National Animal Interest Alliance

The Stat Came Back the Very Next Day (California AB 610)

Oh goodie, the California State Legislature is standing up and shouting out one of those ridiculous statistics that just refuse to die:

(c) In six years one unspayed female dog and her offspring can reproduce 67,000 dogs.

Well, I suppose it is theoretically possible, but probable? No, in fact, it is so extremely unlikely as to be ridiculous -- so ridiculous, in fact, that you can't even find that 67,000 number on HSUS's website anymore (hint: that means it's pretty darn far-fetched -- they'd use it if they could).

The resiliency of this false statistic is really quite remarkable. No matter how many times the numbers are debunked, no matter how many times you patiently explain that the 67,000 figure is not so much statistics but shock tactics, it keeps coming back -- far too often touted by people who really should know better (and frankly, I'm fairly certain that some of these people do know better).

Lowering the physical and financial barriers to spaying and neutering are good things. Even in these trying economic times, the United States is a land of plenty, and nobody who wants to have their pet spayed or neutered should have to choose between going without dog food or electricity to pay for the procedure (unlike the 67,000 figure, this is not a far-fetched dilemma: there are still many areas where access is shockingly limited). And of course there's nothing wrong with putting pro-spay/neuter messages on license plates, either, if that's what floats your boat.

But supporting your positions through exaggerations and worse -- using people in positions of authority to parrot your fallacious statements -- is dishonest and a disservice to all who care about the welfare of animals, and ultimately the animals themselves. How on earth can we enact clear-headed, meaningful policies that help animals if we are basing our decisions upon fantastical statistics?

The short and not-so-sweet answer is that we can't.

 

---

^{Thanks, CaRPOC, for the heads up on this amended bill's interesting new choices in language!}

Analysis of the Garwood Appeal: Subterfuge and Seized Dogs

By Julian Prager

There has been a lot of notice on websites, e-lists and newspapers of the successful appeal in Garwood and Garwood v Indiana Department of State Revenue in the Indiana Tax Court. This decision is certainly good news for the Garwoods. However, it is only a small, but meaningful, victory in the overall fight against overreaching and excessive governmental tactics used against breeders.

In Garwood, the state Tax Department used an extraordinary procedure permitted under Indiana law to seize the Garwood’s assets in a tax liability case, resulting from failure to pay income and sales taxes. The Garwoods appealed asking for a summary judgment against the state.

The court found these facts to be undisputed:

1. That Kristin and Virginia Garwood owned a dairy farm for almost 30 years.
2. As a result of rising grain prices and falling milk prices, Virginia began buying and selling puppies and breeding them.
3. An animal control officer visited in response to a complaint about the Garwood’s treatment and sales of their dogs. He was refused admission and left information about the animal control law and left. He received two additional complaints in the next three months and contacted the Indiana Attorney General (OAG) to report that the Garwoods may be operating a “puppy mill.”  At that time, the term puppy mill was not defined in Indiana law and certain breeding or dog selling activities were not criminalized.
4. The next month the department issued a number of documents related to the jeopardy tax assessment process.
5. The OAG and the Department descended on the farm and demanded immediate payment of almost $285,000 (unpaid income and sales taxes, penalties, interest and costs) or the state would immediately levy their property for payment.
6. When they could not pay, the Indiana State Police and volunteers from HSUS and Missouri Humane Societies seized 240 dogs, including their house pets and farm dogs. This was followed by a press conference.
7. The Department sold the dogs to HSUS for $300, despite having valued the dogs at $300 each for tax purposes and having spent $550 to purchase two dogs from the Garwoods previously.

Indiana law permits the state to use the jeopardy tax assessment to recover unpaid taxes without notice or a court hearing under specific circumstances. This process is authorized when the taxpayer is likely to quickly leave the state, remove property from the state, conceal their property from state officials or impair the collection of taxes.

The court found that the state had not demonstrated the existence of any of the precedent conditions for a jeopardy tax assessment. They also found that the jeopardy tax assessment was not used to protect the state’s tax interest. They based this, in part, on the sales price received for the dogs from the HSUS and the media circus (the court’s words) following the seizure. The OAG staff was interviewed about shutting down a “puppy mill.”   Based on these factors, the Court held that “the Department wielded the power of jeopardy assessments as a sword to eliminate a socially undesirable activity and close down a suspected ‘puppy mill’, not to fill the state’s coffers with the tax liabilities the Garwoods purportedly owed.”

The Court granted summary judgment to the Garwoods and remanded the matter back to the department to give full effect to the order. So, where does this leave us?

The state has been reprimanded for its improper use of the jeopardy assessments and gets to go through the assessment process again, at a more leisurely pace. The Garwoods get to appeal any decision the state makes again before the state seizes other assets and their final liability is established. It is not quite so clear what effect this decision has with respect to the property seized and disposed of by the state, especially given the Garwood’s reported guilty plea to the charge of failure to pay taxes. That may have to be resolved in a civil case where, based on the state’s own estimates, the cumulative value of the dogs seized was $72,000 and the Garwoods can ask for punitive damages for the state’s excessive zeal.

The effect on the larger issue of excessive, overreaching or unconstitutional seizure of property is even less clear.

• Since this case was not decided on Constitutional grounds, issues whether taking dogs to impose limit laws, or mandatory s/n is taking property for a public purpose, therefore requiring just compensation is an open question.
• Since the state developed a method that can be used against them to value the dogs, the more difficult issue of how you establish the value of a dog used for breeding and the loss of future income in a seizure may go unanswered.
• Since the law involved had clear standards for the use of jeopardy tax assessments, this leaves issues with clear specificity, like of defining abuse or lack of adequate care, unresolved. Laws can still be passed defining anything as abuse or lack of adequate care, without any need for a basis in fact.

The fight will be a long one and is not over by far. As much as we have to worry about the effect of animal rights activists on individuals and the legislature, I am dismayed by the failure of people involved in the sport of dogs, agriculture, commercial breeding, and other animal related industries to unite, or even join in, efforts to fight these attacks on us.

I am concerned that, perhaps, Pogo was right: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Sit, Stay... Detect?

A dog can save lives by letting us know when there's been an accident, by keeping us humans from blowing each other up, or in any number of ways through specialized training. Heck, they can even perform life-saving surgery on you in a pinch (though we strongly recommend against this).

Indeed, a dog can protect you; from fighting off a bear, to helping take down the world's most wanted terrorist mastermind, canine loyalty and courage is legendary. And it doesn't stop there: a dog can give a human the gift of independence, teach us responsibility and empathy, and and keep us calm and comforted after experiencing major trauma.

And hey, they're willing to do some pretty silly tricks for us, too. Dogs are truly a gift when you get down to it, and it's hard to imagine them doing more for their humans than they already do, but oh, how they do...

A new study in the European Respitory Journal shows that dogs are better at sniffing out the early markers of lung cancer than the latest medical technologies at our disposal. Lung cancer is the second most frequent form of cancer in men and women across the United States and Europe, accounting for approximately 500,000 deaths per year.

Now, the idea that dogs can sniff out cancer is nothing new. We've always known they have amazing noses, and there have long been tales of dogs being mysteriously fascinated by cancerous moles, or even of dogs detecting cancer that had been missed by doctors. And we witnessed some fascinating presentations on canine cancer detection in last year's Assistance Dogs International conference, too. No, nothing new here... one might be tempted to write this off as old hat.

But in the case of lung cancer, a disease that is hard to detect before it has significantly progressed (making it a lot more difficult to treat), this is a big freakin' deal. Especially when you stop to consider the sensitivity of modern diagnostic equipment. "Amazing noses" just doesn't come close to describing the power of a dog's schnoz; I have little doubt that it's something well beyond my own imaginings.

No word of hospitals rushing out to invest in sniffer dogs, but this is definitely something we can add to the long -- and growing -- list of ways dogs improve our lives.

Thanks, guys! Now what can we do for you?

^{Bacon Cheddar... again? Ah, if only humans were so easy to please...}

Subsidizing Pet Sterilization in Oklahoma City

Should adoption fees help pay for low (or no) cost spay and neuter? That's what's happening in Oklahoma City, where a new ordinance places half of the city's adoption fees into spay/neuter/public outreach fund.

The city will begin to offer free surgery to spay and neuter dogs and cats belonging to those who can prove their residency. It also will pay for a new employee to manage the program and get involved with community organizations to help publicize it.

The city paid for sterilization for about 7,000 dogs and cats in its own shelter in the last fiscal year, and should be able to sterilize about 3,000 more pets with the new money, English said. Officials hope the results will pay off in more ways than one by putting a dent in pet overpopulation.

3,000 pets is a pretty big deal, but just as important is the education and community outreach. Making this positive -- a chance for pet owners to catch a financial break as well as gain a sense of community involvement -- is a smart touch, especially when considering today's economic situation and the plethora of punitive animal laws on the books (we're pretty sure the origins of the phrase "You'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" stem from the unintended consequences of some paleolithic mandatory spay/neuter law).

This is a simple program,  one that is typically handled by licensing differentials (i.e. an incentive to spay/neuter by offering licenses at a lower cost), but without the outreach and education aspects. In the licensing form, it has proved effective in many areas; utilizing adoption fees to the same effect is a different wrinkle, however, and one worth keeping an eye on.

Hat Tip to the Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs and Owners (SB 1637)

Big hat tip to the Illinois Federation of Dog Clubs and Owners (IFDCO) for their excellent work earlier this summer on Illinois SB 1637, which amends the state's Animal Control Act, improving the welfare of animals (and by extension, their owners) by:

• Requiring all impounded cats and dogs to be scanned for microchips and examined for other forms of identification (tags, tattoos, etc.) twice. First upon intake, and once again before transfer, adoption, or euthanasia if the animal isn't claimed.
• Requiring contact attempts by telephone and/or email if the owner is known and his or her information is listed. Previously, all that was necessary was a letter by standard mail.
• Requiring, in cases where a chip is present, but the owner cannot be located or refuses to pick up the animal, that the shelter contact the chip implanter and any secondary contacts listed by the chip database, to see if they will reclaim the animal.

This animal-friendly, common sense bill was widely supported, but you never want to strut until the governor's signature is dry -- which, as of last Wednesday, it finally is. Great work for pets and their owners, IFDCO!

 

So Why is this a Big Deal?

These may seem like small, common sense changes, but to the pet who is returned home or given a new lease on life, or to the owner who is desperate to recover his lost companion, it can mean everything.

Extra safeguards like these are important, especially in life-or-death situations.

Mistakes happen. Remember the horrific screwup last month, where a dog (who had already bitten two others) sent a child to the hospital... only to be adopted out to a family, while another dog was mistakenly euthanized? The animal control warden has since resigned, in case you're wondering.

Overzealous rescue attempts happen. Just last night in Montreal, Canada, a rescue organization swooped in to "save" 19 supposedly abandoned dogs, even though the owner and another rescue organization are already working together to find them homes.

And let's not forget that some people are so plugged in, they almost never check their snail mail... though a phone call or email would be sure to get their attention. And then there are other people who simply don't microchip their pets (typically out of financial, ideological, or health concerns), and use alternate methods of identification.

These are but a few examples -- there are countless situations where something as simple as a phone call or second attempt at identification can save a pet's life. And that's a Pretty Big Deal.

^{It took one microchip and one phone call to reunite Rhia with her owner seven years after she was stolen.}

Quotation Friday: Wayne Pacelle Edition

Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has a blog. No idea who writes it, but it does offer some valuable insights into the organization's view of itself -- or at least, how it wants to be viewed by others. A prime example of this came earlier this week, with Wayne taking exception to his organization being labeled "controversial," followed by a typically nasty characterization of anybody who dare oppose HSUS:

That said, there’s nothing wrong with The HSUS being deemed controversial among individuals involved in factory farming, trophy hunting, large-scale commercial dog breeding, and many other sectors that cause harm to animals.

Oh, so these are the people who have a beef with HSUS. Not people involved in pet rescue or sheltering. Not people with working dogs or dog and cat fanciers or responsible hobby breeders. Not people involved in training animals, wildlife rehabilitation, or conservation. Not small scale or urban farmers. No, if you have a problem with HSUS you must be a factory farmer, trophy hunter, or large-scale commercial-dog breeders -- or anybody whose animal-centric career or hobby can be described in a term laden with negative connotations.

Thanks for the clarification; it's really helpful. I'm going to have to march right up to a certain dog trainer/no kill fanatic after this blog and tell her to drop that anti-HSUS 'tude immediately!

It must be real nice living in a world where you're so righteous that the only possible reasons to oppose your positions on animal care and policy stem from greed or callous immorality. How convenient for you.

But it doesn't end there. Wayne goes on to talk about the recent HSUS egg agreement, providing even more comedy gold:

And there’s no better example than the recent agreement between The HSUS and the United Egg Producers to embark on a plan that would provide more space for egg-laying hens by outlawing barren battery cages, add nesting areas and other enrichments to their housing so they can behave like birds, and establish a national labeling program so consumers can make informed choices.

These changes all sound so positive, Wayne! In fact, it almost sounds as if you're using our talking points! But you do realize that the type of new housing you are supporting is the very same kind you were calling inhumane "illusions of reform" only a month ago, right? And that your website still has this to say about enriched cages:

It is clear that such modified cages fail to properly meet the hens' physical or behavioral needs.

[...]

Despite the modifications, these cages are unable to provide an acceptable level of welfare for hens. The egg industry, food companies, and other stakeholders within the food industry should do the right thing and end the use of all cages to confine laying hens.

Uh, so is this the part where you tell us not to believe our lying eyes?

And it's not just one position statement. HSUS has long said cage-free eggs are the only way to go -- with one former VP even being caught on tape saying it's a vital stepping stone toward no eggs at all. So what changed their minds? Realizing they were going to have a harder than expected time on the ballot initiative front in Washington and Oregon (supposed soft target states)? A willingness to sell out their professed values when an opportunity for back-patting and easy fundraising presents itself (hey, the egg industry was heading in this direction anyway, why not hitch a ride)? An opportunity for more political power (how could they resist)? A desire to appear more moderate in the public eye (yeah, this is probably a good time for repositioning)? A realization that the science coming in on enriched housing facilities might confound some of HSUS's favorite claims (d'oh!)? A cynical belief that people aren't very smart and are unlikely to pay attention (we've always been at war with Eastasia)?

Yeah, I'll have to go with "all of the above" on this one. Truly in awe here. The audacity of HSUS's hypocrisy never ceases to amaze, but at least we finally know what the "H" in their name stands for.

Chicken Slaying Siberian Given a Reprieve, Banned From Town

No agreement was reached yesterday on the fate of Luna the Chickenslayer, but it looks like sanity has finally prevailed in Tolland, with Luna being given a reprieve by the judge:

The owner of the chickens that Luna killed said he would be happy if Luna finds a new home out of state. The judge granted Luna a reprieve but said she was not ever allowed in Tolland.

Luna will be turned over to a rescue group that hopes to rehabilitate her and eventually place her with a family.

OK, so it's exile, not execution. Excellent.

No definitive word on the rescue group that will be handling the rehab and rehoming other than that they are "experienced Husky owners," so we'll follow up on that later. We're also going to be investigating the history between Tolland animal control and Luna's owner that led up to her receiving a "disposal order." But given Luna's reportedly sweet nature (well, unless you're a chicken), the high profile of this case, and continued interest it will engender from animal lovers, the odds are finally in favor of a happy ending.

A Death Sentence for Prey Drive?

Why did the Siberian Husky cross the road? Not sure, but it probably had something to do with killing the chicken:

It started on June 14, when Tolland animal control officer Tina Binheimer notified Luna's owner, Paul Doyle, that she had placed a restraint order on the dog, meaning that Doyle needed to fortify his invisible fence, which wasn't keeping the dog in. Binheimer said she had picked up Luna numerous times for roaming and once for killing a neighbor's chickens.

Doyle said he never complied with the order that an enclosure be built by June 18, saying Luna would "go berserk" if he confined her. On June 20, Luna escaped and attacked the neighbor's chickens a second time.

That prompted Binheimer to put a "disposal order" on the dog, meaning Luna had to be put down no later than June 21.

 

OK, so from the information that is publicly available, it would appear we have an owner who has repeatedly refused to properly confine his dog -- despite several warnings -- creating a public nuisance and dead neighbor chickens not once, but twice.

If this information is all correct, it's hard to have much sympathy for the owner. But you can sure feel horrible for the dog, because now there's that whole death warrant thing. Ugh. Maybe somebody can remind me here -- if you have a dog that is put in a position where she is able to follow through with her chicken-killing instincts, how exactly is that her fault, and why should she have to die?

There is definitely something that seems terribly unfair about this. We won't cast aspersions on animal control because we don't know the full story, but this dog definitely does not appear to be some sort of hopelessly vicious menace to society. There is a world of difference between a dog with a high prey drive, and one with a high child-eating drive. I mean, it's just common sense: even if you've got the sweetest, friendliest dogs in town, you're probably not going to let them babysit your chickens, right?

Anyhow, a restraining order has been sought to keep Luna from being euthanized, and there are lawyerly negotiations underway as this is being typed, looking to find the dog a newer (presumably more secure) home, rather than killing her.

A rescue that is capable and committed to rehoming this dog in a safe, secure home (i.e. high-fenced, with appropriate supervision and no cats... or chickens) would seem to be a much kinder solution for all parties involved. And the guy who got his chickens eaten? He prefers this option, as well.

If no agreement is reached today, there will be a hearing tomorrow to determine Luna's fate. We'll definitely be keeping our eyes and ears on this one. There are a lot of important issues at play here.

^{Luna the Notorious Chicken Slayer}

The PCRM Wants You to Stop Smoking Hot Dogs

Everybody's favorite besmocked* vegan activists, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), have been in the news again recently, this time for comparing the consumption of hot dogs to the smoking of cigarettes. And outside a NASCAR event, no less. Have they no shame?

^{Actually, a pack-a-day habit probably WOULD wreck your health. But that's not what they're saying.}

Now, you will never hear us extolling the virtues of a hot dog-based diet. Taking it to such extreme no doubt would take at least a few years off your life. But a dog here and there, perhaps at a barbecue or a baseball game? Nah, unless you have something against America or are, oh I dunno... an offshoot of PETA posing as a group of "concerned doctors," it seems a bit odd to get so worked up about the consumption of hot dogs.

And indeed, while the PCRM has never released an official statement regarding their views on America, barbecues, or baseball, the fact that they are not a mainstream physician's organization that cares about human health but PETA-with-a-stethoscope is fast becoming one of the world's worst-kept secrets.

That these guys are vegangelist activists who distort the truth to fit their agenda is something we've known about for a looooong time, but it is encouraging to note that others seem to be catching on, too. Very few articles we read on the PCRM's latest billboard failed to at least mention the fact that the group wants everybody to go vegan, and some of the analysis has gone quite a bit deeper.

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Big Blog:

The organization is known for animal-rights work — and for suing the University of Washington, the Seattle Weekly points out. Its extreme stance on meat consumption and animal research has led to harsh criticism, including condemnation by the American Medical Association.

From Gizmodo:

But the PCRM isn't just a group of doctors. They've got an openly pro-vegan agenda. Which isn't wrong. But they've also been repeatedly accused by the American Medical Association of distorting the facts as a means of promoting this agenda. Which is wrong.

And the Seattle Weekly's Daily Weekly:

​The Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine is a D.C.-based group of activists (a few of whom are doctors) that's committed to promoting a nationwide vegan diet and stopping animal research. The folks at UW know the group well as the ones who keep suing them over animal research.

[...]

The point is, hearing that one should never eat hot dogs from a group that thinks people should never eat any animals should be taken with a grain of salt (a substance found abundantly in hot dogs).

All true. It may seem odd for us to be rejoicing in this simple recognition, but there really is something gratifying about seeing the PCRM's continual downward spiral toward PETA levels of credibility -- especially after the frustration of seeing them so often hailed as a reliable source for medical and dietary information throughout the '90s, or labeled a "physicians group" or "preventative medicine organization" with nary a mention of their background and goals. Looks like the jig is up, guys!

 

---

^{*Not really. Very few of them are actual physicians.}

A Pot Patch for Your Pets

A Seattle company is developing a marijuana patch for your pet as an alternative method of pain management

Quoth the patch developer:

Dogs suffer from the same maladies that humans do. It's a question of quality of life.

I’d much rather they were on something holistic as opposed to something chemical that I know is breaking down some of the organs in their body.

Using marijuana as a painkiller is controversial in some circles, with some anti-pot crusaders going so far as to label it a dangerous "gateway" drug, inevitably leading to the abuse of harder substances. But there are a lot of humans who swear by its power as an analgesic. No word on the patch's effectiveness for pets yet, though we're pretty sure they're going to love it.

^{Test Subject Zero}