I cannot agree more with the hotline to denounce the practice of dog fighting. I also fully support its criminalization (only in the approved stage).
Dog fighting is cruel. Some call it a sport, but I fail to see the sport in it.
I can remember a short time back when my two male Husky dogs – brothers of the same litter – that would scrap out their difference every so often. I can still vividly remember the smell of the blood, the time spent patching up wounds and the trips to the vet. This all ended when one of them, the younger, died. No, it wasn’t through the fighting, he was diagnosed with Immune-Mediated Hemolytic Anemia (IMHA).
And while I applaud the actions of the legislators in their attempt to curb this social depravity, I am afraid that the law won’t do much to curb dog fighting. For one, I can’t see its enforcement, and two, well in typical Tico fashion, law are created and passed and then lack the resources for enforcement.
Also, I think the legislators went a bit too far, for the law compels owners of “aggressive” or “dangerous” dogs to be licensed, which requires “psychological testing” to prove their (pet owner) mental balance, in the same way as getting a gun license in the country.
Although not yet clear what is considered an “aggressive” or “dangerous” dog in Costa Rica, most of the online publications classify Huskies as dangerous.
Yes, I can attest to that, they are dangerous. Three of them -three generations – allow me to live with them.
Huskies can inflict serious damage. And quickly. But aggressive they are not. Huskies, in general, won’t attack without provocation or in defence of their pack, of which I am their leader. Or at least they let me think I am their leader.
What concerns me is the future of my dogs when I won’t be able to pass the “psychological testing”. My dogs are more psychologically balanced than I am, or at least that’s everyone that knows me says.
“What beautiful dogs”, is the typical comment by my friends. On the other hand, the same friends always tell me “your crazy, mae”.
So, you can understand my concern.
As a former owner of a Husky who died of colon cancer, I can 100% agree with Rico. These dogs look evil, they are protective and in the end they are big, I mean big babies who might not past some whamo test of the whamo congress. I know Rico cold not pass, and I am sure that I would flunk out as well. Not to mention, we are a country that tolerates loopholes of shark fining but will now take on dog fighting? I guess cruelty is a selective thing, at least we know that enforcing law and “the reasonable right of expectation” is not at all important when money is handed all around.
I had a very big Husky, or a malamute, that had been scrapping on the streets to survive too long before I took him in, and he was very aggressive, especially if man or beast got too close to his food. Generally, though, these dogs have pretty mild temperaments. Ironically, just today, my elderly mom was describing her friend’s sweet dog, which, by her description of size, conformation, and coloring, is a Rottweiler (mom had no knowledge of the breed). Breed is a factor in temperament, but it certainly isn’t the only, or even the determining factor. I’ve known sweet pit bulls and mean labs.
Costa Rica already has an agency that deals with problem animals. If that agency identifies an animal as aggressive, I can see imposing certain requirements on owners. Even then, psych evaluations are a bit extreme. Instead of the proposed law, perhaps a more rational approach would be to place more of an onus on the existing authorities to identify aggressive dogs and to hold more responsible owners of animals determined to be aggressive that subsequently inflict harm on people or other animals. This is the sane approach employed by many governments. Generally, in such jurisdictions, dogs that have been identified as aggressive and attack again are put down, and the owner is held liable for any damages. Perhaps, if an owner has been held responsible in instances involving more than one aggressive dog, a psych evaluation or even a prohibition of dog ownership would be in order.
As usual, well intended legislators have gone overboard with the current proposal. It would be nice if members of the legislative assembly played “devil’s advocate” or talked through worse-case scenarios and unintended consequences before submitting bills for votes. It is unusual to read of a proposed law here that does not have glaring defects that are apparent on first read. All of the clauses written into laws in most places seem tedious, but they are necessary to provide clarity.