Leash obligation
As Anleinpflicht , leash or leash duty is called, a dog generally appropriate, on a tear-resistant and sufficiently short, a leash to lead. A lack of free exercise without a leash and in free contact with conspecifics is rejected from a behavioral point of view, as this is classified as not appropriate to the species and it promotes the development of behavior problems in dogs.
Behavioral evaluation and animal welfare
General or predominant leash hinder species-appropriate social contact, olfactory communication and exploratory behavior of a dog. As the species-appropriate social behavior is hindered, the predominant line guidance inhibits the development of a species-appropriate social behavior and favors the development of behavioral problems (see behavioral biology ). A lack of exercise without a leash and in free contact with conspecifics violates animal welfare and is rejected as inappropriate. This is also assessed by animal protection laws in the EU, Germany and many German federal states.
Legal situation
Germany
In Germany, however, a leash obligation can result from corresponding national standards ( dog laws ), municipal regulations or requirements for individual dog owners . In the opinion of several courts, the Condominium Act also establishes obligations to be attached to jointly used residential property. The leash obligation was the subject of numerous norm controls and legal proceedings of individual owners.
There is no obligation to be kept on a leash without exception (in the sense of a leashed obligation for all dogs always and everywhere) and, in the opinion of the OLG Hamm, would not be permissible for constitutional reasons. In larger contiguous settlement areas, the principle of proportionality requires adequate public areas to be exempted from the leash requirement in order to meet the dogs' need for exercise. Federal states sometimes have their own legal regulations for this: For example, Bavarian law requires that the dogs' need for exercise be sufficiently taken into account.
Basically, there are two levels of regulation: state law and local law .
In state law there is a general leash obligation only for Berlin (since the beginning of 2019). In addition, possible points of contact for a leash obligation are in particular:
- dangerous dogs
- certain areas in urban areas (e.g. green spaces, pedestrian zones)
- certain areas outside urban areas (e.g. forest, nature reserves )
- also in connection with certain times ( breeding and setting time of wild animals).
The following table lists the legal bases in the federal states and, for example, in their largest cities:
() Authorization to issue ordinances
Austria
Austrian national law at a glance:
| country | Laws (statutory authorization) |
|---|---|
 Burgenland
|
( § 20 Bgld. LSG) → e.g. Eisenstadt |
 Carinthia
|
Section 8 (1) and (2) K-LSiG ( Section 69 (4) K-JG) →e.g. Klagenfurt |
 Lower Austria
|
§ 8 Paragraphs 3 to 5, ( §§ 9 and 9a ) Lower Austria Dog Keeping Act → e.g. Wiener Neustadt (dog exercise zone) |
 Upper Austria
|
Section 6 Paragraphs 1, 2 (and 4) Upper Austria. Dog Keeping Act 2002 |
 Salzburg
|
( § 17 S.LSG) → e.g. Salzburg ; Section 19 (7) of the S.LSG ( Section 101 (3) of the 1993 Hunting Act) |
 Styria
|
Section 3b (3) and (4) StLSG |
 Tyrol
|
Section 6a Paragraph 2 (and 2a) State Police Act |
 Vorarlberg
|
Section 6 State Security Act |
 Vienna
|
Section 5 (1) and (2) and Section 5a (12) of the Vienna Animal Keeping Act, Section 92 (1) (and 5) of the Vienna Hunting Act |
See also: Life in the community (information on "muzzle and leash compulsory" per community)
Situation in cities
Since there are normally no species-appropriate husbandry structures in cities , a sufficient number of sufficiently large free-range areas must be made available for animal welfare reasons. In order to create clarity for dog owners and other people, more and more cities are defining open-air areas, summarizing them in an overview map and describing them.
Examples of defining open-air areas in cities:
- Cologne
- Nuremberg
- Paderborn
Individual evidence
- ↑ Dorothea Döring, Angela Mittmann, Barbara M. Schneider, Michael H. Erhard: General leash constraint for dogs - an animal protection problem? About the dichotomy between security and animal welfare. In: Deutsches Tierärzteblatt. December 1, 2008, accessed September 19, 2019 .
-
↑ Press release of the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe from June 2nd, 2008 on ref. 14 Wx 22/08
- Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, I-3 Wx 64/06 on justiz.nrw.de
- AG Munich, March 21, 2013, 484 C 18498/12 on dejure.org
- ^ Order of the Hamm Higher Regional Court, 5th Senate for Fines, Az. 5 Ss OWi 1225/00
- ↑ State Ministry of the Interior: Announcement by the State Ministry of the Interior on the implementation of the State Penal and Ordinance Act of August 8, 1986 (MABl. P. 361), implementation of the State Penal and Ordinance Act (VollzBekLStVG) . July 2, 1992. Rn. 18.2
- ↑ Bavarian State Chancellery: Law on state criminal law and ordinance law in the field of public safety and order (State Penal and Ordinance Act - LStVG), Art. 18 Keeping dogs. December 13, 1982. Retrieved September 18, 2019 .
- ↑ oesterreich.gv.at oesterreich.gv.at . Federal Ministry for Digitization and Business Location. Retrieved March 28, 2020.
- ↑ City of Cologne: Free running areas for dogs. Retrieved September 18, 2019 .
- ^ City of Nuremberg: Dogs in the city. Small rules - big impact. For a better togetherness. Service operation for the public space Nuremberg, August 1, 2016, accessed on September 18, 2019 .
- ↑ City of Paderborn: Dog walking areas in Paderborn. Retrieved September 18, 2019 .
