fredag den 11. oktober 2013

Discussion about the breed banning in Denmark October the 2nd 2013

Written by Theresa Kjær
Tranlated by Annesofie Bach Rasmussen

The picture is taken by: Kenned Richardt

Today there was a discussion about the specific-breed ban in Denmark and I was present to represent my Facebook site Musledog must stay in Denmark:

There were many presentations from veterinarians, animal ethical council, the Danish Kennel Club, Karen Hækkerup etc. following questions from the politicians we (the members of the audience) were allowed to ask questions.

Briefly told the experts agreed that the ban is not the way forward however the problem is at the other end of the line, it is the owner.
Nothing suggested that the breeds that are banned are more aggressive than others and this was underlined.

Despite this, Karen Hækkerup chose persistently to maintain the breed ban supported by: Vibeke Knudsen from Danish Kennel Club. It may be said that Vibeke does not have any real education in the dog world, she is only their marketing correspondent and hereby I mean that she is not to be considered as an expert.

Unfortunately we did not see much of Karen Hækkerup.
As she was not present to the first three presentations, she was only present shortly speaking about her own position towards the ban, that by the way was not supported by any facts or experts.

She briefly answered some question and here by left.
So to say she did not stay to the experts statements.

One of the statements that rouse my attention was that they all kept saying that there were none existing statistics concerning bites, reports etc. in Denmark.

And this is incorrect.

Both Fair Dog and Danish Terrier Clubs BIGcommittee have maid several in-depth studies and Fair Dog does also work with cases where people have been struck with the breed ban prior to race or by savage act.
 therefore wonder why they are not present in the committee as they have expert knowledge that they use daily unlike others.

Conclusion Karen Hækkerup chose not to listen to expert knowledge and this is only a reiteration from when the law was approved.
Yet again populism is more important then FACTS.
Here is the hearing (in Danish)

onsdag den 25. september 2013

Legislative, executive and judicial powers

Translation by : Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen
Written by: Theresa Kjaer

In Denmark we have a 3 part consensus in legislation.

That is:

the legislature

the executive

the judiciary

Each takes care of his part of the legislation

The legislature put forward an idea for a new law, for consultation. It must be approved at 3 hearings, to go be approved as part of the legislation.

The executive power is the police, who are responsible for maintaining law

The judiciary, the judges who are responsible for imposing a penalty onto the person who has broken the law.

That's how it should be, BUT in Denmark, police have decided to be both the executive and the judiciary power. Simultaneously, all rights to appeal have been removed as pertaining to The Law on Canines.
Thus, a dog owner cannot appeal if their dog is sentenced to death.

If the owner takes the case to court and the dog is later acquitted, it will be too late as the dog will have already been euthanized.
The result is that we, as dog owners, are without rights. That is unheard of in Denmark, since we are a democratic country.

My question: How can politicians go along with it?
To date, I have not received an answer.

It begs the question:

Are you not innocent until proven guilty?

Unfortunately, in Denmark, you are appearantly guilty until proven innocent, with regards to The Law on Canines.
Here, it is up to the OWNERS to prove the dog is lawful if it was born or has changed ownership after March 17, 2010.

Innocent until proven guilty is no longer a part of this legislation ......
This goes completely against what we learn!

tirsdag den 12. marts 2013

Death penalty: The drawing to a close for the dog Fido.

Translation by
Robert Jenkins

                              Photo by Louise Bluhme Sørensen

The dog's owner, Louise Sorensen, Sdr. Hygum, had Fido-case assessment of the National Police, after an expert and judge from the Danish Kennel Club last month ruled that there should be a gram fighting dog in the Fido.

But the decision of the National Police is clear: Fido must be killed. Poul Karstensen from the law firm Hjerrild & Bisgaard wonder:

- National Police requires a clear proof that Fido is not crossed with an illegal race. It can only be a DNA test to ascertain with certainty, and we do not know indentiteten on the dog's mother and father.

- We have the ability to bring the case to court, but it does not prevent the killing. It's tough, and it may not have been the legislators believe that the dog be killed while being tested to get picked evidence, says Poul Karstensen.

According to the lawyer gets the owner Louise Sorensen now the opportunity to say goodbye to the dog, then killing will take place.

torsdag den 14. februar 2013

Mail send to politicians.....

Written by Theresa Kjær
Translated by Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen

Mail sent to the following politicians:
Mette Gjerskov
Karina Lorentzen
Dennis Flydtkjær
Michael Aastrup Jensen
Morten Bødskov

This was added to the email

I am writing you this mail, in the hopes that you will read it and take it seriously. Prior
to your successful election, you promised to look into reassessing the Law on Canines. 2
years have passed since that promise was made.

In 2010, the government passed a ban on 13 breeds of canines, as well as an obligatory
registration of puppies at 8 weeks of age. The registration part of this law is fine, but the
breed ban has now cost more than 1400 dogs their lives.

I must emphasize that the law was NOT made because of bite, but because of symbolic politics
and hysteria in the media. Studies support this fact.

Dogs that may LOOK like the ones on the banned breed list are also euthanized, not to mention
the ones caught up in the law for other reasons altogether. Bite incidents where the dog has
returned a bite in self-defense or bitten because they were startled, are problematic. The
biting dog is quite often sentenced to be euthanized, despite extenuating circumstances, and
particularly if it could be categorized into one of the more muscular breeds.

The Law on Canines urgently needs to be reassessed.

Remove the breed ban:
The 13 breeds on the list are not the ones that do the most damage, according to a study made
by Fairdog (link at the bottom of the page).
A lot of owners are left without legal certainty if the police decide that the dog is (or is a
mix of) one of the banned breeds. These dogs are euthanized without a case being tried by the
IF the owner gets the case as far as the courts, it is in most cases AFTER the dog has already
been euthanized.

I, myself, have been stopped by the police numerous times, and listened to claims that my dog
is of the Amstaff breed. Look at the attached picture and judge for yourself…which brings me
to my next point; defining a breed from a picture is nearly impossible in most cases. Breed
experts need to have the dog in front of them, to make any kind of realistic evaluation of
breed. The police do not have the expertise to evaluate breeds, which again has led to
unnecessary euthanasia of healthy dogs.

To top it all off, the burden of proving the breed is reversed, which is almost impossible for
the owners of mixed breed dogs. Again, healthy dogs are euthanized based on guesswork.

In cases of biting, a professional canine behavioral analyst, or the like, should be
consulted. A bite is not always just a bite, and extenuating circumstances may be present,
such as self-defense or a case of being startled. If the owner of the bitten dog does not
make sure to have the wound cleaned, even the smallest breakage of skin can cause a serious

The time is now, for you to live up to your pre-election promises. Symbolic politics have
NEVER worked, and never will. Just look at the law that was passed on carrying knives…if you
can change that, then the Law on Canines shouldn’t be too hard to reassess.

So, to summarize:

1. Remove the breed ban.
2. Return legal certainty to owners.
3. The parts on biting need to be more clearly defined.
4. Experts need to be consulted to assess the dogs, not lawyers or police.

I hope that you will take this into consideration. The link to the studies:

Yours truly,
Maria-Theresa Kjær Larsen( info to my blogreaders: this is my full name)
Advocate for canine rights

tirsdag den 12. februar 2013

Thoughts on The state of the Law on Canines at this moment in time.

for more info visit

Well, it hasn’t been changed, but there has been brought a lot of attention to it, especially

since a police officer stole “Thor”, the German Sheppard, who was set to be euthanized as per

the section on vicious dogs/vicious attacks.

In short, “Thor” was attacked and bitten by a small dog, which made him bite in return. The

owner, Jette, paid a fine and assumed that the story would end there. It did not, however.

The day after the dogs had their disagreement, the small dog had been taken to the vet with an

infection in the wound. Based on that visit to the vet, a charge was made against “Thor” as

having made a vicious attack on the smaller dog and he was scheduled to be euthanized. The

eve before the judgment was to be carried out a police officer stole “Thor” from the kennel he

was placed at, and “Thor” has since been M.I.A.

Ever since, there has been a lot of attention on the Danish Law on Canines, which in itself is

good…the Danish people, however, are split into 2 groups on the question of whether or not the

police officer acted correctly in this situation.

I understand the thoughts and feelings behind his actions, but I don’t believe that breaking

the law is correct, REGARDLESS OF REASONING. Vigilantism is not a grey area in my world and

one of the many reasons for that is that I often meet people in debates who brag that they are

breeding banned breeds, calling it civil disobedience (vigilantism). I am very adamant when

it comes to following the law, despite the heartbreaking consequences.

The Law on Canines should absolutely be revised, but the consequence of people taking the law

into their own hands, may very well be that dialogue with politicians is not taken seriously.

It is my deepest wish that we find another solution to the current Law on Canines, especially

on the parts concerning breed banning. If that is ever to become a professional and factual

debate with the authorities, however, we need to keep our heads clear and follow the law.

That being said, I don’t understand why the politicians have not paused judgments in the

current cases that have been made, based on the parts of the law that need reassessing. Many

of the innocent dogs awaiting euthanasia could be saved if some other alternative was made

while the reassessment process is going on.

Remember…it is not only banned breeds at risk with the current law, but all breeds.

Written by 
Theresa Kjaer

Translated by 
Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen

tirsdag den 5. februar 2013

Know Thy Breed

Written by Charlotte Andersson
Translated by Michelle Otterstrøm Jensen

Today, just as any other day, we have had quite a few cases come in, concerning the Law on Canines. One of those cases, however, is a case where the police claim the dog is a mixed breed containing one of the banned breeds.

When I looked at the pictures attached to the case, I initially thought that the police had sent me the wrong pictures. This was not the case and I spent a long time studying the pictures of the dog, which obviously is a mixed breed containing a sledding breed (Malamute is my guess). 
I wonder which breed the police think it is mixed with, since the case file contains no such information. The file only states that they presume the dog is mixed with one of the banned breeds, and have therefore seized the animal. This is, in my opinion, a weak basis for such an action.

I will post pictures as soon as I have permission to do so. The owner of this dog had no reason to believe that it would be scrutinized in a breed case.

This dog is NOT the dog in question. This is a beautyful model owned by Ditte & Lotte Meinertsen

mandag den 28. januar 2013

Can we even have dogs in Denmark??

Written by Charlotte Andersson
Translated by Birgitte Hansen

Jette’s case(the owner of the German Shepherd  Thor) is grotesque and shows once again that public security among Danish dog owners is non existing.
That dogs in between occasionally have a dispute is a known fact and most often this causes no major damages. Damage as seen in this case would earlier have been taken care of amicably and within the mutual insurance companies.

Thor. Private photo

Not alone do we see a flaw in our public security, but also a diminished tolerance towards other people and their dogs. The first to report gains revenge. The dogs have turned into a pressure tool to hit at each other, especially towards people one dislike.

The dogs in Denmark are now a day’s humanized, not alone among the police’s attorneys but also among dog owners. Many believe that their dogs should get along with any other dog, and if they can’t manage that, they should either be re homed or euthanized. Remember humans all love each other (irony present..)
Dogs are no longer allowed to react and an increasing amount of myths are rising, concerning natural dog behavior. 

In cases where the police state the reason for euthanasia, we have often seen statements like “we have not seen natural dog behavior, since big dogs can not be afraid of small dogs”!
The point in the case with Jette and Thor is that even the most elementary law and order within the dog law has been totally neglected.

This is indeed worrying and a huge flaw in our public security.
Can we even have dogs in Denmark? If so what do we expect from them?
Can they live up to our expectations?