[2] NAIA was founded in 1991 in Portland, Oregon by Adrian Morrison, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania,[3] and Patti Strand, a dog owner and breeder of Dalmatians.

[4] NAIA supports the responsible and humane use of animals for food, clothing, medical research, companionship, assistance, recreation, entertainment and education.

[7] In 2007, Mark Cushing, a legal adviser for NAIA, argued on their behalf that damages for loss of or harm to pets should remain unchanged.

The Humane Society and PETA have raised funds and argued for certain legislation based on an alleged problem of pet overpopulation.

[8] The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians recommended: "The movement of dogs for purpose of adoption or sale from areas with dog-to-dog rabies transmission should be prohibited.

[8] For this reason, NAIA supported efforts in the 2008 Farm Bill to add protections regulating the importation of dogs and other pets.

[12] NAIA claims that "spay or pay" licensing schemes [have] little effect on reducing shelter intake and euthanasia rates, while producing serious unintended consequences.”[13] The animal rights group PETA disputes this, saying that spay/neuter is the only way to eliminate pet overpopulation, and that mandatory spay/neuter legislation is a step towards this goal.

[14] NAIA opposes laws restricting the practices of docking, ear cropping, bark softening of dogs, and removing the claws of cats.

[17] USA Today reported in 2010 that the Humane Society of Missouri "and other anti-slaughter advocates claim" that there has been no increase in the number of abandoned or unwanted horses since the federal ban on slaughter in 2005.

[19] The GAO has documented that, since the federal legislation, many unwanted horses are now being transported on long rides from the United States to Canada and to Mexico, where they are slaughtered in a manner far less humane than that used in the US.

NAIA said such groups have used “violence, intimidation, arson, theft, and other crimes against biomedical researchers, furriers, hunters, trappers, dog and cat breeders, livestock farmers, zoos, circuses, rodeos, exotic animal breeders, and related enterprises.” Such actions of radical animal rights activists have often been reported by the news media.

[23] In 2007, in an article on domestic terrorism, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) discussed a draft report of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), published by the Congressional Quarterly, in which the DHS listed radical animal rights and environmental groups, such as the Animal Liberation Front, as "the only serious domestic terrorist threats.

[24] The ACLU opposed the AETA, on the grounds that the proposed law "criminalize(d) First Amendment activities such as demonstrations, leafleting, undercover investigations, and boycotts.