The National Animal Interest Alliance recently called for the Bush administration to investigate what NAIA believes are unlawful activities undertaken by animal rights groups acting as tax-exempt charities.
In a press release on NAIA’s web site, Patti Strand said,
We believe that the Administration’s goal to increase the flow of money to legitimate charities through new tax deductions is both admirable and necessary. However, we also believe that organizations that benefit from tax-exempt status and misuse constitutionally protected speech to threaten businesses and private citizens should not benefit from federal help.
Some of these organizations fail to condemn the growing use of vandalism, arson, and other serious crimes that benefit their agenda. They disseminate half-truths to stir opposition to legitimate animal-based enterprises and threaten boycotts and public smear campaigns in order to exact money from corporations, force capitulation to radical demands and raise money from the general public. These campaigns and others have raised millions of dollars based on unproven allegations of animal cruelty and abuse.
Just a little background here. Many animal rights groups, including the big ones such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and the Humane Society of the United States are incorporated as 501(c)(3) charities. Both the law and IRS statements are often vague and confusing, but a 501(c)(3) charity is only supposed to engage in lobbying and other social actions only if such activities are not a substantial part of their total activities. Nonprofits whose primary activities are lobbying and/or otherwise political in nature are supposed to incorporate under 501(c)(4).
Most nonprofits interested in doing a lot off lobbying create affiliated 501(c)(4) charities. For example, when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People took out an anti-Bush ad last November, it did so through an affiliated 501(c)(4) (currently, there are no restrictions preventing a 501(c)(3) organization from donating to a 501(c)(4) nonprofit).
I think its pretty clear that the animal rights groups such as PETA are primarily engaged in political activity and really should be forced into 501(c)(4) — which they would oppose because they would lose certain tax advantages.
NAIA has an online-petition at its website which you can sign by visiting their press release web page. Scroll to the bottom of the page for the text of the petition and a link to click on to sign the petition.
Source:
NAIA Calls on President Bush to Act Against Animal Rights’ Extremists. National Animal Interest Alliance, Press Release, June 1, 2001.
The National Animal Interest Alliance is a front organization for special interest groups and board members involved in farm animal agribusiness, vivisection, the fur trade, breeding and entertainment. The primary (if obfuscated) agenda appears to be protecting their interests and/or status quo (when interests may be irrevocably tied to maintaining such). These interests include: (but are not limited to) legislation pertaining to animal agribusiness, hunting, fishing, blood sports, trapping, fur ranching, companion animal breeding and entertainment (rodeo, circus, etc.) as well as laws, grant monies and tenures dependent on biomedical research and cosmetics testing using animals. (1)
Though presenting itself as dedicated to animal welfare the NAIA in fact promotes the interests of its board members and their interests and affiliates. The NAIA has endorsed such practices as factory farming (intensive farming opposed by legitimate advocates for animals, health and the environment) and horse slaughter. They have strongly opposed and criticized anti-horse slaughter lobbies and groups by promoting “horse processing for horses that no longer meet the needs of their owners”. Such fawning and misleading rhetoric (which ignores gruesome facts and statistics) is typical for this group. The NAIA promotes censorship by opposing most if not all reasonable attempts to educate the general public by publicizing issues concerning animals involved in commerce, sports, entertainment, etc. (An example from their long list of animal extremism press releases includes Brigit Bardot criticizing a Muslim goat sacrifice.) (2) Some animal welfare issues on their agenda could more appropriately be described as breeding/show issues and standards and/or inhumane laboratory methods. They include: (but are not limited to) dog ear cropping, tail docking and declawing of cats (opposed by most veterinarians and all legitimate animal welfare groups). Also the debarking (cutting the vocal chords) of dogs (also opposed by most veterinarians and all legitimate animal welfare groups). The NAIA also aggressively opposes mandatory spay/neuter programs, which are usually instigated and supported by state, county and city governments desperately trying to deal with particularly high euthanasia rates and overcrowded shelters.
A brief sampling of board members include: Sharon Beck – a fourth generation cattle rancher and member of the National Cattleman’s Beef Assoc.; Tom Albert – V.P. of Government Relations for Feld Entertainment, Inc. (parent company of Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus); Lt. Col. Dennis Foster (ret.) – Exec. Dir. of Master of Foxhounds Assoc.; Lance Baumgard, PhD – an Assoc. Professor in the Department of Animal Sciences at University of Arizona; Dr. Bob Speth – a professor and chairman of the Pharmacology Department, University of Mississippi who has written widely in support of the use of animals in biomedical research.
Cindy Schonholtz, NAIA Vice President is a consultant for the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Assoc. The National Director, Patti Strand is a Dalmatian Breeder, Judge and a member of the American Kennel Club (3) Board of Directors since 1995. Ms. Strand (like her board) appears to have no background or current involvement in animal welfare or advocacy. Nevertheless she has (according to her bio) co-authored a book on the subject. The book (written along with her husband Rod who is not listed on the NAIA website) is entitled: The Hijacking of the Humane Movement: Animal Extremism (1993).
Although the group appears to solicit donations on its website for a “shelter” as well as advertises an “army of volunteers”; there is no evidence of a physical shelter nor of any board members or volunteers being involved in rescue, foster or shelter work. Listed board members are either breeders or otherwise involved in commerce, blood sports or entertainment involving animals (biomedical research, ranching, rodeo, hunting & the circus). This group (according to information which can be obtained from its website) actively campaigns against humane legislation including (but not limited to): humane farming practices, pet overpopulation as well as humane legislation that addresses hunting, trapping, horse slaughter and vivisection. Like The Center for Consumer Freedom (whom it often references) and other Berman & Company front sites, the NAIA attacks such groups as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Criticisms include: (but are not limited to) campaigns against factory farming, horse slaughter, promotion of mandatory spay/neuter programs and humane companion animal breeding legislation PPA) (1)
The NAIA has endorsed IAMS dog food, a company which has been under boycott http://www.iamscruelty.com/as has it’s parent company, Proctor & Gamble. P & G contracts product testing out to Huntington Life Sciences dog, cat and monkey labs in Arkansas, New Jersey and England. HLS kills an average of 500 animals a day (180,000 a year) for tests “only reliable 5 to 25% of the time” one HLS record contends. In one $50,000.00 settlement with the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, HLS was charged with 20+ counts of violating anti-cruelty laws. At the New Jersey Lab, snickering technicians were observed to be squirting ECG lubricant down the throat of a chained monkey. Other animals were observed dangling from slings or cowering in cages left to seize, vomit and collapse with no veterinary care.
http://www.kinshipcircle.org/columns_articles/hls05pg1.html
The goals of the NAIA are transparent, simple and self serving. They are to marginalize and weaken welfare reform (their fawning contrasts with their aggressive attacks on animal welfare reforms like spay/neuter laws to control population, anti-chaining laws and the Puppy Protection Act) (5) while those profiting from the misery of animals enjoy complete and unfettered immunity. While Ms. Strand and her associates in the animal commerce community grow red faced and pound on the table for more and more restrictive laws, gag orders, censorship and harsh penalties for even the most petty infractions; they certainly advocate lawlessness when it suits them…
(1) Puppy Protection Act” of 2002 (defeated) was breeder legislation which would have set guidelines for socialization and care (in response to abusive “puppy mills”). In the article Patti Strand is quoted as saying: Defeat of the Patti Strand is quoted as saying “The PPA was inspired by special interest groups that fundraise using emotional animal welfare issues.” http://www.thedogpress.com/SideEffects/0204_PPAdefeat.asp