Bad news for doggy day cares. Apparently, they’re breaking the law.

The New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is reinstating a little-known and rarely-enforced regulation. Under that regulation, no resident can board, feed, or groom someone else’s pet for money without a proper license. Those licenses, by the way, cannot be granted to private residences; they are limited to permitted kennels.

Julien A. Martinez, a spokesperson for the Department of Health, said in an emailed statement that the law is meant to protect animals from neglect. “These regulations do not apply to the average New Yorker who may pet sit for friends, family, and neighbors,” he added. In other words, a pet-sitter is not breaking the law if they do not charge or accept money for their services.

The law has been on the books for years, but the Health Department did not enforce it unless they received a complaint. However, the rise of pet-sitting apps such as Rover and Wag have forced the state to take a closer look at violations.

Last October, Health Department general counsel Thomas Merrill sent a letter to Dogvacay.com (which has since merged with Rover), ordering it to confirm that its new users have licenses before signing them up. The site has yet to comply.

In the meantime, the Health Department has started cracking down on unlicensed apartment residents using the app. At least two apartment residences have received violations for caring for pets without a permit. Fines start at $1,000.

Rover, which has over 9,000 registered sitters in New York City, intends to fight the law.

“If you’ve got a 14-year-old getting paid to feed your cats, that’s against the law right now,” Rover general counsel John Lapham told the New York Daily News. “Most places right now continue to make it easier to watch children than animals, and that doesn’t make any sense.”

City Council’s health committee chair Corey Johnson agrees with him, and is reportedly planning to introduce legislation overturning the law.

“There are millions of cats and dogs in New York City, and people I think believe they can pet sit or have someone pet sit for them,” said Johnson. “To have a law on the books that says that’s illegal is antiquated and not practical.”

This is not the first time New York has clashed with emerging “sharing economy” apps. Click here for more on the state’s clash with Airbnb, and here for Uber’s struggles to get a foothold in New York City.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paid Pet-Sitting Illegal in New York Without License appeared first on Law Street.

New York may become the first state to ban cat declawing. A bill is being debated in Albany that would make the practice illegal–but not everyone is on board. The move has pitted animal advocates and some veterinarians against each other over whether or not we should be able to declaw our four-legged friends.

The bill is sponsored by Assemblymember Linda Rosenthal, D-Manhattan, who sees it as an issue of treating cats humanely. Rosenthal claims that people only really declaw their cats as a matter of convenience; the state’s Veterinary Medical Society points out that sometimes declawing is the only way that a cat can remain in a family home if it has a habit of scratching and hurting members. According to a memo the society issued opposing the bill:

Clawing and scratching can be highly dangerous and detrimental to families with immunocompromised members or family members with other health issues; as such, declawing is one method to allow a beloved feline companion to continue to live in a household rather than relinquishing the family pet to a shelter. Declawing should remain a viable alternative to euthanasia if all other options have failed.

The society also claims that declawing is done in a way that does not hurt the animal, saying:

The surgical performance of an onychectomy by a licensed, trained veterinarian is done with proper anesthesia and multimodal pain control, making it indistinguishable from other surgical procedures performed on cats and other animals. In addition, when done properly, it should never damage the sensitive foot pads of a cat or result in nerve damage or intense and chronic pain.

However the Humane Society and other advocates in favor of the bill point out that “declawing” a cat isn’t as simple as cutting the claws, but instead requires a number of steps. According to Eileen Jefferson, a veterinarian and member of Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association:

This always includes the pain of having 10 to 18 separate amputations performed in one day and, in addition to that, it can include other effects such as limping, hemorrhage, chronic pain and infection.

The bill is in somewhat beginning stages, and no vote has been scheduled yet. While New York would be the first state to outlaw cat declawing, a few cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, have already taken the plunge.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will New York Become the First State to Outlaw Cat Declawing? appeared first on Law Street.

For some of us, picking out our pet’s food boils down to three things: price, convenience, and whichever bag has the cutest pet on its front. But a new class-action lawsuit may have owners taking a closer look at the labels. Plaintiff Frank Lucido of Discovery Bay, California alleges that popular dry dog food Beneful produced by Nestle Purina Pet Care is actually poisoning dogs.

According to the blog Top Class Actions, Lucido began feeding Beneful dry food to his German Shepard, English Bulldog, and Labrador for the first time in late December 2014 to early January 2015. Shortly after making the switch, his German Shepard started losing large amounts of hair and giving off a strange odor, ultimately becoming violently ill. Days later, his English Bulldog was found dead in the yard, while the Labrador became ill shortly after that. The common denominator according to the pets’ vets? Internal bleeding “consistent with poisoning.” Since their diets were the only changing variable, Lucido did some research and concluded that Beneful was to blame.

Lucido’s dogs weren’t the only ones allegedly affected by the Beneful brand. According to the lawsuit, there have been over 3,000 complaints online by dog owners accusing Purina of making their dogs become ill and/or die after eating Beneful.

What kibble component could possibly be making so many dogs sick?

According to the Daily Beast, the popular human and dog food additive propylene glycol may be the culprit. The Beast goes on to say:

It’s [propylene glycol] also the same substance that caused the spiced whiskey Fireball to be recalled in Europe, which found excessive amounts of the chemical, also used in antifreeze, in the cinnamon swill last fall. The tainted liquor was from the North American batch because, in the U.S., much higher volumes of antifreeze additives are OK for human—or canine—consumption.

Another potential culprit may be mycotoxins. According to the lawsuit this toxic byproduct of mold is commonly found in all types of grains, which, according to a new study out of Pakistan, was found in half of the 237 breakfast cereal samples researchers tested.

The lawsuit is charging Nestle Purina with “breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, violating California’s consumer legal remedies act, violating California’s Unfair Competition Law, and violating California’s False Advertising Law.”

This isn’t the first time Purina has faced allegations of potential poisons in its products, according to a statement released from Purina. The company defends itself, saying:

We believe this lawsuit is baseless, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and our brand. Beneful had two previous class action suits filed in recent years with similar baseless allegations, and both were dismissed by the courts. Like other pet foods, Beneful is occasionally the subject of social media-driven misinformation. Online postings often contain false, unsupported and misleading allegations that cause undue concern and confusion for our Beneful customers. Bottom line: consumers can continue to feed Beneful with total confidence.

I don’t know how much confidence consumers will have though after being scared by words like internal bleeding, kidney failure, and seizures. Some public relations pros say any publicity is good publicity, but in this case there’s no way Purina for the time being can spin “dog-slaughter” rumors.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Purina Poisoning Pups? appeared first on Law Street.

Now that winter is in full swing, we go to extensive measures to make sure that our roadways and sidewalks are passable and safe. As we plow and shovel, we also use salts to serve as ice melt. While they come in numerous forms, many of them are strong salts that pose problems for the roadways themselves, the environment, and our pets.

As it is, I work hard to clean snow and ice out of my dog’s paws when she comes inside on a winter day. If those things become lodged they can irritate the sensitive pads or cause an infection. But if she steps on salt-based ice melt during the course of our walk, potentially serious problems can occur. First of all, it burns. I’ve seen my dog limp and try walking on three feet with the other raised up in the air because it is painful to step down. She’s whimpered and cried, and licked obsessively in an attempt to remedy it. This can cause further problems; ingesting these salts can cause gastrointestinal ailments such as vomiting and internal burns in the mouth and digestive tract. Extreme cases might even lead to liver failure or pancreatitis. I clean and disinfect her paws, apply soothing sprays, but can only do so much to prevent her from eating snow and ice outside that may contain some of the salt.

Courtesy Franklin R. Halprin

There is no reason to use these types of salts. Sometimes salts are not necessary at all; laying down sand can provide traction enough. In many areas a homeowner is directly responsible for the portion of the sidewalk that is in front of his house. While some people are quite neglectful of this duty, others take it to the extreme. I have encountered stretches of sidewalk that are so choked with strong salts that my dog and I are better off walking in the middle of the street. There are plenty of ice melts that are labeled “pet safe.” These are not nearly as problematic, though they are not necessarily perfect as they may still contain some similar ingredients. It is best to ask your vet or an employee at the store for more information.

Little boots are an option, as well. They are cute and fashionable and will protect the paws; however, I know my dog would not tolerate them. She would feel restricted and would spend the walk trying to tear them off. While they could help some dogs, this is avoiding the problem rather than eliminating it.

Courtesy Franklin R. Halprin

It is also worth noting that we track these salts into our homes on our shoes, as well. This can cause damage to wood floors and rugs. In addition, stronger salts crack the roadways. This is one of the reasons, in addition to the expansions and contractions induced by temperature changes, that roads are riddled with deep potholes by the time spring arrives. This gets expensive for taxpayers to fund repaving year after year, as well as poses dangers to drivers and can damage car suspensions, axles, and tires. Recently there were even several accidents on New Jersey’s Palisades Parkway largely due to incredibly rough roadways.

Remember how when Rome sacked Carthage they sowed the soil with salt so that nothing would ever grow again? We too are doing damage to the environment by sprinkling salt everywhere. It can burn grasses and plants, poison birds, and wash into waterways. From there it can harm aquatic life. This is a major issue; there is a sharp contrast in biological characteristics between fresh water creatures and salt water ones. Salt in fresh water is incredibly deadly.

Courtesy Franklin R. Halprin

We are therefore dealing with an environmentally irresponsible set of practices. Ideally an alternative to salting in its entirety would be a nice development, but in the meantime reducing or eliminating one of the problems that it causes would be a good step forward. So that our best friends can safely take steps outside, let it be with concern to pet friendly salts.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Say No to Ice-Melting Salt This Winter appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street’s top three stories of the week ranged from the truly outrageous, to the infuriating, to the utterly baffling. Anneliese Mahoney  brought us the number one most read article of the week about a Canadian couple who dotted all their insurance i’s and crossed all their doctor’s permission t’s and still were hit with a million-dollar hospital bill when they unexpectedly had their baby while on vacation in the U.S.; Mahoney also wrote about the startling  sexual assault allegations surrounding Bill Cosby and the rape culture in which we’re immersed; and writer Ashley Shaw told the tale of the very worst neighbor you can imagine–one whose dogs dogs killed the neighbor’s beagle so she decided to sue them. I told you it was utterly baffling. ICYMI, here is the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Meet the World’s Most Expensive Baby

A Canadian couple decided to go on a nice, warm visit to Hawaii. Jennifer Huculak and her husband Darren Kimmel were three months away from the birth of their daughter when they came to the U.S. on vacation. Unfortunately, a few days after their arrival, Huculak went into labor and gave birth to a baby girl. Because their daughter was born premature, they racked up some expensive hospital bills. Well, actually, expensive is kind of an understatement. To be more precise, they are being charged $950,000 for the medical care they received. Read full article here.

#2 Bill Cosby Allegations: A Striking Example of Rape Culture

Bill Cosby has, to many, gained the sort of “elder statesman” distinction in the acting world. For all intents and purposes, things were going well for him this year. He signed up to do a new show on NBC and announced a Netflix standup special. Then a comedian named Hannibal Buress did a bit in which he accused Cosby of being a rapist. Read full article here.

#3 Woman Sues Neighbors After Her Own Pit Bulls Kill Their Beagle

I have a quiz for you (don’t worry, it’s only one question, it isn’t math, and it’s multiple choice): If your four pit bulls break through a fence and enter the neighbor’s yard, then kill Bailey the ten-year-old beagle that resides there, what do you do? a. Apologize. b. Offer to buy the neighbors a new dog. c. Both a and b. d. Sue the neighbors for $1 million. Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

People tend to do some pretty clinically insane things to get back at their exes. Disgruntled men dumped by the girls of their dreams have posted naked pictures of them online, dated their best friends, and other concerning but far-from-deadly actions. However, the men starring in recent headlines have taken revenge to a whole new and disturbing level.

Recently, a dude was so peeved when his girlfriend left him that he concluded that feeding her dog to her was the best means of revenge. What ever happened to the saying “living well is the best revenge”? Not anymore, apparently.

That has to be one of the most messed up ways to get back at someone in recent history. It wasn’t just her beloved pet, but one of the most adorable dog breeds around — a Pomeranian — with one of the most adorable names possible, Bear. He fed her precious pooch to her during a “reconciliation meeting.” He then bombarded her with disturbing text messages asking her how her pet tasted and saying he thought BBQ sauce would have been a welcome addition benefiting the flavor. As if that weren’t a massive enough blow to the poor girl, he left the poor pup’s paws in a box at her doorsteps a few days later.

Apparently, you don’t need to be suspicious just of exes, but of your current significant other as well. In England, a teenage guy killed his girlfriend in an attempt to emulate Dexter, the character from the hit TV series. The young man says he was overcome by an alter-ego who made him stab and dismember his girlfriend. I guess the people concerned about the effect of such violent television series wasn’t all wrong, though the teenage boy suffered from various mental problems including schizophrenia.

Another cringe-worthy incident is the recent case in which 18-year-old Aston Robinson murdered his pregnant girlfriend and wrote a letter to her mother with the acronym “LOL.” After the couple sneaked into Robinson’s house, he strangled her and abandoned her corpse. While awaiting trial, Robinson wrote multiple letters to the mother of his deceased girlfriend to really twist the metaphorical knife in her gut.

The bone-chilling element of these stories is amplified by the pathetic sentences the criminals received. In the case of the teenager killing his pregnant girlfriend, his prison time could be as low as 14 years. The juvenile who killed his girlfriend Dexter-style is only looking at about 25 years. The dog-murder’s punishment is not yet known.

Seriously? It is cases like these where judges need to get their hands dirty and lay down the law. These terrifying tales certainly reveal how messed up people can be when they are dumped. So, who CAN you trust these days? Who knows…

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Be Careful Who You Love appeared first on Law Street.