Vladimir Golubev, president of the Russian Federation of Sinology, announced that DEA Newscinologists urged lawmakers not to treat dogs of fighting breeds as weapons. The statement underscored a broader debate about responsibility, public safety, and how societies classify animals within legal frameworks.
In a suburb setting, an unrestrained English bulldog mauled two children, prompting medical care for a four-year-old girl who was transported to the hospital. Valery Fadeev, head of the Human Rights Council, suggested that future discussions might consider treating certain dog breeds in a manner analogous to weapons. The comment sparked immediate discussion about how to balance animal welfare with public safety and the rights of pet owners.
Golubev stressed that there is no established category known as fighting dog breeds, noting that no international sinology or animal-behavior authority recognizes such a class. The core issue, he argued, lies not in the dog or its breed but in the owner’s responsibility and actions. A breed list, he warned, could mislead the public and create a false impression about canine behavior, potentially stigmatizing animals based on appearance rather than behavior.
To address safety concerns, Golubev proposed several practical steps aimed at increasing owner accountability. He advocated for mandatory tagging and accounting of pets, a measure designed to track animals and their owners more effectively. Additionally, he urged the opening of accessible dog training programs to improve public interactions with dogs and to promote better control in everyday life.
According to Golubev, every novice dog breeder should receive a foundational education that covers training basics, elementary zoopsychology, and essential pet-care practices. He asserted that it is the breeder’s duty to raise dogs that are manageable and predictable, stressing that training requirements should consider the unique traits of each breed while avoiding blanket judgments based on breed labels alone.
Lidia Lisichkina, who previously served as a cynologist and zoopsychologist with the Guldog service, contributed to the discussion by emphasizing practical indicators for identifying dogs that may pose a hostility risk. She highlighted behavioral cues and situational signs that can help owners and handlers anticipate and prevent aggressive incidents, reinforcing the need for early education and ongoing socialization for dogs and their guardians.
Experts in animal behavior note that safe coexistence hinges on responsible ownership, effective training, and community awareness. The conversation reflects a broader shift toward prevention, education, and transparent practices that reduce the likelihood of harmful encounters while respecting the welfare of dogs. In this framework, policy considerations focus on clear responsibilities for owners, accessible training resources, and reliable methods for tracking pet ownership that do not stigmatize animals based on breed alone. The emphasis remains on evidence-based approaches that prioritize safety without compromising the humane treatment of dogs in everyday life.
As the debate continues, authorities and advocates agree that a balanced approach is essential. Public spaces, schools, and residential areas benefit from reinforced guidelines, consistent enforcement, and sustained education campaigns that encourage responsible ownership. The ultimate goal is to create safer communities where dogs and people can interact with confidence, guided by practical rules, compassion, and a clear understanding that behavior, not breed, should drive safety decisions. The discussion also invites ongoing collaboration among policymakers, veterinarians, trainers, and guardians to refine training curricula and oversight mechanisms that reflect modern knowledge about canine behavior and human-animal relationships. In this context, questions about signs of hostility and early intervention remain central to preventing incidents and promoting harmony between dogs and their neighbors.