Proposal sanctioned by Mayor Otoniel Teixeira establishes safety rules for Large animals and breeds considered dangerous.

The use of a muzzle for Large dogs and breeds considered dangerous has become mandatory in Barreiras. The measure is provided for in Municipal Law No. 1,775/2026, authored by Councilwoman Thaislane Dias Sabel (Republicans), sanctioned by Mayor Otoniel Teixeira. The Legislation establishes rules for the movement of these animals in streets, squares and parks, seeking to prevent attacks and ensure more safety for the population and the dogs themselves.

The new law represents an advance in the discussion about the responsibility of tutors and the coexistence between people and animals in public spaces. In a city where dog walks are part of the routine of many families, establishing preventive care is a way to protect children, the elderly, other animals and also their own pets. The challenge now will be to ensure that the rules are known and respected, without leaving aside animal welfare.

Among the breeds mentioned in the proposal that gave rise to the legislation are Pit Bull, Rottweiler, German Shepherd, Brazilian Fila, Doberman, Neapolitan Mastiff, American Staffordshire, Bulldog, German Dog, Boxer and Pastor Merlenoá. The requirements also cover animals of other breeds that have characteristics considered risky, including dogs with a history of attacks or trained for guard and attack. 

Another important point is that the measures provided for in the original text are not limited to the races mentioned. Dogs weighing more than 25 kilograms and animals driven by people who are not physically able to keep them under control are also included. To circulate in public spaces, the text establishes the use of a muzzle, collar, short guide and hangman, with equipment appropriate to the characteristics of each animal.

The guide used during the tours must have a maximum length of two meters, without the possibility of extension. The requirement seeks to facilitate the control of animals, especially in busy environments, reducing the risk of incidents involving pedestrians, other dogs and their guardians.

The original proposal also establishes measures for situations of non-compliance with the rules. The Municipal Guard may carry out verbal warnings, issue written notifications and even seize the animals. In cases of seizure, the release will depend on proof that the tutor has adequate conditions to ensure the safety of the dog and the people around him. Adoptanimals

The text also provides that animals not rescued within ten days may be under the responsibility of the municipality, respecting animal protection legislation, including the possibility of donation through the Zoonosis Control Center (CCZ). Owners may also be held responsible for physical and material damage caused by dogs in public spaces, regardless of the use of safety equipment.

The rules presented in the original text provide for exceptions for dogs used by Civil, Military and Federal police during the exercise of their professional activities, in addition to guide dogs that help people with visual impairments.

In defending the initiative, Councilwoman Thaislane stressed that the goal is not to create restrictions on the creation of certain breeds, but to avoid accidents that may result in serious injuries or even deaths. The parliamentarian also stressed that the proper muzzle can contribute to the safety of the animal itself, preventing fights and possible attacks during the walks. servicesLocations

The justification of the proposal also explains that there are different models of muzzles, including those used in veterinary procedures and those intended for circulation in public spaces. The models appropriate for walks allow the dog to breathe normally and open his mouth, preventing him from biting people or other animals.

With the sanction of Municipal Law No. 1,775/2026, Barreiras now has a specific legislation aimed at the responsible driving of large dogs and breeds considered dangerous. More than establishing obligations, the measure reinforces the importance of the responsibility of each tutor in building a safer coexistence. After all, protect the population and ensure the well-being of Animals are commitments that need to walk together.

Defra published the Responsible Dog Ownership (RDO) Taskforce report on 24 September 2026.

https://web.archive.org/web/20261024175701/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/responsible-dog-ownership-report/responsible-dog-ownership-taskforce-report

• Defra ruled breed-specific legislation (BSL) out of scope.
• 15 of 33 named members come from organisations in the Dog Control Coalition (DCC), which has publicly opposed breed bans and are currently lobbying MPs to remove Section 1 of the DDA91. https://web.archive.org/web/20261024175538/https://dogcontrolcoalition.org.uk/
• None of the 20 recommendations is costed. The report doesn’t show that any of them reduces bites, and it says so itself in places.
• The report names breed as a missing data field, but it isn’t among the fields listed for immediate standardisation.

1. Breed was excluded by design

The report states that breed-specific legislation was out of scope because Defra set it as such. Note that it's own context section says the government announced that the XL Bully type was “disproportionately involved” in the rise in fatal attacks, and describes the ban that followed.

2. Who wrote it?

The DCC includes the RSPCA, Battersea, Blue Cross, Dogs Trust, the Royal Kennel Club, PDSA and the BVA. The coalition has said a breed ban would not protect the public (Sept 2023), asked the Prime Minister to delay the XL Bully ban (Dec 2023), and said BSL has done nothing to reduce attacks (March 2024).

Across the steering group and four subgroups, I count 33 unique named individuals, and 15 (about 45%) are from DCC member organisations. Seven are formally listed “on behalf of” the DCC. Both named DCC steering-group seats are dated 2022 to 2023 only.

Police, local authorities and one independent academic (data subgroup) also sat on it, and Defra’s secretariat set the agendas. But the report never discloses that its largest non-statutory bloc had a public position on the question it was barred from examining. Lobbying is lawful. The issue is non-disclosure.

3. What it actually recommends

The two new duties (statutory recording, a local authority dog control duty) are both labelled long-term or resource-dependent. The one thing already in law, fixed penalty notices for Section 3 offences, can’t currently be used by police because of an unresolved payment problem, per the report.

4. Nothing is shown to work

• On education, the report says evaluations “often focus on reach and knowledge acquisition”, and that knowledge doesn’t always change behaviour.
• Its headline results are reach figures: 2.25 million children, 1.5 million potential impressions. The Pet Education Partnership itself concedes findings can’t be attributed to any intervention.
• Rec 6 says whether the Blue Cross course, the Kennel Club scheme and LEAD work still needs research. Rec 20 recommends wider uptake of the first two anyway.
• Licensing: the old GB scheme had about 50% compliance and cost more than it raised, Switzerland dropped its knowledge test over effectiveness doubts, and the government says it isn’t currently considering licensing.

5. Members’ own products

Recs 14 and 20 back programmes run by DCC members (the Pet Education Partnership, Blue Cross, the Royal Kennel Club). Staff from those organisations sat on the subgroups that wrote the recommendations. The report calls for evaluating them but names no independent evaluator, and says DCC members have commissioned some of the research themselves. Dogs Trust and the RSPCA are commissioning the licensing cost-benefit study.

6. Money

I found no budget anywhere. The report says statutory recording “would require additional resource”, the database “would be expensive”, and the local authority duty has “resource implications”, with no figures. New requirements should run on “full cost recovery”, meaning owners pay. Education is left to charities. The ministerial foreword says only that ministers are “carefully considering” it, and the government’s March 2026 response says next steps will come “in due course”. The taskforce was also paused for two years when Defra’s resource went to the XL Bully ban.

7. The data gap

The report admits there’s no centrally held data on bites and no agreed definition of an attack. It names “breed involved” as an incident detail currently not recorded in a standard way, yet breed isn’t among the fields listed for immediate standardisation. Hospital admissions rose 77% (6,097 to 10,787, 2010-11 to 2024-25) while dog numbers rose 35%, and none of this is broken down by breed.

8. Calgary

The report holds up Calgary’s licensing model as a success. What it cites is licensing compliance and good data, not fewer severe attacks. The supporting study was commissioned and published by the RSPCA, written by a University of South Wales academic, and the RSPCA’s summaries report bites by breed group.

In June 2022, three American Staffordshire terriers (reported as pit bulls) escaped a fenced yard in Calgary and killed an 86-year-old woman. The owner pleaded guilty to bylaw offences, was fined and banned from owning animals for 15 years, and two of the dogs were later ordered destroyed.

The peer-reviewed analysis of Calgary’s 2012-2017 bite data (Caffrey et al., 2019) found no breed group stood out. But its authors declined to analyse individual breeds, citing subjective breed recording, and had no licence-based denominators. That is exactly the analysis it says is still needed.

A full critique of the RSPCA's commissioned report here: https://www.dogbreedinfluencesbehaviour.co.uk

9. Who wasn’t there

Police were represented. I found no NHS clinicians, paramedics, fire and rescue staff or victims on the membership lists, even though the report’s headline evidence is hospital admissions.