Motto: We have been created and born to protect You and even put our lives for You. Please do not allow our extinction as a result of some one's foolishness, political motif or ignorance!!!

We, breeders and owners of dogs breeds identified as problematical and dangerous, as well as the entire
Kennel public of conscientious and fair dog owners, call on the Czech republic with an appeal to their human discerning, tolerance, common sense and respect for nature and especially for living animals.

We call on the public for support in our appeal to You, deputies Koristka and Sojdrova, because you are working at a new Law proposal that would govern the ownership of so-called "dangerous" dogs. We also appeal to other Members of Czech parliament to consider very solicitously voices of all parties, before they create an inhuman, senseless and generally useless piece of legislation, which will lead to nothing, but discontent and material as well as emotional damage to significant part of the society.

We chose the petition as a way of addressing You, deputies Zdeněk Koristka and Michaela Sojdrova, because the time is running and we cannot think of a faster way to approach You and Your activity. We do it, because we are deeply concerned by Your public statements regarding the above mentioned bill. We are equally concerned about unobjective, targeted campaign in TV Nova and newspapers Blesk, Lidove Noviny, Elefant, Zemske noviny etc. We feel that the bill, your public appearances and the media campaign are highly prejudiced, unobjective and though, they are about us, we have not been invited to take part in it. Your approach to the issue suggests nothing but mechanical copying of insensitive, dully bureaucratic and artificially constructed regulations from some of West Europe countries, without consideration of traditions and local conditions. Despite repeating hypocritical assurance, that the prepared legislation is not aimed against certain special dog breeds (which is how every public presentation and discussion on the topic starts) we fear that the bill will significantly affect and limit human rights of large group of citizens and will lead into senseless liquidation of afore mentioned dog breeds in our country.

What are our goals:
· A sensible legislative arrangement of mutual relations between dog owners and other citizens with defined rights, duties and responsibility of both parties. This legislative norm must define relations human being - human being or human being - community/municipality. It must be simple, unambiguous, understandable and applicable in normal life situations. Even the best norm is useless, if it forces people to do things, which can't be done.
· We want to link the new law to existing legislation which will enable us to minimize and simplify it as many situations addressed by the current bill proposal are already well taken care of by other laws. All that is needed is more detailed clarification and specification of the existing laws and their interpretations.
· Prevention of unfair and hysterical media campaign aimed against certain dog breeds in a way, which can be classified as a crime of spreading false alarming news. Individual cases, cut out of context and presented by tabloid style with the intention to misrepresent or withhold facts in order to increase popularity of certain TV show or print run of newspapers do not contribute to reasonable definition of relations between dog owners and other society.

· We strive for enlightenment through information - both for dog breeders and the rest of the society and for initiation of critical, but knowledgeable discussion. We want the public to be informed about every dog involving incident in an objective way clear of emotions but including proper analysis of the case and responsibilities and description of what measures should be taken to prevent similar incident in the future.
· We want to teach people tolerance and respect for rights of others as well as responsibility and knowledge that violation of these rights means the perpetrator will be held responsible before the law.
· We demand consistent application of the above mentioned norms of coexistence and behavior even in areas where are similar norms traditionally underestimated and belittled.

What we do not want and what we reject in principle.
· We reject any kind of discrimination against any particular dog breed and its owners. No dog breed should be marked as "fighting", "dangerous" or even a kind of "weapon", aimed at other human being. Defining a dog breed as "fighting", or"dangerous" is a biological nonsense (see article of Mr. Kubeš, Pes přítel člověka magazine 12/2000) created for commercial purposes by sensation-seeking journalists. To our great sorrow, this term is frequently used not only by media, but also by some veterinarians, politicians, statesmen and also dog owners. We want to ban use of this terminology. It is disinformative, misleading and racist in a way comparable to Nuremberg laws of the Nazi Third Reich. No dog breed has been created to fight, hurt or kill humans (at least in the Modern Era).
In the "Justification" part of the proposed law, You stress the "liberal character of Your concept, similar to the German system". However, we do not understand, what is "liberal" about the German law, which leaves dead dog bodies in its wake (see the horrible firs hand reportage about official execution of family dog Baxter at the internet address http://www.schaeferhunde-vom-schwarzen-ghazal.de/links/baxter.htm),
r.htm). In the law, you describe "only" 9 dog breeds as "dangerous". These are: American Staffordshire Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Staffordshire Bullterrier, Bull Terrier, Rhodesian Ridgeback, Fila Brasileiro,
Rottweiller, Dobermann, Pitbullterrier and their crossbreeds. The ad-hoc and groundless selection of is a proof you ignorance and lack of competence in this field. Number of inaccuracies stated in the law proposal is yet another proof of your incompetence.

We ask You: who is Your professional consultant and why don't You respect even the standpoint of Czech Veterinarian Chamber, who is our highest veterinary authority and who denounced your "dangerous - special-other" classification of dog breeds as nonsensical? What valid Europeans Community Laws correspond with Your proposal as You declare?

What is Your motivation? Where do You get the courage to present to the parliament a bill which will affect lives and elementary rights of tens of thousands of citizens, while You lack even an elementary knowledge of the topic and while You even failed to open a professional discussion with expert community ?

Let us not repeat mistakes of others. Let us not copy thoughtlessly laws of other countries just because they are located to the West of our country. Their legislation is not solution of the problem. It is just an attempt to pick up votes and distract attention from other, more pressing issues.

Let us not miss-present facts when informing about individual dog involving incidents. Let us always give full and objective account of what happened. Let us stay clear of sensation seeking efforts, falsification and putting facts out of context. Let us publish objective analysis of what happened, what was the primary cause, what were the circumstances and what were the responsibilities of all affected parties. Very educational would be publishing report on legal consequences of each participant in every case. A great help would be holding media legally responsible for presenting incomplete reports and misinterpreted facts, though this is rather unreal. Presenting a full account of what happens is one of the cornerstones of journalism - however, it seems that in some media, morals are not of high priority and moral behavior is perhaps impossible.

We do not want to disregard criticism aimed against irresponsible dog owner. We do not want to disregards rightful calls for corresponding legislation. We also do not want to detract relevance of problem by declaring, that the afore mentioned dog breeds are not potentially dangerous to human. Dog is a predator and despite thousands of years of domestication, it still remains a carnivorous predator. For this reason, every dog can be potentially dangerous for a human under certain circumstances. Every dog is capable of harming a human and logically speaking, the potential danger grows with the size, strength a power of the dog.
However, all statistics palace the afore mentioned !"dangerous" dog breeds far behind German Sheppard's, Cocker spaniels and even Dachshunds. In light of this, it seems that opinion of Czech Veterinarian Chamber is more objective than yours. Undoubtedly, the veterinarians are professional par-excellence and certainly know, why they say it is "practically impossible to define certain dog breeds as fighting, aggressive or dangerous".

We principally reject the intended order to use thong and muzzle on all public areas (there is, yet again,
a technical question - what breeds must obey, what breeds do not have to, what type of thong and what type of muzzle is acceptable etc.). The proposed regulation robs dogs off practicing free natural movement ( run, play, aport etc.) To keep a dog under such conditions means, that dog owners will commit the crime of animal maltreatment. Your regulation is reasonable and logical in public transportation, at crowded public areas and everywhere, where there is physical contact of people with dogs - especially the larger breeds. However, it is unnecessary to demand under penalty the use of thong and muzzle at lonely places, pathways etc. On such places, the owner should be held fully responsible for ensuring, the dog will not cause any damage, however, he should be given the freedom to decide on what measures he will use (based on the circumstances, nature of the dog, level of training and physical dispositions of the dog leading person). A perfectly trained dog will be under
its master's control an any situation without any thong and muzzle. In such case, the thong and muzzle represent only additional legal "insurance". This is why we believe that dog owners should be held responsible for their dogs and their training. Good behavior of the dog is every dog owner's private interest.
It is absolutely unnecessary to order any administrative regulation and appointment officially licensed trainers.

We protest, with all our hearts, against any intention to limit breeding or even to liquidate any dog breeds. Height of the proposed taxes and insurance duty without set upper limit can lead into heavy financial difficulties of some breeders and owners. Should the prepared law result in anything comparable with "extinction law", we will view the bill as contradicting the constitution and in case of emergency we will appeal against it to the Czech Constitutional Court. Furthermore, according to Charter of Human Right, citizens´ privacy may not be violated, which means, that controlling, whether dog owners respect the law or not would mean violation of the charter. In it's consequence, the law would not affect those, who should be affected the most - irresponsible dog owners, who have respect for no law and who should definitely not own a dog.

What we want and principally support:
We want the legislation to treat all dog breeds equal. The law must not differentiate between officially determined disapproved dog breeds and the rest.

We acknowledge the necessity and obligation to mark every dog of any breed (including cross breeds) when they reach certain age (for instance 6 months). At first, this could be done by tattoo, later, when the technology allows, by chips. Electronic chips are perfect, modern and can't be falsified. We fully support standpoint of Czech Veterinarian Chamber on dog marking as published in Magazine World Of Dogs 12/2000.

We acknowledge, it is dog owners´ duty to have his dogs insurance against damage caused to other citizens (even unintentional, accidental damage). The height of the insurance fees should reflect the status of dog breeding and keeping, however, its maximum level should be set to prevent the insurance companies from charging dog owners unreasonably high amounts.
· We support increased penalties in cases where dog owners violate the rules of coexistence with other citizens and through negligence, insufficient control over the dog, insufficient equipment or bad intent violate public order, endanger private property, safety and health of a persons, who made no intentional action, that would justify the dog's attack.

We want the new legislation to be linked to the existing Civil code, article §127, §415 which defines the obligation to prevent possible damages on health and determine the responsibility for any unprevented damage, caused by law violation.
We also recommend strict enforcement of article §196, §202, §221 -§224 and others of the Crime Code
about municipalities, municipal police, animal protection, veterinarian care etc.

We also want legal liability for people, who cause a dog to attack them or other person after they have intentionally provoked the dog to attack, tortured the dog or approach, manipulate and touch unknown dog without the dog owner's approval. The same liability should enforced on people, who let loose a secured dog with the owner's approval, leave a child or other psychically irresponsible person with a dog without supervision, enter premises guarded by dog, while the premises are clearly marked by signs and those who attack the dog owner or his family or endanger his property, in which case it is totally acceptable for the dog to protect the attacked person or his master's property.

We strongly recommend the possibility of withholding the right to keep a dog from owner, who, through negligence, insufficient supervision, insufficient equipment (muzzle and thong) or through bad intent, allowed the dog to cause serious injury or damage or who violated some of the afore mentioned laws (i.e. animal torture). Withholding the right to keep dog should be applicable to all dog owners alike regardless of the dog breed they own. We recommend to delegate the decision-making on to municipal authorities, which have good knowledge of the local conditions - but we also recommend strict enforcement of this legislation. In order to prevent possible misuse of the power, the affected dog owner should have the right to appeal to a court of law to reexamine his case, while a specialist for the specific breed should be present at the hearing to give an expert opinion on the case (in case, where specialist for the one particular breed can't be present, a consultant specializing on closest kin breed should be present).

We stand for control and possible limitations or even ban of breeding stations, which produce high numbers of dogs purely on commercial basis, without securing necessary conditions for the animals and which selectively and intentionally produce aggressive dogs. Such breeders are often a source for future problematic dog owners and should be rightfully criticized.

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AN ANIMAL IS INCLUDED IN THE CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS. ONCE AGAIN, WE APPEAL TO YOU, GOOD PEOPLE, HELP US SAVE UNIQUE DOG BREEDS WITH EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER. THESE DOGS HAVE BEEN UNLUCKY TO ATTRACT HATRED AND INOBJECTIVE CAMPAIGN, WHICH USES PREJUDICE AND FEAR OF ORDINARY PEOPLE TO ACHIEVE HIDDEN GOALS OR SATISFACTION OF SENSATIONALIST MEDIA.
SHOULD THESE DOGS BE EXTERMINATED JUST TO INCREASE PRINT RUN OF TABLOID NEWSPAPERS? OR TO INCREASE POPULARITY OF POLITICIANS, WHO HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO OFFER THE SOCIETY?
IF YOU SAVE THESE DOGS, YOU WILL SAVE ONE OF THE BEST FRIENDS, ONE CAN POSSIBLY HAVE. THEY HAVE BEEN CREATED FOR OUR ENTERTAINMENT AND PROTECTION. THEY ARE EVEN WILLING TO DIE FOR THEIR LOVE FOR US. THEY DESERVE OUR PROTECTION.

Keepers and owners of "non-fighting", safe and yet endangered dog breeds.

We, hereby signed dog owners, dog friends, friends of all other animals and other good people, reject groundless discrimination in any form. We support this petition and appeal on the state authorities to reconsiders their standpoint on the issue of human-dog relations.

Statement of signatory:
I agree with the above stated arguments and opinions which are the subject of the petition I read.
I confirm, that the information I present about myself is true. I understand, that the information I present about myself will be used to support the Dogs´ petition and I also understand, that my signature on this petition is of the same value as hand-written signature.
I declare, that I participate on this petition on my free will and that I am fully accountable for my actions. I have not been forced to sign the petition.
I case I will be required to prove the truthfulness of information I present about myself, I will do so.

Zpracoval: Ivo Přikryl