The unfolding discussion around animal welfare is moving toward greater transparency, with plans to publish a comprehensive overview next year. The proposal includes a catalog of breeds that may be deemed dangerous and seeks to define dangerousness by the animal’s behavior rather than by breed alone. This shift aims to focus on real conduct and accountable ownership, rather than relying on stereotypes that have shaped policy for years.
Until those reforms are finalized, the current framework remains in effect. It refers to Law 50/1999, enacted on 23 December, which regulates the possession of potentially dangerous animals, and has since been elaborated through Royal Decree 287/2002 along with various regional regulations. These instruments collectively form the baseline for what is considered potentially dangerous in practical terms and what obligations owners must meet to keep such animals in permissible conditions.
To grasp how this system came to be, it’s useful to place it in its historical context. In the late 1990s, there were several high-profile incidents involving bites and attacks by dogs, including children as victims. The public discourse around these incidents often fixated on certain breeds as the root cause. Yet observers pointed out that the real drivers were not the animals by themselves but the circumstances of ownership: people without adequate training or adequate containment, attempting to control large, powerful dogs without proper safeguards. The media coverage during those years amplified fears and amplified calls for stricter controls—sometimes simplifying the issue to breed labels rather than responsible ownership.
Compounding the challenge at that time were dogfighting rings, a cruel practice that intensified concerns about animal welfare and public safety. The combination of risky ownership and the clandestine dogfighting economy helped push lawmakers to codify stricter expectations for owners and more rigorous oversight of dog management in daily life. In practice, this climate led to stigmatizing certain breeds as potentially dangerous, even as many experts argued that temperament, training, environment, and owner responsibility play decisive roles in a dog’s conduct.
Looking ahead, the landscape remains unsettled. There is ongoing debate about how to balance public safety with fairness to dogs and their owners. If the proposed plan to publish a formal list of potentially dangerous breeds proceeds, the focus may shift toward standardized behavioral criteria and clearer licensing requirements for guardians. It is uncertain how effective this approach will be in solving a problem that is deeply human as well as canine, yet many believe the terminology could better reflect the actual situation when applied with careful, evidence-based criteria and consistent enforcement across jurisdictions. In any case, the aim is to base judgments on observable behavior and verified history rather than on assumptions tied to breed alone, which aligns with modern welfare principles and risk assessment practices.