NAIA Official Blog

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.

We’re all set up and ready to go at the 2018 National Conference of State Legislatures in Los Angeles!

This year, our booth is in a perfect position, seen by everyone as they walk in to the event. NAIA is proud to speak for (and with) everybody who loves animals, and to help preserve the human-animal bond.

NAIA’s booth. Hello, George!

Will will be back with a full recap later this week.

Big thanks to NAIA Board Member Patte Klecan for running our booth and helping to get our message out!

For more than a decade, we have maintained a presence at the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). NAIA board members attend to the booth, conversations are had, connections are made, and perceptions are changed. This year, the event was held in Boston, Massachusetts.

From left: NAIA Board members Patte Klecan, Dr. Cindy Buckmaster, Nancy Fisk.

Why is this event important? Because the entire conversation surrounding human-animal interaction — policy positions, philosophical perspectives, even the language we use — has long been dominated by the ideology of the animal rights movement. Those of us who live, love, and work with animals who have hands-on experience and more mainstream positions on animal welfare and conservation issues are often drowned out. So this event gives us an opportunity to share our perspective and let legislators know that there are organizations out there who not only care deeply about animals, but also the human-animal bond, and positive outcomes that are driven by data. If you work with animals, we are here for you.

Even after all these years, it never ceases to amuse us how curious passersby will breathe a sigh of relief after a conversation or reading a brochure. “Oh, sorry. I was worried you were one of those groups.”

No. No we are not.

Oh, and speaking of making new friends…

It has been an incredibly long and arduous fight, but we are proud to announce that the bill formerly known as New Jersey SB 63 pertaining to dog breeding and sourcing has finally been conditionally vetoed! Kudos and huge thanks to NAIA Board Members Barbara Reichman and Julian Prager for their hard work and incredible commitment to this fight, combined with all of YOU who took the time to make your voices heard. Thanks to Governor Chris Christie and his staff for listening to our concerns and doing the research necessary to understand the complexity of the issues and make the appropriate changes. As of May 1, Governor Christie has returned the bill to the legislature with the changes we and the rest of the stakeholders had requested.

New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie

The bill has taken a long and winding road with many twists and turns, beginning as legislation to force pet stores to source only from shelters and rescues then dropping that requirement (thanks in large part to our input) and morphing into a bill that would treat hobby breeders as commercial breeders. The bill has gone through several different forms and bill numbers, the last version that was presented to the Governor being S3041. It was a much better version than what we started with but was still damaging and would still treat small hobby breeders as pet dealers and all the unrealistic requirements that would entail.

We at NAIA Trust have been working hard to unravel the confusion and keep you abreast to help you efficiently take action. NAIA Board Members Barbara Reichman and Julian Prager have worked directly with legislators throughout this entire process, right up to the Governor’s office. They have devoted countless hours drafting proposed amendments and positions, developing relationships, and communicating our concerns to protect breeders and owners. Between their work and the flood of calls to the Governor’s desk, we have finally succeeded!

Gov. Christie agreed with us in his conditional veto of the bill; he stated that while he commended the efforts to protect New Jersey pet purchasers, aspects of the bill went too far. “The bill would also have the unintended consequence of restricting consumer access to pets, even from responsible breeders,” stated Gov. Christie in his veto. He is definitely a friend to responsible dog breeders; he GETS it. He also made sure to get rid of all of the awful animal rights propaganda that was included in the recitals and findings to the bill. Some of the important changes he has made include:

• Both the definition of “breeder” and “pet dealer” were changed to only apply to USDA licensed breeders, so in essence pet shops would be required to purchase from USDA licensed breeders (as they are now), and small at-home breeders are left out of the unrealistic requirements as we wanted.
• The attempt to regulate out of state pet sellers has been removed.
• The inclusion of anyone selling more than 10 dogs or cats in the state of New Jersey has been removed from the definition of pet dealers.
• The bill previously prohibited pet shops from obtaining animals from breeders that had three or more USDA citations; this was replaced with “3 or more separate, final, and conclusive orders for violations.”

So, what happens next?

While this conditional veto represents a major battle won, the war is not over yet. The veto still has to go back to the legislature. The legislature can either accept the veto, do nothing (which means it will die), or they can attempt to override it. An override would require 27 votes in the Senate, and that never happened under 8 years of Gov. Christie.

Because the conditional veto will go back to the legislature, we will still need your support and help to ensure that Gov. Christie’s partial veto is accepted. Simply make sure you are signed up to follow NAIA Trust and will receive our alerts. Following NAIA Trust is easy and will keep you up-to-date on legislative issues like this one that affect you and your animals. If you haven’t signed up for NAIA Trust yet, you are missing out. We have made many improvements to our site to make it easier to understand the issues and taking action is as easy is clicking a button if you make sure to check “remember me” when you sign up for our alerts. Sign up here with NAIA Trust today to be a part of future victories like this momentous one in New Jersey!

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

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!

On Friday, we mentioned that Wyoming is considering a bill to make misrepresenting a service animal a misdemeanor, a law that is no doubt simple common sense for many. Then, like clockwork, the story of Patsy Hayes and her latex-detection dog, Andromeda popped up the next day. Patsy Hayes is severely allergic to latex, and Andromeda lets her know latex is nearby, in order to steer clear of it. This story is a timely reminder of the value of service dogs, and of the varied, perhaps unexpected services they can perform.

The word “allergy” conjures up images of swollen eyes, dripping noses, maybe a rash — and in most cases, that is the extent of an allergic reaction. But anaphylaxis, Patsy’s reaction to latex, is far more severe: it can be life-threatening and brought on by extremely low levels of exposure.

Living with severe allergies can be extremely life-limiting, but a detection dog can help to open doors:

Years of training dogs to detect explosives and narcotics for the U.S. military and law enforcement agencies led Gavin to branch out in 2009 and focus on teaching dogs to detect an array of compounds — including nuts, milk, wheat, eggs and soy — that create serious allergic reactions in her clients.

Some of the afflicted, she said, rarely left their homes, didn’t go to school or movies, parks or churches — or even visit friends — out of fear of an allergy attack.

“But after getting a dog,” Gavin said, “they would start going places.”

Not the service dog of yesteryear, but a valuable job indeed!

Service Dog! Canine Companions for Independence

In Cheyenne, Wyoming, misrepresenting a pet as a service animal may become a misdemeanor carrying a fine of up to $750.

For some, issues like this inevitably evoke sarcastic responses: “Government is focusing on fake service animals now? So this must mean we’ve solved unemployment, industrial pollution, and homelessness, right? Har har har.”

But we are glad to see this issue addressed. Pets posing as service animals de-legitimizes real service animals and their work, and that comes with real consequences. Consequences for the public, for businesses, for tenants and landlords, and most importantly, for these wonderful animals and the people who depend on them their well-being and independence.

Good chance this dog is a great pet. Near certain chance this dog is not a service animal.