Greyhounds Hunting Coyote

There was an article in Sunday's New York Times about a "sport" in Oklahoma of using greyhounds to hunt and kill coyotes. This was one I'd never heard of before. I'm well aware that ranchers hate coyotes for their predation of livestock. Coyotes have proven highly adaptable to changing circumstances, and dwell everywhere from countryside to city. But they are accepted hardly anywhere. I receive New York versions of the main tv networks, and there was near-hysteria not long ago because a coyote was spotted frequently in some NYC park (I think it was smaller than Central Park, and thus the coyote was turning up on the streets from time to time).

We live with coyotes here on the Olympic Peninsula. I see them fairly often. In fact, I've named one "Gorgeous" because he or she has the most luxuriant coat I've ever seen on a wild canid. I keep chickens, sheep, and llamas, and yes, I've had my share of losses. The first flock of chickens, which I was allowing to free-range during the day, was mostly killed, but the perpetrators were raccoons. We lost two sheep in the past two years, but because they utterly disappeared without a trace -- something a coyote or even a pack of coyotes simply could not accomplish -- I put that down to either cougar or aliens. (I mean, even cougar should leave a trace of blood or a footprint or something!)

I know people around here who hate coyotes because they prey regularly on house cats. Well, if you want to keep your cats safe, then keep them indoors. I know that our feral pack is at risk, but at least I've given them a shed they can access through a cat hole, and our open hay shed, where they can hide among the bales.

But to get back to the greyhound/coyote hunting. It is described as "a regional pursuit that is part of the area's lore, like the cattle drives along the Chisholm Trail." Doesn't that make it sound pretty?

One of the perpetrators of this "sport" states "This is exactly what they're born and bred to do," referring to the Greyhounds. But further on, the article notes that shock collars are used to train the dogs to pursue only coyotes. Otherwise, they would be running after rabbits or antelope or deer, which are actually more their historic target.

The article also notes that the barbed wire fences common to the area tend to tear up the Greyhounds' thin skin, and of course, the coyotes put up a fight for their lives when cornered. So the Greyhounds are injured or killed regularly.

I'm happy to read that this practice is banned in Washington state, by the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Their reasoning was that canines killing other canines was too close to dogfighting, a felony in all 50 states. But apparently, Oklahoma does not subscribe to that view.

Animal Cruelty and the Supreme Court

By now, you have probably heard about the Supreme Court ruling striking down the law on which the case (and conviction) of a man who was selling videos that included dog fighting was based. Several of the dog lists to which I subscribe were immediately filled with messages of indignation. People were disgusted that the Supreme Court could rule in favor of dog fighting!

But of course that is a complete misunderstanding of just what is being ruled on here. The issue is actually one of free speech, the First Amendment. As I understand it, the videos were shot in a country in which dog fighting was at the time legal. The videos were not about dog fighting, per se, but about the Pit Bull and its heritage, or about hunting with dogs. The legislation on which the case was based did not specify "dog fighting" in any way, but was far more vague, with mentions of "animal cruelty" but without specifics of what that was.

If anyone remembers the debate about child pornography, before that law was brought into effect, and comments of "I know it when I see it," you might have some idea of the problems involved with vague definitions. I'm certainly against animal cruelty, but some of what I consider animal cruelty is actually broadcast of the National Geographic channel. . . and no legislators are crying for it to be taken off the air. In fact, while I would love to see it disappear from the airwaves, I would actually have to be AGAINST any legislation to accomplish that goal. Because it is subjective. And it is a matter of free speech.

Issues can get rather thorny when two strongly held beliefs run up against one another. Do I want to see videos including dog fighting available for sale? No. Do I want to ban some mushy, non-defined idea such as "animal cruelty"? Even more strongly no. Because if PETA got to decide what constitutes animal cruelty, my right to even own my dogs would disappear.

The Supreme Court justices indicated strongly that if the legislation is rewritten to be more focused and specific, they would have no problem with it. So there's really no big debate here. An unfortunate percentage of legislation is so broad as to have many unintended consequences, and that was the case here. Our lawmakers need to learn to understand the subtleties of a subject before they write laws about it. Then we'll all have more security and less debate about matters such as this.

Animal Abuse Leads to Additional Cruelties

Okay, this really shouldn't be news, because I've been aware of Frank Ascione's work for over a decade. A professor at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work, Dr. Ascione has studied the topic of animal abuse and its relation to child abuse, spousal abuse, and even serial killing for many years. Yet this article appeared in the New York Times only last week, reporting that "animal abuse is a clue to additional cruelties."
I don't know where the disconnect has been, but I'm glad that finally states are paying some attention. The article reports that counties and states are increasing the penalties for animal cruelty and trying to develop better methods for tracking convicted animal abusers. They are including animal hoarders in the animal abuse designation.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund is quoted as saying that animal abuse is not more prevalent, but "what has changed . . . is the recognition that animal abuse is often a warning sign for other types of violence and neglect." They also note that in these times of economic crunch, states also have less money to handle the costs associated with caring for animals of busted hoarders. Franklin County, Ohio, reported that caring for more than 170 dogs from a hoarder cost over $1 million.
The majority of states now have legislation that shifts the payment of care for abused or neglected animals to convicted defendants. Most states now also authoritze vaterinarians to report suspected animal abuse (something I'm sure vets are still not eager to do).
Tennesse and California are considering bills to create online registries of animal abusers, similar to what is done with sex offenders. It would cover adults convicted of felony-level animal abuse. Arkansas, Illinois, and Oregon have recently enacted laws requiring investigators of human abuse and animal control officers to inform one another when they find instances of abuse in a home. One of the sponsors of a similar bill in Connecticut noted that animal abuse is one of the four indicators used by FBI profilers to assess risk of future violent behavior.
Professor Ascione noted that "Often children are not willing to talk about what is happening to them, but they will talk about their concerns about what they are seeing done to their pets." Recent case have demonstrated that when children hinted at animal abuse to their teachers and the teachers alerted animal protection workers, the workers found warning signs of other types of abuse and social workers went in and found that the children were being abused.
All but foud states now have felony-level animal cruelty laws. May they use them well.

Michael Vick Rises Again

So, Michael Vick played in an NFL preseason game yesterday. And the media coverage notes that there was very little in the way of protests. I'm not going to debate here whether or not this person should have a second chance in the rarefied air of an NFL quarterback. What I do want to make note of is the way the media is now referring to matters when discussing Vick.
In all the hours and hours of discussion before last night's game addressing whether or not Vick should be allowed to rejoin the league, I consistently heard his transgression referred to as "being involved in dogfighting." This is what really frosted me. Vick wasn't just walking down the street with his pet pit bull and got dragged into a dogfighting den. He had a kennel of pits specificially for that purpose, as far as I could tell from the original media coverage, he arranged some of the dogfights, and there is no doubt that he was involved in killing dogs in rather hideous fashion.
So he was just "involved in dogfighting." And I would like that point -- a pretty major one to my way of thinking -- remembered and restated when discussions revolve around Vick and his "redemption."
And I don't listen to hours and hours of sports broadcasting, but I am pretty interested, and I never heard any announcer refer to the many studies that link cruelty to animals with other crimes such as family abuse and even serial killing. I would really like the media to give this transgression the weight it deserves.
In all the discussion, I haven't heard anything about what Vick is doing to redeem himself. There was a brief flurry of speculation about him involving himself with PETA (wouldn't that be a wonderful thing--read that with heavy sarcasm), but that didn't fly, and I haven't heard anything since about him donating any of his salary to animal welfare or volunteering to clean out kennels at a local shelter, or anything like that.
I'm glad there wasn't a media circus upon his return to the game, but I'm very unhappy with the current coverage. It seems that he "made a mistake" and everyone deserves a second chance. Maybe so, but giving that second chance shouldn't involve any reversion of history. Vick did things far worse than anyone is currently publicly giving him credit for. And that's wrong, no matter how you feel about his future football career.