The cabinet clearance to ban Rottweilers and Pitbulls has sparked an interesting debate among those associated with pets. This decision, announced by Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, aims to address safety concerns following several alarming incidents involving attacks by these breeds. While safety is a valid concern, the ban raises fundamental questions about the efficacy of an outright prohibition versus focusing on responsible pet ownership.
At the heart of this discourse lies a complex interplay between legislation and responsibility. Understandably, there is a concern among people after a series of incidents, notably the tragic death of a seven-year-old by a Pitbull and numerous other attacks involving Rottweilers. Critics argue that a blanket ban addresses symptoms without tackling the root causes of dangerous behaviour in dogs. Dogs, regardless of breed, can exhibit aggression if improperly trained, neglected, or subjected to abuse.
Veterinary experts suggest that rather than prohibiting specific breeds, stringent regulations for all dog owners may be more effective. Suggestions included framing stringent guidelines to ensure responsible ownership, besides regular health checks, mandatory education on dog behaviour, and hefty penalties for negligent owners. The argument was to focus not solely on the dog breeds but on the human responsibility that comes with pet ownership.
According to the proposed rules, existing Rottweilers and Pitbulls will have to be registered. The question is, how does that ensure safety because a registered dog does not provide a guarantee of not getting aggressive? Moreover, how does the registration process help when there are striking similarities between most Rottweilers and Pitbulls? Will authorities be able to identify between a registered and non-registered dog? And what are the punitive measures, if there are non-registered Rottweilers?
Enforcement presents another challenge. The ban includes prohibitions on breeding and importing these breeds, yet studies and experience indicate that outlawing specific breeds does not necessarily equate to their disappearance. Illegal breeding and sales can easily transpire behind the scenes and away from the glare. How will the Goa government ensure compliance among breeders and pet shops? Without a robust legal and monitoring framework, the prospect of black-market breeding operations could flourish, potentially exacerbating the issues the ban seeks to alleviate.
Organisations like PETA commend the government's initiative, highlighting the need to prevent the perpetuation of breeds associated with aggression. However, their advocacy also highlights the necessity of addressing the systemic issues leading to dog attacks in the first place — from irresponsible breeding practices to a lack of education on dog behaviour.
The conversation surrounding this ordinance must extend beyond a dichotomous view of 'good' versus 'bad' breeds. In most cases, the foreign breeds of dogs are considered as "status symbols" with very little attention paid to their training. There must be education initiatives for dog owners that stress the nature of these breeds so that responsible ownership becomes a part of the system. Public safety cannot be achieved through selective bans alone, because many other dog breeds exhibit aggressive tendencies under certain conditions. Some of Goa's beaches have gained notoriety for stray dog attacks.
The Goa government's decision to ban Rottweilers and Pitbulls may seem like a quick fix against dog attacks, but it fails to address the underlying issues of irresponsible ownership, inadequate regulation, and public education. The emphasis should be on responsible pet ownership, proper training, and strict enforcement of existing animal welfare laws for a more balanced approach.
