NAIA Official Blog

Unfortunately, due to legislation that is currently being considered, the state of Maryland may place onerous mandates on how institutions handle the adoption of dogs and cats following the completion of research studies.

HB 594

This legislation is duplicative of what is already required by the federal government, creating unnecessary hurdles in the path of the research community and their widely embraced practice of adopting out post-study animals.

This legislation is also duplicitous. It is alarming that this legislation is being put forward by activist animal rights groups, such as the Beagle Freedom Project — the kind of groups whose threats have forced research institutions to shut down their adoption programs in the past due. This is not about animal welfare. What is happening here, is groups that want to end animal-based research are trying to write themselves into the adoption process as a way to use these animals as props, control the narrative, to pat themselves on the back and raise funds while “forcing” researchers to do something they are already doing! Hey, as long as we’re playing this game, why not pass a law that “forces” Five Guys to sell cheeseburgers?

Research with animals is critical for saving and improving human and animal lives, and helps us understand and treat a variety of cancers and disorders. This is why NAIA partners with Homes for Animal Heroes, which works with the research community to foster, train and place research animals in permanent, loving homes.

Learn more about this dangerous legislation in Maryland that would hinder the research community’s advancement in discovering important cures for our pets and families:

Great news out of New York City: the Teamsters have pulled their support for a bill restricting carriage horses to Central Park, and there will be no vote on it tomorrow.

Predictably, Mayor Bill de Blasio shows no signs of giving up his quest to eradicate these majestic and well-cared-for animals (as well as the jobs and tourism revenue they generate), and has said he is looking for a “new path.”

But with no vote tomorrow and opposition to his plans only growing, things are not looking good for de Blasio. As lovers of carriage horses and the people who work with and care for them, this is news we can cheer!

A disturbing press release from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) says that cyber-bullying from animal activists has caused the American Veterinary Medical Foundation (AVMF) to halt its “America’s Favorite Veterinarian Contest.”

Activists opposed to cat declawing “hijacked” the contest, resorting to cyber-bullying the majority of the contest finalists, those who believe that declawing cats remains a last-resort, but viable, alternative to separating pets from their owners when the animal’s behavior cannot be controlled any other way. One contestant, for example, was called “a whore, a butcher, a mutilator, a hack, an animal hater, a disgrace to the profession.” Other contestants were subjected to the circulation of fraudulent negative advertisements, negative reviews, and threatening phone calls.

Reading their press release, two thing come to mind immediately:

• If the behavior from the activists wasn’t so shameful, it would be absurdly humorous. These contest finalists are veterinarians — people who have devoted their lives to saving animals! And these veterinarians who are being treated like “animal hating” monsters are among the best out there! Sheesh.
• Veterinarians have been able to placate the animal activists longer than most professionals who work with animals, but it couldn’t last forever. To our many friends working day in and out to save and improve the lives of animals in the field of veterinary medicine, we say: welcome to the world of animal scientists, dog breeders, farmers, zoos, trainers, etc… but we are sorry you had to join us this way!

Meanwhile, in Canada:  the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a decision to revoke the Humane Society of Canada’s registration as a charitable organization.

What were the reasons for revoking its registration, you ask?

The Appeals Directorate cited three reasons for its decision: the humane society had failed to devote all of its resources to charitable activities; it had provided some of its income for the “personal benefit” of O’Sullivan; and it had failed to keep appropriate books and records.

Sounds like a reasonable call to us. We know you are busy and have important things to do, Canada, but while you are at it, maybe you can help out with the Humane Society of the United States (you know, the one that paid out millions of dollars to settle a RICO suit not so long ago)?

Arnold L. Goldman DVM, MPH

The National Association of Biomedical Research has released its “A Review of Animal Rights FOIA Requests FY14” report which documents animal rights efforts to gather intelligence about organizations, companies and institutions it targets for “lawfare.” Often biomedical research facilities are the target of these malicious efforts.

“FOIA” is the Freedom of Information Act, which provides the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. It is often described as “the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government.” Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA, unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement.

“Lawfare” is the illegitimate use of laws with the intention of financially harming an ideological adversary, creating a public relations victory against an adversary, or wasting the adversary’s time in responding, so that their mission and purposes are not pursued or are pursued less successfully. The objective is not necessarily to win in court, but to use the legal process as punishment for pursuing lawful aims that the antagonist disagrees with on ideological grounds.

From the 2014 Report we learn that there were 215 instances of FOIA requests by animal rights organizations or individuals associated with them, and that more than 40% targeted biomedical research institutions.

As paraphrased from the report:

“Activists use FOIA to acquire information to facilitate their investigations, to make criminal complaints for allegations of animal cruelty and to ask for enforcement actions for alleged instances of regulatory noncompliance. A notable change in 2014 was the submission of single FOIA requests targeting multiple institutions. This change makes the number of requests appear little changed when in fact they have increased dramatically. This also serves to better hide the targeting of specific institutions from among a group of as many as 25 other named institutions.”

In addition to the intentional misuse of FOIA laws by activists, the costs incurred by the Federal government to provide this information continues to increase. In FY 2014 direct FOIA expenses approached $462 million. At APHIS and NIH, 44 full-time FOIA staff are employed at a cost exceeding $5 million. These funds are unavailable for fulfillment of the primary mission of the agencies and institutions affected.

Read the entire report here: http://www.nabr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/FY2014-FOIA-Report.pdf

Animal rights activists co-opted Holocaust Remembrance Day last week, and it provided a window into the warped psyche of those who subscribe to the “rat is a pig is a dog is a boy” philosophy:

Co-opting Holocaust Remembrance Day in the name of animal rights is an offensive game of equivalency, and these moral comparisons have always been soundly — rightfully — rejected outside of the small circle of animal rights true believers (remember the reception to PETA’s “Holocaust On Your Plate” exhibit?).

But while the words and behavior are outrageous, hurtful, and anti-human, you have to admit: every time the animal rightists open their mouths and articulate what they really think, it serves as an important reminder of how twisted this seemingly warm and fuzzy movement truly is. It also brings to mind a helpful proverb of questionable attribution:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

So while we condemn the animal rights message, we also say “Please — do keep talking. Let the people know what you’re really about.”

It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true…. You are what the media define you to be

~Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd

Quick question. Say you work with animals and you:

• have facts and expert opinion on your side demonstrating your commitment to animal welfare, and a high level of animal care.
• have trainers who tirelessly advocate for and clearly love animals
• put your money where your mouth is, creating an amazing animal care, conservation and health, and education center
• manage to sustain the Western Hemisphere’s largest population of an endangered species

And say you go up against a movement that:

• relentlessly attacks and smears your reputation morning noon and night while playing fast and loose with the facts and manufacturing scandal.
• is not above using an “essentially paid plaintiff” against you in court
• has its lead organizations pay millions of dollars (not toward animal care or conservation) to settle a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case brought against them

In a world that made any sort of rational sense, you’d think victory would be a slam dunk. You’d think the public, the politicians, and the courts would join in a chorus and tell your opponents to take a hike — to actually do something useful with their time and donor money.

But that is not the world we live in; and the fact of the matter is that even when facts are on your side, if people are convinced you are cruel and greedy, you are going to lose. When politicians think supporting you is going to make them less popular — even though it is the right thing to do — you are going to lose.

Elephants in entertainment and Ringling Brothers in particular have been relentlessly attacked in the media by animal activists for decades. And as a result, if you were to take a poll of 100 people today, most would be aware of accusations against Ringling Bros., with a smaller percentage convinced they are the devil incarnate. Through constant repetition, it has saturated the public consciousness and simply become a part of how people think.

But of course precious few poll-takers would be aware of Ringling’s conservation efforts, or the groundless and unreasonable lawsuit against Feld Entertainment that led to the ASPCA, HSUS, and others to paying Feld tens of millions of dollars to settle a RICO case.

So should it be any surprise at all that after years of fighting, they finally just said “enough”?

This is a tragedy for everybody whose interest and passion for elephants — perhaps all animals — was sparked by the opportunity of seeing one of these magnificent creatures in real life, it is a tragedy for the Asian elephants themselves whose plight in the wild will now surely receive less effort and exposure, and it is a tragedy for the triumph of countless lies and smears from the animal rights lobby.

Let this be a warning to all of you who care about these issues, but tell yourself that facts, science, reason, and truth will prevail at the end of the day: because when it comes to your existence, if people don’t know or believe the facts, they do not matter. What matters is what the public thinks of you, how you are perceived, and what you are associated with. You are up against a relentless foe who does not care about reason or facts, one whose ultimate goal is your extinction. Science will not win against this onslaught, the only hope is to make sure people know who you are and taking charge of your own narrative. Whether you love purebred dogs or horse carriages, whether you are a farmer or a researcher or a hunter: when their campaign to destroy your animals, your hobbies, your livelihood comes to your doorstep, if everybody is already convinced you are beneath contempt because others were allowed to define you… it may be too late.

Support the groups who support you; if you don’t write your narrative, somebody else will!

Thank you to everybody who has signed our petition asking Outfront Media to pull PETA’s billboard! And if you haven’t done so already, please sign it today and share it with everybody you know who loves dogs and hates smear tactics (hint: that should mean a lot of people)!

Freedom of speech has few limitations in the United States — even the sensationalist, hateful speech practiced by PETA is protected by the first amendment. That’s why it is so important for companies to draw distinctions between business practices that are legally allowable and ones that are ethically sound.

PETA’s misleading advertisement is intended to hurt dog breeders (specifically, AKC breeders) right before a major dog show takes place.

Help us turn this around. Exercise your freedom of speech now by signing our petition. Doing so will help us save our dogs from destructive groups like PETA with agendas that serve no one but themselves.

Petition Link

If you’ve ever read an article covering a contentious animal issue, you’ve seen them in the comments section: hateful slurs, accusations, even wishes for ruination or death. There are a whole lot of really nasty comments, the vast majority coming from self-proclaimed animal lovers — you know, the “compassionate ones” who are against hunting, animal research, breeding animals, eating meat, etc.

For example, it is probably normal to feel that a man injured by an animal he was hunting has received a bit of poetic justice. However you feel about hunting, it’s not an unusual reaction (you can bet the man’s friends are going to give him a hard time about this later). But when you take it further, and start celebrating the hunter’s misfortune, wishing the injuries to the man will prove painful and eventually fatal… well, that’s not exactly kind, is it?

Wisconsin columnist Heather Stanek, accustomed to seeing comments like this, used to think it was just coming from the Internet’s chorus of trolls, but…

But the more I read, though, led me to a terrible realization: None of these people were trolls. They were saying what they meant, what they felt. And clearly, they believed that it’s OK for a person to suffer and die.

Yes. And it is not uncommon. You really have to wonder how anybody claiming to feel so much compassion and sympathy for animals can go ice cold (or even feel disdain) when it comes to their own species.

A recent story about a natural foods market’s run in with a local activist neatly illustrates the point that when it comes to the animal rights mentality: that it’s never really about the level of care, but ending animal use by humans altogether (and yes, this includes owning pets).

Of course many people don’t realize this, so when Local Grocer owner Heather Chase put together a class on how to ethically raise and process chickens (naturally, including information on how to slaughter them), and became the target of an animal rights campaign, it probably seemed odd to some onlookers. After all, aren’t the animal rights folks always campaigning against people who don’t ethically raise animals? Why on Earth target a “sustainable,”  “beyond organic” operation? Well, for the answer to that, simply refer back to paragraph one: because it’s not about the level of care; in there eyes there is no such thing as “ethical meat.”

Since becoming a target, animal rights activists have harassed the Local Grocer owner, given her store negative online ratings, and their ringleader has received a no-trespass order. All small potatoes in the scheme of things, but a clear and timely example that no matter how high your standards are, no matter how well you treat your animals, it is not enough.

“Why not do it the best way we possibly can?” said Chase.
But Slitt says she wants to challenge the idea that there can be “humane meat” and “sustainable animal agriculture.”

This is an important point to remember for everybody who lives with and works with animals: whether you farm, breed dogs, run a lab, or simply enjoy owning pets, the end goal for the animal rightist is not to improve you, but to stop you.

So keep treating your animals as well as you possibly can, take pride in the knowledge that you are ethical and caring and have given your all, and make sure you are operating on standards you agree with, standards set by people who actually work with animals, not those opposed to animal use altogether.

No matter how you frame it, somehow, some way, somewhere, somebody out there is utterly convinced that this puppy is “suffering.”