As of: February 10, 2024, 1:30 p.m
By: Martin Becker
Comments
Press
Split
“I love dogs”: Andreas Pelka provided stickers to the approximately 60 dog lovers who followed the controversial debate on the obligation to keep large dogs on a leash in the Unterföhring local council.
Photo: mbe © mbe
The Unterföhringen local council was now discussing the citizen's motion “Repealing the leash requirement for large dogs.” To the annoyance of the applicants, there was no vote in their favor.
Unterföhring
- The extent to which the issue emotionalizes all sides became apparent on Thursday evening at 7:56 p.m. when the approximately 60 observers of the Unterföhring local council meeting suddenly applauded loudly and persistently, whereupon Mayor Andreas Kemmelmeyer (PWU) promptly called to order: “There are no such rallies here permitted.” Who is for and who is against requiring so-called large dogs to be kept on a leash?
Once again it was about the new regulation that has been in force in Unterföhring since December.
And even when Claudia Leitner (CSU) advocated a compromise to the applause of the dog owners' lobby and found that it was "disproportionate that all dogs are punished across the board": with a vote of 15:9, the local council rejected the citizen's motion to "remove the requirement to be kept on a leash for large dogs Dogs” – so the controversial regulation remains.
At least for now.
Dog owner presence living democracy
Kemmelmeyer described the concentrated presence of dog owners and their citizens' proposal (we reported) as a "living democracy" which the mayor read out again, but did not want to comment on the individual points, but instead passed the ball on: "The local council must now weigh up."
How difficult this is was shown by the fact that the parliamentary groups did not vote uniformly.
Take the example of the SPD, in which Philipp Schwarz was the only one to vote for the dog owner's citizens' proposal: “The current regulation massively divides the population.
There is a willingness to compromise on both sides - now it is the political task to find a solution." The PWU, with its ten votes (including the mayor), also did not agree; Simone Spratter was one of the three in favor of the citizens' proposal.
She probably already suspected that this would be rejected: “In this case, we should accommodate the dog owners.
The cross-party goal must be to find a solution that both dog owners and those in favor of the leash requirement can live with.”
The behavior of a few should not be the deciding factor
FDP lone fighter Veit Wiswesser, who also sided with the dog lobby, chose drastic words.
“Because of the antisocial behavior of a few individuals who regularly violate the rights of other people - there are around six to eight biting incidents - we shouldn't take all dog owners into family custody,” said Wiswesser, who has registered a “lively denunciation” if someone should violate the obligation to keep on a leash.
His advice: “Get the cow off the ice.”
But how?
The independent Peter Scholler outlined a possible path.
On the one hand, the new leash regulation is “unsustainable”, on the other hand, he said of the citizens’ proposal: “Neither a yes nor a no will bring peace to the matter.” This can only be achieved “by receiving the decision” ( i.e. reject the citizen's application) and in the next step “find a softer, more flexible solution”.
As food for thought, Scholler highlighted the “spatial and temporal limitations” of the municipal regulations.
His idea: “Establish a working group” that would develop compromise proposals.
Citizen's application noted
With this in mind, the local council voted 15:9 to simply take note of the citizens' proposal and to stick to the strict leash regulations for dogs over 50 centimeters at the shoulder height.
“It’s an outrage,” muttered one of the 60 dog owners present as he left.
They discussed the rejection of their citizen's application outside, in front of the town hall - and took up Scholler's idea of setting up a working group to provide the town hall administration with new food for thought.
“It's going to happen quickly,” they said, and they would have formed after the carnival holidays at the latest.