When I recently gave a seminar in California, the San Francisco area was in a tizzy over proposed breed-specific legislation that would ban those breeds of dogs certain individuals or groups consider problematic. As always when such legislation is proposed, it precipitated a feeding frenzy in a media community often far more interested in sound bites than dog bites. An old truism has long maintained that animals make good media, but media-savvy politicians and others are now discovering that they can tap into that media base for their own use by using animals (and their owners), too. This, in turn, means that the motive underlying any animal legislation may have little to do with benefitting animals, and a lot to do with benefitting certain individuals or special interest groups.
So, how can you tell whether any animal legislation will truly benefit animals?
A good place to start is to ask the legislation’s creators and sponsors the following 5 questions:
- What is the purpose of this legislation? For example, some supporters of breed-specific legislation (BSL) might say that the stated purpose of the legislation is to prevent fatal dog attacks or dangerous dogs from roaming the street. Meanwhile, folks who support legislation that would effectively shut down puppy mills might say that the purpose is to eliminate the dire conditions under which those animals must live.
- Can this purpose be achieved some better way? If the goal is to prevent fatal dog attacks or dangerous dogs from roaming the streets, legislation that targets all dogs, regardless of breed, who fall into this category would seem a more logical and cost-effective alternative. Similarly, because all states already have laws that hold owners responsible for the behaviors of their animals, wouldn’t it make more sense to hold the owners of these relatively few dangerous dogs responsible rather than ban entire breeds?
- How will this law be enforced? Sometimes those outside the political system believe that, once a law spells out their demands, that automatically means that those demands will be met. However, that will occur only if the law specifically provides for this. For example, suppose a politician wanted to gain the support (i.e., votes, contributions) from the animal-lovers in his area. What better way than to sponsor legislation that would claim to put an end evil to puppy mills? When you read the fine print of his bill, though, you discover that it makes no provision for how this law will be enforced. If such is the case, the bill is essentially a piece of fluff designed to garner media attention and the support of naive animal-lovers.On the other hand, suppose the fine print states that the law will be enforced by local animal control officers, the police, or members of some federal agency like the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Such pronouncements should then lead conscientious animal-lovers to ask the next question.
- Does this proposed law provide funding for its proper enforcement? A sad but far too true reality is that we live in an era of self-serving politicians who will sponsor laws for which no funding is available simply to garner support from special interest groups. It is also sadly true that unfunded legislation is often used as a means to get rid of those same groups. Years ago when I was head of a veterinary organization during what seemed like an endless foray into state politics, one politician flat out admitted, “We try to pass every bit of animal-related legislation that comes through because we know if we don’t those people will hound us to death. We just don’t fund it.”Now, you would think the people who want these laws passed would notice this, but it turns out that a lot of times they don’t. And the reason they don’t is because, like the politicians, some of those who claim to speak for the animals are far more interested in what getting those laws passed says about their power over other people than they are about any real or imagined ways that law may benefit animals.However, if you find yourself among those who really do care about how the law effects animals, whether funding is provided within the law serves as the acid test. If it isn’t, then move on to the next question.
- Because the law does not provide funding for enforcement, how will this be accomplished? It is all well and good for politicians and animal-lovers to sit in their cozy offices and homes and say that local, state, or federal agents will simply free up the funds to do this. Although that might happen in affluent areas with an excess of agents or the wherewithal to hire more, that doesn’t describe what occurs in many parts of the country. Many law enforcement agencies are so short of staff and under-funded that they cannot effectively enforce laws that ensure the health and safety of the human population, let alone the animal one. Given the choice between enforcing a ban on thousands of dogs because of one fatal attack versus trying to stem the far greater number of children killed by abusive adults, where would you focus your limited resources? Given the choice to send more agents to evaluate puppy mills and back yard breeders or to protect the food supply from bioterrorist attacks, which would you choose?
As with anything that affects the animals around us, it pays to be educated consumers when it comes to any animal legislation others attempt to sell us from their bully pulpits. Only by doing so can we ensure that we won’t learn after the fact that what they were selling us was just plain bull.
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.
When I recently gave a seminar in California, the San Francisco area was in a tizzy over proposed breed-specific legislation that would ban those breeds of dogs certain individuals or groups consider problematic. As always when such legislation is proposed, it precipitated a feeding frenzy in a media community often far more interested in sound bites than dog bites. An old truism has long maintained that animals make good media, but media-savvy politicians and others are now discovering that they can tap into that media base for their own use by using animals (and their owners), too. This, in turn, means that the motive underlying any animal legislation may have little to do with benefitting animals, and a lot to do with benefitting certain individuals or special interest groups.
So, how can you tell whether any animal legislation will truly benefit animals?
A good place to start is to ask the legislation’s creators and sponsors the following 5 questions:
As with anything that affects the animals around us, it pays to be educated consumers when it comes to any animal legislation others attempt to sell us from their bully pulpits. Only by doing so can we ensure that we won’t learn after the fact that what they were selling us was just plain bull.
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.