| Moscow City Duma deputies propose to mark dogs according to the degree of danger A tragic incident in the Moscow region, where an attack by a Staffordshire terrier caused the death of a one-year-old child, once again forced city authorities to talk about measures to tighten control over the keeping of fighting dogs in city apartments. However, deputies of the Moscow City Duma have once again demonstrated that they are unable to abandon their political ambitions and begin constructive work on the bill “On keeping pets in the city of Moscow,” which has been gathering dust in the Duma office since 2003.
At a press conference held last Thursday, the opposition, represented by the United Democrats, accused United Russia of deliberately slowing down the bill, and a representative of the ruling party made it clear that the Democrats' proposals would not be supported by the Duma majority. The head of the Moscow Yabloko, Sergei Mitrokhin, and the representative of the Union of Right Forces, Ivan Novitsky, proposed putting an end to “canine anarchy” by drawing up a blacklist of fighting dog breeds that only people with a normal psyche can own by registering their aggressive pet in a kennel club. Moreover, not only the owner, but also his pet will have to have a certificate of sanity: the animal will be classified into three colors depending on the degree of danger of the breed to others. The colored mark should be located on the collar and be visible from a distance.
According to Mr. Novitsky, the spread of dangerous breeds should be combated using economic methods. “A tax should be introduced on the maintenance of fighting breed animals,” said the deputy, noting that the proceeds could be used to create municipal shelters for homeless animals. In addition, the Democrats propose to “microchip” all Moscow dogs—to implant a device into the animals that will allow the dog’s owner to be identified. It is expected that this “pleasure” will cost dog lovers about 300 rubles, although identification devices are much more expensive. “But we will be able to track owners who throw animals into the street,” Sergei Mitrokhin justified, without specifying what he then plans to do with the tracked owners and their pets.
Trying in every possible way to protect Muscovites, not skimping on populist slogans, the Democrats nevertheless went a little too far, proposing to introduce compulsory civil liability insurance for dog owners, by analogy with the “automobile insurance”. According to the initiators, this measure will force negligent animal owners to think about compensation for damage caused by their pet, but Moscow dog lovers are unlikely to be delighted with the prospect of paying for an insurance policy every year.
The United Democrats would have continued to fantasize if federal legislation had not stood in the way of their vigorous legislative activity. Only the State Duma can limit citizens’ right to keep a dog of one breed or another at home or introduce daunting fines for violating the rules for keeping animals, so no matter how good intentions the capital’s legislators have, they will have to push through their initiatives in the federal parliament. According to Sergei Mitrokhin, the opposition intends to organize a broad campaign in order to put pressure on State Duma deputies.
However, the United Democrats have no illusions about the future fate of their legislative initiatives. “At best, they will be appropriated by United Russia,” Mr. Mitrokhin said, not ruling out the possibility that the proposed amendments will be buried by the Duma majority.
His fears were confirmed by Moscow City Duma deputy from the United Russia faction Alexander Krutov. “I am categorically against the adoption of the bill in this form,” he said on behalf of his faction.
He was unexpectedly supported by the dog handlers invited to the press conference. Noting that legislators are only trying to take advantage of yet another opportunity for their own PR, the head of the Russian Canine Federation, Evgeny Tsigelnitsky, said that tough measures directed against dog owners could cause irreparable damage to the domestic dog breeding. Noting that nowhere in the world there is a single list of dangerous breeds, he said that “in the West, restrictions on breeding often come down to lobbying the interests of national canine organizations.” According to the dog handler, the dog itself is not a carrier of evil, and the problem of abandoned or aggressive animals is primarily a social problem of the entire society. “If companion dogs are the leaders in Europe, then in Russia, where people cannot rely on the protection of law enforcement agencies, they prefer to have guard breeds,” said Mr. Tsigelnitsky. Yulia KHOMCHENKO |
|
