NAIA Official Blog

We’re sure you’ve seen this movie before. A celebrity wears the wrong clothes, serves the wrong meal, goes hunting, or *gasp* buys a pet, rather than adopting, and before you can blink, PeTA has inserted themselves into the conversation, loudly denigrating the celeb’s choices with the organization’s distinctive brand of shaming and snark. It’s a fairly well-worn routine now, and a great way for PeTA, who are proud, self-described “press sluts,” to stay in the headlines.

The most recent row involves comedian Pete Davidson, who was so inflamed at being publicly shamed and (metaphorically) flogged by PeTA for purchasing a Cavapoo from a pet store, he sent them an angry, expletive-filled voicemail, much to the delight of PeTA, TMZ, and everyone else who makes a living off this kind of drama.

For what it’s worth, Davidson has stated that he regrets his choice of words and seems to have moved on. PeTA has milked just about everything out of this story that they can, too, so it’s likely just about out of the news cycle. Unfortunately, we, as an organization that cares about keeping facts straight and matching people with pets that are the right fit, we can’t be done with this quite yet. Because amidst the finger-waggling, there were two statements made by the organization regarding dogs and shelters that really should be addressed.

First, in response to Davidson saying he needed a hypoallergenic dog, they said that there is no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog. And second, they repeated the debunked claim that at least a quarter of dogs in shelters are purebreds.

The first statement – that there is no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog – is factual, but it is also unhelpful and misleading to blithely wave someone off and leave it at that. Especially to an allergy sufferer who is seeking out a dog. While there are no 100% hypoallergenic dogs, there are numerous less-allergenic dog breeds that may be a great fit for some allergy sufferers. For these people (as much as 20% of the population in western countries!), sticking to known, less-allergenic breeds is their best, and possibly only option for giving a dog a loving, permanent home.

The second statement, about 25% of dogs in shelters being purebreds is one of those claims that has been repeated so many times, a lot of people believe it as fact. However, anyone working in a shelter or non-breed specific rescue knows that this is an exaggeration. In fact, our shelter study, subsequently  showed the number to be much lower – 5%!

Why Is PETA Beefing With Pete Davidson?

Resources
★     Does a Completely Hypoallergenic Dog Exist?
★     NAIA: Survey of Shelter Dog Composition: Mutts vs. Purebreds

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

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

After buying two Savannah kittens, Justin Bieber was criticized by PeTA, who predictably came at him with one of their very favorite false choices: if you don’t get your pet from a shelter, you don’t care about animals!

When you hiss upon a star…

Oh my. The claws are out! But refreshingly, instead of grovelling, vaguely promising to “do better” in the future, and/or donating money to PeTA, Bieber told them to go suck it. Hey, now that’s the spirit! Considering the number of animals PeTA’s “shelter” has killed, and their views on pet ownership (spoiler: people shouldn’t have pets, period), they really don’t have the moral authority to lecture anybody on pet ownership or the requirements one must meet to “care about animals.”

Bieber went on:

“Every pet we get must be a rescue? I believe in adopting rescues but also think there are preferences and that’s what breeders are for.”

While that likely won’t be good enough for PeTA, it echoes what approximately 95% of the world believes. Would we have phrased it exactly as such? No — but we’ll take it!

Here are the scandalous kittens, by the way:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Justin (@kittysushiandtuna) on Sep 27, 2019 at 9:46pm PDT

$35,000 on two cats is probably not something a typical pet owner even considers, but the choice of where to get your next pet is a universal concern. And for many potential pet owners, the predictability of temperament, size, coat, health, and other factors that come with a well-bred pet are preferable — as are the guarantees and education one receives from a quality breeder. If seeking out a companion that is an ideal fit for your family and lifestyle isn’t a demonstration of caring about animals, then nothing is!

Over the weekend PETA and HSUS alumnus Scotlund Haisley, best known to our readers for his work in a dog breeder raid that led to the filing of a $5 million lawsuit against HSUS and inspired a movie, was arrested for holding up a Subway restaurant… twice.

This revelation, once you think about Haisley’s history of banging down doors, is hardly a surprise, and the headlines practically write themselves (“From pretend cop to real-life robber,” perhaps?). But it also occurs in the ominous shadow of Haisley’s serious health issues, which forced him to step away from his last position, and he is apparently “of no fixed address”; this is not something we revel in or would wish on anybody, even if the arrest is something that could have been predicted.

In 2009, a wrongfully obtained warrant and an animal control officer who intentionally misled the court… in 2016, a motion picture.

No, this isn’t about that guy with the machete, but another, somewhat less viral (but more pertinent to NAIA) story.

An Ohio man declared to police that 15 racehorses wanted to be “free,” after releasing them from their stables. Sadly, one of these poor “liberated” horses fell through the ice over Meyers Lake and drowned.

This is awful, but it also informs — because we’re not sure if you could find a more shining distillation of a specific mindset and its consequences that NAIA is fighting against. Whether someone is…

• banning breeds or breeders rather than specific behaviors;
• endangering the local pet and human population by importing street dogs from countries where canine rabies, flu, and/or brucellosis are endemic;
• fighting against animal research that will benefit future generations while enjoying — or perhaps even maintaining — their lives through the countless discoveries already achieved through *drum roll please* animal research; or
• demanding radical changes in agricultural policy and practices, despite never having set foot on a modern farm

It’s always the same story: moral certainty and the idea that “We’ve got to do something now!” coupled with limited (often non-existent) first-hand understanding of the issue at hand, which is inevitably followed by tragic, if utterly predictable consequences.

The Outcome Is Predictable

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.

It is always great to see PeTA taking heat for their dishonesty, but we take issue with the idea that this is some sort of new formula for them.

An ends-justify-the-means attitude toward deception has been the name of their game from the start, and they have engaged in numerous “fact free zone” campaigns over the years. A deceptive video featuring a CGI cat seems rather par for the course.

That being said, while their methods for getting attention are not tethered to facts, we can appreciate that Ingrid Newkirk and others associated with PETA have no problem saying exactly where they are coming from, unlike some of the other animal rights-oriented groups that prefer to maintain a mainstream façade.

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!

Surprise, surprise…

NYCLASS, a key de Blasio donor, hit with subpoena in mayor fund-raising probe

A key donor to Mayor de Blasio’s fund-raising was subpoenaed Thursday, as it became clear the growing investigation is zeroing in on whether his campaign broke rules pursuing checks from powerful interests seeking favors from City Hall, the Daily News has learned.

For those of you who are out of the loop: NYCLASS is an animal rights organization that has been running a smear campaign against the carriage horse industry for the last 8 years, while de Blasio is the mayor of New York City who came into office inexplicably obsessed with banning the city’s iconic carriage horses (horses that receive excellent care and are loved by the public, we would like to add!). A very, very interesting coincidence indeed…

This is one developing story that is definitely worth following and sharing widely!