NAIA Official Blog

The more rent goes up, the more pets are dropped off, according to Orange County Animal Services in Florida. Posting a 37% increase in surrendered pets compared to the same time in 2021, they report seeing family pets that owners simply cannot care for anymore as the owners are forced out of their old homes into more affordable housing (or in some cases, evicted).

One comment that is often made in these situations is “So what if a big dog makes your new place feel crowded? You should still keep them.” But the fact of the matter is, many of the smaller, less expensive units that people downsize into have size, breed, or other restrictions on pet ownership that make moving in with their pets impossible. It is a sad fact that the joy of keeping a pet can become too large a burden during hard times.

Resources
★     Animal rescues reporting more owners surrendering pets due to housing crisis, inflation
★     As evictions rise, people may have to give up their pets. Animal shelters are calling for help.

The most basic role of animal control is protecting public health and safety, but in Nashville, Tennessee, residents have been complaining bitterly for the last year about their needs not being met. Their complaints: aggressive dogs roaming the street, vicious bites, and people scared to step outside to walk their own dogs. Pretty serious stuff! This is compounded by a perceived lack of caring and response by animal control, as well as its dangerous request that people catch, contain, and feed aggressive animals themselves until animal control can come out and pick them up.

For its part, animal control says it is simply beyond capacity, and can’t take in any more animals – but this doesn’t do anything to help people and pets who have suffered injuries or who are afraid for their safety right now. There are myriad issues compounding outrageous stories like this, but the good news is, all of them can be solved – and have been in the past. Hopefully, the exposé on Nashville Animal Control stirs change; stories like this feel like stepping into H.G. Wells’ time machine and setting the destination back 60 years.

Resources
★     ‘We’ve been sweating with it;’ Dog dumping continues to cause problems in Greene County
★     (NAIA) Responding to the Data: Constructing successful pet friendly ordinances

The U.S. Supreme court is set to hear pork producers’ legal challenge of California Prop 12 by the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). Prop 12 is a 2018 HSUS-backed California ballot measure that defines the housing currently used by virtually all United States pork producers as “cruel,” and prohibits the sale of pork from said producers in the state of California.

This ballot measure and its standards were pushed by several activist fundraising groups with no expertise in raising animals. Groups that would, for the most part, prefer simply to ban animal agriculture than regulate it. Unless you are a vegan yourself, they’re probably not the type of folks you’d want to have in charge of animal care standards (“The truth [is] animal rights requires empty cages, not larger cages.”). That alone raises a lot of red flags, but what the NPPC is focusing on in their legal challenge is whether Prop 12 violates the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which places restrictions on states’ ability to regulate commerce outside their borders. Given that California consumes 15 percent of the country’s pork products, and imports the vast majority of said pork, it is impossible to argue that the effects of Prop 12 do not reverberate outside the state. Whether these reverberations violate the Commerce Clause will now be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Resources
★     (NPPC) Supreme Court to Hear NPPC Case Against Prop. 12
★     (The Fence Post) Supreme Court to Hear NPPC case against Prop. 12
★     (NAIA, 1993) The Animal Rights Agenda

Members of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) from the University of Washington have sued their own institution to keep their names from being released to PeTA. PeTA claims that the committee is trying to hide that it is not constituted in accordance with federal law; they say committee member names must be released in order to gain more oversight.

But the IACUC members weren’t born yesterday. They know it is a near certainty that if PeTA’s request is approved, their personal information will find its way to groups and individuals who will harass them at their homes and/or work.

The leaders of the IACUC are using the lawsuit to protect its members and keep them safe. PeTA, no doubt delighted at finally receiving attention for something other than the kill rate of their Virginia shelter, is not backing down. They claim their protests are legal and that their members are told to only use polite language. PeTA can still appeal the federal judge’s injunction if it becomes permanent.

Resources
★     Activists protest UCLA’s use of animals in laboratory research at Murphy Hall
★     (2007) Animal rights protesters torment scientists

A founder of an Oregon rescue faces federal fraud conspiracy charges after having over 100 animals seized from her operation. She faces separate charges of neglect, identify theft, and forgery.

What really gets our attention are the 280 counts of misrepresenting animal health and behavior to potential customers. Aside from the emotional toll of an ailing pet, chronic issues can place a massive financial burden on a new owner. While many owners expect and even plan for their pets’ occasional illnesses or medical emergencies, knowingly passing on sick or aggressive pets is just deplorable. Unscrupulous practices such as these are not only unethical and dangerous, they also cast a shadow on the reputation of other rescues.

That this woman was allegedly able to cheat so many customers speaks to the fact that people want dogs, and that they find the idea of adopting – or “saving” – a dog especially appealing. The human-animal bond is powerful, and pets are certainly a place where we often lead with our hearts rather than our brains. This makes the damage – to trust, public safety, and to the reputation of all the rescue groups that do a great job – especially egregious.

Portland Animal Rescue Founder Faces Federal Fraud Charges

Resources
★     Patti Strand: More regulations needed for animal shelters and rescues
★     Couple arrested for embezzling Humane Society funds

A bill to preserve the management of elephants in Oklahoma was introduced to the OK House and has progressed to the OK Senate. In a collaborative effort from the Endangered Ark Foundation (EAF) and representative Humphrey, HR 3281 hopes to make it a state law for any institution housing elephants to manage them as they see fit, using either free contact or protected contact methods. The reason this is so important is multifaceted: Oklahoma is home to two AZA accredited facilities that use protected contact and one facility that has a mixture of both protected and free contact. This last facility, EAF, is the largest breeding herd of Asian elephants left in the United States.

The EAF uses bullhooks, livestock goad-shaped tools ESA refers to as “guide sticks,” which have long been decried by animal rights activists as, essentially, instruments of torture (quick clarification, if needed: they are not). The EAF uses guide sticks with its free contact elephants as a tactile cue to work alongside visual or verbal cues. Elephants have poor vision, but are extremely tactile creatures, making the guide stick a vital tool. Hopefully, this same law can be passed in other states like Texas and Florida, where major zoological institutions and private owners can benefit from the preservation of all elephant keeping methods.

Hugo elephant sanctuary welcomes change to animal cruelty law

Resources
★     The Endangered Ark Foundation
★     National Geographic Animals 101: Asian Elephant

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!

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).

April is National Heartworm Awareness month — are your pets up on their preventative treatments?

The Companion Animal Parasite Council’s (CAPC) March report is out with a rather ominous top-10 list: the cities with the highest percentage increase in positive heartworm tests last month.

Portland, Oregon made the top 10. This is important to note, as Portland had no native cases of heartworm prior to the introduction of irresponsible dog rescue operations that relocated dogs from distant states and countries to the Northwest. The idea that living in a “heartworm free” region of the country is all one needs to keep their pets free from this parasite, is alas, no longer a safe bet.

Unfortunately, the current most common standard preventatives for heartworm are controlled poisons with known side-effects (especially ivermectin) and potential ecotoxicity issues, as well, but making sure your pet is protected is far better than the alternative. Are your pets up on theirs?

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.