Just prior to the 2008 Olympics, there
were more than 700,000 dogs registered in Beijing, and the number was
reported to be rising at a double-digit rate. Attachment to family
companion dogs will now test itself against an antiquated dog law
stemming from China’s post-revolutionary attitudes.
A recent report from Beijing, China
provides an excellent occasion for Americans to examine their own
practices. On June 2, the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau
announced that dogs 35 centimeters (13.75 inches) or taller, along
with dogs of 41 – yes, 41 — different breeds will be banned from
eight districts in the city.
This was not announcement of a new law, but of the intention to renew strict enforcement of a law that has been in effect since 2003. In fact, comment had appeared in the Western press concerning these regulations at the time of the Beijing Olympics in 2008. Reuters reported that the law had its basis in China’s rigidly communist past, when few people kept dogs as pets, and Chairman Mao condemned those who did as “bourgeois time wasters.”
With Mao and the veterans of the Long March and the Civil War now dead, China has prospered and a middle class emerged in its large cities. With these changes, the culture of pet-keeping has expanded. During periods of inconsistent government enforcement, even neglect, more and more members of China’s emerging urban middle class have acquired dogs as family companions, including dogs of the banned breeds, or dogs that are simply taller than 35 centimeters.
But the local government has now renewed a policy of strict enforcement.
Beijing dog owners, attached to their dogs just as Americans are, have responded to the government crackdown in ways that Americans would recognize. The New York Times reported that one dog owner set her alarm for 2:00 a.m., so that she could walk her dog when she knew the police were asleep. Others do not take their dogs outside at all, preferring to endure the problems of dog waste in their homes and apartments, rather than surrender a family companion to the authorities. Others have removed their dogs from the city, in order to protect them from seizure.
As often happens with policies that are arbitrary and contrary to science and common sense, the crackdown has spawned a vocal, publicized opposition. According to The Atlantic, a documentary film is now being completed, to show how new habits of pet-keeping in China have outstripped repressive, fear-driven regulation. In response, the government, armed with capabilities not available to American authorities, has deleted online criticism of the enforcement policy.
Before we Americans get too smug, we do well to remember how a few of our communities deal with dogs.
This was not announcement of a new law, but of the intention to renew strict enforcement of a law that has been in effect since 2003. In fact, comment had appeared in the Western press concerning these regulations at the time of the Beijing Olympics in 2008. Reuters reported that the law had its basis in China’s rigidly communist past, when few people kept dogs as pets, and Chairman Mao condemned those who did as “bourgeois time wasters.”
With Mao and the veterans of the Long March and the Civil War now dead, China has prospered and a middle class emerged in its large cities. With these changes, the culture of pet-keeping has expanded. During periods of inconsistent government enforcement, even neglect, more and more members of China’s emerging urban middle class have acquired dogs as family companions, including dogs of the banned breeds, or dogs that are simply taller than 35 centimeters.
But the local government has now renewed a policy of strict enforcement.
Beijing dog owners, attached to their dogs just as Americans are, have responded to the government crackdown in ways that Americans would recognize. The New York Times reported that one dog owner set her alarm for 2:00 a.m., so that she could walk her dog when she knew the police were asleep. Others do not take their dogs outside at all, preferring to endure the problems of dog waste in their homes and apartments, rather than surrender a family companion to the authorities. Others have removed their dogs from the city, in order to protect them from seizure.
As often happens with policies that are arbitrary and contrary to science and common sense, the crackdown has spawned a vocal, publicized opposition. According to The Atlantic, a documentary film is now being completed, to show how new habits of pet-keeping in China have outstripped repressive, fear-driven regulation. In response, the government, armed with capabilities not available to American authorities, has deleted online criticism of the enforcement policy.
Before we Americans get too smug, we do well to remember how a few of our communities deal with dogs.
The New York City Housing Authority has
banned from its buildings all dogs heavier than 25 pounds. Some
American communities continue to regulate dogs on the basis of breed,
presumed breed, or appearance, notwithstanding that such regulation
has never improved community safety wherever it has been implemented.
In both China and America, enforcement
of fear-driven animal regulation has resulted in shocking acts of
cruelty. The Times story about Beijing cites eyewitness reports of
battered, bloodied dogs being tossed into the backs of police trucks,
and mentions a woman who said she had witnessed the police kicking a
dog to death in the presence of its owner. In the United
States, breed or appearance-specific regulation has resulted in the
arbitrary deaths of untold tens of thousands of dogs
A Denver, Colorado woman, whose dog had been seized pursuant to the “pit bull” ban there, engaged an attorney in an attempt to save her dog, only to have it returned to her dead, in a black plastic bag.
In China, as in the United States, animal experts have publicly opposed regulation of dogs on the basis of breed, presumed breed, appearance or size. In China, veterinarians responding to the Beijing law, have pointed out that there is no correlation between large size and inappropriate aggressive behavior. Advocates stress that the solutions to any perceived problems lie with owners. The government, they say, should be administering rabies vaccinations and encouraging owners to walk their dogs on leash.
In North America, the theme of dog owner responsibility has taken greater hold than it has yet in China. Recently, more than twice as many jurisdictions have repealed or rejected breed-specific regulation as have imposed it. Communities have adopted, to one degree or another, principles of responsible pet ownership. . They have undertaken initiatives to help dog owners take better care of their pets.
A Denver, Colorado woman, whose dog had been seized pursuant to the “pit bull” ban there, engaged an attorney in an attempt to save her dog, only to have it returned to her dead, in a black plastic bag.
In China, as in the United States, animal experts have publicly opposed regulation of dogs on the basis of breed, presumed breed, appearance or size. In China, veterinarians responding to the Beijing law, have pointed out that there is no correlation between large size and inappropriate aggressive behavior. Advocates stress that the solutions to any perceived problems lie with owners. The government, they say, should be administering rabies vaccinations and encouraging owners to walk their dogs on leash.
In North America, the theme of dog owner responsibility has taken greater hold than it has yet in China. Recently, more than twice as many jurisdictions have repealed or rejected breed-specific regulation as have imposed it. Communities have adopted, to one degree or another, principles of responsible pet ownership. . They have undertaken initiatives to help dog owners take better care of their pets.
