Spanish Replies
Several people have recently received an identical reply from the Spanish
authorities to their protestations against the SBT being included on a list of
"potentially dangerous dogs". I suspect that the same letter will also be sent
to representatives of other breeds with just the name changed since despite
appearances, the letter "responds" to items that were not in the original
letters. (e.g. the suggestion of naming other breeds that should be added to a
list is hardly something that any dog person would do).
This is not a professional translation but certainly should suffice to help
anyone receiving their own copy to understand what they have been sent. It will
also hopefully assist you to reply with further points to ensure that the
authorities cannot merely ignore the fact that our breed (like most if not all
others, are not potentially dangerous unless severe circumstances or criminal
training makes them so).
Thank you to Sharon for the translation. She points out that the letter seems to
be intentionally written in complex language making translation difficult but
please don't let this stop you from continuing the battle to save our breed and
dogs in general from these totally unsustainable slurs.
David Levy
=====================================
Thank you for your letter which, as you know from the acknowledgement sent to
you, was registered in this Institution with the number shown above, to which
you should make reference in future communications.
Having analysed your letter carefully, we note that your complaint concerns the
content of Royal Decree 287/2002, dated 22 March, implementing Law 50/1999 dated
23 December on the legal treatment of potentially dangerous animals.
In fact your complaint is specifically about the inclusion in Annex 1 of the
said provision of dogs belonging to the breed Staffordshire Bull Terrier as you
consider that a belief that these animals are potentially dangerous does not
take account of their true character.
Moreover you also question why certain other breeds of dog have not been
included in the list of potentially dangerous animals although their behaviour
shows characteristics which could lead to them being considered so.
Please be informed that Law 50/1999 mentioned above is meant as a response to
the need to control and limit the ownership of potentially dangerous dogs and
other animals in view of the proliferation of these animals and the general
concern in society about attacks by dogs on people.
This Institution understands, as does the law, that the degree of danger posed
by dogs is based on environmental factors as well as genetic factors, on the
selection (breeding?) done by certain individuals independently of the breed and
cross-breeding and also that they are chosen specifically for attacking,
fighting and to cause harm to third parties. Thus dogs of breeds which could be
classified as “dangerous” are perfectly suitable to live peacefully with people
and other animals, including (? its fellows) as long as they have had suitable
behavioural training and their breeding parents have been selected to minimise
aggression.
Based on this premise, the concept of potentially dangerous dogs as expressed in
the law does not refer to dogs which belong to a specific breed but to dogs of a
specific racial type which by their morphological characteristics,
aggressiveness or likelihood to attack are used as attack dogs or for fighting,
and cross-breeds between any of these dogs and other dogs.
To implement the provisions of the law, Royal Decree 287/2002, which is being
questioned by yourself, considers as potentially dangerous dogs not only those
expressly included in Annex I, in which the breed to which you refer in your
complaint appears, but also all those whose characteristics correspond with all
or most of those which appear in Annex II. In addition to the foregoing and
while they may not be included in any of the provisions, dangerous dogs shall be
taken to mean those animals of the canine species which show a markedly
aggressive character or which have caused attacks on people or other animals
which complies with Article 2 of the above-mentioned Royal Decree.
In any case we must point out to you that the facts to which your letter refers
do not give grounds for a complaints procedure on the part of the Public
Defender (Ombudsman??) taking account of Article 54 of the Constitution which
charges this Institution with defending the fundamental rights of those persons
included in Title I of the Constitution.
Therefore we must inform you that this Institution does not have the power to
include or exclude specific breeds of dog from the list of potentially dangerous
animals, without prejudice to the possibility that you may challenge the
provision in question either directly or by challenging the acts implementing it
within the time limits laid down in the Law Regulating Contentious
Administrative Provisions.
Yours etc
(standard legal/admin-type close including the phrases thanking you for …… and
regret we are unable to be of assistance on this occasion)