National Animal Interest Alliance

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}

Friday Grab Bag: Food Labels, Morrissey, and Remembering Your Dog

And now three for our Friday recap...

Food Labels

A recent university study says most consumers support mandatory labels on meat and dairy which would let them know the treatment and conditions of the animals used to make the product. Furthermore, it goes on to say they would be willing to pay an extra 20% for the labels.

It's an interesting read. Whatever its veracity, it speaks to our growing interest in what we eat and where it comes from... though given the history of consumer statements vs. consumer behavior, I have some serious doubts about that 20% figure.

Food labeling is a fascinating and intimidating issue right now. It has become a marketing arms race as different producers vie for the best sounding, best looking label. But who is more humane? Who is more organic? Who is feeding and treating their animals with what?

This is far too big an issue for today's blurb, but it is clear that there is going to be a need -- and soon -- for universal, clear and consistent practices in labeling or it's all going to become little more than a haze of feel-good white noise.

^{Confused? Maybe that's the point.}

 

Too Soon?

Morrissey left a trail of shock and awe in his wake last Sunday as he compared the Norway attacks to the fast food industry:

“We all live in a murderous world, as the events in Norway have shown, with 97 dead. Though that is nothing compared to what happens in McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried S*** every day,”

I can understand the general media reaction -- they eat this kind of thing up. It's what they do. But the shocked reaction from his fans is puzzling. It's not like Morrissey's feelings on meat and meat eaters are some closely guarded secret. 

I mean, this is the same guy who, a few years ago, walked off stage mid-song after smelling meat on a barbecue, then went and called Chinese people a "subspecies" because of the country's dismal animal welfare record, and most recently had security search his fans for meat before attending one of his concerts.

So should this latest comment really come as any surprise? If you truly believe a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy, of course the tragedy in Norway pales in comparison to the fast food industry.

 

Remembering Your Dog

Then, of course, there are those who are able to love animals without wrapping themselves in a straight jacket of misanthropy:

Some will protest that in a world with so much human suffering, it is something between eccentric and obscene to mourn a dog. I think not. After all, it is perfectly normal, indeed, deeply human to be moved when nature presents us with a vision of great beauty. Should we not be moved when it produces a vision — a creature — of the purest sweetness?

There are very few issues animal lovers will not line up to argue about -- even if they generally agree, they'll argue for weeks over degrees or semantics -- but I think this is something everybody who has lost their best friend can agree upon. Eccentric and obscene or not.

But You Can Teach an Old Chimp New Tricks...

And we're back with a little more science nerdery for you, this just in time for the latest Planet of the Apes reboot, which conveniently -- perhaps presciently -- utilizes Alzheimer's research gone wrong* as a major plot:

The human brain normally can shrink up to 15% as it ages, a change linked to dementia, poor memory and depression. Until now, researchers had assumed this gradual brain loss in later years was universal among primates.

But in the first direct comparison of humans to chimpanzees, a brain-scanning team led by George Washington University anthropologist Chet Sherwood found that chimpanzees don't experience such brain loss. From that, researchers concluded that only people are afflicted by this oddity of longevity.

 

Well, there it is: no wonder you can't teach an old human new tricks. Among primates, we're unique like that. But watch out for those chimps -- no ravages of longevity for these guys. Their noggins keep whirring at full speed their whole lives.

And as if that's not enough, they can kick our tails when it comes to visual memories, too:

^Whoa!

 

But while our closest relatives in the animal kingdom don't suffer from the same kind of mental decline we do, our best friends do. Like humans, a dog's brains loses mass with age (in addition to the 30% shrinkage already experienced due to domestication) -- and he can even suffer from Canine Cognitive Dysfunction Syndrome, sometimes called Doggie Alzheimer's. And as the average lifespan of our feline overlords increases, we're seeing more and more cases of senility in cats, as well.

No wonder we prefer the company of cats and dogs. We see ourselves in them, and that human-animal bond is further sealed through a recognition of our shared frailties. Plus, Pairs is a lot less intimidating with your cat than with a chimp...

 

---

^{* or perhaps so very right, if you are an uplift supporter.}

A Birth Control Pill for Lassie?

Apparently, this is the week for animals and scientific advancements: petri meat yesterday, and now the potential for chemically-induced menopause in dogs -- something that could have a huge impact in veterinary medicine generally, and animal shelter medicine specifically.

Attempts at chemical sterilization are nothing new; Neutersol was approved all the way back in 2003, and there are numerous animal advocacy groups actively seeking -- or at least passively supporting -- safe and effective methods of non-surgical sterilization.

In this case, however, the discovery wasn't deliberate; the scientists were actually studying human diseases:

Mayer worked with Dr. Patricia Hoyer, an ovarian toxicologist, studying diseases common in aging women but faced an obstacle in the lab when experimenting on mice.

Mice, unlike women, never lose their reproductive capabilities. Hoyer and Mayer developed a drug they dubbed "mouseopause" that induced menopause in female lab mice by eliminating eggs in the ovaries without surgery.

Considering how invasive, costly and painful spaying a dog can be, this really could be revolutionary. Emphasis on could, of course: we don't know if it will be fully effective, we don't know the side effects to the individual dog or future generations, and we don't know if this will be affordable for owners and shelters. And even if it does work and is affordable, will it be preferable to traditional surgical techniques? Stay tuned -- for the next decade or so -- to find out!

But regardless of how it all pans out, it remains a fascinating discovery, and may prove a cutting edge tool in non-lethal methods of curbing feral dog populations... or should that be non cutting edge?

We'll know the answer to that pretty soon: this December, Dr. Mayer will be heading to India, combining rabies vaccinations with chemical birth control methods, in an effort to control disease and feral dog overpopulation. Given the stray dog population crisis in India and many parts of the world, her work could not be coming at a more critical time. We look forward to hearing the results.

---

^{* oh, and by the way: yes, we know Lassie was actually a boy.}

Petri Meat

Last week was a strange one for animal news. There was a call to more tightly regulate experiments performed on human/animal hybrids (OK, didn't we learn anything from Splice?), then there was the McDonald's manager who got mad at a customer who came in with a service dog... and ended up punching her in the face (apparently, the manager had never heard of the Americans With Disabilities Act), and finally, that poor guy who got bit 19 times by a black widow spider... yeesh.

But what really caught our eye were all the stories on petri meat, or attempts to grow edible meat not on a farm, but in a lab...

 

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer stem cells?

Can't deny that there's a gut-level "ick" reaction to the very idea of petri meat. People aren't just concerned about the welfare of animals in agriculture nowadays, but the sci-fi feel to the entire process. Granted, we are able to feed a lot more people than ever before, and it means industrialized countries spend a much smaller percentage of their income on food (ironically, the very thing that allows us the free time to pontificate upon the welfare of animals). But that doesn't change the feeling that the process is sterile, unnatural, and far removed from an authentic human existence -- especially when stuff like antibiotics, soy, corn, and GMOs come into the picture. Petri meat plays directly to that aesthetic.

And aside from the gut-level reaction, there is also the fact that this research is being bankrolled by PETA, as part of their endless quest to get meat off the menu (unless it's grown in a lab, apparently). So even if the end result is positive, their intent is undoubtedly nefarious.

But on the other hand, given the fact that millions of people (mostly kids) die from starvation each year, maybe it's better to get over queasiness in the face of easily-produced, high-protein lab "meat." Really, can it be that much worse than SPAM?

It's a brave new world indeed.

What say you? Would you put petri meat on your menu?

^{Petri Milk?}

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Basset Owner Scorned

A Pennsylvania woman, Wendy Willard, has filed a huge lawsuit against the PSPCA. Those of you who are members or who have been following NAIA are probably already aware of this story, as we have been supportive of her case from the beginning. But for the uninitiated, Wendy Willard is a sportswoman, schoolteacher and environmentalist, who was harassed and bullied by the PSPCA into surrendering 11 of the 23 dogs in her hunting pack under the threat that they would all be taken if she didn't sign their so-called "surrender agreements."

Well, she's back, and here are some choice excerpts from her complaint:

"Rather than seek a warrant, the officers and wardens, however, simply entered the adjoining property of her neighbor, crossing from that property's grassy area to trespass onto the wooded area on Miss Willard's property," according to the complaint.

Willard says the manager of the 340-acre preserve next door had told the PSPCA officers they were trespassing, but the officers responded "that they did not care and that as PSPCA agents they would go wherever they pleased and do whatever they wanted."

Wow, that's pretty amazing! Even the police don't have the power to go wherever they please and do whatever they want! And you get to carry guns. Where do I sign up?

But wait, there's more...

Willard says defendant PSPCA officer Tara Loller falsely accused her of violating Philadelphia's "Limit Law," which prohibits having more than 12 dogs in a single residence.

"Defendants improperly brandished this 'Limit Law' as the pretext to seize Miss Willard's hounds from the heated barn. This inapplicable ordinance was used to oppress and badger Miss Willard into complying with defendants' demands."

[...]

Willard says she involuntarily signed "surrender agreements" for seizure of 11 of her dogs after officers threatened to take all 23 of them "if she refused to sign over the others." She says the officers told her "that the forms had to be signed immediately because one of the dog wardens was going into diabetic shock and needed medical attention; that if she did not sign the dogs over she would get so many citations that PSPCA would 'own her home;' and that defendants Bengal and Loller would not leave her kitchen until the documents were signed."

False charges? Bullying and threats? Well, they did say they can do anything they want. Including going through her mail, apparently:

Willard adds: "While in Miss Willard's kitchen, defendant Bengal began to look through Miss Willard's mail. When Miss Willard asked defendant Bengal to stop reading her mail, he retorted, 'We got a warrant. We can look through anything we want.'"

And perhaps even killing one of her animals:

The arbitrary abuses did not stop with the seizures, Willard says. She claims that for months, PSPCA acted as if all the seized dogs were still alive, though it knew that one had been euthanized after a botched surgical procedure.

And "Incredibly, defendant PSPCA records list 11 hounds being spayed or neutered in its facility, despite the fact that two of those seized hounds had previously been spayed," Willard says.

Like I said...Wow. If even half of this is proved in court this does not bode well for the PSPCA. If you've got the time, here is a copy of the suit. It's definitely worth a read.

^{You want a piece of me?}

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time complaints have been made about heavy-handed behavior by the PSPCA. In recent years they've been accused of ignoring a lack of evidence in favor of hype and sued to the tune of $75,000 for false imprisonment. Not the best track record.

Animal welfare concerns and enforcement are sure signs (I'd even say a "perk") of living in a stable, civilized society. There are people out there who hurt animals; people who hurt them through innocent mistakes, neglect, or wanton cruelty. And having mechanisms in place to alleviate and prevent such suffering is a good thing. But where investigators used to hail from criminal justice backgrounds, we are seeing more and more activists and publicity hounds (pardon the pun) among their ranks, and these PSPCA-type situations are the result. If animal welfare agents are going to have law enforcement powers, they need accountability, proper training, and respect for the laws they are upholding.

Such behavior tramples the guilty and innocent alike with little regard, and only serves to foster an environment among pet owners (especially breeders) where animal agencies are "the enemy," rather than a partner to work with and improve the lives of their animals and communities.

Dog Doody Crimes

When it comes to discussing our furry (or not-so-furry) companions, it seems that pet lovers have the ability to vociferously disagree on virtually any topic that arises. Whether it is preferred training methods, the healthiest diet, cats vs. dogs vs. parrots, safe and appropriate toys, or even what breeds (or non-breeds) are "better" than others, it is hard to find any subject incapable of stirring a heated debate.

But despite our differences, there is one thing I think we can all agree on: that not picking up after one's dog is a high crime against all that is good and holy in this world, and a clear sign of sociopathy. It's rude, gross, poses threats to health and the environment, and fosters a culture in which all pet owners are considered a potential nuisance.

So should it be any surprise that Washington state had paid $27,000 to produce a YouTube video encouraging people to pick up their dogs' poop? That may be a pretty hefty price tag, but given that it's probably the only thing everybody could agree upon, what should we expect?

Whether or not this has any effect on pick-up rates remains to be seen. The importance of cleaning up after one's pets is something that (anecdotally, at least) appears to be sinking in with the general public*, and education efforts such as this may help move the ball forward somewhat in that regard.

Of course, this won't help with the dog poop sociopaths, that small contingent of people who simply will not pick up after their dogs, whose behavior is completely immune to any sort of reasoning, begging, or pleading. No, I'm afraid that for them, bringing back the pillory may be the only way to solve the problem. But for everybody else, the doggy-doo fence-sitters of the world, it might actually have an impact, even if the bang for buck ratio ends up being somewhat embarassing...

 

^{But can you Vapoorize it?}

---

^{*When when we installed several free poop-bag dispensers in areas with high doggy-traffic twenty years ago, they went unused... then vandalized and destroyed. But there has been definite progress over the last two decades. While bag thieves and hoarders are still an issue, most people are actually excited to find them -- and they use them!}