National Animal Interest Alliance

The Firehouse Dog: Still Working After All These Years

Since before the age of the automobile, Dalmatians have been a firehouse fixture. In the early days, they would help guide the horses by scouting and clearing paths on the way to fires; during down time, they would protect the horses and valuable equipment from thieves. For firefighters, they were more than companions, they were working partners.

Along with horses and pinup calendars, Dalmatians became firefighting icons, visually tied to the firehouse and fire truck -- heroic figures, even if their function by the mid-20th century had become more "lovable mascot" than "canine hero."

But even if the Dalmatian is not always found at the scene of a fire, they still perform an important job as ambassadors of fire safety, teaching lessons to young people who can't help but listen when the message is delivered by dog...

This story out of Eugene, Oregon* serves as a reminder of the firehouse dog's evolution and how the human-animal bond remains, even as times change:

 

 

While I have always suspected canine intelligence to be underrated, the message of "If a dog can do it, you can too!" is powerful, and just one more clever hook in keeping the kids' full attention while demonstrating fire prevention and safety tips (plus, how often do you get to see a dog dial 911?)...

The job may have changed, but the firehouse dog is still saving lives.

^{This ought to be fun!}

---

^{*In the interest of full disclosure, NAIA has some personal ties to Casey -- hard not to know and love the little guy -- but it's not like we need much of an excuse to write about Dalmatians and their evolution as firehouse dogs...}

Senator Jerry Moran Goes Public with His Concerns About HSUS

Last month, the USDA  authorized APHIS to conduct an animal welfare scientific forum which would be receiving input and pre-planning assistance from none other than the Humane Society of the United States. Not the smartest of pairings by the USDA, given HSUS's history of antagonism toward animal agriculture and its habit of hiring people who harbor dreams of destroying it altogether...

Sheesh, you'd think that of any government organization, the USDA would be one to understand the danger of wolves in hen houses.

Fortunately, senator Jerry Moran of Kansas does understand the implications, and didn't mince any words in letting his colleagues in on the truth about HSUS yesterday...

 

A few choice quotes:

The ironic thing about this forum is that there is little science involved. It is nothing more than, in my view, the Department of Agriculture spending taxpayer dollars on a forum to provide the Humane Society of the United States a public forum to espouse its anti-agriculture views.

 [...]

If the Department of Agriculture was interested in science, why would it allow an animal rights organization to steer its agenda?

Why, indeed? HSUS's attempts to appear affiliated with legitimate government agencies are surely no accident, nothing new, and definitely worth the scrutiny they are finally receiving.

 HSUS is a national lobbying organization that spends most of its budget to lobby against farmers and ranchers that provide us with the food and clothing that we enjoy in this country. In fact, tax documents show that HSUS spends less than 1% of its budget on grants to animal shelters. Given these facts, you would have to wonder why the department of agriculture is giving this organization this platform, and shunning producer organizations.

A spot-on assessment by the senator. Hopefully Moran's comments will inspire his colleagues to look more deeply into the history and intentions of HSUS.

Will Localized Meat Production Be the Undoing of the Locavore?

In a bizarro Atlantic piece yesterday, James McWilliams, aggrieved vegan and longtime locavore critic, argued that allowing locavores to humanely slaughter their own meat will be their undoing, and that slaughter should be kept behind closed doors so we can all live safely in denial.

Now, however, food reformers are working to localize meat production as well. Central to this goal is deregulating an act necessary to bringing local animals to the local plate: the slaughter. Should this happen, should everyday citizens be entrusted to kill animals, the consequences would be dire -- not only for the animals, but for the locavore movement as a whole.

His argument is essentially this: these people are amateurs, too ignorant, and they will make mistakes -- mistakes that could lengthen the slaughter process, inflicting unnecessary pain upon the animal. Furthermore, allowing people to care for (and eventually slaughter) their own food animals will lead to wanton neglect. And since we have and love pets, the "disconnect" of slaughtering our own animals will make us go loco -- it's far better to have someone else do it, so we don't have to view the horror show.

It's a strange argument, to say the least.

Bad, Dumb, Loco

First of all, every endeavor, large or small, has its share of bad players. If you have problems with a hobby or industry, it's easy to put a spotlight on the mistakes and misbehavior of these people in order to attack it. But does one bad or inexperienced person make it inherently wrong? Of course not. What it means is that we need reasonable and enforceable regulations in place to effectively deal with the incompetent and cruel. It is not a reason to punish everybody. That would be foolish -- I mean, come on -- by that logic, we should ban pet ownership as well, because some owners neglect and abuse their animals.

Then there's that inconvenient fact that conscientious people can and do learn from their mistakes. My great grandmother could properly tend to a backyard full of chickens while blindfolded. Wearing roller skates. But it's not like she was born farming. She learned her skills, just as a lot of the people involved in urban farming are learning theirs today.

And the pseudo-psychological concern for people who have to slaughter their own animals? Ah yes, he's already gone down that road before with large scale farms. And sorry, but just because something makes you highly uncomfortable doesn't mean everybody else is suffering irreparable mental damage from it. I think the real term we're looking for here is projection.

Frankly, McWilliams' entire argument is just kind of, well, off, and maybe that's because he's not being entirely honest about where he's coming from. If he'd just come out and said "I'm one of those vegans who hates on urban farmers because they claim to be more ethical/humane... even though they still kill animals!" it would at least make a whole lot more sense (if for a much shorter article).

Codetta

What I most took away from McWilliam's piece was less his own writing than that of the bloggers he linked to. To support his claims of neglect and suffering, he tried to use the words of locavore bloggers against them -- numerous examples of animal suffering caused by mistakes and mishaps in urban agriculture. But if one is to investigate these blogger farmers at any depth, this tactic fails in grand fashion, as the writing he leads us to reveals something both shocking and telling: these people, people who are supposedly a source of unending pain and misery for animals, really freaking care about their animals and their farms. Getting to virtually "know" these people does not do McWilliams' argument any favors, in fact it accomplishes the very opposite. It's pretty hard to read the words of somebody who is following their heart and personal ethics -- and willing to be honest about their mistakes -- and come away less sympathetic to them than their critic.

 

---

 

Pamela Alley of the Rabbit Industry Council was similarly disappointed by McWilliams' article and offered up some strong words of her own:

"This piece is yet another sign of the disconnect between farm and city, really. It gives no credit to those who have worked to learn proper humane slaughter techniques, and no thought to the idea that, once legalized, home slaughter can actually be taught without fear.

That would mean that people could openly ask the questions they need answers to, and have proper hands-on instruction in humane euthanasia for slaughter. It won't hurt a bit that they can also have questions about proper care and husbandry answered at the same time, either.

The more open we are to allowing people to produce their own food, the better the opportunities for education of those people become. That's a whole lot better than keeping it a deep, dark secret that should be sequestered and silent, for sure."

Sounds strangely... sensible. I think the locavores are gonna be just fine.

Re-rethinking Spaying and Neutering

While we've been busy with our website and communications redesign these past few weeks, it's been impossible to keep up with the blog. But that doesn't mean we can't let you know what other people are writing about, and use that as a jumping-off point for our own quick tangents...

Re-rethinking Spaying and Neutering

KC Dog Blog has done a fabulous job outlining some of the major ideas and issues that will be tackled in Ted Kerasote's upcoming book Why Dogs Die Young. Of course, the most provocative is the notion that spaying and neutering (particularly when performed upon juvenile dogs) isn't always the bowl of rainbows and ice cream as it's made out to be -- that a lack of natural hormones might even be unhealthy for your pet.

While this flies in the face of virtually everything we are told by veterinarians, rescues, shelters, responsible hobby breeders, pet stores, pet websites, and Mickey Rourke, it actually isn't a new idea. Hundreds of years ago, it was noted that castrati often grew unusually long limbs and rib bones and suffered health problems, so it was known that there were side effects (though at the time, castrati ailments were often written off as a normal part of their "diva nature;" hypogonadism and the effects of testosterone upon bone growth were not yet understood). More recently, working and agility dog trainers/breeders -- particularly of larger breeds -- have taken note of issues such as ACL injuries and bone cancer, and a recent study even points to a correlation between retaining ovaries and exceptional longevity*. It is also worth pointing out that one of the articles that gets the most hits on our site is on the long term health effects of spaying and neutering dogs.

So it is clearly an issue that is very much on some people's minds... but I'm fairly certain it is only on the minds of people who are really, really into dogs -- in other words: it's esoteric and unknown outside of a few fanatical dog circles. Move beyond that, and the current wisdom is that the only way you can have a healthy, well-adjusted pet is to have it fixed as soon as possible -- and if you have a problem with that, Cesar Millan will set you straight. Tsst!

I can remember a few old-school veterinarians in the late 1970s who refused to get aboard the spay train**, but since then, even gentle suggestions that spay/neuter might not be the cure-all it is cracked up to be have been few and far between. Kerasote's book will be the first time in recent memory I can think of where a widely-read, mainstream voice suggests that we should stop and rethink this issue (actually, it may be the first time, period). Watching the reaction to this revelation will be... interesting, to say the least.

Anyone want to bet we see an increase in veterinary schools teaching vasectomy/tubal ligation techniques within the next decade?

 

---

^{* The author of this groundbreaking study, Dr. David Waters,will be making a presentation on this issue at our 2011 National Conference. You can sign up to attend it here!}

** They would still perform the surgery, of course -- they just didn't recommend it for every dog.

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.