The animal welfare debate evolves from an approach centered on breed labels to a focus on individual dog behavior, yet the currently approved law still treats potentially dangerous dogs by breed rather than evaluating each animal’s actions. This means the longstanding standard, in force for nearly a quarter of a century, continues to classify dogs as dangerous based on their breed, not on personalized behavior.
Advocates for reform argue that breed-based classification is not a precise measure of danger. They claim it stigmatizes dogs that may pose no risk, even if they belong to a breed commonly labeled as aggressive. The outcome is that these dogs stay under the same rules they have followed up to today, regardless of how their behavior might actually manifest in real life.
At present the roster of potentially dangerous dogs (PPP) lists breeds such as Pit Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Rottweiler, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Tosa Inu, and Akita Inu.
Law 50/1999, which governs the possession of dangerous animals, remains in force and identifies this group by a mix of breed type, aggressive traits, jaw size, or strength that could cause serious harm. This formulation continues to guide regulatory decisions about ownership and control.
Progressives emphasize that a precise breed tag does not capture the full picture. Veterinary and scientific communities broadly concur that regulating dog risk should center on the individual animal’s behavior rather than the breed alone.
In the part of the approved bill that addresses special treatment for certain dogs, the original language included a requirement to conduct a test with owners to evaluate how well a dog can perform in everyday environments. The goal was to assess functionality in social settings.
Inconsistency in approved text
Official documents note a discrepancy in the final version. A portion of Article 30 that called for a test of social functioning was removed, yet another clause referencing examinations to assess the dog’s social abilities remained in the text, applying to companion animals in public spaces.
Further provisions specify that after testing to gauge social functioning, areas where dogs receiving special treatment are exercised must meet security standards to prevent escape and minimize risk of attack in designated spaces.
Change in initial plans
Earlier drafts proposed repealing the special regulation on potentially dangerous dogs and replacing it with a framework focused on the animals’ behavior. In the final debate before the Senate, a change was introduced that did not overturn the existing rules on dangerous dogs, a move supported by Unidas Podemos and grudgingly accepted by other parties, echoing the positions of political allies and opponents alike.
The notable outcome was that the current regulatory framework would remain in place, with no clear explanation of how repealed provisions would be replaced by the new regime. This ambiguity stood out as lawmakers explained that technical alignment would occur in the Senate to maintain consistency with the cabinet’s previous stance.
Additionally, the law as approved extends civil liability for damages to include potentially non-dangerous dogs, ensuring that those responsible for the animal bear responsibility for third-party harms. This broadens the scope of accountability for dog owners while balancing public safety.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Endnotes and clarifications about the regulatory framework reflect ongoing adjustments as the bill moves through the legislative process. The emphasis remains on ensuring clear standards for ownership, oversight, and accountability while pursuing a coherent approach to animal welfare.