A bill introduced by Partido Liberacion Nacional (PLN) legislator, Ileana Brenes and currently being discussed in Committee, aims to establish regulations for “potentially dangerous” dogs.
The legislator says the introduced the legislation to ensure their safety of people against dangerous dogs.
The law would require anyone possessing, breeding, training, transporting and handling of potential dangerous dogs, to be licensed and carry third party liability insurance. If the license is not obtained, the dog could be confiscated and kept in a shelter until the owner obtains the license.
Brenes says municipalities would be responsible for issuing licenses and creating municipal centre for the shelter of the animals. To finance the program, municipalities could charge a license fee.
Although the bill does not specify potentially dangerous dogs by breed, it does, however, define any dog “potentially dangerous” by their natural aggressiveness or body size, having the capacity to cause injury or death to humans or other animals and serious damage to property.
The bill calls for the Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería (MAG) to create a list of specific breeds of dogs with characteristics considered potentially dangerous.
“Potentially dangerous dogs must have a proper muzzle when in public spaces. They must also be on a leash or chain not more than a metre (3 feet) in length and not more than one dog per person”, the proposal states.
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal (ASPCA), the non-profit organization dedicated to preventing cruelty towards animals based in New York City since its inception in 1866, recognizes that there are dogs who by virtue either of training or lack of training and socialization—especially in combination with a genetic predisposition to be wary of strangers, aggressive toward other dogs and/or predatory toward other animals—may pose serious threats if inadequately supervised and controlled by their guardians.
ThecASPCA says on its website that in order for dogs to live harmoniously with people and with other companion animals, it is critical to hold guardians responsible for the proper supervision of their dogs and for any actions on their part that either create or encourage aggressive behavior.
At the same time, laws that target “dangerous dogs” must be mindful of the rights of pet guardians and afford them due process. These laws should target only those dogs who truly pose a serious risk to other animals or to people. They should also take into account the fact that there are situations in which aggressive behaviour is justified, such as when a dog is protecting himself or herself, her guardian, her offspring or her home from harm or when the dog has reason to fear a person or animal who has harmed her in the past.
Don’t these people have anything better to do. There has been a major landslide in the road past Aserri that has been there for four years and has not been fixed. There have been many accidents there. And yet they can waste their time on things like this. A year or so ago they wanted to pass a law requiring everyone who wants a dog to go through some kind of training. There are hundreds of serious issues that need money and action. What is wrong with these people?
These aszholes can’t even get the cattleman to tag their animals. You cram one at night with your car and never find the owner. The neighbors have the usual to say “I dunno”, because they’re all cowards and liars.
If they want to do something productive they need to build enough jails to hold at least 20% of this Kleptomaniacal, pathological lying population.
This sounds like another instance in which a bill is proposed in broad terms with reasonable arguments to sell the idea. The problem is that critical details are lacking that may or may not be provided before support is gained for the law and before it is enacted. Costa Rica has passed too many overbroad or vague laws that are unevenly applied. What is a “potentially dangerous dog?” Is danger in the eye of the beholder? Essentially, any dog is “potentially dangerous” in that they can inflict injury – they all come with sharp teeth and powerful jaws. Is every dog over 20 pounds presumed to be dangerous? Over 25? Will Costa Rica go the way of many places and declare all pit-bull-like dogs (it seems that every other person I know has Staffordshire – or “Stanfor – Terriers), Rottweillers, Dobermans, and/or German shepherds “potentially dangerous?” I have some big dogs with deep voices, which I do not discourage anyone from believing are “potentially dangerous” (although they’re not, to my knowledge) for purposes of security. Will I have to get special licenses for them because my neighbors are afraid of them, even though they never leave my property? In most places that have laws about dangerous dogs, either limited specific breeds are named, or a specific dog has to be known to have a history of injuring others to be considered “dangerous.”
I understand the interests in protecting the public and in generating new jobs and sources of tax revenues for municipalities, but, until the legislature has more than an idea about a new law, they need to keep it to themselves. As the president-elect and others have noted, Costa Rica has plenty of laws – they need to work on enforcing those they have. Since the legislative assembly seems to be incapable of writing decent laws, they should consider borrowing the language from another government that is known to have a working law similar to the one they envision.
The arbitrary nature of this activity will insure that, even if passed, this law will have no TEETH.