Browsing "Animal Husbandry"

USDA to Revise Guidelines for Labels Like “Free-Range” and “Grass-Fed”

On Wednesday, the USDA announced it was “implementing a multi-step effort” to help substantiate labeling claims on meat and poultry products regarding how the animals were raised.

The idea behind this is that labels used in marketing, such as “grass-fed” or “free-range,” which are currently voluntary, need to be verified by the Food Safety and Inspection Service so that consumers can have more trust in what they are buying – as well as in the USDA approval on the packaging. Cattle labeled as “raised without antibiotics” will be assessed to check for antibiotic residue, and whether verification is needed there, as well.

More clarity and trust is an important goal. Food labeling can be confusing. Sometimes it feels like you need a chemistry degree just to make sense of the ingredients listed on a bag of Doritos – and hardly anybody cares how a Dorito was raised. When it comes to health and animal welfare claims that are seen as making a product more desirable to consumers, avoiding confusion takes on more urgency. Allowing producers to slap on appealing, but befuddling and/or meaningless labels takes advantage of consumers’ good intentions, and undermines trust in the agencies we empower to enforce safety and fair play.

USDA to revise meat labeling guidelines for claims like ‘grass-fed’ or ‘free-range’


Resources
★     (Press Release) USDA Launches Effort to Strengthen Substantiation of Animal-Raising Claims
★     Food Ingredients of Public Health Concern (See Nitrate Language)

Congratulations, Marty!

What a great way to head into the weekend! We are proud to announce that Dr. Marty Greer, DVM, JD, and longtime NAIA Board Chair, was named Veterinarian of the year by the Westminster Kennel Club and Trupanion this week. Marty has long been a leader in the area of theriogenology (for canine reproduction), and we’ve always been proud of the herculean amount of work, networking, and outreach she puts into animal care and welfare. It is just fantastic seeing her recognized again for her contributions. Congratulations, Marty! Click below to read the full press release from the Westminster Kennel Club and Trupanion.

Dr. Greer: just another day at the office!

Full Press Release

Romans May Have Bred Frenchie (Like) Dogs Before It Was Cool

People have been breeding dogs to accentuate desirable traits for thousands of years. And not just “work-related” traits like herding, guarding, or pulling sleds, but also “cute and companionable” traits that make for better pets. Dogs have been around a looooong time.

The excavated Roman pets were similar to French Bulldogs and Pekingese.

Despite this long history, certain popular traits in pet dogs, such as flatter faces, are often viewed as a modern conceit. However, findings from the Roman empire suggest that flat-faced dogs resembling French Bulldogs were around over 2,000 years ago. Wear and tear indicates the dogs were pampered pets, and possibly an attempt to have a dog similar to the Pekingese, which was owned by Chinese imperial families at the time.

Snub-nosed dogs aren’t found in existing Roman art, which makes these findings a little surprising. However, the Romans are credited as the world’s first true dog breeders, having classes of dogs, as well as a keen understanding of physical and behavioral inheritance. Perhaps we should have expected these “proto-pug” findings!

Resources
★     Skull of a brachycephalic dog unearthed in the ancient city of Tralleis, Türkiye
★     The French Bulldog has been named America’s No.1 Most Popular DogRomans May Have Bred Frenchie (Like) Dogs Before It Was Cool

Heinous Anti-Dog Breeder Bill Introduced in Florida

A supremely nasty anti-dog breeder bill, SB 1492, was recently introduced in Florida. There is nothing particularly new in this bill. It assumes that breeders are cruel, unethical, money-grubbers. It also labels dogs “breeding female” on the assumption that the only reason someone wouldn’t choose to spay their dog is because they intend to breed them. Further, it has no problem saying we need to spay dogs at six months old, despite the well-known health and behavioral consequences associated with spaying and neutering dogs while they are still puppies.

Look who just turned six months old! Hope you registered your “breeding female!”

Then there are the registration fees and warrantless home inspections that, as the Canine Chronicle points out, even convicted felons, rapists, and murderers are not required to submit to. Oh, and let’s not forget the somewhat opaque conditions under which a dog can be seized, that “breeding facilities” have to post their addresses online (opening them up to criminal activity and harassment), and, of course, that anyone who has a litter is now a “breeding facility.”

That’s not everything, but you get the idea. It’s like the goal here was to make a greatest-hits compilation of every bad breeder bill ever proposed or passed. Feels like the early 2010s all over again – what a heinous mess! Ugh.

Anyhow, as you have likely surmised, we strongly oppose Florida SB 1492, and NAIA Trust will be fighting against it.

Resources
★     Florida SB 1492
★     The growing debate over spaying and neutering dogs

New Respiratory Tests Bring Opportunities for Brachy-Breeders

An exciting new program was unveiled two weeks ago at the Rose City Classic dog show in Portland, Oregon: the testing and grading of respiratory function in brachycephalic dogs. This was launched by the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), in conjunction with the Bulldog, French Bull Dog, and Pug Dog Clubs of America, as well as the AKC itself.

If you are subscribed to this blog, you probably already know what a brachycephalic breed of dog is and the health concerns and controversies that swirl around them. What you may not know – what too many people, frankly, don’t know – is that reputable breeders and their breed clubs have been hard at work to address and breed away from health issues associated with shortened snouts when present, and to, ahem, clear the air regarding some of the exaggerations surrounding brachycephalic breeds. This test, the Respiratory Function Grading Scheme (RFGS), provides the public and prospective dog owners with objective proof of that work, and ideally, opens the door for constructive conversations on health testing and issues with purpose-bred animals.

For dogs and their breeders, the RFGS objectively measures and grades brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome (BOAS) using a dog’s rest state and its breathing after exercise. This gives breeders valuable information on their dog’s overall health, provides guidelines for which dogs they should breed, and as a bonus, serves as a reference that sets themselves and their breeding programs apart. While it is true many top breeders were already focused on this issue, this tool offers them the opportunity, through a veterinary assessment, to certify that their dogs have normal respiratory function.

Over time, this can’t help but contribute to the advancement of good health in well-bred brachycephalic dogs both in reality as well as in public consciousness, which would be fantastic. To quote Eddie Dziuk, OFA’s chief operating officer, “There’s no reason a Pug shouldn’t be able to run around and breathe easily.” A majority already can, and with programs like this and smart choices by breeders, even more will be!

Resources
★     Respiratory Function Grading Scheme
★     PHOTOS: See the fabulous floofs of the Rose City Classic Dog Show

Avian Influenza Wreaking Havoc on Domestic Chickens. Hard Road Ahead.

With inflation being such a major news item all throughout 2022, the recent spike in egg and poultry prices may have slid under your radar as part of the general increased cost of living. However, if you break it down, a dozen large, grade A eggs cost 60% more than they did a year ago – more than seven times higher than last year’s rate of inflation! – and this increased cost is due to something far more dire than disruptions to the supply chain: it’s avian influenza. It is back in a big way, in an outbreak the USDA is calling the largest animal emergency they have ever faced in this country.

We are all probably aware of avian influenza, at least to the extent that it exists and makes birds sick. But there’s a lot more to it than that. There are several strains of the virus, and more importantly, it is split into two groups: low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) and highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). LPAI, as you may have already guessed, is not as lethal and has a wide range of outcomes: infected birds may suffer from zero clinical signs of the virus, they may sicken enough to die from it, or fall somewhere in between on the spectrum. Despite the fact many birds recover from it, it is still a problem as well as worrisome, since two of the strains are known to mutate into highly pathogenic forms. HPAI, the group threatening farmer’s flocks right now, spreads more rapidly and is far more deadly – especially to domestic poultry.

Since last February, more than 58 million birds have been culled due to the virus, 40 million of them egg-laying chickens. These numbers are despite improvements in monitoring and biosecurity protocols since the last major outbreak in 2015. And unfortunately, preventing and limiting outbreaks could become even more difficult as time progresses, since HPAI appears more and more prevalent in wild birds. Unlike chickens, numerous wild birds carry HPAI without showing serious signs of illness… and they migrate all throughout the world.

Commercial and backyard farmers, the USDA, researchers, and others are all working to find ways of protecting the animals we care for from this terrible illness, but it has been a painfully difficult path, and sadly, there is no obvious quick fix on the horizon.

Resources
★     USGS: What are the different types of avian influenza?
★     Grizzly bears test positive for bird flu in Montana, officials say

US Fish and Wildlife Service Sued Over Captive-Bred Parrot Moratorium

The US Fish and Wildlife Service is being sued by the Organization of Professional Aviculturists Inc. and the Lineolated Parakeet Society. They allege that USFWS is not allowing for the importation of captive-bred parrots under the rules of the Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act (WBCA).

Signed into law in 1992, the WBCA is meant to protect bird species bred in human care from having their wild populations affected by the wildlife trade. It also established the Exotic Bird Conservation fund for in situ conservation efforts. There is an approved list of birds from CITES that can be imported.

The plaintiffs state in the lawsuit that FWS denied their application to import birds already on the approved list, and that it is the duty of FWS, as per the act, to publish notice of list changes and invite public comment. It has been 30 years since that last happened. It will be interesting to see what happens with this lawsuit, as FWS has been remiss in their duties to not only revise the lists over time, but to implement key parts of the act.


Resources
★     Wild Bird Conservation Act
★     Red List update: parrots of the Americas in peril

Foxhound Hunting Operation Vindicated in Colorado: a Roadmap for the Future

On Friday, July 13, Dr. Alison Brown, whose rural American foxhound hunting operation had been attacked and vilified by two county residents was awarded more than $550,000 in defamation, reputational damage, lost revenue, and additional security costs incurred due to threats she received after being defamed.

Based in rural Chaffee County, Colorado, Dr. Brown’s operation became the target of two other residents, Chris Vely and Laura Barton, who wanted Brown’s dogs either silenced or removed entirely. Vely and Barton filed civil suits and criminal complaints, handed out fliers, and posted a Change.org petition against Brown. The online petition and flier were the items containing false and defamatory claims.

Also important here, is that her operation was deemed agricultural in nature; while Brown’s pack of American foxhounds do not kill coyotes, their presence reduces the presence of coyotes, which is a service to local ranchers. Several ranchers also testified that Brown’s hounds were not detrimental to their livestock, contrary to claims made by her opponents. The reason this is important is that it protects Brown’s operation under Chaffee County’s Right to Farm and Ranch ordinances. It also led to one of the more humorously apt statements made during the case:

“People move to rural areas and then expect that the manure pile next door wouldn’t smell, the farm equipment should have mufflers, that farm dogs don’t bark – that kind of thing. Rural zones are expected to have rural uses.”

It is highly encouraging that the parties using lies and defamation didn’t simply fail to win: they were held accountable for their harmful statements and countersued. As more and more honest people stand up for themselves like this (something that, unfortunately, takes time and money), the fewer frivolous and opportunistic cases like Brown’s we will see. For too long, organizations like PETA and HSUS have happily painted their targets as nasty caricatures, while using grossly outdated and inaccurate information in their campaigns. And for too long, the targets of these organization have been left too financially and emotionally spent – and intimidated – to fight back. But the now very real threat of counter-litigation changes the playing field dramatically; at the very least, animal rights organizations will be forced to do some actual fact checking before attacking an individual, hobby, or industry. And this is a huge, and positive change.

Alison Brown’s American Foxhounds. Image used with permission.

Notes & Quotes

A few final notes: While Col. Dennis Foster, former executive director of Masters of Foxhounds and board member of NAIA Trust, doesn’t particularly like seeing his name praised in print, we are going to praise him anyway!  We are immensely grateful that Dennis recognized the importance of this case, felt compelled to get involved, and used his years of experience to support Dr. Brown, all at his own expense. His expert testimony was no doubt a huge factor in Brown’s victory, and for this, we can’t praise him enough!

We also contacted Dr. Brown, and she had this to add:

I also want to say how grateful I am to Col Foster and the many other witnesses who came forward to give testimony at this case. I am incredibly proud of my Chaffee County neighbors and friends in the foxhunting community who were appalled by the actions my neighbors took and who helped me fight and win this landmark case.

Click here for an interview with Dr. Brown offering more personal and detailed information of this case.

Congratulations to USARK!

NAIA  and NAIA Trust are proud to announce a HUGE legal victory by one of our friends in the fight for animal owners’ rights. On April 7, 2017, the US Court of Appeals, DC District, ruled in favor of United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) over the US Fish and Wildlife Service, HSUS, and the Center for Biological Diversity. HSUS intervened in the case filed by USARK, thinking they could crush the little guy and got much more than they bargained for.

USARK advocates for the practice of responsible herpetoculture: the husbandry of reptiles & amphibians for conservation projects, zoos, museums, research facilities, education, and pets. The members practice conservation through captive breeding and work hard to preserve the right to do so.

Interpretation of a Federal law called the Lacey Act was the main dispute in this case. In 2013, USARK challenged a 2012 rule by the US Fish and Wildlife Service that designated 4 species of snakes as injurious under the Lacey Act. Four more species were added by a rule change in 2015, including the reticulated python and the green anaconda, and USARK amended their case. HSUS and Center for Biological Diversity began as only filing amicus briefs, which is basically interjecting an opinion but not actually participating as a party to the case. They later became intervening parties in 2015.

Green Anaconda

Green Anaconda

The Lacey Act is a longstanding Federal law that was enacted in 1900, with the principal “object and purpose” to “regulate the introduction of American or foreign birds or animals into localities where they have not heretofore existed.” The Act created a criminal prohibition against importation into the US of certain species, and the empowerment to declare species injurious and add them to regulation as needed. In 1960, the criminalization section was codified and clarified, but as too often happens in the law, was unintentionally made clear as mud.

The precise wording in the code prohibits “any shipment between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States.” This small sentence and its interpretation was the entire issue here. FWS recently decided to interpret the sentence to bar shipments not only from other countries into the listed locales and between the listed locales, but also between the 49 continental US states. HSUS and CBD supported this interpretation, USARK disagreed.

Injunctive relief was awarded by the D.C. District Court to USARK and its members in May 2015, which FWS, HSUS and CBD then challenged through appeal. The Federal Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court decision.

The Court used a plain language interpretation to come to their decision. The Court found that the use of the word “between” introduced the list with a one-to-one relationship between the listed items. It does not speak to the relationships within any listed objects, but prohibits one-to-one within the list. The court gave the example of there being no games between the NFL teams, MLB teams, and NBA teams. While there will not be football v baseball games or baseball v basketball games, there will be games between football teams themselves and so on.

The same goes for shipment under the Lacey Act—it does not speak to shipment WITHIN one of the listed jurisdictions but BETWEEN only the listed jurisdictions, such as between Hawaii and the continental US states. If there had been intent for the law to mean interstate, there would have been no need to reference Hawaii separate from the continental US. Not only did the court interpret the plain language, but looked to the history of the Lacey Act overall and found that to also be consistent with the plain language interpretation as well. The Lacey Act originally addressed only foreign species but as the country and travel evolved, limited it by land space further: barring shipments from other countries and between islands to the continental US.

Although this ruling has withheld entry of final judgment while the time lapses for the FWS, HSUS, and/or CBD to file an appeal, the likelihood of one being granted to even hear the case much less win on the merits is quite low. There are some side issues to be clarified still under this preliminary injunction, but bottom line is that this was a major victory for USARK. The Court (consisting of a three-judge panel) ruled unanimously in their favor. The years of hard work, perseverance, and let’s be honest, the funding it takes to fight a case of this magnitude for this long, has been well worth it. We congratulate USARK on a very hard earned and momentous victory!

naiaLogo

The Dog Lover

The Dog Lover, a film produced by Forrest Lucas, founder and chair of Protect the Harvest, was recently released into select theaters, and is available through on demand, and on DVD at Walmart. The story is based off of various real-life events, most notably, an HSUS raid on a breeder, where the judge ruled that the search warrant was wrongfully obtained by an animal control officer who intentionally misled the court, and stars Allison Paige, James Remar, and Lea Thompson.

For a brief synopsis:

SARA GOLD is a rising star at the United Animal Protection Agency (UAPA), a major animal rights organization that conducts animal rescues and lobbies for better animal welfare laws. Handpicked for a major assignment, Sara goes undercover as a college intern to infiltrate a suspected “puppy mill” run by the enigmatic DANIEL HOLLOWAY.

Sarah soon ingratiates herself with Daniel and his family, and learns all about the world of dog breeding but is hard pressed to find any sign of animal abuse. The UAPA teams up with local law enforcement and raids the farm, accusing Daniel of the inhumane treatment of animals. Sara finds herself torn between doing her job and doing what’s right, and she awakens to the moral contradictions of her work with the UAPA.

If you have even a passing interest in dogs and a curiosity about the worlds of dog breeding and animal activism (especially the big-name animal-rights fundraising groups), we can’t recommend this highly enough!

On side note, the film asks its viewers to “investigate before you donate,” a message that is essential if we are going to break through the barriers of propaganda and social media outrage and have a serious discussion on issues of animal care and welfare. With that in mind, it is sadly telling how so many discussions in the online community about this film choose to ignore or reject its message in favor of questioning Forrest Lucas’s background and motives (like this LA Times review that seems rather disinterested in covering the movie itself). We know cognitive dissonance is painful, folks, but part of making intelligent, helpful, and adult decisions is investigating all facets of an issue, even if it involves some of your sacred cows.

Click here to see if The Dog Lover is playing near you, to order it online, or to read more about the film!

TheDogLover

 

Pages:12»