Rome goes to the dogs

By INGRID NEWKIRK
KNIGHT RIDDER/TRIBUNE
While some residents of the last hurricanes were abandoning their dogs and cats as if they were candy wrappers and some rescuers were threatening to leave even sick and old people behind unless they disentangled themselves from their beloved dogs, legislators in Rome were deliberating a bill, which has just passed, that affords proper respect even to small pet fish.
Now, if you live in Italy, you may face a hefty fine if you keep a goldfish in a small bowl, fail to provide the dog with a decent walk three times a day, use an electric shock collar or declaw a cat.
Why are we such laggards in the United States? Americans have access to the same scientific data as the Italians, so we certainly should be aware of studies showing that fish have long-term memories, communicate underwater to each other and have chums and enemies, as well as likes and dislikes. Common sense tells us that it can't be easy for a dog to be left alone, crossing his legs, for 12 hours a day. Our own veterinarians should be warning us that electric shock collars hurt and that declawing involves cutting off the phalanges, the muscle and flesh, at the joint on each "finger," not just the nail.
Fines
Italians are now expected to understand these facts and follow the law. Offenders face fines of between 50-500 euros, which is enough to make most people pay attention, even if they would have ignored the fish circling the bowl and the dog scratching the door.
The Times of London quotes Monica Cirinna, the city councilor responsible for animal welfare, as saying: "The civilization of a city can be measured by the way it looks after its pets. It is good to do whatever we can for our pets, who fill our existence with their attention in exchange for a little love."
Before Italy began debating the rights of animals, Germany changed its constitution to recognize other species. In 2002, the German Parliament amended the constitutional clause obliging the state to respect and protect the dignity of humans to include animals.
Yet in the United States, it's often a monumental battle to pass far less advanced laws, such as banning or restricting the chaining of dogs and mandatory spay/neuter ordinances to reduce the euthanasia rate. The only law protecting animals in laboratories and on factory farms, the Animal Welfare Act, specifically excludes mice and chickens, the two species most commonly used for experimentation and food, respectively.
Attorneys who have sought the right to sue on behalf of abused animals have seen their cases dismissed time after time for decades. In the eyes of the American legal system, animals are property and their value is based solely on monetary worth. Legally, a monkey in a laboratory has no intrinsic value as a living being. Her worth is determined entirely on what her captors can do to her and what that might tell them. A pharmaceutical company may shove a tube up her nose, pump chemicals into her stomach every day for eight weeks and then kill and dissect her. If they do, the monkey is "valuable" in the eyes of the company and the law.
Painful death
If the monkey's sinus is ruptured by misapplication of the tube and the monkey is left to suffer, untreated for days, until a lab technician gets authorization to destroy her, the monkey has no value. An undercover investigator on my staff documented this last year at a large pharmaceutical testing laboratory, yet People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals cannot legally sue on behalf of this monkey, who was, despite her treatment, a living, breathing, feeling, thinking being who never knew a moment's joy in life, and died in great pain.
Surely a country as progressive as America can extend respect and some legal rights to animals. This concept is not about radical change. It's about basic human decency.
X Ingrid Newkirk is president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the author of "Making Kind Choices" (St. Martin's Griffin 2005). Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services