Danish dog law's genetic rules questioned as wolves roam free

A Danish veterinarian is questioning the logic behind the country's dog law, which mandates the euthanasia of dogs found to have even a minuscule trace, as little as 0.1%, of DNA from a forbidden breed. Lise Rovsing, writing from Hellerup, argues that this strict genetic criterion is disproportionate, especially when contrasted with the legal protection afforded to wild wolves.

“

How can we as a society accept that a peaceful family dog risks death due to a theoretical genetic share, while a wild predator enjoys legal protection?

Rovsing highlights the paradox: a peaceful family dog can face death based on its genetic heritage, while a wild predator, entirely wolf, is safeguarded. She emphasizes that this is not an argument against wolves, which belong in nature discussions, but rather a call for proportionality in legal interventions.

The principle of proportionality, a cornerstone of the rule of law, dictates that official actions must be reasonably related to the risk they aim to prevent. Rovsing contends that the most severe sanction, euthanasia, should only be applied when there is a concrete, documented risk, not solely based on genetic origin.

“

The most drastic sanction – euthanasia – should therefore only be used when there is a concrete and documented risk, not solely on the basis of genetic origin.

She argues that if genetics alone determines an animal's fate, the principles should be applied consistently. Instead, one species is protected due to its DNA, while another can be killed for the same reason. Rovsing advocates for evaluating animals based on their behavior, health, and well-being, rather than their appearance or hypothetical genetic traces, calling for legislation grounded in facts, legal certainty, and proportionality over symbolic politics.

“

Animals should be assessed on their behavior, their health, and their well-being – not on their appearance or a hypothetical fraction of their genetic heritage.