National Animal Interest Alliance

Friday Grab Bag: Companion Animals, Barking Mad, and an Egg Study!

Attention: "Drunk as a Skunk" No Longer Politically Correct

The animal rights war on the English language continues, reports The Telegraph...

Not only do they want us to stop using terms like pet (demeaning!) and referring to ourselves as "owners" (because that would, well, imply ownership), even our idioms are now under attack!

Prof Linzey and his co-editor Professor Priscilla Cohn, of Penn State University in the US, also hope to see some of the more colourful terms in the English language stamped out.

Phrases such as “sly as a fox, “eat like a pig” or “drunk as a skunk” are all unfair to animals, they claim.

“We shall not be able to think clearly unless we discipline ourselves to use less than partial adjectives in our exploration of animals and our moral relations with them," they say.

 

You're going to close this with a lecture on thinking clearly? Really?

What About Barking "Fire" in a Crowded Theater?

The attorney for a drunken Ohio man charged with barking at a police dog is saying the city's laws (which prohibit the teasing of police dogs) are a violation of free speech.

Lawyer Jim Hardin says barking may not be seen as intelligent speech but is "still speech."

[...]

The officer's report quoted Stephens as saying ''the dog started it'' and said the man appeared highly intoxicated.

Sounds pretty ridiculous, but don't get too ahead of yourself: according to the Charleston Gazette, he may have a case, as a similar citation was thrown out in 2001, on the same grounds.

Well, it looks like Mr. Stephens has a good shot at beating this thing. And I bet everybody in the city who relies upon a service dog is absolutely thrilled at the notion of him approaching them and expressing his right to free speech. Well, OK, probably not -- but the K9 unit probably is!

 

But they keep telling me cage-free is so much cleaner and healthier!

I'm sure you've heard the claims about how much cleaner and healthier it is to choose "cage free" eggs. New research in Europe, however,  is showing that not to be the case:

 They found that aviary and floor housing systems pose a greater risk of bird-to-bird transmission of Salmonella Enteritidis than traditional battery cages and furnished cages. The study also found a higher number of eggs that were internally contaminated by Salmonella in aviary systems, as compared both to cage systems and the floor system.

The study also challenges the "unrealistic approach" to studying disease transmission that was used in the previous studies that found higher levels of Salmonella in conventional housing (results can be kinda skewed if you compare a crummy, old conventional housing system to an alternative housing system full of highly innoculated birds. Gee, who woulda thunk it?)...

So let me get this straight... enriched colony housing* allows hens far more space and the ability to behave naturally -- thus addressing many of the public's welfare concerns -- and is being shown to produce cleaner, safer eggs? No wonder the idea of egg producers switching to such housing systems has HSUS in such a dither!

---

^{*A modern type of housing system Oregon and Washington egg producers are looking to switch to. A move that HSUS is trying desperately to block.}

The Next Animal Rights Outrage

You will not believe what you are about to see...

...that human beings could have sunk so low...

...that they can take pleasure to do this to another of God's creatures.

I hope you have a strong stomach, señor.

 

Let us roll the ugliness:

 

Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!

Could there be a God that would let this happen...?

How much do you want?

 

Yes, that's right. Rabbit showjumping is "set to take Europe by storm," and this growing pastime is stirring outrage amongst the continent's animal rights activists. Something to which we can only say "Too much free time."

Happy Thursday!

^{Rabbit Showjumping: The Next Animal Rights Outrage}

A Quick Plug for that Massive Study on Mortality in North American Dogs

If you're a dog enthusiast, there's a good chance you've already read the recent University of Georgia study on the mortality of dogs (available in the current edition of the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine). But in case news of its existence hasn't hit your inbox yet, here's a link:

Mortality in North American Dogs from 1984 to 2004: An Investigation into Age-, Size-, and Breed-Related Causes of Death

For the most part, this study simply confirms trends observed through hands-on experience: big dogs die younger and for different reasons than small dogs, Golden Retreievers, Boxers, and Bouvier des Flandres are cancer prone, etc., etc...

But enough cannot be said for the value of actually having this data collected, analyzed, and available in one location. This is something that anybody with an interest in canine health will find fascinating; more importantly, it can serve as part of a foundation for anticipating, detecting, treating, and eventually eliminating the ailments that may be affecting the dogs we love.

Go ahead and give it a read. It won't bite!

^{Big dog, little dog.}

The RSPCA Repeating Itself Regarding Purebred Dogs. Again!

In a press release yesterday, the RSPCA once again lamented the state of purebred dogs who are, in their mind, "bred for the way they look rather than with health and welfare and temperament in mind."

Ugh.

Are you sick of this vapid talking point yet? I sure am. This generalization is not only insulting to breeders, it's an insult to intelligence that displays a profound disconnect from reality.

How many serious dog breeders do you know who don't spend literally thousands of dollars each time they have a litter to check the health of sire, dam, and pups? And what about the millions spent by the AKC Canine Health Foundation, the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals, and parent clubs*? This is not the behavior of people who are breeding merely for "looks." And how many breeders do you know who write off temperament as inconsequential? Uh, hello -- temperament is one of the defining qualities of a breed. Anybody who's ever had any experience breeding dogs -- or who has simply read any current literature about breeding dogs -- knows this. Of course the dog's appearance is of importance to breeders, but it is understood to be part of the total package, not the entire package itself.

^{Who says temperament is an afterthought?}

 

I don't know whether the RSPCA repeats this tired mantra out of ignorance or malice, but it's a distortion that really needs to be addressed whenever it pops up.

---------------------

Speaking of distortions, we brought up the maker of Pedigree Dogs Exposed the other day, and since then, I've been thinking a lot about the film. Really, if viewed objectively, it's a fabulously made documentary: it engages, creates a strong emotional investment with the viewer, and serves as a call to action. It is an incredible work in its way.

Which is what makes it all the more tragic -- especially if the creator meant well. Can you imagine how informative, helpful, and inspiring such a film could have been to dog breeders and the general public had it not fallen into the trap of inaccurately painting so many purebred dogs as tragically -- cruelly -- sick, and most breeders as little more than clueless, callous bumpkins? At what point does advocacy become exploitation?

Yes, there are breeders who are unethical, and/or unwilling to do what is right for the health of their dogs. Incompetent or simply bad players are true for any hobby or profession, and nobody's denying that. But there are also wonderful breeders across the world who work tirelessly and spend fortunes (literally!) to improve the health of their chosen breed, who strive to minimize and eliminate health problems in their dogs, who view it as a personal mission to leave their breed healthier and stronger than when they found it. While these top-flight breeders may not make up the majority of all dog breeders, I have no doubt that they are far more prevalent than the selfish, scientifically backward rube-elites** portrayed in Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Indeed, there are wonderful dog breeders out there working day and night with no spotlight. Who's making a movie about them? Why*** does it so often feel as if we're the only group willing to spend any time and effort focusing on them?

 

---

^{*This research doesn't just help purebred dogs, it helps all dogs -- and humans too!}

^{**I gotta say that was a pretty impressive feat. Hillbilly and social snobbery make for a very tough internal juxtaposition, but Harrison definitely succeeded in this task. A testament to her film-making skills?}

^{***Nothing raises funds faster than a good, divisive conflict. I suspect that is why you almost never see anybody celebrating the good breeders!}

The Upcoming Egg Initiatives in the Pacific Northwest and a Quick Refresher on Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare

Today's post started out as a simple roundup of April's animal-news-we-wish-we-had-more-time-to-cover. It spanned everything from service dogs in the classroom to the new animal care laws that were recently signed by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, and would have made for a fun little Tuesday Grab Bag.

But once word of upcoming HSUS-sponsored ballot initiatives in Oregon and Washington started making the rounds, a need to tighten the focus became evident.

Because clearly, when the newspapers are saying it's "animal welfare groups" pushing these initiatives, there is a pressing need to once again explain the difference between animal welfare and animal rights.

From the NAIA archives:

Animal welfare celebrates the bond between animals and humans; animal rights wants to sever that bond.

 Animal welfare grows and improves as we learn more and more about animals, their behavior, and their management. Animal rights remains stagnant with its dogma of "no more animal use ever."

Animal welfare is inclusive; its belief in stewardship of species and individual animals embraces a human connection to the Earth through interaction with animals. Animal rights is divisive; by separating the destiny of man from the destiny of animals, the movement shows it cares nothing for the Earth.

Animal welfare makes room for a broad spectrum of animal relationships that include raising and using animals for food, fiber, labor, and medical and behavioral research; managing animal populations by hunting; keeping animals in zoos and other educational venues; and enjoying animal sports and animals in movies, circuses, and on stage.

Animal rights opposes all traditional relationships with animals, from eating meat and wearing leather and wool to biomedical research, pet ownership, dog and cat breeding, circuses, zoos, hunting, trapping, ranching, fishing, and learning about animals by hands-on experience.

Animal welfare requires humane treatment of animals on farms and ranches, in circuses and rodeos, and in homes, kennels, catteries, laboratories, and wherever else animals are kept. Animal welfare endorses a quick death when death is inevitable and a scientific approach to commercial use and management of wild populations.

Animal rights works for the day when we will have no interactions with animals but will view them from afar.

You can follow the link for the rest, though you probably get the point by now...

So why bring this up again? Well, given the nature of these HSUS-sponsored initiatives -- initiatives that would essentially force Oregon and Washington's egg producers to implement cage-free housing by 2019 -- it needs to be pointed out, frequently and at great volume, that they are coming  not from a position of animal welfare, but animal rights.

Oregon egg farmer Greg Satrum has said “They’re really proposing a pretty extreme measure, I think, to try to put Oregon farmers out of business,” and he's exactly right. 

After all, egg producers in both Oregon and Washington have already come together on their own* and agreed to modernize their facilities and improve the welfare of their egg-laying hens. And we're not talking about minor cosmetic changes here: we're talking about an investment requiring years of hard work, with a price tag of up to $65 million dollars. During economically difficult times.

Some of these changes include larger cages (from four square feet to forty-eight square feet), accommodations for the natural behavior of hens (enough room to fully extend wings and turn around, areas for scratching and perching, private space for laying eggs, etc.), and standards for sanitation that are higher than those of both older conventional egg facilities and modern "cage free" facilities. The Pacific Northwest's new "enriched colony housing" facilities will be as good or better than what egg producers in Europe have switched to -- but of course, that's not enough for HSUS.

But why? Why oppose a plan based upon science, hands-on experience, and a commitment to ethics that will improve the lives of their livestock?

You already know the answer if you understand the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. To paraphrase a well-worn quote, the issue for groups like HSUS is not larger cages, it is empty cages. For animal rights true believers, the welfare of animals in the here and now is less important than moving toward an end to human use of animals in the future.

And how better to stop the production of eggs and "ween" people off of animal products than by pushing legislation and ballot initiatives that force animal enterprises out of business while raising the price of animal products to consumers?

I sincerely hope you like hearing about chickens and eggs, folks, because this is an issue we will be following very closely in the months to come.

 

^{Not an actual egg.}

---

^{* This is why it is so annoying when the media reports the efforts to improve and modernize their facilities as some sort of "compromise" with various animal rights interests. It isn't a compromise; this is a direction egg producers in the Northwest were already moving in!}

Jemima Harrison Is Worried About Getting Up with Fleas? NAIA Conference Earlybird Reminder!

There was an interesting post by Jemima Harrison over at Pedigree Dogs Exposed last Friday questioning her appearance at HSUS's upcoming conference on purebred dogs. Apparently, she's just now figuring out HSUS is an animal rights organization, fostering many positions that are in reality, more harmful than helpful to canine welfare. Or maybe she's just mad Wayne Pacelle isn't giving her enough public recognition for her work and appearance? Either way, it's hard to take her hand-wringing very seriously.

After all, much like Harrison, HSUS claims to be on the side of animal "welfare," yet seems utterly incapable of making its case without relying upon sensationalistic, emotionally manipulative, one-sided presentations of the facts. Well-intentioned or not, it's obvious that both Harrison and HSUS have some serious hangups...

^{lablemminglounge.blogspot.com's "The Pseudoscientific Method"}

And regardless of how much they doth protest, their actions are harmful to responsible animal owners (the very people who treat animals in a way they claim to celebrate!), foster an environment where serious debate is nearly impossible, and dump bucket after bucket of delicious chum in the water for those hungrily circling animal rights extremists.

So we're really not seeing what the problem is here. In theory, they should be getting on like two peas in a pod. So maybe it's just a case of hurt feelings and misunderstandings. C'mon, guys, maybe a little hug-o-war is in order?

^{Ah, all better!}

 

After Friday's drama, it looks like she's going to attend after all. Not much of a surprise, really. We will honestly be quite interested in hearing her perception of the event. Contrary to what the snarky tone here might imply, we don't dislike Harrison or think she has nothing of value to add to the discussion of canine health; our issue is primarily with her method of presentation -- possibly well intentioned, but definitely harmful -- rather than the issues she brings up.

Meanwhile, we'll continue gearing up for our own conference* this November. A conference serving as a call to celebrate and preserve purebred dogs rather than apologize for them; one in which all sides of the issues are presented by experts, and a path toward improved canine health and happiness can be forged. Hope you can make it!

 

---

^{* November 12-13, in Harrisburg Pennsylvania. You can sign up here if you'd like to save on earlybird registration!}

NAIA's Animal Policy Review: Complete!

Our new Animal Policy Review is now available online if you'd like to read it. Access it through the NAIA homepage (beneath the offer for your very own NAIA Credit Card!), or just head directly to it by clicking on this link.

This quarter, we cover humane relocation, attacks on agriculture, egg farmers, the PUPS Bill, issues surrounding horse processing, and more! Informative, insightful, and a must-read for anybody who's interested in animal policy issues.

NAIA contributor Norma Bennett Woolf deserves a big thank you for putting this all together!

^{NAIA Animal Policy Review Chicken says "Thanks," Norma!}

Miniature Grab Bag Thursday: Random Thoughts on the Abolitionist Approach, Iranian Dogs Under Siege!

Random Thoughts on the Abolitionist Approach

Gary Fancione is a law professor and long-time animal-rights activist. He's also remarkably consistent and straight-forward in his beliefs that animal use is wrong, and that animals should not be viewed as property in any way, shape, or form. He has little patience for the sneaky, incremental approach of animal rights activists who work under the guise of animal welfare to end the ownership and use of animals -- in fact, he has long believed animal welfare actually impedes animal rights:

"Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal welfare separated by irreconcilable differences... the enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the achievement of animal rights... Welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved."

This viewpoint may help to allay some of the confusion that arises in people when they see so-called animal advocates fighting tooth and nail against regulations that actually help to improve the welfare of animals. This is because fundamentally, it is not about the treatment of animals: it's about ending animal use altogether. Gary was kind enough to lay it all out once again just earlier this morning:

Welfare “reforms” not only fail to provide any significant protection for animals; such reforms actually make matters worse because they encourage the public to feel more comfortable about animal exploitation and to continue to consume animals and animal products. The problem is use, not treatment. The goal is to abolish animal use, not to regulate treatment.

While the insights he provide go a long way toward explaining why some animal rights supporters sport an anti-welfare reform mindset, we disagree with him not only philosophically, but on strategic grounds as well.

Converting people to veganism isn't easy, and it is oftentimes even harder getting them to stick to it. As the animal rights organizations who have taken on a more patient, nuanced approach have proved time and time again, it's far more effective preying on the emotions and good intentions (and oftentimes, lack of hands-on experience) of animal lovers than bashing them over the head with animal liberation and veganism -- just ask all the dog fanciers who used to blissfully donate to groups like PeTA back in the 1980s!

For the incrementalists, the approach has worked spectacularly so far: the stakes are higher -- financially and socially -- for animal enterprises than ever before. No, animal ownership has not been abolished, but the incrementalists are definitely moving toward their goal.

And the here-and-now, take-no-prisoners abolitionists? Eh. Aside from the recent spate of vegan cookbooks (as opposed to the vegetarian cookbooks that seem to come in vogue every 15 years or so), their track record has quite simply not been too terribly impressive.

 

Iranian Dogs and Owners Under Seige

Speaking of animal ownership...

Dog ownership in Iran has long been a  precarious institution. It is technically against the rules, but many people, especially the younger generation, are willing to flout the law for the sake of having a pet. And can you blame them? The human-animal bond* is, after all, some very powerful stuff...

Of course, the government is not happy about this, so last year, after a cleric issued a fatwa against pet ownership, it banned all advertisements alluding to the keeping and caring of pets (which reportedly increased the sale of small, easily-hidden dogs). And this year, things are set to get even tougher, with pet owners bracing for the wrath of a government crackdown:

The widening acceptability of dog ownership, and its popularity among a specific slice of Iran's population — young, urban, educated and frustrated with the Islamic government — partly explains why dogs are now generating more official hostility. In 2007, two years into the tenure of hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, security forces targeted dog owners alongside a crackdown on women's attire and men's "Westernized" hairstyles. In the regime's eyes, owning a dog had become on par with wearing capri pants or sporting a mullet — a rebellious act.

Dog owners in Iran, like much of the population, are mostly preoccupied these days with inflation, joblessness and the parlous state of the country's economy. But they will soon need to consider whether keeping their shih tzu or poodle is worth the added worry. Their dogs may face the same fate as the hundreds of street dogs that the government regularly sweeps from the streets of Tehran.

By the way, being "swept from the streets of Tehran" is a euphemism for being shot to death. Better dead than fed, indeed. Yikes!

 

---

* This might be a good time to once again plug Meg Olmert's wonderful book Made for Each Other!

Insight on HSUS from Blake Hurst of the Missouri Farm Bureau

The Missouri Farm Bureau's president, Blake Hurst, shared some pretty insightful quotes on HSUS while being interviewed about Monday's SB 113 compromise and today's "Stand Up for Animal Agriculture" rally in Jefferson City:

“I’m not convinced that dogs, or the welfare of animals is always [HSUS’s] main concern. They’re in this for fundraising, for publicity. They meet their goals by causing conflict. We Missourians meet our goals by coming together and coming up with a solution.”

[…]

“Everybody in agriculture who follows these issues is convinced that this is the Humane Society’s opening shot … I hope not, but I’m afraid it’s going to be a long war, and its’ important that we show the strength of Missouri agriculture, that we show how we can work together and stand together when we’re threatened from outside.”

Smart guy!

Listen to the full interview here.

NAIA Shelter Project Colorado: Complete!

The NAIA Shelter Project's data for the state of Colorado has recently been completed! Check it out for yourself here -- it's huge, and raises some interesting questions, too. Why has Colorado been importing over 10,000 dogs into its shelters the last two years reporting... and what's up with all the dogs coming in from the southwest states? Kinda makes you wonder...

There are some fascinating numbers and trends emerging. We are incredibly grateful for the hard work of NAIA contributor Barbara Reichman in expanding and improving this invaluable resource!

^{Shelter Project Kitty says "Thanks," Barbara!}