National Animal Interest Alliance

Alaska Congressman Refuses HSUS Award

Last night, Alaska Representative Don Young was offered an award by HSUS... which he promptly refused.

Why? Well, maybe it's best to let him explain:

HSUS are hypocrites, plain and simple, and I will not join them by accepting this award. Local animal shelters and humane societies do excellent work by caring for neglected and homeless animals, and through their spaying and neutering programs. This organization, however, has absolutely nothing to do with animal welfare. Instead they prey on the emotions of big-hearted Americans. They flash images of abused animals on our television screens to raise money that will eventually go to pay their salaries and pensions, not to helping better the lives of these animals.

They run anti-hunting and anti-trapping campaigns and are of the same cloth as PETA and other extremist organizations. I can only guess that I was to receive this award due to my support of the Wildlife Without Borders program, which develops wildlife management and conservation efforts to maintain global species diversity. That program is true conservation; what this group wants is preservation. To accept this award would be supporting their manipulative ways and misguided agenda, and I want no part of that.

Ouch! Well, there's one congressman who knows the difference between hands-on management and conservation programs and the animal rights fundraising-legislative leviathan.

Doesn't pull his punches much either, does he?

An interesting read on the behavioral and physical effects of spaying and neutering dogs

This summary of a masters thesis on the behavioral and physical effects of spaying and neutering dogs has been making its way around the Internets over the last few days, and there are some very interesting findings within:

• Correlations between neutering dogs and increases in aggression, fear and anxiety, and excitability.
• Correlations between neutering and decreases in trainability and responsiveness to cues.
• A small association with neutering and attachment and attention seeking behavior, and separation-related behavior (the association being more pronounced in dogs neutered at a younger age)
• A difference in bone length between neutered and intact dogs, which reinforces the suggestion that neutering has an effect on bone growth.

While there's not much argument about differences in bone growth between altered and unaltered dogs any more (at least among dog people), the behavior findings within this thesis are truly fascinating.

After all, isn't this the conventional wisdom on how spaying and neutering changes your dog's personality (emphasis mine):

It’s Good for You

• Spayed and neutered dogs are better, more affectionate companions.
• Spayed and neutered dogs are less likely to bite. Unaltered animals often exhibit more behavior and temperament problems than those that have been spayed or neutered.
• etc.

Call me crazy, but isn't that the exact opposite of what is being suggested here? I mean, this isn't Lamarck vs. Darwin -- it's more like heliocentrism vs. geocentrism. Worlds apart.

We'd need to see more evidence than a snapshot before accepting the author's claims on behavior. Who's dogs are most often spayed or neutered (especially at a young age) and why? What is the background, upbringing, and source of these dogs? A dog's family is surely the most overriding factor when it comes to behavior, after all. But even so, these are some pretty remarkable findings!

A Tale of Two Researchers

Orac's blog yesterday told us how animal rights fanatics view young scientists as the "soft underbelly" of animal research -- people who might be easier to turn away from their research when presented with enough "reeducation" (and, when that fails: insults, harassment, and threats).

It was, quite frankly, an extremely depressing story. Girl is into science. Girl excels. Girl makes the mistake of admitting to the wrong person that her work involves animal research. Girl is abusively hounded by a bunch of faceless creeps until she recants her pro-animal research position.

Ew.

I'm holding out hope that she simply told them what they wanted to hear in order to buy time while she changes email/phone/Facebook settings (and the locks on her doors for good measure), but who knows. Dealing with a horde of anonymous, vicious attackers would take a psychological toll on just about anybody. If the harassment did indeed end this young woman's career before it even began, it's a tragic loss.

---

But it's not always like this. Take the story of Oxford life sciences student Laurie Pycroff. As a 16 year-old, he witnessed an animal-rights protest over the construction of a biomedical science building, and instead chose to meet his opponents head on. He held his own counter-protest (no word on if he was the only one protesting or not), and launched a pro-testing website  to "dispel the irrational myths promoted by anti-vivisectionists and to encourage people to stand up for science and human progress."

The scientists banded together, stood their ground against vicious verbal attacks (including death threats), and made their case -- rationally describing their work and its benefits to humanity and the world. And in the end, Oxford's Biomedical Sciences Building opened its doors as planned.

Stick together, stand your ground, and be unafraid to speak out for what you know is right?

In a world where debate on animal issues has long been dominated -- entirely framed, really -- by the extremists, I think there's an important lesson to be found in there. Not just for scientists, but anybody who works with animals.

What's in a name?

What's in a name?

It's an important question we ask; NAIA is considering changing its name -- and if we end up doing this, we'd better do it right!

Aside from the fact that the day will surely arrive when the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics comes knocking on our door, demanding their acronym back, there is also the fact that we have long felt our name represents only the "alliance" aspect of our group -- not what we actually do and stand for.

Yes, we are an alliance -- from farmers, to animal trainers, to scientists, to veterinarians, to pet enthusiasts of all shapes and sizes. But what do we do? What do we stand for? And how can that be captured in a name?

Here is NAIA in a nutshell:

For the last twenty years, we have been  helping people make better choices in the care and treatment of their  animals, while educating the public to the threat posed by animal rights extremism. We have engaged in public education campaigns and collected data vital to understanding animal population trends; we have fought legislation that harms responsible pet owners or pushes the animal rights agenda while promoting laws that strengthen the human-animal bond and punish cruelty.

What sets us apart from so many other animal organizations is that our focus isn't first and foremost on animal cruelty; we believe the vast majority of people love and care for their animals to the best of their ability, and are eager to improve when presented with new tools, resources, or information. No, we don't cynically raise funds off of sad-faced cats and dogs that can only be saved by a $20.11 monthly donation, nor do we assume everybody who works with animals is abusive until proven innocent. We don't bemoan the human-animal bond: our most vital mission is to preserve it.

With that in mind, send in the acronyms! Let us hear your suggestions!

Grab Bag Tuesday: Mandatory Obedience Training; Shelters or Owners?; Guardian Language

A NY Bill Requiring Dogs and their Owners to Complete Obedience Training

We love trainers at NAIA. Like... a lot. Animal training is an art, a science, a passion. A skilled trainer can not only improve the lives of animals and their owners, but even save lives. It's that valuable.

But sometimes you can have too much of a good thing, like this:

THE OWNER OF ANY DOG REACHING THE AGE OF ONE YEAR SHALL, ON OR BEFORE THE DATE SUCH DOG REACHES ONE YEAR OF AGE OR WITHIN ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY DAYS OF RECEIVING OWNERSHIP OF SUCH DOG, WHICHEVER SHALL BE LATER, SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE, WITH HIS OR HER DOG, A BASIC OBEDIENCE COURSE.

Geeze, stop shouting, will ya?

It'd certainly be nice if more people had the time, money, and inclination to participate in basic obedience courses with their pets. A stronger bond and understanding of animal behavior often occurs, bad habits can be eliminated or nipped in the bud, and let's face it: virtually everybody appreciates a well-behaved dog.

But forcing people to take a training course? Hoo boy.

New York regulations just get crazier and crazier. What will tell us next -- that we can't walk around on Sundays with our pockets full of ice-cream cones? Oh, wait...

---

 

Should You Blame the Shelter or the Irresponsible Owner?

After a distemper outbreak at the Memphis Animal Shelter led to the tragic euthanasia of 50 animals, many local animal activists were incensed. In the face of this outrage, the Commercial Appeal editorial board makes an uncomfortable suggestion: maybe it's not so much the shelter's fault as it is irresponsible pet owners. Harsh, but it's a question that we need to ask. And while it's regretabble to see the use of the term "animal rights" in an "animal welfare" context (a common mistake), they get extra points for offering up suggestions on how to improve the situation, rather than just pointing fingers...

But maybe it is more productive to focus the anger on those dog and cat owners who, because of apathy, ignorance or financial considerations, don't get their pets vaccinated.

[...]

Maybe there is a way for the city, county and animal rights advocates to collaborate on a public campaign stressing the importance of having pets vaccinated.

Maybe the various animal advocacy organizations throughout Greater Memphis could coalesce efforts to provide affordable vaccinations for pet owners who are truly under financial hardship.

[...]

So much suffering by animals and so many euthanizations could be prevented if people just did the right thing.

If owners just did the right thing? Well, that certainly would be nice, wouldn't it? Suddenly, the "Licensing & Vaccination" section in our New Pet Owner Classes seem a lot more urgent!

---

 

Are You an Owner or a Guardian?

When hearing or reading that we oppose animal guardian language, people sometimes ask us "How can you support the term owner when referring to your animals when you could instead use the much nicer-sounding guardian? 'Owner' sounds so callous, like your dog is a piece of furniture or something -- what's the harm in calling yourself a 'guardian' of your animals? Why are you SO MEAN?"

Well, if you want to call yourself the 'guardian' of your pets or livestock, that's perfectly fine. Go ahead if it makes you happy. But changing our legal relationship from owners to guardians is hugely problematic, and thehorse.com is here to tell us why:

An "owner" obviously owns his or her property, including animals, and we all know what ownership means: if something is mine, it isn’t yours. Animal welfare and protection laws impose obligations on animal owners, but the laws do not confer legal rights on the animals.

A guardian, by definition, has legal responsibility for the care and welfare of a "ward," typically an individual unable to care for himself. This could be a minor, or an adult with a disability of some kind. Or maybe an animal. A ward has legal rights that the guardian has an obligation to protect. Guardianship and legal rights go hand-in-hand and how those rights are defined could bring about a fundamental change in the role of animals in our society. Is it in an animal’s best interest to be selectively bred, for example? Or to be bought and sold? Or to be shown or raced? Or to be euthanized?

Are you the owner of your animals, or their guardian?

Very well stated!

The Dog Days of Spring

In case you've been wondering where the blog has been the last few days, we've been very very busy working to support Oregon's dog community in their fight to regain the use of farmland for dog activities. In recent years, Oregon's land-use laws have been interpreted so narrowly in some counties, people have lost their livelihoods, due to activities such as dog training and agility being declared "illegitimate." We've been working to change this.

Scores of dog lovers took time to drive to Salem in support of HB 3047 -- a bill that helps clarify our state's complex land-use laws, so as to specifically allow dog-related activities on farmland. You really couldn't ask for a group of people more dedicated to the human-canine bond. What an example they set for all dog lovers: positive, knowledgable, and willing to work for what they believe in. The meeting room was literally overflowing with supporters of this bill from all over the state!

And Oregon's dogs were on the scene as well, to watch events unfold...

^{Watchful Dog Watches...}

---

During the hearing, Patti Strand (NAIA's National Director) testified in favor of this bill. Here are a few brief excerpts:

Why is this important? For one thing, the economic impact of dogs on the Oregon economy is huge. According to statistics gathered by the American Pet Product Manufacturers, nearly 40% of Oregon households or about 550,000 households keep dogs. These dog owners buy dog food and pet products, and they purchase a wide array of services: they utilize boarding kennels, seek training, veterinarian services, grooming and a host of other services. They also participate in dog sports in ever- increasing numbers.

[...]

Another reason that this clarification is needed is that dog training and other dog activities are compatible with the land, having less impact on farmland than other species and actually help preserve farmland by providing income to farmers during off seasons and difficult times.

[...]

Few seriously question whether dogs and dog activities belong on farms. Dogs are the species that enabled our ancestors to settle into an agrarian lifestyle in the first place. The lyrics to "Old MacDonald had a Farm" always include a bow wow here or a woof, woof there; and dogs and their myriad talents are more appreciated today than ever before.

---

The last few days have been immensely productive. There are few things in life that feel better than making a positive difference in the lives of dogs and the people who love them.

Do nine out of ten breeders really suck? A veterinarian's response to Dr. Khuly. (Part I)

Dr. Patty Khuly's assertion that nine out of ten breeders suck prompted this response from veterinarian and NAIA board member Marty Greer:

---

I see the world in a very different way than Dr. Khuly. I work with breeders, many every day, and find my breeder clients to be caring, thoughtful, intelligent people who work harder than anyone I have ever met. They live with – I mean LIVE WITH the dogs they are passionate about. I love working with them because they challenge me at every visit. They expect me to know about every new disorder and diagnostic test. And they expect me to work as hard as they do. And I do – because I am one of them. Yes, I am proud to say I too am a dog breeder. I share their passion. I share their joys and I share their heartbreaks. And I have become a much better veterinarian because of the challenges they present me with.

The breeders I work with would not dream of breeding a dog without OFA or PennHip certification, along with elbow, thyroid, cardiac and CERF testing. They include at least one DNA test for every breed. They follow their breed-club health screening guidelines. They work hard to police themselves and each other. And just for the record, there is not a need for annually retesting most of this – only the CERF examination is recommended once a year. The last time I checked, an individual dog's DNA doesn't change from year to year, so if your dog is tested clear for DM (Degenerative Myelopathy) or EIC (Exercise Induced Collapse), that dog will remain clear for the rest of his or her life.

Their breed clubs devote themselves to minimizing genetic disorders in their breed and fund research projects intended to detect the DNA defects that underlie them. Before you start saying they should not have to look for genetic defects, let me remind you that all dogs have genetic defects, whether purebred or mixed breeds. There is no genetically perfect dog, or genetically perfect human for that matter. Only the purebred dog breeders have a gene pool that they can evaluate and work toward eliminating disorders in because they know the DNA markers that indicate disease and have an organized enough breeding program to do something about avoiding these disorders in their next generation of puppies.

Here in Wisconsin, where I live, our residents and shelters have done an outstanding job of limiting accidental breedings. In fact, it has been done so well that we no longer have enough dogs in our shelters and humane societies from local sources for families to purchase. Instead, the shelters need to truck in dogs from other states where they are not so careful with unwanted breedings. Here, our local residents would not be able to find a dog if it were not for intentional dog breeding or "humane relocation", the politically correct term for the shuffling of dogs from out of state.

I encourage my clients to purchase a dog of their choice. And if their choice is to find a dog for their family that will grow up to have a predictable size, appearance, and temperament, I then encourage them to purchase their new dog from a local reputable breeder who carefully screens for genetic disorders, selects and mates two dogs together who have a very good chance of producing healthy pups with good temperaments, who will be there for the family to answer questions about how to care for their new pet and to assist them if they do have a health concern. This is a much safer proposition for a family who plans to live with their purchase for the next fifteen or so years. I think we should have the opportunity to purchase the dog that we want, not what is thrust upon us by careless breeding practices. When I buy a car, I like to know how many miles it has, how big it will be, what color it is, and what the warranty is. I expect no less from a purchase of a dog. And believe me, I expect to love my new dog much more than I will ever love a car.

Last weekend, I was invited to speak to a group of commercial breeders – the large scale breeders Dr.Khuly refers to a "puppy mills." I was given 3 hours to speak. After 4 hours, the hotel shut me down as we needed to clear the room. They were without a doubt the most attentive group I have ever been in, as a speaker or participant. This group that the media likes to demonize was soaking up information like sponges – doing everything they can to learn how to do a better job caring for their dogs. Their questions made it clear that their dogs are not a commodity, but rather an important part of their lives. They want to do their best. Some spend 18 hours a day in the dog facilities, with their dogs, like my dog hobby breeder clients. That is the commitment it takes to know and care for their dogs.

It is unfair to paint all dog breeders - hobby breeders, backyard breeders, or commercial breeders - with a broad brush and assume that they are all cut from the same cloth. I have a huge respect for my breeder clients. They spend hours deciding who to breed, what to test for, what care is best for their dogs, and which family is best suited for this new puppy they have put their heart and soul into. I have wiped their tears and danced with them for joy. When they have sick puppies, I have to insist they get enough sleep and remember to feed themselves so they can care for their dogs.  We say many times that breeding dogs is not for the faint of heart. I am blessed to work with such wonderful, big-hearted, caring and devoted people – they are the best!

- Dr. Marty Greer, D.V.M., J.D.

Eleven Wonders of the Human-Animal Bond

So many amazing animal stories, so little time. And the eleven animals listed here (some you may have already heard of) come from articles that have been published during this week alone!

First, is Time's list of Top-10 Heroic Animals. It's a diverse group of dogs, cats, horses, pigeons, and even a dolphin! Some personal favorites:

• Stubby, a stray pup who ingratiated himself with the 102nd infantry, Yankee Division during WWI, only to become a loyal friend -- and a war hero!
• Magic the Miniature Mare, a therapy horse whose mere presence led a patient in an assisted-living facility to speak for the first time in three years: "Isn't she beautiful?"

 

---

 

Then, it's the life and times of a miniature guide horse in Michigan. Of course, there's something undeniably special about any service animal (just ask somebody who has hosted, trained, or been assisted by a dog from our friends at Canine Companions for Independence or Guide Dogs for the Blind); what's so special about this particular story is that it gives an unusually detailed view into the day-to-day life of a woman and her seeing-eye horse. It covers everything from issues that arise when entering a business or riding public transportation with a miniature horse to what happens when an Arkansas-trained horse encounters a snowbank for the first time.

It's an inspiring, well-written piece, but the best line of all comes from the owner herself:

"You have a different bond with a service animal. Imagine if your pet had to do something for you that you couldn't do yourself. It would mean so much more to you. Sometimes sitting in public with Cali I will just hug her and kiss her, I just can't even explain to you how much I love her. She's so loyal. I can't imagine going and getting another horse."

 Cali the horse seems rather pleased with her good work, as well:

 The first time Mona wouldn't listen to Cali, she ran into something. “Since then, I've come to trust her judgment,” says Ramouni. At times like these, when Cali does her job better than anyone could have trained her to, Ramouni is likely to lean over and hug the horse’s neck. “People tell me that when I do that, her face turns happy and her ears go forward. One of the things I wish for most in the world is that I could see her face,” says Ramouni.

 

What wonderful animals; what an amazing bond!

Grab Bag Wednesday: Big Dollar Bob; HSUS Wants to "Educate" Your Children; Tomorrow is National Teach Ag Day!

Big Dollar Bob

From the Vancouver Sun:

EDMONTON — Former U.S. game show host and animal rights activist Bob Barker has offered the City of Edmonton $100,000 to use as it sees fit if the city agrees to an outside assessment of the living conditions of Lucy, the only elephant at the Edmonton Valley Zoo.

It's nice to see someone put their money where their mouth is when it comes to animal welfare. However, it'd be even nicer if he (and the Vancouver Sun) were just a little more transparent about the two groups lined up to perform the assessment on Lucy.

I think it's pretty safe to say Zoocheck and PAWS -- the groups providing the "outside assessment" Barker so desires -- have long ago made up their minds on Lucy and her living conditions.

In case you were wondering, here's PAWS's take on the situation:

By mid 1977, at an age when she should have been in the jungles of Sri Lanka, suckling from her mother, Lucy was living behind bars at the Edmonton Valley Zoo.

Hmm... I wonder what kind of health assessment you'll end up getting from a group that already believes (and has raised funds on) the premise that Lucy is suffering behind bars?

 

---

HSUS Wants to "Educate" Your Children

Last weekend's North Platte Telegraph ran an interesting article on HSUS's attempts to reach out to children, how this is rather irksome to some parents (and groups who feel duped), and how Wayne Pacelle's words don't match up with his actions. According to Wayne:

"This publication is used throughout America, and it never has political content. It doesn't talk about legislation or ballot measures, and it certainly doesn't take a stand against hunting or farming in any way."

Really? Read on:

However, the April 2010 junior edition of "KIND NEWS" was pulled from the Lincoln Public Schools because of its content. The front page showed a child wearing a gas mask and posed this question to third and fourth graders: "What if you had to wear a gas mask to play in your yard?"

According to the article, factories have replaced the rolling hills and big red barns once considered typical of farms. The article described agricultural areas affected by swarms of flies, harmful gases and rivers tainted by animal waste.

Children were urged to write the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and lawmakers about their concerns.

Oops! As if that isn't enough, the online version of Kind News, which supposedly carries no political or legislative messages has entire sections devoted to "making your voice heard" (i.e. the epitome of political and legislative content). Double Oops!

 

---

Tomorrow is National Teach Ag Day (speaking of educating children)!

A reminder that National Teach Ag Day is tomorrow, courtesy of Feedstuffs Foodlinks. Why is this so important? (If you happened to read the preceding paragraphs, this might sound a wee bit familiar.)

I have heard from countless parents who are concerned when their child comes home with tales of "agriculture destroying the planet" that they learned from perhaps an overzealous science instructor at their public school. Maybe having an agricultural educator within the school could help agriculture's cause the most by first educating the educators, who may have gotten their own "knowledge" of agriculture from a biased professor's book or a documentary film.

A positive, educational, program that actively recognizes outstanding work in agriculture? In 2011? Who woulda thunk it? But there it is...

For supporters, or just the plain curious, here's some more information from the National Association of Agriculture Educators.

O Canada

Last month, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA -- Canadian equivalent of the IRS) published a document setting out guidelines on non-profit animal organizations and charitable registration.

Essentially, it said: "If you actively support laws or activities which promote the life and happiness of animals over human beings, you aren't a charity."

Now, before going any further, let's try and clarify some of the confusion that has been swirling about these guidelines.

• It does not prevent any animal organization from speaking its conscience (so long as it doesn't break any of the country's hate speech laws), and it doesn't actually change the law; it just explains the current law.
• It doesn't take away anybody's non-profit status -- it merely clarifies the fact that donations to animal organizations that promote actions which would benefit animals at the expense of humans cannot be viewed as "charitable" (i.e. not  tax-deductible).
• It is not without precedent. Greenpeace famously had its charitable status revoked in 1999, and the CRA regularly revokes the charitable status of non-profits. This clear, (and in our view) common-sense approach is not unusual for them.

Read it for yourself. It's long, but its use of legalese is kept to a minimum. If you only have the time or patience for an excerpt, read this:

Taking harm to humans into consideration

28. Some activities may promote the welfare of animals but also cause, or have the potential to cause, harm to humans. The harm could take many forms, including physical or economic harm, or direct or indirect harm.

29. Any benefit or potential benefit to the welfare of animals must be balanced against any harm or potential harm to humans when deciding whether an organization or activity that promotes the welfare of animals is charitable. The public benefit resulting from promoting the welfare of animals must clearly outweigh any harm or potential harm to humans.

30. For example, the courts have decided that seeking to abolish vivisection is not charitable. This is in part because, as the courts have put it, despite the suffering inflicted on animals, the "immense and incalculable benefits which have resulted from vivisection, [Footnote 13] and the "positive and calamitous detriment of appalling magnitude" that would result from its abolition, outweigh any possible promotion of the moral and ethical development of the community. [Footnote 14]

31. In short, when weighing benefits to animals against benefits to humans, "the life and happiness of human beings must be preferred to that of animals".[Footnote 15]

32. A charity must also comply with Canadian laws and public policy. [Footnote 16] A charity could not, for example, commit the offence of breaking and entering into a person or company's property in order to remove animals it believes are in distress, or vandalize that property in an effort to change the person or company's behaviour. Instead, the charity could notify any appropriate authorities, or, if its officers have police powers, obtain a warrant. As well, a charity that proposes to keep animals may only do so in full compliance with municipal bylaws.

This language, and its keen, fearless awareness of the fact that some animal activities truly do seek to harm humans and human interests is refreshing. If only we had such clear guidelines here in the United States.

Here, donations to groups like PeTA, HSUS, and Sea Shepherd are tax deductible.

That's right -- PeTA, an organizations that gives thousands of dollars to domestic terrorists, HSUS, a group that vigorously pushes laws that would criminalize veterinarian-approved farming practices and limit consumer choice, and Sea Shepherd, which is made up of people whose very existence revolves around aggressive, direct-action campaigns.

These groups are, of course, entitled to their beliefs and advocacy, but it is obscene seeing our tax dollars being applied to political activism. At least Canada understands this, and is acting accordingly. Now if only we could get our own heads on straight on this matter...