Eliyahu Gasson | editor-in-chief

Professional Bull Riders (PBR) returned to PPG Paints Arena this weekend, sparking renewed controversy over a decades-old city ordinance and a recent legal maneuver in the Pennsylvania General Assembly that allowed the event to proceed.

The event, held Feb. 13-14, drew nine protesters who gathered outside to challenge the sport’s use of tools once banned in the city.

Matthew King, president of the Christian Animal Rights Association, said his organization has spearheaded a petition against PPG Paints Arena sponsors, alleging the event promotes animal cruelty. He argued that the bucking exhibited by the bull is a response to irritation and discomfort caused by flank straps, ropes tied around the bull’s waist to get it to kick its hind legs.

“This show is built around torment and suffering,” King said. “They hurt animals for the sake of amusement, and so it’s very much something that the Bible condemns.”

King cited a 2017 study published in JAVMA that found bucking bulls were more likely to develop horn and sinus disorders and musculoskeletal disorders than non-bucking bulls.

Andrew Giangola, PBR’s vice president of strategic communications, said in a statement to The Duke that the bulls were treated as “valuable animal athletes” who receive high-quality care. He described the flank strap, the only tool used by PBR that was banned in the 1992 city ordinance, as a “soft cotton rope” used only to encourage a bull’s natural instinct to kick.

“They get great care, are not abused in any way and are crucial to events that inspire, unite and bring joy — along with millions of dollars of economic impact — to local communities,” Giangola said.

Giangola also said the bulls, which are genetically pre-disposed to bucking, start competing around 3 years old. Once they turn 8 or 9 years old, they “retire to stud and live out their [lives] on a ranch until their mid to late teens.”

Angie Fry, a retired Allegheny County humane officer who inspected the bulls backstage, supported the organization’s stance. Fry said she found the animals to be “very calm, very docile” despite the noise in the arena. She noted that any bull showing signs of agitation or distress in the chutes is immediately removed from the competition.

“They’re not hurt. They’re not pushed to do anything they don’t want to do,” Fry said.

Matt Scharping, a bull stock contractor who competed at PPG Paints Arena over the weekend, said there is psychology at play, but it isn’t harmful.
 

“Think of it like a K9 Dog Officer. When the vest goes on the animal, they know it’s time to go to work,” he said in a statement. “The same applies here. When the flank strap is affixed to the bull, he knows it’s time to go to work. The psychological effect is a positive one … If a bull has a bad experience, he will do whatever it takes to avoid that.”

Legislation questions

A 1992 Pittsburgh city ordinance originally prohibited rodeo equipment such as flank straps, electric prods and sharpened spurs, citing concerns over animal torment or suffering. The ordinance was passed two years after a bull was killed after it broke its leg at a 1990 rodeo in the city.

However, PBR’s return was made possible by a 2024 state budget preemption that bypassed the city’s ban, allowing organizations like PBR to operate in Pittsburgh for 12 days a year.

King said the provision was negotiated in the dark by state senators without input from the city.

“Pittsburgh had no input whatsoever. It all happened so fast,” he said.

According to reporting done by Spotlight PA, the preemption, backed by PBR, was tucked into the 140-page piece of legislation without any elected official taking credit for it. PBR paid lobbyists from Allegheny Strategy Partners to support the measure, according to Public Source.

State Sen. Lindsey Williams introduced a bill to reverse the preemption in January 2025. The measure has been in committee since March 10, according to the Pennsylvania General Assembly website.

The legal events behind PBR’s presence in Pittsburgh may not be settled. The single-subject rule, laid out in the Pennsylvania Constitution states that no bill passed in the state can contain more than one subject if it is not clearly expressed in the title.

Bruce Ledewitz, associate professor emeritus at the Thomas R. Kline School of Law, said that while the state has the power to override local regulations, the procedural method used to insert the preemption into a broad budget “might be vulnerable to a single-subject challenge” in court.

“That’s a state court issue. So assuming that it’s not invalid procedurally, there’s nothing wrong with the statute,” he said.

“They have the power to do it. They just did it this way because it would not be a very popular statute. It was done the way it was done for exactly the reason you think.”

The 1992 city ordinance could also be vulnerable to a court challenge. The city is allowed to pass legislation to protect animals, but it is not allowed to pass bans on business activity that is lawful in the state.

“This is on the line,” Ledewitz said. “I’m not sure how it would go, but there’s a good argument that it’s unconstitutional in the first place.”

Eliyahu Gasson can be reached at gassone@duq.edu