National Animal Interest Alliance

Don't panic, Westminsterites -- but a little concern isn't entirely inappropriate...

From the good intentions, unintended consequences file?

New York City just passed a law outlawing the continuous tethering of dogs. Sounds reasonable enough, doesn't it? It has been known for quite some time that long-term, continuous tethering poses a risk to the mental and physical well-being of dogs, and in some cases, a public health and safety risk as well.

So a reasonable, clearly defined limit on tethering sounds like a good idea to us.

But this morning, the email lists were buzzing, the phones were ringing, and a general chaotic panic enveloped discussions surrounding the topic of this new law.

Apparently, the reasonable limits weren't so clearly defined this time. To the point where people were honestly wondering whether they might get a $250 ticket for showing their dog in Westminster! And not without reason. Here is the problematic language:

b.  Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision a of this section, no person shall tether, leash, fasten, chain, tie, secure or restrain any animal for any amount of time with a device that:

(1)  is a choke collar or pinch collar;

 

It says nothing here about the dog being tied to a stationary object -- by the way this is written, the dog could very well be "tethered" to a dog walker. This is where the fear comes in; a fear that it could be interpreted in such a way as to make anybody walking their dog on a pinch or choke collar some sort of criminal.

Curious about the language, we phoned the NYC City Council to get some answers. Everybody was courteous and open, and frankly, quite taken aback at the notion that Westminster participants might be breaking the law...

We were assured that Westminster participants have nothing to worry about, because:

1. the law doesn't come into effect for 90 days.
2. even if it took effect immediately, the law was specifically made to target people who tether their dogs outside all day, and the language pertains to them, not people walking their dogs on the street.
3. we really, really like Westminster (translation: the dogs are adorable and it brings us a ton of revenue), and will make sure that the Department of Health -- the guys who make the rules on enforcement -- interpret this in such a way as to avoid harming people who aren't continuously tethering their dogs!

Of course there are humaniacs out there who would love to see this local law harm Westminster, but that will not be the case here. The purpose of this law is to keep people from tethering their dogs all day and night, not harass and fine individuals who choose not to use Gentle Leaders.

That said, the language isn't without its problems. For one, in New York, the police and groups like the ASPCA have the authority to interpret animal abuse laws as written, regardless of what guidelines are set forth by the Department of Health. While unlikely, a strict enough reading could make a criminal out of a dog owner who takes his or her dog out for a walk wearing a pinch or choke collar.

And while this law is clearly not aimed at dog hobbyists, there is also the issue of training activities where the animal might become entangled during its learning experience (sled dog training, for example). Again, unlikely, but a literal interpretation in the wrong hands could be a bad thing.

Finally, while people shouldn't be tying their dogs up outside the Quick-E Mart for hours on end, the fifteen minute duration seems a bit goofy and overreaching. A healthy dog won't suffer dehydration or collapse from starvation if he goes without food for 17.5 minutes. It seems here the law is erring on the side of easy enforceability rather than common sense.

Our view on this is that the law is well-intentioned but needs to be clarified. And the hubbub about mass-arrests at Westminster... not gonna happen. We take the City Council at their word on the intent behind this law, and will be following it as it develops.

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

NOTE: special thanks to our legislative coordinator Julian Prager, for his input on this issue!

Zoo's Asian Elephant "Paradise" Riles The Animal Rightists

And they're suing to shut it down. Well, color me shocked!

OK, maybe not. This kind of thing isn't exactly rare. Probably because it's great for fundraising, even when the defendant is found innocent and the show is allowed to go on...

In this case, the activists are claiming that the exhibit is just way too expensive for the public to maintain, while  its small size (3.8 acres*)  is cruel and unhealthy -- though I suspect the arguments have less to do with public spending and animal welfare than a belief that animals shouldn't be kept in zoos or captivity, period.

For any curious parties, click below for a beautiful, full-color photo album of the elephants' torture chamber:

The Horror!

So to be clear on this:  to those opposed to to the program, it's not enough to create a cutting-edge exhibit that comes as close as (currently) possible to mimicking the Asian elephants' natural habitat, that provides opportunities for exercise and sensory stimulation, that educates the public and serves the larger goals of conservation and scientific discovery. No, this isn't enough.

OK, got it. But if that's not enough, what is?

And what of the repercussions if the lawsuit succeeds? At the risk of invoking a slippery slope, ask yourself this: if an exhibit that is being hailed as the best-of-the-best can be shut down via lawsuit, how long before the rest are forced out of existence as well?

 

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

* This is larger than the Oregon Zoo, the "elephant capital" of North America, and long-time home of world-renowned elephant breeding, research, and conservation programs.

Hats off to Oklahoma Representative Brian Renegar

Even in the face of new evidence, many people aren't willing to change their position. Ideology, pride, or simple stubbornness so often get in the way. So imagine our surprise in discovering that one of the same lawmakers who argued in favor of Oklahoma's Commercial Pet Breeder Act is now promising to lead the fight against it, if some of its proposed regulations are not amended:

"When we discussed the Commercial Pet Breeder Act this past session, we were promised that any rules adopted by the Board would not be more stringent than those implemented by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Instead, the Board has created such strict rules that I doubt hardly any pet breeder would be able to meet these new standards!"

[...]

"The rules that are currently in place penalize our good breeders, and if left unchecked, will force them out of business."

(here's a link to a copy of Renegar's press release)

Representative Renegar deserves credit for taking a stand against the Pet Breeder Act as currently drafted. Renegar is a lifelong animal lover, and a DVM for three decades, who sincerely wants to see positive changes made in the way people treat their animals. But as is so often the case with these well-intentioned pieces of legislation, it ended up being crafted in such a way as to put the good out of business, while only pushing the bad further underground. We wish Representative Renegar success in modifying the bill!

For more information on the proposed rules that Renegar opposes, click here.  We thank our legislative coordinator Julian Prager for his excellent analysis and recommendations.

Mahwah! Part Deux

Nothing in the news yet this morning, but according to a member of ours who attended the hearing last night (hi, Barbara!), it was over before it started. In the afternoon, before anybody'd even arrived, the ordinance had been amended to cover only a single, synthetic field, but even that amended version ended up being unanimously rejected.

So now, they're going back to the drawing board to seek a more reasonable solution -- and we sincerely hope they do find one, as nobody wins when a few irresponsible dog owners let their pets become a nuisance for everybody else. While we strongly disagreed with the Mahwah Township Council's proposed ordinance and are delighted to learn that it was scrapped, this isn't a true "victory," as there is still a problem that should be dealt with sooner, rather than later... and in a manner that doesn't punish responsible pet owners along with the bad.

We have a few members in and around Mahwah; I wonder if they'd be willing to work within their community to help create a reasonable solution that benefits the township as well as its law-abiding pet owners who enjoy long walks in the park with their dogs?

Mahwah's Considering a Dog Ban

The Mahwah Township Council in New Jersey will be holding a hearing tonight to decide whether or not dogs will be allowed in public parks -- even on leash. Apparently, there have been numerous complaints about dog owners not picking up after their dogs or keeping them under control (a dog running onto the field to chase a soccer ball -- during a game -- is what prompted this, in fact).

Wow. Now, to be fair, people absolutely have a reason to be irritated -- but to fully ban dogs in public places seems more than a little overboard. And what about the irresponsible dog owners in this situation? Why are they getting off scott-free? Shouldn't they be the ones facing punishment, rather than their dogs, who are just being, well... dogs?

As a dog-lover, this is clearly a hot-button issue for me, but I don't think my personal feelings are getting in the way of seeing this for the asinine overreaction that it clearly is. Do they really think the same people who aren't picking up after their pets are going to pay attention to a new ordinance banning dogs from public parks? And if Mahwah isn't able to enforce its current pooper-scooper laws, what makes the council think they'll have the resources to enforce a full-on dog ban?  Now, to be sure, one area in which they will find success is in compliance from the responsible pet owners (you know, those delinquents with the well-behaved dogs and the seemingly endless supply of poop bags), but that's obviously not much of a silver lining.

Look, people who don't pick up after their dogs and/or let them become a nuisance in public areas are a genuine problem. Their behavior poses public health and safety risks, and on top of that, casts a negative light on all dog owners. Everybody at NAIA agrees that these people should be punished in accordance with the law (and yes -- they are breaking the law).

But let's not throw the Basenji out with the bathwater, OK? Creating an ordinance that unfairly punishes everybody for the behavior of a few will only create more problems than it solves; we sincerely hope the Mahwah Township Council decides upon the novel approach of actually enforcing current laws before enacting this ridiculous ordinance.