140 statements on stricter dog ownership laws in Upper Austria

By Monday evening, around 140 statements had been submitted. The reason for the amendment is the fatal bite attack on a jogger in October 2023 in Naarn (Perg district). Six breeds will be considered dangerous in the future, which is obviously not approved, according to the dominant criticism. However, there are not 140 different statements, but “a lot of the same ones,” noted the office of Animal Welfare Councilor Michael Lindner (SPÖ). In principle, the plan to classify Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Dogo Argentino, Pit Bull and Tosa Inu as dangerous breeds by law in Upper Austria in the future is met with rejection. From the age of 13 months, a general requirement to wear a leash and wear a muzzle in public spaces should also apply to them.

In addition, people who want to get a “dangerous” dog must meet higher training criteria. This should also apply to owners of all large animals with a height of more than 40 centimeters at the withers (height behind the shoulder blade) or a weight of more than 20 kilograms. Specifically, in addition to the general proof of expertise, a practical test, a so-called suitability test for everyday use, would also be mandatory. The behavior of the dog and its owner/master is then checked in common everyday situations such as in traffic or in crowds of people.

One critic of the upcoming change in the law is the animal protection organization Four Paws, and their statement was correspondingly negative. She referred to the current state of research, according to which breeds “say absolutely nothing about how dangerous a dog is.” Furthermore, large dogs would also be placed “under general suspicion”. This means that a large number of animals can no longer be conveyed. “The impact on animal shelters will be catastrophic, predicts Veronika Weissenböck from Vier Pfoten. For her, it is “completely incomprehensible why the further categorization of dogs into weight and size classes would result in another wave of loss and disposal and thus an additional burden on animal shelters is accepted.”

More scope for action for communities

Lindner takes the concern that the new regulation in the dog ownership law will lead to more “capacity in the animal shelters” “seriously”. Weeks ago he commissioned “a medium-term expansion plan with the aim of creating more animal shelter places”.

In general, the amendment is intended to give municipalities more scope for action in order to be able to better protect the population. A prerequisite for this is making it possible to pass on data in the case of a “conspicuous” dog. In the future, if the owner moves or the dog is handed over to new owners, it can be ensured that the animal is also listed as conspicuous at the new place of residence. They also want to give municipalities new options in the event of harassment or bite incidents. The catalog of measures ranges from banning dogs from being kept in certain places, prohibiting certain people from keeping an animal, and even removing the dog. The statements contain “suggestions to make the new legal bases as administrative-friendly and simple as possible”.

Despite the volume of statements, the State Council is sticking to the timetable for passing the resolution before the summer.