NAIA Official Blog

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.

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

A recent photo story in the Wall Street Journal shared some gorgeous dog pictures and some very predictable news on Greyhounds the other day. In the United States, Greyhound racing has faded in popularity over the last half century, a decline capitalized on and greatly accelerated by the actions of animal rights activists, legislators, and other interest groups.

Correlating with the drop in popularity and availability of the sport was a rise in “racetrack rescue” Greyhound adoptions, but we’ve reached a point where – surprise! – there are now more people who want to adopt Greyhounds than there are available Greyhounds. Further, there are also fewer reputable breeders maintaining these dogs… and to get one of their puppies, you’ll need to hop on a waitlist and fork over a lot of money! Meanwhile, there are concerns that “cash crop” breeders will fill in the void, capitalizing on the popularity of this beloved breed (they aren’t numerous like Labradors or Frenchies, but the people who love Greyhounds really adore them – and will find a way to get one), while rescues have modified their business model by switching to importing retired racing dogs from countries where the Greyhound racing is popular. If this all seems so very familiar, it’s because, well… it is.

Resources
★     Once One of America’s Favorite Pastimes, Greyhound Racing Eats Dust
★     ‘Ethical conundrum’: sending retired Australian greyhounds to US rescues some – but at what cost?

Hunting has a long history and remains popular in Spain, generating a respectable 5 billion Euros annually. But just as in many other Western countries, hunting is considered a more rural activity, while urban folks are less likely to hunt and more likely to look down on or even disapprove of it.

A recently proposed animal rights law in Spain places this urban-rural divide on stark display. In a nutshell, a law was proposed by the ruling Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party (PSOE), that reads as if someone tried to thoughtlessly cobble together every low-hanging concession to animal rights activists they could come up with before lunch break. Unfortunately for the PSOE, this law contained provisions about abandoned animals, training, and breeding that really ticked off a group of key supporters: rural voters. More specifically, hunters. Hunters considered the law an attack with the potential to “legislate hunting out of existence.” This led to a last-minute amendment excluding hunting dogs and other rural activities… and raised questions about the viability of the proposed law as a whole.

It is a positive that the disagreement between the party’s urban and rural bases led to a favorable amendment (and, ideally, towards the law being shelved altogether). However, this example also serves as a troubling reminder of how non-stakeholders often feel perfectly fine about passing their values onto others. “I live a different lifestyle than you, and, for various reasons, have never or will never hunt. But never mind that: let me tell you how you need to do it.” If you are involved in animal sports or hobbies of any variety, you know you’ve heard a variation on that theme before!

Resources
★     Study Shows the Benefits of Hunting in Rural Areas
★     Farm Bureau: Fast Facts About Agriculture & Food

The legislative season is underway in many states and cities, which, of course, means hundreds (thousands!) of pages of proposed laws and ordinances governing animals and animal enterprises.

In Las Vegas, Nevada, the number of dogs or cats a person can own without a permit increased from four to six, while new regulations on groomers and boarding facilities were rejected. In Monroe, Georgia, a 2014 ordinance was updated, banning the tethering of unattended pets. Meanwhile, a leash law was narrowly rejected in Clarinda County, Iowa, and Pierce County, Georgia, discovered their new ordinance on animal burials was unnecessary: there has been one on the books since 1991. And these examples are just from the last few days.

Laws regarding animals and animal issues are nothing new. The Code of Hammurabi dealt with – rather forcefully – the theft of livestock and working animals nearly 3,800 years ago! Animals play such a vital role in our day-to-day lives, it is essential that a legal framework exists to define our relationship with them. At the same time, it is important to be aware that many laws pertaining to animals, even if they sound great on the surface, can be arbitrary, redundant, or too one-size-fits-all to be fair or practical. They may be left unfunded and unenforced (or simply be unenforceable), pushed by business interests with ulterior motives, or by activists whose end goal is destroying (or possibly supplanting) a popular hobby or industry. They are also quite often crafted by lawmakers who possess little to no hands-on experience with the issues they are attempting to rectify – so even if their efforts are entirely heartfelt and come with the best of intentions, they are often operating without the full picture.

Keep this in mind. And when you hear about a new animal ordinance and wonder if you should support it or not, ask yourself a few questions. Does it seek to remedy a legitimate public health and safety or animal welfare issue? If so, will the ordinance actually be enforced? What, if any, unintended consequences or “camel’s noses under the tent” can you see? Laws are necessary, but they must also be reasonable, solve real issues, and be enforced. If they are not, they probably create at least as many problems as they solve.

Resources
★     LV Council approves increase in pet ownership, rejects more regulation of animal pros
★     ​Monroe unanimously adopts the amended Animal Ordinance in accordance with Walton County’s Ordinance
★     Proposed Clarinda leash law fails second reading after calls for stricter regulations
★     County discovers it already has large animal burial ordinance

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

As if on cue, a few minutes after we put out yesterday’s blog on imported Korean rescue dogs introducing a new strain of canine distemper into North America, our inbox was awash with this APB:

Officers looking for rescue dog in Leawood that escaped, possibly exposed to rabies

The escaped dog was in a group of 26 dogs imported from Egypt, in which one got sick and tested positive for rabies. The dog that escaped has not shown any signs of the disease itself.

Yes, by all means let’s displace our domestic dog population with pets from a part of the world where the CDC recommends rabies vaccines for anybody who might interact with the local animal population. What could possibly go wrong?

One final note: the rescue group says they followed proper protocol in importing the dogs, which if true, is a very strong argument in favor of modernizing our current importation laws, which have not been significantly updated since the 1950s. Situations like this, which threaten our animals and ourselves, shed still more light on why NAIA and the NAIA Trust are working on a federal bill to rein in irresponsible international rescue.

Last seen wearing purple sweater. May have been exposed to rabies.

Less than three months after an FDA recall of several brands of dry pet food with potentially toxic levels of vitamin D, Hill’s Pet Nutrition is now facing a class action lawsuit claiming hundreds, if not thousands of pets were sickened or even killed after being exposed to toxic levels of Vitamin D in their canned food:

“The lethal nature of Hill’s Specialty Dog Foods has been compounded by Hill’s excessive and unwarranted delay in warning consumers and regulatory agencies of the dangers posed by these products and caused untold numbers of pet owners significant emotional distress and financial loss,” noted the court filing, which detailed the cases of three bereaved dog owners.

“As early as February of 2018, dog owners began to complain that Hill’s Specialty Dog Foods were causing their pets to display symptoms consistent with vitamin D poisoning, such as ‘daily diarrhea, excessive thirst and constant food begging,'” according to the suit.

Hill’s is facing an additional, unrelated lawsuit over the issue of “fake pharmacy” prescription foods, as well.

Production issues and legal actions against companies that make the food your pets eat is obviously something we should all be aware of. We will follow this story and post updates as they occur.

Given the recent spate of dog-food related recalls and lawsuits, you can’t blame your pet for being a little wary…

Here’s some good news! Supreme Court says constitutional protection against excessive fines applies to state actions:

“For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties,” Ginsburg wrote. “Excessive fines can be used, for example, to retaliate against or chill the speech of political enemies. . . . Even absent a political motive, fines may be employed in a measure out of accord with the penal goals of retribution and deterrence.”

As a cherry on top, this was a unanimous ruling, too. But how does this relate to animal issues?

For over 30 years we have watched private nonprofit humane societies armed with state police powers seize animals – primarily dogs – under color of law, with very mixed results. There are definitely cases of horrendous neglect and abuse where animals must be removed from their current environment to protect and save their lives.

However, we have also observed animal confiscations that appeared to be little more than media events designed to provide a poster child opportunity for a humane society’s current legislative or fundraising campaign. We have seen seized animals that were portrayed by the shelter as being at death’s door when seized but made available for adoption within days of confiscation.

Decades ago, when dog overpopulation was still a problem in most parts of the country, the primary role of humane societies was to house and rehabilitate stray, neglected, owner relinquished and abused animals, and rehome them. But in the modern era, many shelters serve primarily as a major source of pets in their communities, often importing animals from different states and even foreign countries to maintain a steady supply of adoptable dogs. Confiscating pets in this environment is highly questionable and creates the perception of a serious conflict of interest. In addition, NAIA believes that nonprofit organizations should never be granted police powers, and that animal confiscations should only be carried out by duly appointed law enforcement personnel operating under proper legal justification, not by employees of a private nonprofit operating under the mission statement of their organization.

Three cheers for the Supremes and this decision. This applies to seizure of property that is used in engaging in criminal activity and, since dogs and other animals are defined as property, we expect that state legislatures will address their laws to align with this Supreme Court decision.

The United States Supreme Court building

In a welcome dose of sanity, Oregon judge John Knowles threw out a lawsuit filed by animal rights activists that would have given a horse legal standing to sue. This is a can of worms the animal rights crowd would love to open up, and it is an ongoing effort. But at least in this instance, the judge recognized the problems it would lead to:

There are profound implications of a judicial finding that a horse, or any non-human animal for that matter, is a legal entity that has the legal right to assert a claim in a court of law. Such a finding would likely lead to a flood of lawsuits whereby non-human animals could assert claims we now reserve just for humans and human creations such as business and other entities.

NAIA strongly supports sensible and enforceable laws against animal cruelty. We also support education and research into animal behavior and conditions that enable better standards of animal care. In the case of legal standing to sue, however, we strongly agree with Judge Knowles.

The law-enforcement credentials of the Oregon Humane Society (OHS) have been suspended pending an investigation into mishandled evidence and improper investigative techniques.

Reporting “unethical and unlawful practices,” law enforcement officer and former OHS special agent Ulli Neitch alleges:

…that in the two years she worked for OHS, she saw a failure to maintain a chain of custody on evidence, improper storage of evidence, disregard for officer safety, and violation of Fourth Amendment rights, among other concerns detailed in a 44-page document. 

An especially disturbing accusation in Neitch’s report is that OHS chose to ignore some animal welfare complaints, yet instructed her to seize evidence without a warrant in another. This, in particular, highlights the dangers of giving law-enforcement powers to private organizations.

In the United States, humane societies were originally given police powers in the 19th-century, in large part because animal welfare issues weren’t a high priority with the public at the time. Because of this, there were few animal welfare laws, and few animal control agencies to enforce them. Granting humane societies police powers allowed politicians to focus their attention on issues of greater importance to their constituents.

ASPCA Law Enforcement badge. 1866-2013.

Of course, we’re not living in 1879 anymore. Attitudes and priorities have shifted radically; today, nearly every large city in the United States has a duly-appointed government animal control agency with police powers to handle cases of animal neglect and abuse. In the simplest terms, this assures that animal control is accountable to the public it serves, rather than to a private nonprofit’s mission statement and board of directors.

So long as there are local adoptable homeless pets, NAIA wholeheartedly supports the sheltering and adopting of animals by humane societies. But we consider the suspension of OHS’s law enforcement powers appropriate and overdue. NAIA has long supported the transfer of police powers to government agencies and away from all private nonprofit groups, believing that such groups have inherent conflicts of interest, which are amplified by mission zeal and lack of direct accountability.