NAIA Official Blog

Following the success of numerous programs aimed at reducing the spread of malaria in the United States, the National Malaria Eradication Program was launched in 1947. And this program really lived up to its name. It did so well, in fact, that malaria was essentially eliminated in the United States by 1951. This is a remarkable achievement: just consider that only 18 years prior to its elimination, this debilitating, sometimes fatal infection affected 30 percent of the residents in the Tennessee Valley.

But the 1950s are long gone, and Texas and Florida have recently seen the first locally acquired cases of malaria since 2003. What this means is we are seeing malaria infections that weren’t picked up by people traveling through sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia, but just right outside their back doors in Texas and Florida.

So why is this happening and what does it mean?

The why part is easy, though comprised of multiple factors: warmer temperatures, more standing water, more human migration, poverty, and poorly planned (or simply unplanned) urbanization all conspire to make malaria easier for mosquitos to spread.

What it means is that we are going to have to take mosquito-proofing our lives seriously. It’s important to remember that malaria isn’t new to the U.S. – it took a lot of hard work and cooperation to eliminate it last time, but we do have regions that are, or at least can be, quite hospitable to mosquitos and the illnesses they spread. And while malaria infections get the headlines, it’s hardly the only disease carried by mosquitoes. West Nile killed 227 people in the U.S. last year, and we have diseases like dengue fever and Zika that are just chomping at the bit to be spread… if we provide them with the opportunity.

Is malaria making a comeback in the U.S.?

Resources
★     World Health Organization: Malaria
★     How Climate Change Is Spreading Malaria in Africa

A Los Angeles Animal Services volunteer was awarded $6.8 million on Tuesday after suffering through a gruesome dog attack. She spent more than a month in intensive care, endured multiple surgeries and skin grafts, and was expected to lose her hand. Fortunately, her hand was saved, though she is not expected to regain full use of it.

The city was found guilty of gross negligence, and it’s easy to see why. The unfortunate volunteer was left alone with a 100-pound dog that had known aggression issues. It had attacked its previous owner and was described as a “threat.” Meanwhile, staff chose to use the euphemism “grumpy” to describe its temperament, and remarkably, had tasked the volunteer with bringing this dog to meet a family of prospective adopters. Despite all of this, the dog wasn’t euthanized until months after the attack. Sadly, this incident isn’t shocking; it was inevitable. The dog may have been kept in the shelter for ideological reasons, concerns over live release numbers, disbelief of previous owner statements, or simply due to lack of knowledge and/or staffing, but if you keep a vicious dog – especially a large one – on site and available for adoption, it’s only a matter of time before something really awful happens.

Many shelters and rescues are having a hard time securing veterinarian services, retaining staff, and finding volunteers right now, and incidents like this really don’t help on the volunteer front. Hopefully, the suffering endured by this animal-loving volunteer – and the award she received – causes shelters to rethink their policies regarding dangerous animals.

Volunteer awarded $6.8 million after being mauled at animal shelter run by troubled L.A. agency 

Resources
★     Bass’ budget proposal for Animal Services is far less than what department requested
★     Exclusive: Shelter dog caged for weeks without walks bites volunteer

Last week, animal owners everywhere were rattled when Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC) officers killed 34 privately owned pythons and a gravid boa. To better understand how this came about, it is important to have a bit of backstory. In 2021, FWC came up with and implemented a list of animals that would be banned and illegal to privately own, keep, sell, trade, or breed. These animals were originally covered by a conditional permit. The list includes tegus, green iguanas, several pythons, and other reptiles. This, too, has a backstory – those animals can live in parts of Florida’s climate and thrive, which can lead to ecosystem imbalances. There are populations of large constrictors, iguanas, and tegus living in the Everglades and elsewhere that have impacted native wildlife.

The 2021 ruling is currently being challenged as unconstitutional in a lawsuit against FWC and has yet to be formally decided and ruled upon. Owners and breeders were given 90 days to rehome their animals. That ruling turned law-abiding animal owners into criminals overnight.

Fast forward to last Thursday, when FWC officers went to Bill McAdam’s property looking for an escaped python. Chris Coffee, the owner of the pythons whose snakes were under constructive seizure, let them in to let them inspect the animal enclosures, all of which were locked. What happened after that was captured on video and linked to in the original press release from USARK FL. The officers, over a span of a few hours, killed 35 snakes, one of which was legally kept and killed by accident. The pythons were all registered, microchipped, and on documented inventory with FWC as Mr. Coffee was in full compliance with the Conditional Species Permit rules before that program was terminated by FWC for these species in 2021. That snake was a pet, raised by Mr. McAdam and was gravid with 32 offspring due in one month. 29 of the snakes killed were reticulated pythons, which are not listed as an invasive species in Florida. The remaining five were burmese pythons, which are listed as invasive species in Florida. Also troubling is the method in which the officers used to dispatch the snakes: they did not follow the FWC approved two-step process for humanely euthanizing reptiles as stipulated on their website. The officers only performed Step 1 and never completed the humane process by carrying out Step 2.

This is a truly sad situation where the welfare of animals was not taken into consideration. The snakes were born and raised in human care and kept by knowledgeable owners. We understand the dangers posed by invasive species, but also the importance of making sure animal owners operate within a framework of just and reasonable laws. We hope to see, at the very least, an investigation and compensation for the animals lost.

Resources
★     USARK: FWC Officers Slaughter Pet Boa and 34 other Snakes on Holy Thursday
★     FWC: Humane Killing Methods for Nonnative Reptiles

According to local officials, a recent licensing law, coupled with a registration and vaccination drive for dogs in Plantersville, Mississippi is already reaping benefits. They have seen a reduction in roaming dogs, more lost dogs returned to their owners rather than sent to the shelter, and, of course, we don’t have to explain the benefits of rabies shots. So far, it sounds like a win-win for everyone. And in light of this success, neighboring towns are reportedly curious about enacting similar policies themselves.

Now, the idea that you pass a law affecting pet owners, and suddenly the number of roaming dogs and intakes goes down might seem simple and self-evident to some people. But the truth is, there are a lot of instances where you don’t see such an obvious cause-and-effect with animal laws. Many aren’t effective at all, in fact. What happened here, is that a clear and reasonable set of rules were laid out for pet owners, accompanied with encouragement and engagement. There is nothing that felt arbitrary or punitive – just an ordinance that pet owners – the vast majority of whom are law-abiding, humane, and want the best for their animals and communities – would view as a net-positive and be happy to support. Now that is a formula for success!

Resources
★     NAIA: Constructing Successful, Pet-Friendly Ordinances
★     NAIA Model Law: Dog Purchaser Protection Act

Ever know someone with a reactive or aggressive dog who makes their pet everyone else’s problem? Who are we kidding? Of course this is something you’ve seen or experienced before. Sometimes, the owner denies or minimizes their dog’s behavior (“Don’t be afraid. He’s just playing!”); they may also make excuses for their dog (“He’s being triggered by past traumatic experiences!”), or, in some instances, the owner may even blame the victim(s) (“Why did you let your dog aggravate him!”). The lack of accountability and excuses are all too familiar.

Pets are part of the family, and our protectiveness and desire to paint them in the best possible light comes from a good place. That’s completely understandable. It is also true that our pets may act differently around us than with unfamiliar people, pets, and places. But regardless, the behavior of our pets is our responsibility. At a bare minimum, we have a duty to make sure our pets are under control when dealing with the public and strangers. And not to let smaller pets off the hook (which is a topic for another article), but this responsibility is doubly important when we’re talking about large dogs that can more easily cause grievous injuries to other pets and people.

Hammering home this point is the story of a five-year-old girl in Florida, who endured five hours of surgery after a dog owner allegedly invited the girl to pet her 60lb, recently rescued dog that was “very good with kids.” Yeesh. The dog proceeded to maul the girl twice, as the girl’s mother wrestled with the attacking dog. The owner (who, in at least one recounting of this story, just stood there as the attacks transpired) and dog disappeared as the girl was rushed to the hospital by her mother, but have since been identified. It’s a pretty horrific tale. The images serve as a graphic reminder (consider this your warning) of the harm that occurs when people fail to meet their most basic common sense and responsibility requirements as pet owners.

Resources
★     (Canada) 3 Dogs Attacked A 9-Year-Old Girl In Manitoba & Left Her With ‘Significant Injuries’
★     NAIA: Constructing successful pet friendly ordinances

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

It’s a new year, meaning lots of new laws are taking effect throughout the land, including a ban on fur in California. More accurately, a ban on the sale and manufacturing of new fur products. This kind of thing has become par for the course in California, so it shouldn’t be a surprise – though it should be troubling to you, regardless of whether or not you choose to wear real fur. The hubris of a congresswoman from sunny Glendale, California announcing to the rest of the world that fur is over – and further, that it has no place in a “sustainable future” (how many hundreds of years will it take for that faux fur coat to biodegrade, again?) would almost be laughable if there were no real-world consequences or precedents from her bill.

Unlike animal issues related to things like food production or pets that virtually everybody has a stake in, fur can be exploited by its opponents by tying it to displays of ostentatious wealth and its lack of functionality in many climates of the world (see: Glendale, California). Combining divide-and-conquer tactics with a side of pragmatic-sounding “and do we really even need this?” can be really effective. This means that as far as cause-marketed issues go, fur is fairly low-hanging fruit. Opponents of the ban were correct in saying it ultimately boiled down to one class of people wanting to tell another class what they could buy/wear…. which, again, should be highly concerning, regardless of one’s feelings about wearing fur.

New California laws in 2023 include a fur ban, new state holidays

Resources
★     Prop 12 Enforcement Will Wait in California for Supreme Court Ruling
★     Appeals Court Upholds Limit on California’s Foie Gras Ban

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.

Here’s another example of why NAIA has been working nonstop on the issue of irresponsible dog importation for nearly 20 years:

New Imported Distemper Strain in Dogs

This is not a long read, but to summarize: 12 week-old puppy (yes, 12 weeks!) was imported into North America from Korea by a rescue. The puppy showed signs of illness 12 days after arriving, grew sicker, and had to be euthanized. Tests indicate the imported pup had a new strain of distemper.

The excerpt below captures the dangers of irresponsible rescue importation (trafficking, if you don’t want to mince words), and its wanton disregard for the domestic dog population:

While we have been most concerned with the importation of canine influenza virus from Asia to North America by improper procedures by various “rescue” groups, the importation of CDV may be more significant in that CDV once it enters an ecosystem cannot be eradicated even with effective vaccines. Once again the North American dog population is being put at risk by those who have no regard for the importation of foreign animal diseases.

The threats to public, animal, and economic health that are posed by importing unscreened livestock into the country are generally understood. The fact that we have a reasonably strict screening process for importing livestock is evidence of this. Yet for the last two decades, rescues shipping in dogs from parts of the world that have not even gotten rabies under control has rarely elicited anything stronger than “but at least their hearts were in the right place” in response. Sadly, it seems to take incidents such as the canine flu, rabid puppies, and new (or reintroduced) diseases for the public to take notice, but awareness is spreading.

If you are a passionate dog breeder, concerned about the protection and preservation of your breed, or someone working with a responsible rescue organization, you are probably aware — acutely so — of the dangers posed by the irresponsible importation of pets.*

While the general public lags behind the organized dog community in their understanding of this issue (some even romanticize such importation or tie it to virtue), it is good to see that several federal agencies are working to make sure that imported pets meet the minimum requirements necessary to enter the United States: Pet import laws are severely outdated, but it’s good to see that the agencies take the issue seriously and are doing all they can within their current statutory authority to prevent dogs carrying contagious (sometimes lethal) diseases from entering the US:

CBP, CDC, USDA Eye Puppy Imports**

This is excellent to read. The language is academic, mild even. But it is also quite obvious that they understand the health threat posed to animal and human populations through importing pets — dogs, typically — that aren’t properly health-checked, vaccinated, and old enough. Further, they are aware of importers trying to circumvent the system and falsify records — an issue raised by the shipment of rescue dogs from Egypt that included a rabid puppy, leading to a six-state investigation (and a lot of shots for the people who needed PEP regimen).

*For many, the idea of importing a dog from another region or country to “save” it has a gut-level appeal. Unfortunately, the reality of this is that doing so without appropriate health checks and vaccinations — especially when importing from countries with large street dog populations where rabies and other diseases are still endemic — poses serious dangers to local dog and human populations.

** yes, we’re aware this article was written before the shutdown, no we don’t expect the lapse in funding to last forever.