Bengaluru: If the civic body has its way, sleeping dogs may no longer be able to loll in peace in their owner’s apartments. Proposed guidelines ban residents from keeping large pets in their flats. They cover Great Danes, English Mastiffs, Golden Retrievers, Rottweilers, St. Bernard and German Shepherds to name a few popular breeds. They also restrict owners from having more than one mid-size dog per flat.
The draft guidelines have raised the hackles of pet owners and dog lovers as it does not take into account area of the apartment.
Raghavendra Prasad, who has been living happily in a 2,000 sq ft flat in Banashankari with a boxer and a bulldog, and is baffled by the BBMP’s proposal. After all, humans and dogs have been happily coexisting in a city that is increasingly being defined by confined spaces, crowded pavements and fewer gardens.
“It’s ridiculous how the civic body is seeking to regulate dogs in the apartments. How does the BBMP define an apartment? How can they treat apartments of various sizes in the same way?” said the engineer.
Independent home owners will be able to own no more than three dogs.
While animal activists have welcomed the move, the motive behind the civic body’s move is not the comfort of the dog as much as the safety of neighbours. Dr. N. Anand, Joint Director, animal husbandry, BBMP, said that the need for new guidelines was triggered by a petition on large-size dogs that are intimidating and loud. “We have made a list of breeds that will not be allowed inside apartments,” he said.
Sampath Ramanujam of Force-Greater Whitefield, that counts over 30 apartment complexes among its members, said that they had not faced any issue over ‘large sized’ dogs in any apartment. That said, he admitted that the biggest point of conflict is of hygiene and dog litter.
But guidelines for pet dogs by the Animal Welfare Board of India explicitly state that no residents’ association can insist that only 'small-size' dogs are acceptable and ban larger breeds. Associations cannot cite barking as a valid reason for any proposed ban or restriction.
Dr. Anand defended the move saying the Welfare Board’s guidelines are not binding and that the civic body, in its wisdom, is making these rules.
