National Animal Interest Alliance

You know who else liked to train dogs? HITLER!

Godwin's law states: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

And I trust this law more than I do gravity; over the years, I have seen political parties, presidents, religions, social movements, laws, and even cats compared to Hitler or Nazism. Given enough time, the comparison is inevitable. And now, it looks like we can add dog trainers to the list.

Only in this case, there's no comparison to be made, because these dog trainers actually were Nazis:

Bonderson went to Berlin to do the primary research on the dog experiments, and found that Germans thought dogs were almost as smart as humans, and they tried to train them to speak, read and spell, and use telepathy.

[...]

Rolf, an Airedale terrier, reportedly spoke by tapping his paw against a board, Bonderson says.

Bonderson says the 'Wooffan SS' experiment sought to use the trained dogs as part of the SS and many breeds were involved.

The Nazis had limited success getting dogs to speak but better luck getting them to spell.

^{Near the end of the war, the Nazis were working feverishly to develop a breed of flying attack dogs.}

Wild stuff (and it must be stated that I'd wear one of those telepathy helms just for fun), though I strongly suspect a great deal of the Nazi scientists' conclusions were more wishful thinking than reality.

Actually, They're Both Right: Some Musings on the State and Future of Animal Agriculture

With our 2011 Conference preparations in full swing, we've fallen a little behind in the news. Which is a shame given the undercover farm-filming "ag-gag" drama continuing in Iowa. With both sides ratcheting up the rhetoric we're really missing out on some top-notch entertainment. And what's most amazing is that they're both right!

From a recent article:

The farmers say it’s an invasion of privacy made intentionally to damage the industry.

“They want to hurt an important part of our economy,” said Sen. Tom Rielly, D-Oskaloosa. “These people don’t want us to have eggs; they don’t want people to eat meat.”

This is a fair enough statement, given the type of people and organizations who are most interested in making undercover farm videos. In most cases, we're not talking Karen Silkwood -- regular employees who discover and attempt to expose wrongdoings -- but people who seek employment in the hopes of discovering wrongdoings, in order to further their own goals.

And boy do they want to hurt animal agriculture. Rielly isn't exaggerating.

That said, the animal rightist response is actually a valid one:

Dan Mathews, senior vice president for PETA, said, “With lawmakers in other ag states wanting these bills to die, the ongoing debate in Iowa makes it appear like the farmers there have more to hide.

“That doesn’t seem like a sensible promotion of Iowa agriculture,” he said.

Now, we can't speak for what is and what is not the "sensible promotion of Iowa agriculture," but there is no doubt that the passage of such a bill will at least create the perception that farmers have something to hide. Probably not the best image to be fostering.

This is a tough issue. The naive optimist in me believes that if farms simply open their doors, install their own cameras, and show the world that they are doing the best possible job they can, everything will work out peachy keen in the end. The more worldly pessimist, however, knows that this would do nothing long-term to deter the activists.

More questions than answers. What is the most humane, efficient, and healthy way for animal agriculture to go forward? How do you create an environment in animal agriculture that fosters transparency, safety, and informed consumer choices without also providing an open door and seat at the table for people who want to see you out of business yesterday? (Farmers are keenly aware of the carnage that can ensue when wolves show up to cast a vote on supper.)

Sheesh. There really is a lot to ponder here. Maybe it's time we get our 2012 Conference preparations underway...

If a machine can inspire religious devotion, what about animals?

A recent article in The Consumerist explains to us that the fervor displayed by some Apple devotees may indeed be a religion of sorts: 

A recently screened BBC docSecrets of the Superbrands (unfortunately not available for online streaming in the States) analyzed an MRI of an Apple devotee and found that the brand stimulated the same areas of the brain as religious imagery does to people of faith.

Interesting, though not terribly surprising, given some of the Macheads I've known. The question this opens up for me is of the similarities to religion that can be found in a devotion to animals or animal causes.

^{It has long been known that cats have no problem being deified. In fact, they prefer it.}

I mean, anybody who's ever been subjected to a vegangelist sermon can't help but make the religious connection. And it's probably safe to say we all know somebody -- or many people, for that matter -- involved in canine hobbies who are merely a step away from declaring Jihad  against this judge, that competitor, against, well... whoever it is they currently perceive to be in the way of their dog's ultimate success. And while we're on the subject of pets, there are many people for whom rescue isn't just about finding good homes for animals, but an entire way of life.

Now, Apple makes some undeniably great products, and it is true some of its followers are borderline fanatical (I know a woman who will not even allow PCs on her home network), but I have a sneaking suspicion that people who are heavily involved with animals and animal causes are a bit more fervent on average. 

So who wants to pay for the MRI?

Massachusetts Waking up to the Dark Side of Humane Relocation

Looks like Massachusetts is becoming painfully aware of some of the unintended consequences that accompany irresponsible humane relocation:

Massachusetts veterinarians report seeing an increasing number of dogs with serious infectious diseases not typically found in New England, a phenomenon they say is probably fueled by a growing number of pets rescued from Southern states, many of them unvaccinated strays.

[...]

 Massachusetts has long been a magnet for out-of-state rescue agencies and puppy farms with substandard health practices because the state’s strong spay and neutering campaigns have slashed the number of puppies born locally. But the number of imports grew after Katrina.

 Most of the imports, Cahill said, are coming from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

 “When rescue, which is not just a noble effort but a necessary endeavor, is done responsibly, it’s a good thing,’’ Cahill said. “But when it’s not, it’s not just detrimental to the animals you are trying to help but to the resident animals who are exposed and are harmed.’’

The last comments are particularly important. While we're not keen on the idea of one state subsidizing the irresponsibility of another, and are well-aware of the health risks involved with irresponsible pet transport, it is merely a tool like any other, and can be used for constructive or destructive purposes. Humane relocation in and of itself is not a bad thing. If handled responsibly, pet transport can be an incredibly valuable resource for saving lives  -- especially during times of disaster. But used irresponsibly, it distorts pet population numbers, spreads disease and heartache (and heartworm!), and preserves the status quo rather than dealing with long-term shelter problems.

To be fair, this is not just a "Southern Problem." The door swings both ways; states that are able to handle humane relocation are often able to do so because of unreasonable regulations and attitudes that have shut reputable breeders down or chased them out of state -- these regions are actually facing a puppy shortage (especially the Northeast), and would not be able to fill their shelters without an influx of out-of-state dogs. In fact, I have no doubt that there are a few Northeastern shelters that would literally have to shut down if they didn't regularly receive puppies from out-of-state -- yet these are oftentimes the places shouting loudest about pet overpopulation, and pushing ever more restrictive laws on animal owners and breeders. It's a curious dichotomy, to say the least. And an incredibly destructive one, as well: the logical conclusion to this madness can only be an end to healthy purpose-bred dogs.

And let's be perfectly clear: turning a blind eye to the continued outsourcing of this kind of serial irresponsibility is a form of madness.

Solving this issue will require a two-pronged attack of the so-simple-it's-radical variety: cracking down on unsafe and irresponsible pet transport (through legislation when necessary),while going to the source and providing owner outreach and education, promoting low-cost spay/neuter, and passing reasonable animal control laws (the "Three Ps," if you will).

This is, of course, far easier said than done. Some people are resistant to change no matter the potential benefits; some people go apoplectic at the mere hint of new or updated animal regulations no matter the wording or intent; others still have a vested interest (ego, ideological, financial) in keeping things exactly as they are. But tackling these difficult  issues and making communities better for pets and their owners is quite possibly the most rewarding work we do -- and something we'd be happy to help with. Come on, guys, don't be afraid to give us a call!

EDIT 5/24:

We're always thrilled to read new mainstream reports raising public awareness of humane relocation. But this isn't merely a public perception issue, and it is only fair to point out that Massachusetts was one of the first states in the country to recognize the problems this issue poses, and one of the first (if not the first) to take action.

This is, in fact, something we reported on, and an issue we were active in working on:

http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/relocation_brings_rabies.htm

http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/Majorvictoriesinshelterimportation.htm

We sincerely apologize if anybody took this blog post as an attack upon the policies (and policy makers) of Massachusetts; that was definitely not our intent!

Is cooking meat really the same as killing a baby in the microwave? Let's ask PETA!

Bad taste, worse timing.

So is cooking a human baby in a microwave as bad as cooking meat? PETA thinks so!

DAYTON — Sparking outrage before it’s been unveiled, a new People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals billboard in the Dayton area will compare the China Arnold murder case to the cooking of animals.

The billboard will feature two images: a mother pig nuzzling her piglet and a person about to place a pork chop in a microwave oven. The text reads “Everybody’s Somebody’s Baby. Go Vegan.”

(If you are unaware of the the China Arnold murder case, read about it here. It is highly disturbing, to say the least.)

Now, a logical person will question the comparison immediately: meat, by its rather deadish nature, cannot feel pain, and the idea of throwing any living animal into the microwave and subjecting it to such horrific, lengthy torture is enough to illicit universal disgust -- perhaps even jail time -- but as is so often the case with PETA, all logic and nuance is lost upon them.

^{A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy!}

---

R-E-S-P-E-C-T?

This may come as a bit of surprise to you, but I've gained a grudging respect for PETA over the years. Sure, their grasp on reality can be a bit (or a lot) tenuous, and sure, some of their beliefs  are almost laughably offensive and illogical -- but they are pretty much exactly what they say they are and they make no apologies for it. And that is worth something.

Because really, how many animal advocacy groups can you say that about? At a time when more and more puppy "adoption centers"  are taking on the look, feel and attitudes of the pet stores they claim to despise (hey, it's not a $750 "purchase," it's an "adoption fee!"), at a time when so many new animal "welfare" laws seem less concerned with improving conditions for animals than harming animal agriculture, PETA's blunt honesty is actually quite refreshing.

And hey, if you want to waggle a finger at them for being all about publicity, don't bother, their dear leader has already copped to it:

"We are complete press sluts." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's president and founder, The New Yorker, April 14, 2003

Some More Information on that Strangely Sensible Ordinance...

Sadly, we can't take any credit for that wonderfully sensible, intelligent, and humane (did we forget to mention strikingly handsome?) ordinance that was posted about yesterday.

This morning, we received written confirmation that they did not use our Pet-Friendly Guide -- but that doesn't mean it isn't a brilliantly-crafted ordinance that is friendly to pets, owners, and the community. We love it!

In fact, the one issue we had concerns about, defining a "potentially dangerous dog," is a complete non-issue, as it is limited to unprovoked attacks occuring OFF-property -- or in other words, places where owners should have control over their pets. I think it's safe to say they covered their bases pretty well here:

Revise the definition of potentially dangerous dogs to “when unprovoked, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury or otherwise caused injury attacking a domestic animal off the property of the owner/guardian or keeper of the dog” from the current two incidents within 36 months.

Looks good!

One of the first comments we received after posting yesterday's blog was "A sensible animal law? In CALIFORNIA?!?" which is either hilarious or tragic, depending upon your viewpoint. But obligatory Cali jabs aside, it is always good to see people working to make their communities fair and safe for pets and their owners.

Some Strangely Sensible Strategies for Pit Bull-Like Dogs

Good news: Mandatory spay/neuter for pit bull-like dogs is off the table in unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County.

Their rationale? Read it here:

The board accepted the report by county staff and an independent advisory committee that decided the feasibility and challenges of enacting a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for pit bull-like dogs would not "achieve the desired public safety outcome," according to the staff report.

Instead, the board agreed at Tuesday's meeting to change some of the language used in an ordinance that will expand the free and low-cost spay/neuter program and explore starting a pilot program at elementary schools to inform students on how to act around dogs to decrease dog bites. 

The adjusted ordinance will expand authority of county staff to declare a dog as "potentially dangerous" following a single attack on another domestic animal, require those walking "potentially dangerous" dogs to be over 18 and physically capable of controlling the animal, and increases the amount of liability insurance a "potentially dangerous" dog owner must carry from $50,000 to $100,000.

Increased access to spay & neuter? Public education? Great! If not handled carefully, "attacks on another domestic animal" could be problematic (is a $100k policy fair for a dog who goes after the neighbor's cat whenever it wanders onto his owner's property?), but judging dogs by their behavior rather than appearance is still definitely a step in the right direction.

In a world full that sometimes seems as if it is populated almost entirely by humaniacs and reactionary pit-haters, this all sounds so strangely... sensible.

If it didn't sound so smug and self-congratulatory, I might even wonder aloud if they used our Guide to Constructing Pet-Friendly Ordinances as a resource. No, I couldn't...

^{Good dog, good owner, good ordinance!}

Governor Gregoire Signs Egg Bill Improving Hen Welfare; HSUS Says It Will Go Ahead with Its Initiatives Anyway.

Earlier this week, Washington Governor Chris Gregoire signed legislation improving the conditions for hens at egg-producing facilities by enacting sensible, science-based animal welfare reforms.

According to State Senator Mark Schoesler, who sponsored the bill:

“SB 5487 puts Washington ahead of other states with a reasonable approach that will help keep eggs at an affordable price and allow consumers to continue making their own choices, such as organic or free-range. We don’t need radical alternatives that would make eggs noticeably more expensive. That’s why my bill, which had strong bipartisan sponsorship, came out of our committee with a unanimous, bipartisan vote and passed overwhelmingly in the Senate and House of Representatives.”

“I’m confident the governor wouldn’t have signed the bill if she didn’t believe it addressed questions that have been raised outside the Legislature. This really should settle the matter.”

Settle the matter? Oh Mark. Mark, Mark, Mark. If only that were the case. No, this won't be settled when HSUS has salaries to pay -- and certainly not when there are still farmers left to attack!

And sure enough, before Gregoire's signature was even dry, HSUS's Paul Shapiro was stamping his feet, insisting that the issue is indeed far from settled:

But Paul Shapiro, senior director of Factory Farming Campaign for the Humane Society, said the bill does not satisfy groups' desires for cage-free systems for humane treatment of hens.

Ballot initiatives are now planned that would effectively outlaw caged housing for egg-laying hens* in Washington this year, and in Oregon in 2012.

 

---

Déjà What?

One aspect of this push that brings a sense of déjà vu is the fact that despite their reputations, HSUS and Farm Sanctuary have somehow managed to secure the backing of a few small farms. Now, to be clear, these are farmers that won't be seriously affected by the initiative, farmers who most likely believe they'll be able to stave off future attacks from these groups by staying in their good graces (or, if we were more cynical, farmers who wouldn't mind seeing the ballot box cut their competition down to size), but they are farmers nonetheless:

More than 50 Washington farmers, many of them small operators, back the initiative, Shapiro said. They include egg, pork, beef and apple producers.

Given our past experience with the anti-dog owner and breeder legislation HSUS has pushed, it's a tactic we've grown accustomed to. "Oh nos!" says HSUS, "We're your friends. Really! You're ethical just like weee are, aren't you? Aren't you? Anybody who says anything bad about us only hateses us because we love the animals so much. They hate us for our freedoms! We only want to put a stop to those nasty, large-scale producers and their cruel practices. You're safe (for now), preciouss, we swearssss it... just don't read the bill, pleasssse"

^{Don't listen to the opposition, presciousss! And whatever you do, don't actually read the legislation!}

HSUS may not offer much in the way of facts and science, but they've got manipulation down to an artform -- especially when it comes to courting ethical, well-meaning people who are perhaps a little too trusting of the organization's end goals. It's taken almost two full decades of outreach to get to a point where that insipid "Are you against HSUS or puppy mills?" false choice is rarely uttered by serious voices in the dog world. It takes time spent and lessons learned, and HSUS has only been going full-steam against animal agriculture for a few years. However, given the activists' zeal and the fact that agriculture isn't just a hobby but a career, I have a feeling these farmers are going to catch on a lot quicker than the dog people did.

 

---

^{* Yes, even the ones that have been signed into law, which will allow for the full extension of wings, private nesting areas, perching, and natural behaviors!}

Is Animal Rights Activism a Form of Precrime?

From a disturbing recent post on WIRED's Threat Level is the story of an animal rights activist who, after confronting the FBI agents who were following her around, discovered a GPS tracker on her car.

I'm going to assume she didn't do anything to warrant being tailed. I mean, we're free to have our own opinions -- however misguided -- and it's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty and all of that, right?

But perhaps supporting animal rights and environmental causes is some sort of precrime in the mind of the FBI.

Anyway, due to the cheap price tag and legal loopholes surrounding GPS trackers, using them for surveillance has become much more common in recent years:

GPS vehicle trackers, based on technology first used by the military for navigation, have become a popular law-enforcement tool for tracking people. Cruder than other forms of surveillance — they report only where a suspect’s car goes, not who is in the car or what occupants do when they arrive at a location — they’re nonetheless frequently used for supplementary surveillance. That’s because in most jurisdictions, investigators don’t need court approval to slap a tracking device on a driver’s car, and because the devices provide a stealthier and more cost-effective approach to surveillance than a team of cops trailing a suspect around the clock.

Of course, just having a cellphone makes you easy to track -- in fact, it's almost impossible not to be found nowadays unless you're really careful -- but willingly owning and carrying a trackable device is just a wee bit different than having somebody attach one to your private property without your knowledge. Don't you think?

Now we're no fans of the animal rights philosophy. And we're well aware of the fact that animal rights activists and environmental extremists have caused a bazillion or so dollars in property damage over the last few decades; we have no problem seeing various groups and individuals listed as domestic terrorists when they act as such. But simply believing in a cause? That's more than a little disturbing. What, are we gonna start listening in on conversations between Flat Earthers, next? Unless there's something more to this story we don't know, harassing and tracking somebody simply for their beliefs seems a little, I dunno, un-American.

 

^{Dear FBI: why do you hate this?} 

A Test Case for Urban Farming?

Due to the growing popularity of urban farms and the opportunities and complications they can bring to a city, Oakland's planning officials are about to update their zoning codes from the dark ages of the mid 20th-century.

Which is a very good thing, because under the current archaic codes, you can't even give away your produce without a $2,500 licensing fee!  I'm sure this is something that is rarely -- if ever -- enforced, but yes, it means that technically, if you were to give your neighbor an apple or some honey from your farm, you'd be in violation of the city's codes. Pretty crazy stuff.

Can there be a bigger disincentive to do things the right way than to keep this sort of financial barrier in people's way?

But you didn't come here to read about apples. Because really, it's hard to take somebody seriously who wigs out about being given an apple from a tree planted on private property. It's when neighbors start hearing stuff like this outside their windows at 5AM that the complaints usually start rolling in:

And rightfully so. It's pretty much only weirdos like me who actually enjoy hearing this sort of thing before the sun comes up -- most people consider it grounds for justifiable homicide.

It's not just the inconsiderate or irresponsible people who garner complaints, though. Even the conscientious urban farmer who strives to set a positive example can be the target of a harassment campaign. Take the case of Novella Carpenter, who raised hackles by using her rabbits for meat:

Carpenter's troubles began when rabbit rescue activists, upset that she was killing bunnies for meat, complained to animal control officers. The complaint was sent to the city zoning department, which cracked down on her for not having a permit.

Angstadt said that part of the motivation for having clearer rules about raising crops and animals is to get the city out of political debates that have little to do with zoning, such as what happened with Carpenter's farm.

"We, the city, are being used as a blunt tool, a hammer, in another debate - whether or not rabbits are food," Angstadt said.

Yikes! And apparently in this case, neighbors weren't complaining at all: Carpenter's farm was considered something to aspire to (hey, she even wrote a book on the subject).  In fact, nobody bothered enforcing the rules until it started hurting people's sensibilities (something that can happen when you're dealing with animals that straddle the line between "companion" and "food).

Permits as bludgeons, indeed!

 

---

If handled responsibly, this type of farming is something that, at the very least, simultaneously fosters independence and a sense of community, and a kind of healthy respect for the animals and land we use that only hands-on experience can garner. People who are doing it well should be encouraged, rather than bureaucratically assaulted.

On the flip side, efforts need to be made to discourage those who just want to throw a few chickens on their property without any care or forethought because it's the chic thing to do; there are genuine issues regarding health and noise that need to be addressed.

It's really going to be fascinating watching this unfold. Cities need to update their codes in order to intelligently and fairly address the issues that come along with urban agriculture -- will Oakland manage to do it right?