Last week, state senator Carolyn Comitta issued a memorandum announcing that she was going to introduce a bill to ban declawing in Pennsylvania, as a companion bill to HB508 in the state house. Declawing is already illegal in some communities, including Allentown and Pittsburgh.
Once considered standard practice for housepets, declawing has become steadily less popular over the past several decades, in part due to increased awareness of what declawing actually entails (hint: it is not just a kind of enhanced nail trimming).
The practice of cat declawing has a history dating back several decades. It became more common in the mid-20th century as a means to prevent cats from damaging furniture and to address scratching-related issues in households. The procedure gained popularity, especially in North America, during the 1950s and 1960s.
Initially, the procedure was promoted as a solution to protect furniture and prevent scratching-related injuries to humans. However, over the years, concerns about the ethics and potential negative consequences of declawing have led to increased scrutiny and changing perspectives.
The procedure has faced criticism from animal welfare organizations, veterinarians, and advocates who argue that it is a painful and unnecessary surgery that can lead to behavioral and physical problems in cats. As a result, some jurisdictions and professional veterinary associations have taken steps to discourage or restrict the practice, emphasizing the importance of alternatives such as regular nail trimming, providing scratching posts, and using soft nail caps.
In Pennsylvania, communities such as Allentown, Easton, Etna, and Pittsburgh have passed local laws to prohibit declaw procedures.
Alexandra Horowitz is one of my favorite authors, and I was disappointed when her Freakonomics podcast “Off Leash” did not survive beyond the first couple of episodes. However, you can catch her on a recent episode (#49) of the When We Talk About Animals podcast. This podcast describes itself as “A Yale University podcast devoted to exploring the big questions animals raise about what it means to be human.”
This episode is mostly about her book “The Year of the Puppy”, but rather than write about it I’ll just include the link and you can listen for yourself.
ABOUT ALEXANDRA HOROWITZ
Alexandra Horowitz is a notable American cognitive scientist, author, and professor, recognized for her contributions to the field of animal cognition and her engaging exploration of human perception and behavior. Born in 1974, she earned her undergraduate degree in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania before pursuing her Ph.D. in cognitive science at the University of California, San Diego. Horowitz’s academic journey reflects her interdisciplinary approach, incorporating elements of psychology, philosophy, and biology into her research.
Her breakthrough work includes studies on animal behavior, particularly in the realm of dog cognition. In her bestselling book “Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know,” Horowitz delves into the intricacies of a dog’s sensory world, offering readers a captivating journey into the minds of our canine companions. Her ability to translate complex scientific concepts into accessible and engaging narratives has made her a respected figure in popular science writing. Beyond her literary achievements, Horowitz is a professor at Barnard College, Columbia University, where she continues to explore the fascinating intersection of human and animal cognition.
Alexandra Horowitz’s dedication to bridging the gap between scientific research and public understanding has earned her widespread acclaim. As a thought leader in the field of animal cognition, she not only contributes to our understanding of the minds of animals but also encourages a deeper appreciation for the diverse ways in which different species perceive and interact with the world. Through her books, research, and teaching, Horowitz has left an indelible mark on the study of cognition, enriching our understanding of the complex relationships between humans and the animal kingdom.
The “Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act”, HR 4417, was introduced in June 2023 by Ashley Hinson of IOWA, seeks to roll back a number of state protections for animals, such as California’s Proposition 12. As you may guess from its libertarian-sounding name, this proposed law would curb individual states’ ability to set certain standards for animal welfare.
The bill aims to promote agricultural trade by prohibiting state and local governments from imposing standards or conditions on the pre-harvest production of agricultural products if the production occurs in another state and the standard or condition is in addition to the standards and conditions set by federal law and the laws of the state and local government where the production occurs. It also establishes a federal cause of action to challenge state regulation of interstate commerce related to agricultural products.
Senate Bill 746, aimed at strengthening Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement (BDLE) has passed. The legislation, introduced by Sen. Elder Vogel, facilitates the online sale of dog licenses in all counties, increases penalties for violations of Pennsylvania’s Dog Law, and raises dog license and kennel inspection fees. The bill aims to stabilize the BDLE, which has been facing financial challenges and staffing shortages. It also introduces tiered license fees, with discounts for senior citizens, and imposes fines for unlicensed dogs. The bill now awaits the governor’s signature.
Not too many animal welfare issues make it to the Supreme Court, but that is where we will find California’s Proposition 12 today. Proposition 12 is in the spotlight more because of its implications for interstate commerce than for what it means for animal welfare per se, but it’s a big deal on both fronts.
To recap, California voters approved, by about a 60/40 majority, new minimum standards for the treatment of pigs raised for food. If your pens don’t meet a new minimum size (24 square feet, which some seem to feel is extravagantly generous), you can’t sell your pork in California.
The reason this has become a hot issue is because these rules would apply to all pork, not just from pigs raised in California. You could interpret this (as some do) as California legislating the treatment of pigs in other states, and would be violation of the Commerce Clause which reserves the regulation of interstate commerce to the federal government.
But is California —which actually produces almost no pork— actually legislating the treatment of pigs in other states? That would seem to be a difficult argument to make. After all, farmers are not required to sell their products in California, it’s simply a market that can be open to them if they meet certain minimum standards.
The implications of a defeat of Proposition 12 would be tremendous. It would open the door to a kind of rent seeking to industry. In this case, the pork industry could become concentrated in the state that allows the lest expensive means of production, which would probably be the least humane at the same time. The state that allows the smallest pens, cheapest food, fewest inspections, and least regulation would “win” the business, and pork would be shipped out to all the other states for consumption. Of course, this outcome would not by any means be limited to pork, but to every imaginable product.
As for who is choosing sides, for the most part the liberal and blue states support California as a matter of state autonomy, while the conservative, red states oppose it as a matter of state sovereignty. Remember that this is America, where everyone has their own definition of “freedom”. Perhaps surprisingly (or maybe not), the Biden administration backs industry on this one, I suppose because pigs don’t vote.
Following Pittsburgh’s ban on declawing cats passed in late 2021, Allentown this year has also banned the practice ($500 fine for violations). The vote in the city council was unanimous.
Allentown has recently become one of the state’s leaders in animal protection, after banning puppy/kitten/bunny mill sales in October of 2022 ($600 fine for violations). For some reason Allentown is cat crazy, with an impressive 23% of the city residents owning one, according to census data.
Laws criminalizing the declawing of cats have also passed in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, and New York.
Animal rights activists have been working hard to educate the public on the practice of declawing, which many believe is an essentially harmless for of nail trimming but is actually an amputation of bones from the feet. It would be like having your fingertips cut off.
Just about everything having to do with dogs in Pennsylvania goes back to Public Law 784, enacted on December 7th, 1982 and commonly just called “The Pennsylvania Dog Law of 1982”.
The Pennsylvania Dog Law of 1982 is a piece of legislation that governs various aspects of dog ownership and control in the state of Pennsylvania. It covers issues such as dog licensing, rabies vaccinations, kennel regulations, and rules related to dangerous dogs. This law is aimed at promoting responsible dog ownership, ensuring the health and safety of both dogs and the public, and addressing concerns related to dog-related incidents.
The Pennsylvania Puppy Lemon Law, officially known as the Pennsylvania Dog Purchaser Protection Act, is a state law that provides certain protections to consumers who purchase puppies from commercial kennels, breeders, or pet shops. The law is designed to address issues that may arise when individuals buy puppies that later develop health problems or congenital defects.
Key provisions of the Pennsylvania Puppy Lemon Law include:
Health Guarantee: The law requires sellers to provide a written health guarantee for the puppy. This guarantee typically covers the puppy’s health for a specified period, often 14 days after the purchase. Veterinary Examination: If the puppy is found to be ill or have a congenital defect within the specified period, the law often allows the buyer to return the puppy for a refund or exchange, including reimbursement for veterinary expenses. Disclosures: Sellers must disclose certain information about the puppy’s health, including any known congenital or hereditary conditions. Remedies: The law outlines the remedies available to buyers, which may include a full refund, replacement puppy, or reimbursement of veterinary expenses, depending on the circumstances. It’s important to note that the specific details and requirements of the Pennsylvania Puppy Lemon Law can change over time, so it’s essential to consult the latest version of the law or consult with legal professionals for the most up-to-date information and guidance if you have concerns about a puppy purchase.
ACCT has been widely criticized from many sides for the conditions of the shelter and lapses which included procedural errors that led to (among other things) the mistaken euthanization of a dog put into their protective custody. Ultimately, a change.org petition demanding the removal of key leaders at ACCT Philly has garnered more than 34,000 signatures. This petition cites a number of failures at ACCT Philly.
In September, ACCT Philly posted something of a mea culpa on Facebook, acknowledging the disturbing findings of a then-recent inspection by the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, which went so far as to ask the PSPCA to investigate ACCT Philly for animal cruelty (stemming from unsanitary conditions in the kennel). Though the PSPCA’s report found that the problems at ACCT Philly did not rise to the level of animal cruelty, this did very little to mollify the critics, some of whom accuse PSPCA of being as dysfunctional as ACCT Philly and unqualified to act as judge.
Although many people that PennDog admires signed the change.org petition, PennDog did not. Although I try to educate myself as well as I can on these matters, I simply cannot say whether ACCT Philly will be better off under new management. I say this for two reasons:
First, although I do not know Ms. Velasquez, I do know many people in the animal welfare field and I have yet to meet a shelter director who was motivated by anything other than a deep desire to care for animals. Nobody does it for the money or the fame, because there is very little money and no fame at all. Nobody in shelter leadership has enough help, or money, or time to do everything they wish they could do for the animals in their care. To accuse a shelter leader of not caring about their animals is completely inconceivable to me. Of course, that doesn’t mean that every shelter leader is the best person for the job, or that some shelters wouldn’t benefit from a change in leadership, but it is far too reductionist to point at a troubled or failing shelter and assume that replacing the leadership will necessarily improve the situation.
Second, ACCT Philly has been for years woefully under-funded. In 2017, then-HSUS board member Marsha Perelman testified before the city council (with data) that “Philadelphia is the most poorly funded municipal shelter in America” and “dead last among major cities.” As Philadelphia’s only open shelter, ACCT Philly has essentially no control over how many animals they are tasked to take care of or the condition of these animals on intake. This is pretty much a worst-case scenario for a shelter — very little money and an essentially unlimited mandate to provide services. When a system breaks down, it is reasonable to ask whether even the best leadership could have prevented what has happened. I do not know the answer to that question, and I doubt anyone does.
Although the pandemic did lead to unprecedented rates of adoption for shelter pets (at least in the first year or so), the news has not been all good for animal shelters. COVID outbreaks among shelter staff are practically catastrophes, because one cannot simply shut down operations for a couple of weeks while everyone quarantines. Animals, too, are contending with their own epidemics and while you could argue that some of ACCT Philly’s failures contributed to the spread of disease in the shelter, it would be grossly unfair to suggest that they are at the root of the problem.
In the end, it is hard to know whether ACCT Philly will be helped or hurt by a changing of the guard. Surely, the situation today is terrible and everyone wants to see conditions improve. Will the next Executive Director have the right combination of knowledge and skills to right the ship and improve the lives of their animals? We can only hope so. Personally, I’d feel better if Philadelphia gave their animal control team (whether it remains ACCT Philly or another organization) funding on par with other cities even close to its size. On-par facilities with on-par funding would no doubt yield better results than finding even a superstar Executive Director and dropping them into the current environment. It is reasonable to ask if Ms. Velasquez and other ACCT Philly leaders could have done better, but we shouldn’t stop there.
Declawing is still a fairly common practice in this country, but in recent years opponents have ramped up their efforts to educate the public on the gory details of this surgery. Although it may seem to be analogous to maybe a extreme version of cutting one’s nails or perhaps the surgical removal of the nails themselves, declawing actually involves removing the last phalange of each toe — the equivalent of cutting of each of your fingers at the last knuckle. (as the Humane Society puts it, it’s not just a manicure.) Opponents say that this is needless surgery at best and may cause the cat residual pain and contribute to other problems down the line.
Like other cosmetic surgeries for animals, declawing is banned in most European countries. In Israel, declawing a cat can land you in jail. Things move more slowly in America (probably having something to do with “freedom”), and as of yet no state has banned declawing, though several municipalities (mostly in California) do have bans in place. Among the groups fighting a ban are some veterinarians who, of course, profit from performing declawing procedures.
Although Pennsylvania can boast perhaps the country’s oldest animal rights organizations, it would be a stretch to say that it is often out in front of efforts like these. Penn Dog congratulates Pittsburgh on its leadership and hopes that the rest of Pennsylvania will follow.
If a dog spends over a year at a shelter, watching patiently as the dogs around her come in and out every few weeks, you can be pretty sure the dog has some medical or behavioral challenge that makes it necessary for the shelter take extra time to find the “just-right” adoptive family.
Or maybe it’s just because she’s a pit bull.
Shelter life is a challenge for any dog– for reasons that are probably not hard to imagine– but pit bulls have it even harder. There’s one particular dog that brings the whole issue into focus for me, and that’s a dog named Bijou.
Bijou arrived in late 2018 from another shelter. She quickly gained fans among the volunteers for her cheerfulness and her enthusiasm for play. She was healthy, and at about five years old wasn’t so old that potential adopters shied away. She made friends easily. We had a lot of fun afternoons running around in the field, and this dog loved a Kong like no dog I’ve ever met. As for her adoptability, though, Bijou had two strikes against her. One is that, frankly, she’s not really into dogs.
Some dogs just don’t like other dogs. They like hanging out with their people, and don’t really have much use for dog-friends. The reason why this is such a big deal for a dog like Bijou is that often in the shelter, when we have a long-time resident as well-liked as Bijou, eventually one of the volunteers adopts her. But the catch is that most volunteers, if their circumstances allow it, already have one or more dogs at home! Many of Bijou’s fans, myself included, just couldn’t take this dog home with them.
The other reason that Bijou remained at the shelter, month after month, is that she is a pit bull, and life isn’t easy if you’re a pit bull. Many people fear you, and even if they don’t, they have to deal with friends, relatives and/or landlords who do. About ten months into Bijou’s stay in the rescue, I had the chance to show her to a great family that was looking for a playful dog. They all got along great during the “meet” and it looked like she had finally found her “furever” home. Later, though, there was bad news… the family told me that they were avid campers, and they learned that a pitbull would not be welcome in a lot of the places they go.
Back to the kennel she went.
Pit Bull: America’s Dog
It wasn’t always that way. For most of the breed’s history, pitbulls (which is actually a collection of several breeds: the American Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and a few others) were neither shunned nor feared the way the are today. Indeed, it would be easy to make the argument that the pitbull is “America’s Dog”. In the 1920s and 30’s, one of the most famous dogs in the country, Petey, was a pitbull (actually, two), as was Buster Brown’s trusty sidekick. Pitbulls weren’t fancy, but Americans tend to reject anything that seems too fancy, anyway.
To illustrate the pit bull’s place in the American pantheon, you can see how often it appeared as a symbol of America during the world wars. While Germany was often portrayed by the dachshund and England the bulldog, no dog better suited America than the pit bull: no ifs, ands, or buts about it. (As a historical footnote, dachshunds were treated horribly by Americans during the wars, with the little dogs sometimes being beaten or poisoned by those who felt the little twenty-pound dogs posed a clear and present danger to the nation. At the same time, the German Shepherd Dog was renamed –temporarily– “Alsatians“, or just plain “Shepherd Dogs”.)
Wallace Robinson produced several propaganda artworks featuring the pitbull representing America.
Theodore Roosevelt had a pitbull, named “Pete” in the White House, but I won’t go into that particular case because Pete wasn’t exactly the model of good behavior. All I can really say is that, like people, all dogs are individuals and just as there isn’t anything about a pitbull that makes them somehow worse than other dogs, there also isn’t anything about a pitbull that makes them somehow better. So, let’s carry on.
Not the original “bad dog”
For a generation now, pit bulls have carried the stigma of aggressive, dangerous dogs, so it’s hard to imagine that fifty years ago, they were safely outside of society’s crosshairs.
In fact, the first widespread breed-loathing in this country occurred in the late 19th century, and involved “spitz-type” dogs, a group that includes Huskies and Pomeranians, and stems from some dubious scientific claim that they were particularly susceptible to (carrying) rabies. This panic resulted in the widespread destruction of spitz-type dogs and breed-specific legislation, many of the same things we see today in regards to the pit bull.
Pit bulls didn’t begin to get their bad reputation until the 1970’s. Beginning in that decade, the American people became increasingly fearful of violent crime. Whether the country did actually become more dangerous during this time or whether this was just a mass hysteria (or a combination of the two) no longer matters; Americans were convinced that violent crime was on the rise, and they were afraid. Fearful Americans sought dogs to accompany them for protection.
For the well-to-do, the German Shepherd Dog was the protection dog of choice. (Notably, German Shepherd Dog bites outnumber pit bull bites in most tallies, but it is widely recognized that bite data is woefully poor as a whole and shouldn’t be relied upon.) The less-moneyed gravitated toward pit bulls which were smaller than GSDs, less costly to keep up, and easier to keep on a smaller property or an apartment. It goes without saying that in America, the less-moneyed classes also tend to be the minorities.
Once the pit bull became associated with the poor and minorities, it became easy to use discrimination against the dogs as a convenient proxy for discrimination against their people. It may be illegal (and, in most circles, socially unacceptable) to refuse to rent an apartment to certain colors of people, but society considers it perfectly OK to refuse to rent an apartment to an owner of a pit bull, which statistically speaking is more likely to be a minority or member of the lower classes.
Embracing the stereotype
At this point, we begin to enter a cycle, when popular culture begins to embrace the bad-boy characterization of pit bulls. Some people took on pit bulls as pets precisely because they were considered dangerous, and encouraged their dogs to be aggressive. The pit bull became the dogfighting icon, and even though it has been a long time since there have been a substantial number of fighting dogs in this country, the perception has been cemented. Google the phrase “pit bull logo” and witness the preponderance of spiked collars and snarls. Increasingly, dog bite stories in the news tended to identify the biting dog as a pit bull despite very sketchy background information (“witnesses may be predisposed to assume that a vicious dog is [a pit bull]”).
The first rows of a Google image search for “Pitbull Logo” shows clearly how we think of them.
Breed-specific legislation — with no foundation in reliable data — targeted pit bulls in a number of American cities, and are only recently being rolled back as we, as a nation, begin to realize the flimsy rationale and bad data behind them. In 2020 the people of Denver to vote to lift a pit bull ban that costs the lives of thousands of dogs — dogs that had no history of aggressive behavior. The ban had been in place for thirty years.
Although America is far from being able to free itself from widespread racism, there are very few places in this country one can openly embrace racism without becoming a social pariah. Not so with prejudice against pit bulls. People who pride themselves on their commitment to racial harmony and fairness in this country have no problem singling out one breed of dog (often based solely on appearance) and declaring them to be worthy of death. And America is not alone. Just last week in the UK, a dog who, in the words of the judge overseeing the case, has an “excellent temperament” and was not known “ever to have shown aggressive or dangerous behaviour”, will be put down because he is a pit bull-type dog, one of the breeds specifically impermissible under Britain’s Dangerous Dog Act.
The legacy
Even in the “woke” 2020’s, the discrimination we show against pit bulls is appalling. Pit bulls spend years in shelters hoping to be adopted, either because people fear them or do not want to take on the societal baggage associated with owning a pit bull.
Thankfully, there are still people out there whose minds are a bit more open. Around Christmas time last year, a family — parents with two small children — came to the shelter to visit with the dogs. They had recently lost their family pet, they said, and although they were not looking to adopt another just yet, they thought the kids would enjoy giving treats to some of the shelter dogs and brightening their day.
