NAIA Official Blog

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.

The United States is not the only country facing the burgeoning problems associated with unregulated international dog rehoming. Canada’s importation system has been described as little more than self-reporting, and has brought diseases that affect humans, pets, and wildlife into the country. Norway has gotten ahead of the issue and banned street dogs from entering the country. Now, the British Veterinary Association (BVA) is making its position on the issue clear, using the term “Trojan dogs” — apt and definitely not a phrase you’ll soon forget.

A ‘Trojan dog’ is a stray dog with an unknown health history that has been brought into the UK for rehoming. These dogs are of particular concern as they are very likely to be carrying infections which are common abroad, including in continental Europe as well as farther afield, but which we are free of in the UK. These infections may cause serious and fatal diseases in dogs which may affect not only the imported dog but could be transmitted to other untravelled dogs. In this way the owner of such a dog could unintentionally introduce a new and dangerous infectious disease into the UK to which our native dogs have no immunity. Moreover, some of these infections can infect humans.

The BVA, to its credit, recognizes both the kindness that inspires people to adopt dogs from abroad, while speaking in plain, no-holds language of the threats posed by this type of irresponsible rehoming.

The growing understanding of the dangers surrounding irresponsible pet importation make it a serious issue anywhere new (or previously conquered) infectious diseases can be introduced.

Diseases like brucellosis can be difficult to diagnose and are very contagious.

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!

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.

Alaska Airlines, adapting to the realities of air travel in 2018, tightened its policy on emotional support animals this week. These changes come in the wake of poorly trained and disruptive animals, bites, and even tragic pet deaths occurring on flights.

“Most animals cause no problems,” said Ray Prentice, Alaska Airlines director of customer advocacy. “However, over the last few years, we have observed a steady increase in incidents from animals who haven’t been adequately trained to behave in a busy airport setting or on a plane, which has prompted us to strengthen our policy.”

Prentice is unfortunately correct about the issue being a growing problem. And as it only takes the actions of a few people to create a chaotic and/or unsafe environment for everybody, it has to be addressed to prevent further harm to people and animals.

Alaska’s policy on emotional support animals just got a little tighter.

Given how numerous recent headlines have left animal people involuntarily shuddering at the mere word “airline,” it is great to see the drafting of emotional support animal policy that we believe will ultimately be safer, fairer, and more humane. Kudos to Alaska Airlines.