VZCZCXRO5117
OO RUEHCN RUEHGH RUEHVC
DE RUEHBJ #4267/01 3380929
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 040929Z DEC 06
FM AMEMBASSY BEIJING
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2706
INFO RUEHOO/CHINA POSTS COLLECTIVE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BEIJING 024267 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/04/2031 
TAGS: PGOV PHUM KCUL SOCI CH
SUBJECT: NEW DOG RULES UNLEASH EMOTIONAL DEBATE IN BEIJING 
 
Classified By: Political Section Internal Unit Chief Susan A. Thornton. 
  Reasons 1.4 (b/d). 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1.  (C) Debate about Beijing's new rules limiting 
households to one dog and outlawing "big and 
dangerous" breeds is raging as 2006, the Year of the 
Dog in the Chinese zodiac calendar, draws to a close. 
The crackdown on canines has touched off unusual 
demonstrations on the streets of the capital and has 
ignited heated exchanges in Internet chat rooms. 
Contacts told us that the Propaganda Department has 
banned media outlets from a) criticizing the policy, 
b) publishing articles about pet regulations in other 
countries or c) printing pieces that expound on the 
idea of "harmonious existence" between humans and 
animals.  That the dog policy has become controversial 
in the first place reflects the poor state of China's 
civil society, scholars said.  The lack of 
transparency surrounding regulations that affect 
people's daily lives provokes suspicion and 
frustration that has no sanctioned outlet.  Despite 
intense feelings on both sides of the dog controls 
issue, however, experts do not expect it to produce a 
sustained protest movement.  End Summary. 
 
"One-Dog Policy" Elicits Growls 
------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (C) The Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau 
(PSB) and three other city government organs announced 
a new policy governing dog ownership on November 6. 
Article 2 of the regulation is the most contentious as 
it explicitly limits households in most central 
Beijing districts to one dog and bans keeping so- 
called "large or dangerous dogs" altogether.  (Note: 
Large dogs are defined as over 35 centimeters tall, 
while "dangerous" dogs remain unspecified.  End note.) 
The directive also requires rabies vaccinations, 
introduces leash and curbing laws and identifies "no 
dog zones" throughout the city.  People who own dogs 
that fail to meet the standards are advised to 
transfer the pets to special state-run kennels or send 
them to an area outside of Beijing.  The Government 
has said that controlling an upsurge in rabies cases 
is a main impetus behind the new measures.  Violators 
of the restrictions can be fined up to RMB 10,000 
(about USD 1,250). 
 
¶3.  (C) On November 11, five days after the PSB 
announcement, some 500 protesters rallied against the 
new rules near the Beijing Zoo in Xicheng District, an 
area covered by the one-dog per family restriction. 
Foreign media reported that police detained some 18 
demonstrators.  Although we are unaware of plans for 
further large-scale protests, the dog policy has 
clearly touched a nerve in Beijing.  On November 29, 
an orange sedan covered with pro-dog posters rolled 
through the eastern part of the city, attracting 
curious stares from passersby.  The rules are causing 
headaches for the police as well, who are supposed to 
confiscate dogs from owners who can not pay fines, 
contacts told us.  Many police precinct basements are 
full of dogs, which the police now have to care for 
themselves. 
 
¶4.  (C) Meanwhile, Internet chat rooms have been 
overflowing with energetic debate about the issue. 
The website www.bobodogs.com has launched a point- 
counterpoint forum where supporters and opponents of 
the dog directive square off about everything from the 
legitimacy of the rabies threat to what many netizens 
are calling the "selfishness of urban dog owners."  In 
a typical posting, one opponent of the policy wrote 
that "the Government should be more tolerant.  It 
should not prohibit people's hobbies just because some 
people do not like dogs!  Speaking of bothering other 
people, where are the controls on smokers, gamblers, 
alcoholics and people with bad breath and body odor?" 
But a chat room participant responded, "Beijing is 
doing a good job.  Dogs are humans' friends?  They are 
only loyal to their owners and attack others!" 
 
The Censors Bite 
---------------- 
 
¶5.  (C) Such colorful commentary has been absent from 
the mainstream Chinese media because the Propaganda 
Department has issued strict coverage guidelines, said 
Zhou Qing'an (protect), a free lance journalist who 
 
BEIJING 00024267  002 OF 002 
 
 
regularly contributes to The Beijing News.  Media 
outlets are not permitted to a) criticize the policy, 
b) publish articles that draw on the experience of 
other countries in terms of their rules covering dogs 
and other pets or c) print pieces that expound on the 
idea of "harmonious existence" between humans and 
animals (of any kind).  Zhou learned No. 3 the hard 
way.  He proposed to The Beijing News that he write a 
column about human-animal harmony as an indirect 
criticism of the new rules.  Telling him about the 
Propaganda guidelines, an editor shot down his 
storyline. 
 
An Uncivil Society 
------------------ 
 
¶6.  (C) The controversy surrounding the one-dog policy 
reflects the underdevelopment of China's civil 
society, claimed Li Dun, a professor at Tsinghua's 
Center for the Study of Contemporary China.  Cities in 
rules-based countries have leash and curbing laws that 
developed in a transparent way over time, Li said.  By 
contrast, no one knows the origin of Beijing's new 
directive, leaving ample space for rumors and 
speculation.  The root of the restrictions is probably 
a disagreement between dog owners and petless 
neighbors, Li surmised.  Unable to settle matters 
among themselves and with no trust in the ability of 
the court system to hash things out equitably, the 
aggrieved probably reached as high as they could for 
influential connections to get results, Li theorized. 
Rumors are circulating, he related, that former 
President Jiang Zemin even sent a letter on the 
subject of dog controls to President Hu Jintao.  "How 
could something that should be handled locally wind up 
on the desk of a top leader?" he asked. 
 
¶7.  (C) In this vein, Li said he and most observers 
doubt that any genuine link exists between the new 
regulations and a serious public health threat from 
rabies.  The proportion of people who die of rabies, 
let alone who are bitten by dogs, is very small, Li 
remarked.  He cited improving traffic safety as a much 
more urgent task facing the Government.  Official 
statistics bear him out.  According to the Ministry of 
Health, 2,545 people died of rabies in 2005 compared 
to nearly 100,000 who were killed in traffic 
accidents.  In addition, during the first 10 months of 
2006, 1,866 people died of rabies.  At that rate, the 
number of rabies deaths in China will decline to about 
2,240 this year. 
 
Frayed Social Fabric? 
--------------------- 
 
¶8.  (C) The new restrictions appear to mostly affect 
dog owners among poorer families, the working class 
and the elderly, said Victor Yuan (protect), president 
of the public opinion polling firm Horizon and a 
longtime Embassy contact.  Middle class and richer 
individuals can pay the fines (or bribes) necessary to 
keep their unsanctioned pets.  But Yuan said his 
informal research indicates that passions on the dog 
issue, pro and con, are running high across class 
lines.  He Jiangtao (protect), a journalist at Citizen 
Magazine, separately made a similar point, adding that 
in his view there has been a social cost.  The PSB 
notice announcing the regulations included telephone 
numbers the public could dial to report scofflaws. 
The official encouragement to inform on others about 
their dogs, said He, is uncomfortably reminiscent of 
the Cultural Revolution period when the pervasive lack 
of trust all but unraveled China's social fabric. 
 
¶9.  (C) Nonetheless, Yuan of Horizon discounted the 
possibility that a cohesive protest movement will 
emerge to advocate on behalf of harried dog owners. 
"People have a hard enough time mobilizing their 
residents committees to demand services from their 
building management," Yuan said.  Yuan added that he 
has talked to National People's Congress deputies who 
believe the new regulations are oversimplified and 
inapplicable to concerns about public health and pet 
registration.  He predicted that when the NPC convenes 
in March, the body will produce new legislation that 
is less draconian.  Failing that, Yuan forecast that 
the trajectory of the directive would be akin to that 
of the 1993 law banning fireworks.  After an initial 
crackdown, enforcement became increasingly lax and 
people started to ignore the rules.  Then the 
Government repealed the law entirely in late 2005. 
Randt