ferocious’ dog breeds.

The circular sought a ban on the import, breeding, and selling of the breeds, including Pitbull Terrier Tosalnu/ American Staffordshire Terrier Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentine, American Bulldog, Boerboel, Kangal, Central Asian Shepherd Dog (ovcharka)/ Caucasian

Shepherd Dog (ovcharkaJ South Russian Shepherd Dog (ovcharka) Tornja~ Sarplanina~ Japanese Tosa and Akita/ Mastiffs (boerbulls) Rottweiler Terriers/ Rhodesian Ridgebac~ Wolf dogs/ Canario/ Akbash dog/ Moscow Guard dog/ Cane Corso/ and every dog of the type commonly known as a Ban Dog (or Bandog).

The notification or order also imposed a mandate on current owners of the said breeds to forcibly sterilise their pets, thus severely restricting their rights as pet owners and imposing undue hardships on responsible pet caregivers, the plea stated.

It added that the notification lacks scientific basis and is devoid of any research or reports supporting the purported cause of reducing dog bites or enhancing public safety.

The absence of substantiated scientific evidence or justifiable empirical data backing the classification of specific dog breeds as ‘ferocious’ renders the notification arbitrary ab initio, the plea contended.

“By failing to adhere to established scientific protocols or engage in comprehensive research methodologies regarding canine behavior, temperament, and risk factors associated with dog-related incidents, the impugned notification lacks the necessary credibility and

legitimacy required for such regulatory interventions,” it stated.

“Consequently, the arbitrariness inherent in the notification’s formulation casts serious doubt upon its validity and warrants judicial review to ensure adherence to constitutional principles of reasonableness, fairness, and evidence-based policymaking,” the plea added. (ANI)

For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/