NAIA Official Blog

The Tijuana Sun reports that Tijuana’s numerous unregistered animal shelters – many of which are shipping dogs north to U.S. consumers – are creating a nightmare for local animal control, animal welfare activists, and especially dogs. Cases of overcrowding, cruelty, filth, and illness abound, but unfortunately, very few of the city’s shelters are registered or even identified by officials. This makes it incredibly difficult to monitor and improve shelters so they meet health and welfare standards.

Exacerbating this already daunting task is the fact that there is a lot of money to be made by shipping street dogs north to well-intentioned U.S. homes. Even people who start out only wanting to “save lives” can get sucked in. When there is a near-limitless supply of street dogs to export, and each dog is being shipped out at $20 a tail, you will reach a point where you are running a business, rather than a shelter, whether you admit it or not. It’s inevitable. What incentive is there to stop, register your shelter, and solve the problem at its source?

It is estimated that there are 50,000 street dogs currently living in Tijuana. That’s a lot of dogs, but fortunately, there are two good steps going forward. The first step would be for the local government to allocate resources toward rescue, rehab, and sterilization programs and partnerships. A concerted effort would really help put a dent in this welfare, health, and safety dilemma. Of course, this is not something we can magically enact, and no matter how well and urgently Animal Lawyers of Mexico or other welfare groups state their case, they do not have magical powers either.

The second step going forward is something we do have a say over, however: showing our support for the Healthy Dog Importation Act. Screening more of the dogs that come in for good health, appropriate age, and vaccination status disincentivizes the practice of willy-nilly shipping dogs into the United States, and, most urgently, protects the health of people, pets, and agriculture. Raising these standards for importation may also, less directly, lead to welfare and animal service improvements in places that had previously profited by shipping their “overflow” problems elsewhere.

(Translated) Shelters for homeless dogs in Tijuana, necessary, but irregular

Resources
★     NAIA: Healthy Dog Importation Act of 2023, June Update
★     Puppies being exploited at California port of entry, say animal rights’ advocates

A welfare check on Barbara Wible, a rescue co-founder, discovered the woman confused and laying on the floor of her home. Along with her were 36 dogs – 12 of them dead, and two in such bad shape they required euthanization. As if this weren’t a horrific enough discovery, the welfare check led to an animal cruelty investigation at another property owned by the woman, where an additional 146 dead dogs were found.

The 22 surviving dogs are being rehabilitated and will hopefully recover, but there is no silver lining to this story. To have a rescue that was once glowingly featured as a “hometown hero” fall so far shows how badly things can spiral out of control for people who care for animals… or perhaps, how easy it can be to deceive the public with kind platitudes.

This discovery also exposes a glaring need for rescues and shelters to be inspected and to meet the standards required of any other business that sells dogs. Just because an entity is a nonprofit doesn’t mean they aren’t a business, or that their kind-heartedness somehow magically makes up for deficiencies in animal care. It just means they are tax-exempt (and no, the IRS does not perform animal welfare inspections). If you really want to “save a life,” requiring rescues and shelters to live up to the same standards as anyone else who sells dogs is a good step forward.

It’s also important to remember that inspections and standards aren’t just for pets, they protect people, too. For consumers, they act as an additional layer of defense against health and behavioral problems; for people who sell dogs, they can serve as a means of education and course correction, before things spiral into chaos and horror.

We don’t know many of the finer details of this story yet. However, we know for sure that an Ohio rescue co-founder, who took in dogs from as far south as Tennessee with a promise of “saving” them, let 160 dogs die from neglect. We also know that conditions were bad enough last year for humane officers to remove some of the dogs in her care. And we know that if Wible’s at-home rescue (!) operation had been required to submit to inspections like any other operator who sells dogs, the problems would have been rooted out much sooner, saving (actually saving) the lives of numerous dogs.

One model worth looking at and emulating is Colorado’s Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act (PACFA), a licensing and inspection program to safeguard the care and conditions of pets kept in facilities (including homes) throughout the state. PAFCA covers breeders, rescues and shelters, trainers, transporters, doggie daycares – basically any business or nonprofit that transfers or cares for pets.

158 dogs found dead: Animal rescuer facing cruelty charge

Resources
★     Founder of Poodle Rescue Arrested on Charges of Animal Cruelty
★     (2012) Wilma Smith’s Hometown Hero
★     (Colorado) The Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act

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

Even before the pandemic, complaints from potential adopters about overly stringent, intrusive, and seemingly arbitrary – even nonsensical – adoption requirements from rescues and shelters weren’t uncommon. Now, screening in and of itself is an important tool when applied sensibly. It helps protect animals, adopters, shelters, and the public. But putting up unnecessary barriers between pets and permanent, loving homes runs counter to the spirit of rescue.

And since the pandemic, for a multitude of reasons, these barriers have become all but impenetrable in some shelters. Today, we are seeing a growing number of accusations that shelters are “warehousing” adoptable pets for months, or even years on end, as well as stonewalling potential adopters and eager volunteers.

For the Humane Society of New York, a no-kill shelter, an animal rights activist raised charges of warehousing, which led to interviews and a news investigation that showed the humane society is only adopting out about one animal per week in 2023. The organization placed much of the issue on renovating their facility, but they also brought up the need for adopters presenting a “good application,” reviewing adopters before they can even meet the animals, and the importance of a “exactly the right forever home.” As a city council member pointed out with apparent frustration, the renovations are taking an unusually long time, and this is a slow pace for such a well-funded organization. Again, screening and standards are invaluable, but if we only allow “exactly the right” pet owners to have – or even come near! – adoptable animals, all that means is fewer pets in homes. If you are housing 30 dogs and cats, and 75 people have applied to adopt them, maybe that’s a good thing! And assuming these applications are generally acceptable and you are still only willing to adopt out a trickle of these animals, it certainly raises a lot of questions about the organization.

Animal rights activist raises concerns about Humane Society of New York’s pet adoption process

Resources
★ Why animal shelters are facing a new crisis
★ Animal shelter accused of neglecting 150 pets

On Wednesday, after a string of failed health inspections, overcrowding, and substandard animal care, the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA) ordered Unleashed Pet Rescue, a Kansas pet shelter, to surrender its rescue license. Many of the shelter’s failures appear tied to simple math: too many dogs = too little care. So, it’s no wonder that the city broke its partnership with Unleashed Pet Rescue last week, or that KDA ordered the shelter to stop taking in animals on Monday.

The shelter’s issues have been percolating for some time – long enough to cause a local TV station to launch an investigation last January. This is the same shelter that imported 26 dogs from Egypt in 2019 – a shipment that included a rabies-positive dog, and another dog that escaped, which led to quarantines and 44 people taking rabies postexposure prophylaxis.

And despite its revenue of $2.3 million in 2020, it appears that Unleashed Pet Rescue did not provide basic animal care. In any case, it sounds like the KDA made the right call here.

Resources
★ State agency investigates Kansas City-area animal shelter after complaints
★ CDC Extends Suspension of Dog Imports from Countries with High Rabies Prevalence

A recent photo story in the Wall Street Journal shared some gorgeous dog pictures and some very predictable news on Greyhounds the other day. In the United States, Greyhound racing has faded in popularity over the last half century, a decline capitalized on and greatly accelerated by the actions of animal rights activists, legislators, and other interest groups.

Correlating with the drop in popularity and availability of the sport was a rise in “racetrack rescue” Greyhound adoptions, but we’ve reached a point where – surprise! – there are now more people who want to adopt Greyhounds than there are available Greyhounds. Further, there are also fewer reputable breeders maintaining these dogs… and to get one of their puppies, you’ll need to hop on a waitlist and fork over a lot of money! Meanwhile, there are concerns that “cash crop” breeders will fill in the void, capitalizing on the popularity of this beloved breed (they aren’t numerous like Labradors or Frenchies, but the people who love Greyhounds really adore them – and will find a way to get one), while rescues have modified their business model by switching to importing retired racing dogs from countries where the Greyhound racing is popular. If this all seems so very familiar, it’s because, well… it is.

Resources
★     Once One of America’s Favorite Pastimes, Greyhound Racing Eats Dust
★     ‘Ethical conundrum’: sending retired Australian greyhounds to US rescues some – but at what cost?

We have become all too familiar with sad tales of people relinquishing their dogs due to economic and housing pressure over the last year. Dogs want to stay with their people, owners are often filled with sorrow or even shame at the choices they must make, and amid the fallout numerous shelters across the country report being filled to capacity or beyond. But what about the cats? Cats, despite being the second most popular companion animal in the United States, are an animal we have heard precious little about in recent months.

Indeed, in Vermont, humane societies and shelters aren’t reporting the same difficulties with cat relinquishments and adoptions as with dogs. And this makes sense: cats are less expensive and lower-maintenance than dogs. Cat-owning renters also face fewer hurdles when moving. It comes in handy that landlords often view cats as cleaner, quieter, more out of the way, and less of a liability than dogs. So maybe cats simply aren’t facing the same economic and housing pressures?

It’s certainly tempting (and comforting) to think so. However, smaller cat rescues in the state tell a much different tale: while it was hard for many rescues to keep cats “in stock” during 2020-21, adoptions in 2022 are way down and relinquishments are up. And at least one rescue owner is asking why some of the state’s humane societies still import cats from the southern United States while rescues and fosters are at capacity, and locals face growing wait times to surrender their own pets or strays. This isn’t an idle concern. You can argue the ethics of rescue importation until blue in the face without changing anyone’s mind, but you can’t change the math. If there isn’t enough room to house and adopt out local cats because you’re hauling in dozens of cats from out of state each month, you simply aren’t serving your community.

Resources
★     People are giving up pets. Blame inflation.
★     Higher intake, slower adoptions: Michigan animal shelters need your help

On Tuesday, a twin-engine plane packed with 53 rescue dogs enroute from Louisiana to a humane society in Wisconsin crash-landed just short of its destination at a golf club in Pewaukee, Wisconsin. It was a skillful emergency landing, and thankfully, there were only minor injuries inside the plane. Outside, snow kept people off the golf course, so the only casualty was a small tree taken out by the landing.

The story has garnered local and national notoriety and the destination shelter, Humane Animal Welfare Society (HAWS), reported hundreds of inquiries about the dogs, which means they’ll all be adopted. So – from certain disaster to hunky-dory-happily-ever-after, yes? Maybe not. The primary question remains: are loosely regulated rescue pet transports appropriate, humane, or even safe ways to deal with surplus pets? The fact is, of all the sources of dogs available to the public, these are among the most challenging because they have a demonstrable record of significant health and behavioral problems.

Concern over disease and parasites in rescue imports is often dismissed or even belittled by rescue activists, though it’s maddening to the scientists and agencies that are forced to deal with the fallout (HAWS was quarantined a few years ago when South Korean rescue imports brought canine brucellosis with them – a disease that can utterly destroy breeding programs). Canine rabies infection is fatal without post-exposure treatment, but even if exposure doesn’t result in infection, it often causes a follow-up investigation and cleanup that costs a fortune. But rabies and brucellosis are just two of many diseases found in unvetted pet transports – and many of these are not endemic to their destination sites. Importing dogs from foreign countries can put US agriculture at risk with diseases such as African swine fever, which has killed millions of hogs worldwide.

If you are adopting a pet, we urge you to seek out locally sourced dogs and cats in need of permanent, loving homes. Rescue transport may get some great headlines (just follow how this story is being covered elsewhere!), but the resources that go into it would be much better spent solving surplus and homeless pet issues at their source, via outreach, education, improving animal services, and providing low-cost vaccination and spay & neuter services.

Resources
★     NAIA Leads Appeal for Healthy Dog Import Resources for USDA
★     Wisconsin animal shelter flooded by ‘hundreds’ of offers to adopt dogs who survived plane crash
★     What Imported Dogs have to do with African Swine Fever
★     Notice of Temporary Suspension of Dogs Entering the United States from Countries Classified as High Risk for Dog Rabies

A few years ago, it seemed like we were standing at the precipice of a major scandal after the Washington Post revealed that rescues were buying and reselling dogs from their avowed mortal enemies: commercial breeders. Yikes, can you imagine that? But this practice had been going on for some time, and by 2018, the shadow market it created had become so large, some breeders claimed to be breeding more dogs specifically for the “rescue market!” For rescue, whose goal is (or at least was) to do such a great job of emptying the shelters that they put themselves out of business, buying puppies from commercial breeders is a curiously sustainable business model.

But here we are in 2022, and as you can see by this news story, not only did the above scandal cause little more than a ripple of public outrage, this practice has actually been normalized by large humane organizations, and is even celebrated as “lifesaving.”

Of course, no matter how noble and humane a veneer you place on it, rescues buying and reselling “overstock” (or even deliberately bred) dogs from breeders or importing unvetted street dogs from overseas are not engaged in the business of solving problems. Taking and rehoming individual pets brings good feelings and is great marketing, but relying on this model means that substandard breeding operations remain in operation (or even grow), and dogs and cats in foreign countries continue to reproduce unchecked. You can look at this from a compartmentalized perspective and celebrate the individual animal rehomed, as well as taking action for action’s sake (and many people do), but again, this simply allows the underlying issues to persist. Practices like these are short-sighted at best, and cynical at worst.

To quote our own peer-reviewed dog study on the outdated perceptions that shape today’s dog marketplace:  “As Rhode Island state veterinarian Dr. Scott Marshall put it, ‘…There’s some evidence that the rescue groups are a new model for the pet shop industry.'”

Resources
★     (2018) Dog Fight: Dog rescuers, flush with donations, buy animals from the breeders they scorn
★     (2018) USDA says individuals and groups may need license if buying dogs for rescue at auction
★     (2019) NAIA: How outdated perceptions have reshaped the dog marketplace

Ill will between various rescue and shelter groups isn’t uncommon or unique. Given enough time and participation, virtually any group that works with animals will sprout factions that argue over best practices, philosophy, budgeting, events, and anything else you might imagine. But no matter how nasty the cliques get, no matter how heated the disagreements may be, it’s hard to imagine things getting this extreme and terrifying:

Officials: Animal rescue president threatened to shoot shelter staff

For a little background:

Out of the Box rescues animals, mostly dogs, from shelters that have deemed them dangerous. The Citrus County Animal Shelter stopped providing dogs to [Robert] Schweickert earlier this year after one of the rescue’s adopted “dangerous” dogs escaped from its owner’s enclosure.

In response, the rescue president allegedly made a threatening phone call to the shelter, saying if he had a gun, he would shoot the director and shelter staff. According to the community service director, he also sat in his car in the shelter parking lot, just “waiting to talk” to the shelter or service director. Unsurprisingly, he is currently being trespassed from shelter property.

Rescue and adoption issues can certainly be heated, but this is some seriously scary stuff!

A public animal shelter has to protect the public health and safety first and foremost. Whatever one’s feelings are on what constitutes a truly “dangerous” dog,* and whether it is appropriate to adopt a “dangerous” dog out, if the shelter felt that providing dogs to a particular rescue presented too great of a risk, trusting their judgment in this matter is a good baseline position. Given the behavior of the rescue after being told no more dogs would be provided, it would appear that position has been validated.**

*Citrus county allows citizens to keep dogs deemed dangerous, but they must be secured, properties must post a “dangerous dog” warning, the dog must be on leash and muzzled while on walks (and only walked by an adult), and there is a hefty $500 annual licensing fee.

** The issue of adopting out aggressive dogs is a problem NAIA is vocal about while also offering reasonable solutions (see: Virginia).