In Search of Canine Justice Law and Practice in the United States and European Union Julie Walsh Many scholars posit distinct European and American approaches to public policy, with the European approach more likely to have a generous social safety net, tougher regulations on businesses, and stronger protections for animals Via a comparative analysis of several policies, In Search of Canine Justice asks whether this conventional wisdom holds in the area of canine welfare While there is much vindication of these two distinct approaches, the reality is more complex when the behavior of particular states is taken into account In short, European laws are more likely to advance canine welfare, but there are not only exceptions but places where practices deviate from the laws At the state level in the United States, the trend is toward more protective laws and practices in this area as well In Search of Canine Justice is a valuable resource for students of comparative politics, animal studies, animal law, and public policy, as well as anyone with a general interest in canine welfare or a specific interest in the regulation of commercial breeding, euthanasia, commercial greyhound racing, scientific experimentation, and/or unnecessary surgeries for cosmetic reasons Julie Walsh is Associate Professor of Political Science at American International College She earned her Ph.D in political science from the University of Connecticut She has previously published other works on American politics www.peterlang.com Cover image: ©iStock.com/majivecka In Search of Canine Justice This book is part of the Peter Lang Political Science, Economics, and Law list Every volume is peer reviewed and meets the highest quality standards for content and production PETER LANG New York Bern Berlin Brussels Vienna Oxford Warsaw Julie Walsh In Search of Canine Justice Law and Practice in the United States and European Union PETER LANG New York Bern Berlin Brussels Vienna Oxford Warsaw Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Walsh, Julie, author Title: In search of canine justice: law and practice in the United States and European Union / Julie Walsh Description: New York: Peter Lang, 2019 Includes bibliographical references and index Identifiers: LCCN 2018050129 | ISBN 978-1-4331-5901-5 (hardback: alk paper) ISBN 978-1-4331-6403-3 (ebook pdf) | ISBN 978-1-4331-6404-0 (epub) ISBN 978-1-4331-6405-7 (mobi) Subjects: LCSH: Dogs—Law and legislation—United States Dogs—Law and legislation—European Union countries Animal welfare—Law and legislation—United States Animal welfare—Law and legislation—European Union countries Classification: LCC K564.D64 W35 2019 | DDC 344.2404/9—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018050129 DOI 10.3726/b15044 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the “Deutsche Nationalbibliografie”; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de/ © 2019 Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., New York 29 Broadway, 18th floor, New York, NY 10006 www.peterlang.com All rights reserved Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited To Mike TABLE OF CONTENTS Tables ix Acknowledgments xi Abbreviations xiii Introduction: Canine Welfare in the United States and European Union: Are the Stereotypes True? 1 Chapter Dogs for Democratic Socialism: US and EU Approaches to Canine Welfare 9 Chapter Caring for Best Friends: Public Policies to Protect Companions 35 Chapter In or Out of the Family? High Stakes for Canine Status 71 Chapter Betrayal of Trust: Public Policies to Prevent Common Cruelties 119 Chapter A Discriminating Search for Canine Justice in the US and EU 153 Index 165 158 IN SEARCH OF CANINE JUSTICE poor regulations and market the pups to other states While added regulations have helped, there continue to be stories of abusive conditions in this industry on both sides of the Atlantic Relative to the canine population, the numbers involved in commercial racing and scientific experimentation are small For those unlucky few, however, the fate is a grim one In the US, there are few legal protections and loopholes at the ready to avoid even those The EU has better protections on paper but it has yet to be seen how well they will be enforced For example, previous policies requiring that animals not be used in experiments if alternative means to the same objective existed were not strictly enforced Despite a lack of prohibitions, fewer Americans are cropping their dogs’ ears, but tail docking remains the norm for many breeds In the EU, these unnecessary surgeries are increasingly rare given that clubs expel such altered dogs from shows There is no incentive for breeders to dock tails even if it was legal Finally, as the reader may recall, dogfighting is illegal throughout the US and EU Despite that fact, it is prevalent in both places In the US, there has been a trend toward more enforcement and stiffer penalties at both national and state levels Parts of the EU, especially the Baltic region in the East but others as well, confront an epidemic of this cruelty Given this harsh reality, such areas are not as dog-friendly as protective policies might indicate Laws are useless unless they are enforced Where Is the More Dog-Friendly Place? There are member states in the EU, particularly in the North-Central region, where both protective laws and widespread compliance yield ideal conditions for dogs Yet also in the EU are member states with lax regulations and poor ethics of care Conditions for some dogs in Slovakia and Romania, for example, are grim given uninspected breeding facilities, poor conditions in shelters, and the widespread use of euthanasia In between these extremes are many member states with less-than-perfect ethics of care and some protective legislation It is additionally clear that there is variation in the welfare of canines within member states For example, in urban areas of eastern and southern Europe, there is evidence of “pet humanization” or treating dogs as members of the family In some rural areas in these same states, there are problems with abandonment of hunting dogs and poor supervision, with intact dogs allowed to roam To be sure, this rural-urban A Discriminating Search for Canine Justice in the US and EU 159 split is evident only in aggregate indicators For example, dogfighting is a major problem in urban areas, while many dogs find loving homes in rural ones To improve conditions for dogs, the EU and many of its member states are using laws to change human practices At this point, however, the location within the EU matters greatly in determining the presence of canine justice and welfare Despite its comparatively lax regulations, the US can claim lots of places that are more dog-friendly than parts of the EU There is also a growing number of states that are passing protective legislation for canines The West Coast is well known for its dog-friendliness, with parks and amenities for dogs Yet in cities across the country, including Southern and Midwestern ones, dog parks have become very popular and attest to caretakers’ awareness of the need to socialize and exercise dogs Nonetheless southern and rural states in the plains are more likely to have negative indicators, such as large shelter populations and high rates of euthanasia Four of those five states with commercial greyhound racing are southern and the fifth is Iowa, an agricultural state However, as in the EU, there are abusive practices, such as dogfighting, in cities, and dog-friendly rural areas Nowadays, in most southern states of both the EU and US, it is a shrinking minority that views dogs as objects and more and more who consider them family members Indeed, the legislative trend in the South is toward more canine protection and better management of population Canine justice is not similar in all places in the US, though there is not the same level of extremes of protective and neglectful care as found in the EU Like in the EU, there is a trend toward homogenization in the US, but its sources are more from internal migration and media socialization than national law In both the US and EU, the status of the dog also impacts canine justice For those canines without human families, there are decidedly unfriendly places in both the US and EU In contrast, companions are generally more welcome in the EU than US Most EU member states are inclined to welcome such dogs in public places, including restaurants and parks The US is less welcoming, but there are more and more dog parks and many businesses, including hotels and outdoor restaurants, that have come to recognize the financial benefits of canine-friendly policies In sum, there is just too much variation, especially in the EU but in the US as well, to declare one entity more dog friendly than the other Specific locations matter! 160 IN SEARCH OF CANINE JUSTICE Explaining the Differences: Thoughts for Future Research What accounts for the variations in dog-friendliness? While this study does not provide evidence to answer that question, it yields suggestions for further research Several variables could be postulated as having a relationship with protective canine legislation, including the wealth of the state, the strength of democratic institutions, the degree of religiosity, patriarchal attitudes, and population density The poor conditions for dogs in parts of eastern EU member states are arguably the result of the very different history in that region in comparison to the rest of the EU As former satellites of the old USSR, these member states lacked democratic institutions and consumer-oriented economies until the 1990s They are much poorer than the western states Additionally, they have historically been governed by corrupt regimes When there is no security for human individuals, in terms of economic well-being and civil rights, there is not likely to be much concern for other species With the fall of the USSR and now the inclusion of eastern member states in the EU, there have already been tremendous strides to improve the lot of animals, including dogs Indeed, the pet industry is growing in these states and there are discernible trends of pet “humanization” and demand for premium products among a growing minority However, the differential in both law and practice currently in place between many of these member states and those in the west could lead researchers to consider the impact of wealth and stable democratic institutions on the strength of protective legislation for canines In both the US and EU, southern states have more problematic cultures for canines However, in both cases, there have been significant improvements reflected in more protective laws and changing attitudes As the reader may recall, it is increasingly customary for pets to be considered family members in Spain, Portugal, and Italy Yet there are stubborn pockets of resistance There are several possible explanations for the slower path to canine friendliness in southern states of the US and EU Southern cultures, in both places, tend to be both more masculine and hierarchical In such cultures, compassion toward animals is labeled “feminine” and avoided, particularly by insecure men As the reader may recall, one study found the dog-fighting world to be one where the dogs become surrogates for men to prove their masculinity The need to so is stronger in cultures that devalue feminine virtues and respect only masculine ones It follows that lines in these subcultures are clear, with more A Discriminating Search for Canine Justice in the US and EU 161 traditional gender roles and sharp distinctions between humans and other animals One’s standing is elevated via the reduction of the status of others In this hierarchy, animals are at the bottom, with little compassion shown to them The cultures are inherently conservative, with change deemed threatening As a result, any objection to the treatment of animals is likely to be strongly discouraged Future studies could compare attitudes about gender roles and/or ideology with the presence of protective legislation for canines Once again, the wealth of a state might also be an important determinant, as many of these southern states are not as wealthy as northern neighbors It is not just southern areas but rural ones that view animals, including dogs, with less sentimentality In the US and EU, the combination of these two factors, southern and rural, combines to create less hospitable places for canines There is a world of difference, for example, between metro Atlanta and rural areas It is not just southern cultures that can be problematic either According to Bulliet, those cultures that practice animal husbandry, which he calls domestic societies, have a very different view of animals than those that are not regularly exposed to farm animals In domestic cultures, there is a sharp differentiation made between humans and other animals People come into “daily contact with domestic animals (other than pets) and witness the slaughter of animals.” Thinking of these animals as “other,” they are more likely to become hardened to their suffering As Bulliet explains, “domestic societies take for granted the killing of animals and experience few moral qualms in consuming animal products.”1 For the most part, dogs and cats in such cultures are placed alongside other domestic animals in status Though they are not slaughtered for food, they are valued more for their use to humans Any assignment of sentience to dogs and cats would pose a threat to the sharp demarcation between humans and other animals Certain religious denominations prevalent in rural areas tend to reinforce this demarcation as well, with some of these rural areas in the US still resisting the theory of evolution, for example In contrast, post-domestic societies, or those where “people live far away, both physically and psychologically, from animals that produce the food, fiber, and hides they depend on,…” maintain “very close relationships with companion animals—pets—often relating to them as if they were human.”2 There is not the same psychological need to differentiate humans from other animals This theory invites consideration of the impact of population density, the presence of animal husbandry, and religious beliefs on protective laws for canines In short, there is much fodder here for quantitative works identifying correlations and/or qualitative ones perhaps doing an in-depth case study of one state with rural and urban areas 162 IN SEARCH OF CANINE JUSTICE Spreading Justice—the Way Forward In the southern regions of both the US and EU, there has been considerable change in laws and attitudes The EU is helping to bring about legal change in the East, with its protocol on experiments as one example The challenges are greater in some of the eastern member states, but the economic benefits of membership in the EU should help to jumpstart change to some degree Since many easterners migrate to the West and then return home for visits or extended stays, there is likely to be some convergence in attitudes over time The role of European public opinion should not be understated as a force of change either, as people in the East want to be a part of Europe and not a differentiated and isolated enclave According to Risse, that desire to be a part of Europe influenced Germans and Spaniards on other issues.3 However, there are also problematic signs for animals in parts of the east, such as Hungary and Poland, where non-democratic forces are gaining strength Given the role the EU has played in improving the legal treatment of animals in that region, a retreat from its values would be a loss for animals If the plight of canines is to improve, the EU most certainly needs to regulate commercial breeding At a minimum, it must set humane conditions for kennels throughout the EU and ensure humane transport of puppies across borders Because some western member states have very high standards for breeding, the EU must be careful to allow such standards to remain law but also to insist on a better “floor” for other places Ideally, there would be included in the regulations meaningful sanctions for offenders As the reader may recall, some criminals have switched from smuggling drugs to puppies in light of the lenient treatment if caught In addition, the EU must develop a comprehensive strategy to manage the canine population, spreading the practice of spay-neuter-release programs in regions with large stray populations, encouraging sterilization in those member states with less-than-perfect ethics of caretaking, and helping to facilitate the re-location of dogs from states with high shelter populations to those with minimal shelter populations There are other issues, especially in the East and parts of the South, that merit immediate attention However, these are the most pressing matters for the EU to tackle If population was better managed, other concerns, such as the mass euthanasia of healthy animals, would become less of such a gargantuan challenge In the US, the national government needs to improve its regulatory scheme over commercial breeders and it is long past time to update its laws on A Discriminating Search for Canine Justice in the US and EU 163 experimentation These goals are of course not easily accomplished However, over 60 percent of the American public, per recent survey results, support a ban on animal research for non-medical commercial purposes, a ban on animal research when an alternative exists, and the extension of cruelty legislation to protect research animals What is more, almost 90 percent of Americans support licensing and inspections for commercial breeders.4 In light of those views, canine advocates could begin a conversation that might bring pressure to bear upon lawmakers Avoiding the demonization of all breeders, advocates could highlight good ones on both small and large scales as models on which to base reasonable regulations Likewise, a discussion of experimentation can reference the European model to demonstrate that steps can be taken to improve the lives of laboratory animals without dooming science At a bare minimum, the public could insist upon a ban on the use of all former companion animals in the laboratory With the AVMA now on record against unnecessary surgeries, the AKC needs to be shamed on this point The inhumane means by which some commercial breeders dock tails must be exposed Again, advocates can take advantage of the European comparison There are still dog shows in the EU and the kennel clubs have re-written their standards to exclude any dogs with docked tails or cropped ears Why won’t the AKC? It is less likely that mandatory identification of dogs with permanent markers, such as microchips, will be accepted in the US, but their benefits can be advertised as a good option for the caretakers of companion animals Nor are states likely to ban euthanasia soon, but the success of the No-Kill movement can serve as evidence that such laws are possible in the future The major challenge in the US and to some extent in the EU is to overcome the cognitive dissonance and to see all dogs as one species When that is accomplished, there will be less tolerance for puppy mills, laboratory dogs, and the mass euthanasia of healthy and abandoned dogs Notes For both quotations, see Richard W. Bulliet, Hunters, Herders, and Hamburgers: The Past and Future of Human-Animal Relationships (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), Ibid Thomas Risse, A Community of Europeans? Transnational Identities and Public Spheres (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2010), 52, 65–71 164 IN SEARCH OF CANINE JUSTICE Susan Hunter and Richard A. Brisbin, Jr Pet Politics: The Political and Legal Lives of Cats, Dogs, and Horses in Canada and the United States (West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2016), 104 Bibliography Bulliet, Richard W. Hunters, Herders, and Hamburgers: The Past and Future of Human-Animal Relationships New York: Columbia University Press, 2005 Hunter, Susan and Richard A. Brisbin, Jr Pet Politics: The Political and Legal Lives of Cats, Dogs, and Horses in Canada and the United States West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2016 Risse, Thomas A Community of Europeans? Transnational Identities and Public Spheres Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2010 INDEX A abandonment, 5, 7, 26, 28, 47, 49, 50, 72, 73, 96, 97, 102, 109, 157, 158 affirmative duties of care See caretakers’ responsibilities Alabama, 40, 79, 120, 121, 122, 141 Alaska, 40, 79 American approach, 3, 9, 16–19, 26, 29, 103, 109, 139, 154, 156 American exceptionalism, 17, 22 American Kennel Club (AKC), 76, 77, 137, 163 American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), 77, 99, 100, 103 American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), 38, 133, 134, 136, 137, 163 Andalucia, 49 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), 77, 84 animal cruelty collection of strays, 94 conditions in commercial breeding establishments, 73–78, 84–85, 90–91 conditions in shelters, 1, 4, 6, 51, 71, 92, 103, 105, 106–107, 109, 131, 157, 158 painful forms of euthanasia, 107 painful forms of scientific experimentation, 124 treatment of hunting dogs, 48–49 See also abandonment, dogfighting, commercial greyhound racing, medically unnecessary surgeries Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act, 38 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 18 Animal Welfare Act, US (AWA), 19, 37, 76, 77, 128–129, 131, 132, 138 anti-cruelty statutes, 4, 37, 39–46, 78, 119, 129, 154 Arizona, 40, 79 Arkansas, 40, 79, 85, 122 Austria, 13, 16, 44, 62n32, 67n84, 86, 96, 98, 106, 113n27, 134 166 IN SEARCH OF CANINE JUSTICE B bans on using animals in cosmetics testing, 21, 124, 126, 128, 130, 132, 154 bans on using animals in weapons testing, 126, 128, 154 Battersea Dog Home, 141 beagles, 127, 131 Belgium, 13, 16, 44, 62n32, 67n84, 86, 98, 107, 113n27, 134 breed bans, 25, 54, 56–57 Bulgaria, 13, 30n9, 43, 44, 48, 86, 93, 98, 104, 105, 106, 134, 139, 149n78 C California, 40, 79, 100, 108, 128, 130, 136 canine freedoms, 3–6 from discomfort, 4–5, 73, 100, 124 from fear and distress, 4, 5, 8, 37, 52, 100, 101, 105, 124, 127, 133 from hunger and thirst, 3, from pain, injury and disease, 4, 52, 73, 124, 133 to express natural behaviors, 4, 5, 28, 43, 45, 124 canine justice presence in EU, 154–155, 156–159 presence in US, 155–159 recommendations to advance, 162–163 canine ownership rates, 96 canine population management, 6, 8, 26, 51, 95–110, 155, 157, 162 canines See dogs caretakers’ responsibilities affirmative, 4, 5, 26, 28, 35, 36, 39–46, 59, 75, 78, 85, 154 EU, 42–46, 154 compliance in EU, 46–50, 52 compliance in US, 50–52 negative, 40–42, 43, 44–45 US, 39–42, 155 Christianity, 21, 23, 24 cognitive dissonance, 7, 163 Colorado, 40, 79 commercial breeding of dogs, 4, 6, 26, 28, 72 bans on breeding defects in EU, 85–90, 154 central regulation in EU, 78, 91, 162 central regulation in US, 76–78, 91–92 kennel standards in EU, 85–90, 110, 162 kennel standards in US states, 78–84, 110, 155 licensing and inspections in EU, 85–90, 154 licensing and inspections in US states, 78–85, 110, 155 limitations on frequency of breeding in EU, 86–90 limitations on frequency of breeding in US, 78–84 size of breeders, 73, 85 standards for regulations, 74–76 training requirements for breeders in EU, 85–90 training requirements for breeders in US, 78–84 commercial greyhound racing, 4, 6, 7, 27, 28, 119, 143, 154, 156, 158, 159 dangers to dogs, 120–121 numbers of dogs, 122, 123 places where legal, 121–123 prohibitions, 121–123 companion animals, 6, 7, 25, 28, 35, 93, 108, 109, 125, 131, 132, 141, 142, 143, 154, 155, 161, 163 conceptualization, 36–38 protective policies in EU, 42–46 protective policies in US, 39–42 social acceptance in EU, 56–58 social acceptance in US, 53–56 sterilization of, 100–105 treatment of in EU, 46–50, 52 treatment of in US, 50–52 Connecticut, 38, 40, 79, 122, 130, 136 Council of Europe, 12–13, 37 Council of the EU, 14–15, 125 Index Croatia, 13, 30n9, 37, 44, 67n84, 86, 98, 123, 134, 139, 149n78 Cyprus, 14, 16, 30n9, 43, 44, 49, 67n84, 87, 93, 98, 104, 107, 134 Czech Republic, 13, 36, 44, 48, 85, 87, 90, 96, 97, 98, 106, 134, 148n61, 157 legal status, 36–38 management of population, 95–110 mandatory identification of, 97–100 medically unnecessary surgeries on, 133–137 numbers of, 35, 92–94, 122, 124 protections in Constitutional law, 36–38, 59 relinquishment of, 95–96 scientific experimentation on in EU, 123–128, 132–133 scientific experimentation on in US, 123–124, 128–133 treatment of companion animals in EU, 46–50 treatment of companion animals in US, 50–52 social acceptance in EU, 56–58 social acceptance in US, 53–56 sterilization of, 100–105 strays, 92–95 See also abandonment, canine population management, caretakers’ responsibilities, commercial greyhound racing, euthanasia of healthy dogs, dogfighting, dog-friendly places, mandatory identification, medically unnecessary surgeries, relinquishment, scientific experimentation, social acceptance of canines, sterilization, stray dogs D Delaware, 2, 40, 80, 108, 130 Democratic Party (US), 16, 23 Denmark, 13, 44, 62n32, 67n84, 87, 98, 107, 113n27, 134, 148n61 devocalization, 133, 134–135, 136, 137, 154 Directive #63 (EU), 37, 124, 125–128, 129, 132 dogfighting, 4, 6, 7, 27, 54, 94, 120, 137, 143, 158, 159 laws against in EU, 139–140 laws against in US, 138 scope, 140, 141–142 types of criminals, 140–141 types of dogs, 138 dog food, 1, 4, 39, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 59, 74, 94, 105, 106, 121, 156 dog-friendly places characteristics, 3–6 explanations for, 160–161 locations, 158–159 dog parks, 5, 55, 56, 159 dogs abandonment of, 49, 50, 73, 96, 109, 158 commercial racing of, 120–123 conceptualization, 36–38 euthanasia of in EU, 105–108 euthanasia of in US, 108 expectations for policy in EU, 27–29 expectations for policy in US, 26–27 fighting, 137–142 indicators of welfare, 3–6 labels, 6–7 legal duties toward in EU, 42–46 legal duties toward in US, 39–42 167 E ear-cropping, 7, 27, 29, 133–137, 143, 154, 155 East Europe, 14, 24, 25, 35, 47, 48, 50, 52, 58, 59, 91, 93, 94, 107, 142, 153, 155, 157, 158, 160, 162 Estonia, 13, 37, 44, 85, 87, 98, 134, 142, 149n82 European approach, 3, 7, 8, 9, 19–22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 42, 110 European Commission, 15, 25, 103, 124, 126 168 IN SEARCH OF CANINE JUSTICE European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals (ECPPA), 37, 42, 43, 45, 85, 90, 106, 107, 134, 135 European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes, 125 European Convention on Human Rights, 12, 13 European Council, 15 European Court of Justice, 15, 126 European governments, 15–16 European Parliament, 14–15, 125 European Society for Dog and Animal Welfare (ESDAW), 93, 94, 141 European Union approach to policy, 19–22 canine population management, 103–105, 155, 157 caretakers’ duties to dogs, 42–46, 154 commercial greyhound racing, 122–123, 154 compliance with caretakers’ duties to dogs, 46–50, 156–157 conceptualization of canines, 36–37 deepening, 14 dogfighting, 139–140, 141–142 euthanasia of healthy dogs, 106–108, 155 expectations for canine policy, 27–29 institutions, 14–16 mandatory identification of dogs, 97–99, 154 membership, 13–14 regulation of medically unnecessary surgeries on dogs, 134–135, 154 regulation of scientific experimentation on animals, 125–128, 132–133, 154 regulations on commercial breeders of dogs, 78, 85–91, 154 social acceptance of canines, 56–58 versus Europe, 12–13 widening, 13–14 euthanasia of healthy dogs, 1, 6, 7, 27, 28, 51, 71, 72, 73, 101, 109, 131, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162, 163 numbers in EU, 98–99, 105–107 numbers in US, 106 prohibitions in EU, 106–108 regulations in EU, 107–108 regulations in US, 108 F Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 54 federal systems, 10–12, 14, 16 feral dogs, 93–94, 95, 104, 105, 125, 128 Finland, 13, 44, 45, 62n32, 87, 98, 107, 113n27, 135 Florida, 40, 80, 120, 121, 122 Four Paws International, 74 France, 13, 24, 37, 44, 47, 49, 56, 57, 67n84, 87, 92, 93, 98, 104, 124, 135, 148n61 free-roaming dogs, 71, 72, 73, 93, 94, 96, 109 types, 93 See also feral dogs and stray dogs G Galgos, 48, 123 Georgia, 40, 80, 141 Germany, 16, 25, 36, 62n32, 123 breed bans or restrictions, 67n84 caretakers’ duties to dogs, 44 compliance with caretakers’ duties to dogs, 47 EU membership, 13 medically unnecessary surgeries on dogs, 135, 148n61 microchipping requirements for dogs, 97, 98 prohibition on euthanasia of healthy dogs, 98, 106 regulations on commercial breeders of dogs, 74, 87, 91 scientific experimentation on animals, 124 social acceptance of canines, 56, 57 stray dog population, 113n27 Index Greece, 13, 43, 44, 48, 49, 57, 88, 93, 96, 98, 104, 105, 135, 139 greyhound dogs, 4, 6, 7, 27, 28, 48, 119, 120–123, 143, 154, 156, 159 H Hamilton, Alexander, 11 Hawaii, 40, 80, 130 Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), 54, 74, 85, 100, 103, 140 Hungary, 13, 24, 37, 44, 48, 58, 67n84, 85, 88, 91, 96, 98, 104, 135, 139, 142, 149n78, 162 hunting dogs, 48–49, 92, 104, 123, 134, 156, 168 Hurricane Katrina, 54 169 L laboratory animals, 19, 21, 142, 143, 163 dogs, 37, 125–126, 128, 131, 132, 154, 155 retired, 127, 128, 131 laissez faire, 9, 12, 19, 22, 23, 72, 119, 155 Latvia, 13, 36, 43, 44, 85, 88, 98, 105, 135, 142, 148n61, 149n78, 149n82 leash laws, 25, 54, 55–56, 57–58, 59 Lithuania, 13, 44, 67n84, 88, 91, 96, 98, 105, 106, 135, 142 Louisiana, 40, 80, 96 Luxembourg, 13, 36, 44, 58, 62n32, 67n84, 85, 88, 98, 107, 113n27, 135 M Idaho, 40, 80 Illinois, 38, 39, 40, 80, 100, 108, 130, 136, 137 Indiana, 40, 80, 85 individualism, 2, 17, 19 interest groups, 12 Iowa, 40, 80, 85, 122, 130, 159 Ireland, Republic of, 12, 13, 24, 30n9, 37, 43, 44, 58, 67n84, 88, 98, 104, 120, 122, 123, 135, 141, 149n78, 154 Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ISPCA), 141 Italy, 13, 16, 44, 47, 49, 57, 74, 88, 91, 92, 93, 97, 98, 106, 125–126, 135, 142, 149n78, 160 Maine, 40, 81, 130, 136 Malta, 12, 14, 37, 43, 44, 67n84, 85, 88, 98, 135, 139 mandatory identification, 5, 6, 26, 28, 72, 73, 97–100, 154, 155, 157, 163 Maryland, 39, 41, 81, 130, 136 Massachusetts, 41, 81, 130, 136 medically unnecessary surgeries, 4, 7, 27, 29, 100, 104, 119, 120, 133, 142–143, 154, 155, 158, 163 bans and regulations in EU, 134–135 regulations in US, 136–137 Michigan, 39, 41, 81, 93 microchipping, 26, 97, 98, 99, 100, 122, 155 Minnesota, 40, 41, 81, 130 Mississippi, 41, 81, 103 Missouri, 41, 79, 81, 85 Montana, 39, 41, 81, 84, 138 K N Kansas, 40, 80, 85, 122 Kentucky, 40, 80, 103, 130 national parks, 55, 58 National Park Service (NPS), US, 55 Nebraska, 41, 81, 85 I 170 IN SEARCH OF CANINE JUSTICE Netherlands, 13, 24, 37, 43, 45, 56, 57, 62n32, 89, 98, 106, 113n27, 123, 135, 142, 149n78 Nevada, 41, 78, 79, 82, 100, 130 New Hampshire, 41, 82, 101, 102, 130, 136 New Jersey, 41, 82, 128, 130, 136 New Mexico, 41, 82, 130 New York, 41, 82, 128, 130, 136, 137 New York City, 55 No-Kill movement, 163 No-Kill shelters, 72, 105, 109 North Carolina, 41, 82, 103 North Dakota, 41, 82, 84 Northern Ireland, 43, 90, 122, 123 northern regions, 24, 47, 51, 93, 96, 100, 101, 108, 109, 142, 158, 161 EU membership, 13 euthanasia of healthy dogs, 98 medically unnecessary surgeries on dogs, 135 microchipping requirements for dogs, 98 regulations on commercial breeders of dogs, 85, 89, 90–91 scientific experimentation on animals, 125 sterilization of dogs, 104 Portugal, 13, 45, 47, 49, 67n84, 89, 96, 98, 107, 135, 148n61, 160 precautionary principle, 20 presidential systems, 11–12, 16 puppy farms, 73–74, 90 puppy mills, 73–74, 76, 85, 90–91, 157, 163 O R off-leash areas and parks, 36, 55, 56, 57, 59 off-leash exercise, 5, 43, 55, 57, 58 Ohio, 41, 54, 57, 82, 85 Oklahoma, 41, 79, 82, 85, 132 Oregon, 41, 82, 122 religion, 17, 19, 21, 160 relinquishment, 51, 71, 73, 92, 100, 102, 109, 157 causes, 95–96 Republican Party (US), 16, 23 Rhode Island, 38, 41, 83, 130, 136 Romania, 14, 30n9, 45, 50, 89, 91, 93, 95, 96, 98, 106, 107, 135, 149n78, 158 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), 94, 107, 140, 141, 142 rural areas, 23, 48, 49, 50, 52, 55, 58, 59, 92, 93, 104, 140, 141, 158, 159, 161 P parliamentary systems, 16 Pennsylvania, 41, 83, 85, 95, 130, 136 “pet humanization,” 47, 158 pet passport, 97 Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act (PETS), 54 pet spending, 46–48, 50–51, 59 pitbulls, 54, 56, 138 Podencos, 48 Poland, 24, 36, 37, 96, 107, 162 breed bans or restrictions, 67n84 caretakers’ duties to dogs, 43, 45 compliance with caretakers’ duties to dogs, 48, 50 dogfighting, 142, 149n79 S San Francisco, 53, 55 scientific experimentation on dogs, 4, 6, 7, 18, 27, 29, 37, 119, 123, 143, 154, 155, 158 numbers of dogs in EU, 124 numbers of dogs in US, 124 Index philosophical justifications and objections, 133 regulations in EU, 125–128 regulations in US, 128–132 use of stray dogs and former companion animals, 128, 130, 131–132 uses of dogs, 124 Scotland, 43, 58, 90 secularism, 21, 22, 25 sentience, 4, 6, 7, 19, 36, 37, 38, 59, 132, 153, 161 shelters, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 19, 27, 49, 95, 96, 97, 99, 142, 157, 158 euthanasia of dogs in, 105–108 factors contributing to population in, 102–105 numbers of dogs in (US), 51–52 relationship to free-roaming population, 71–73, 93–94 role in emergency planning, 54 surrender of dogs to research facilities, 131–132 surrender to, 92 Slovakia, 14, 37, 43, 45, 48, 67n84, 74, 85, 89, 93, 98, 104, 106, 113n39, 135, 153, 158 Slovenia, 14, 37, 45, 50, 58, 89, 93, 96, 99, 104, 135, 149n78 social acceptance of canines, 6, 59 EU, 56–58 US, 53–56 social safety net, 2, 18, 20 South Carolina, 41, 83, 84, 130 South Dakota, 41, 83 southern regions EU, 24, 35, 47, 48, 49, 50, 59, 91, 93, 107, 142, 153, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162 US, 51, 52, 96, 103, 108, 131, 157, 159, 160, 161 Spain, 25, 36, 37, 45, 47, 57, 67n84, 89, 99, 160 delegation of power to autonomous communities, 16, 43, 134, 154 171 dogfighting, 139, 142 EU membership, 13 euthanasia of dogs, 106, 107, 109, 155 greyhound racing, 120, 123 medically unnecessary surgeries on dogs, 134–135, 154 relinquishment of dogs to shelters, 92 stray dog population, 93, 104 treatment of hunting dogs, 48–49, 104 spay/neuter license plates, 103 spay/neuter/release, 72, 105, 106, 107, 157, 162 spending on canines See pet spending state parks, US, 55 sterilization, 7, 50, 73, 109, 157, 162 controversy, 100–101 impact, 101–102, 103–104 programs to promote, 102–105 rates by country, 100 stray dogs, 1, 7, 25, 26, 47, 71, 72, 92, 155, 157, 162 definition, 93 management, 4, 103–105, 106–110 population, 49, 50, 93–94 treatment, 94–95, 138, 142 use in experiments, 128, 131–132 Stray Project, 93, 94 Sweden, 13, 25, 45, 47, 62n32, 67n84, 90, 96, 97, 99, 103, 106, 113n27, 116n70, 135, 139 T tail docking, 7, 27, 29, 133–137, 154, 155, 158 Tennessee, 38, 41, 83, 130 tethering, 5, 25, 40 Texas, 41, 79, 83, 85, 100, 101, 122 Treaty of Lisbon, 14, 21, 36 Treaty of London, 12 Treaty of Rome, 13 172 IN SEARCH OF CANINE JUSTICE U unnecessary surgeries See medically unnecessary surgeries unwanted dogs, 4, 7, 73, 92, 100, 101, 105, 106, 109 See also abandonment, relinquishment, stray dogs United Kingdom (UK), 2, 12, 20, 30n9, 37, 67n84, 104, 135 caretakers’ duties to dogs, 43, 45 commercial breeding regulations for dogs, 90–91 commercial greyhound racing, 120–122, 154 delegation of power to regions, 16 dogfighting, 139, 141, 142, 149n78, 149n82 EU membership and withdrawal, 6, 13, 24 euthanasia of healthy dogs, 107 mandatory identification of dogs, 97, 99 relinquishment of dogs, 92 scientific experimentation on animals, 124, 125, 126, 128 social acceptance of canines, 56–58 stray population, 93 United States (US) approach to policy, 16–19, 22–23 canine population management, 102–103, 157 caretakers’ duties to dogs, 39–42, 155 commercial greyhound racing, 121–122, 156 compliance with caretakers’ duties to dogs, 50–52, 156–157 conceptualization of canines, 37–38 dogfighting, 138, 140–141 euthanasia of healthy dogs, 108, 155 expectations for canine policy, 26–27 governmental system, 10–12 mandatory identification of dogs, 99–100, 155 regulation of medically unnecessary surgeries on dogs, 133–134, 136–137, 155 regulation of scientific experimentation on animals, 128–133, 155 regulations on commercial breeders of dogs, 76–78, 78–85, 155–156 social acceptance of canines, 53–56 US Congress, 10, 11, 38, 53, 131, 138 US Constitution, 10 US Department of Agriculture (USDA), 76, 77, 129 US state governments, 12 US Supreme Court, 10, 11, 38 urban areas, 23, 48, 55, 57, 94, 140, 141, 158, 159, 161 Utah, 41, 83 V Vermont, 42, 83, 96, 130, 137 veterinary care, 1, 4, 50, 59, 74, 77, 155 duties to provide in EU, 42–46 duties to provide in US, 39–42 Vick, Michael, 141 Vier Pfoten, 106 Virginia, 39, 40, 41, 79, 83, 128, 130 W Wales, 43, 58, 90 Washington, 42, 83, 122, 136 West Europe, 14, 24, 25, 47, 48, 91, 142, 160, 162 West Virginia, 39, 42, 84, 122, 130 Wisconsin, 42, 84, 130 World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), 94 Wyoming, 42, 84 ... beings and entitled to consideration of their interests That assumption should influence canine policies Indeed, the overarching values of the European approach hint of 28 IN SEARCH OF CANINE. .. analysis of several policies, In Search of Canine Justice asks whether this conventional wisdom holds in the area of canine welfare While there is much vindication of these two distinct approaches,... such as those defining the status of canines as property or sentient beings, stipulating the responsibilities of canine caretakers, and ensuring the likelihood of the fulfillment of those responsibilities