The United States is a nation of animal lovers. Foreigners arriving in the country are stunned by the devotion we have for our pets: we buy them delicacies, we pamper them, and we even call them “baby” almost without realizing it. Pets are no longer mere property, but full-fledged members of the family.
However, this relationship of deep love contrasts with a silent crisis in animal shelters across the country. The number of abandoned animals and behavioral problems continues to rise, raising a legislative question: should the government require mandatory training before allowing a citizen to acquire a pet?
Training or interference?
In recent weeks, social media has exploded with headlines about a “new law on January 1” regarding pets. This is not about supposedly mandatory training courses for new pet owners, but rather a California law that prohibits the operation of cats for cosmetic reasons. We are talking about declawing, an invasive practice that cuts off the last phalanx of a cat’s toes so that they no longer have claws. This leaves domestic cats with mobility problems, hypersensitivity, and painful cramps for life.
Assembly Bill 867, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom, prohibits the declawing of cats for cosmetic reasons. This regulation will officially come into effect on January 1, 2026. While California prohibits cutting off the phalanges of poor cats to protect furniture and upholstery in the home, other states are looking at the root of the problem: owner education.
Love without knowledge
Most dogs and cats that end up in shelters are not “bad animals,” but rather victims of unrealistic human expectations and a lack of basic knowledge.
A first-time owner often doesn’t know how much exercise a dog that is actually a working breed needs; nor do they know how to interpret a cat’s signs of stress before it stops using its litter box or starts destroying the sofa. Proponents of mandatory training argue that owning pets is a privilege, not a constitutional right. If we have to pass a test to drive a car, animal advocates also demand that a minimum level of knowledge should be required to care for an animal’s life.
Currently, the legal vacuum in the United States on this issue is immense. Ultimately, both state and local laws focus almost exclusively on public health and basic safety. Yes, an administrative license is required for dogs to show that they have been vaccinated against rabies, but there is no state law that certifies whether the owner knows how to feed or train that animal properly. Anyone, regardless of their knowledge, can acquire an animal today.
Freedom versus Welfare
The arguments in favor of educating owners are very optimistic. After all, a preventive course could prevent thousands of cases of unintentional neglect. Many owners love their animals but mistreat them out of ignorance. An educated owner is a guarantee of public health.
Resistance to this idea in the United States is based on individual freedom. How can we be sure that the preventive courses given are correct? Who should create these courses on animals? There are very few people who can be said to have a deep knowledge and understanding of different breeds of animals. Unless we could get—let’s say—Cesar Millan to teach the classes on dogs, we cannot be sure that we would end up with the correct notions about what it means to have a companion dog.
The same could be said for cats. Except for a handful of experts like Jackson Galaxy, we cannot be sure that the information provided by the state is actually correct. What if, 20 years from now, the courses that were taught turn out to be completely outdated and counterproductive to the overall health of pets? Although the creation of training courses for future dreams is still being considered, everything is still up in the air. In the meantime, all we can do is inform ourselves independently and learn as much as possible so that we can take proper care of our furry family members.