Calif SB250+ AB241 and AB1122–ARE ALL ANIMAL RIGHTS LAWS

Join the crusade against HSUS Anti-Pet LAWS+Pass it Forward!

Get Your NO HSUS Anti-Pet law stuff and other stuff, trash to treasures, etc…. here:

http://stores.shop.ebay.com/GOOD-DOGS-USA__W0QQ_armrsZ1

 AB241 was revised: This is a bill trying to limit how many animals (usually dogs) can be sold, by claiming that one cannot keep or own more than 50 ‘intact’ animals at a time. That means a kennel would be severely limited if they had pups and kittens since they are not exempted, and the bill actually says the city county or state can make even more stringent regulations and decrease the number. 

So you could be the best kennel in town and be hindered and capped on how many animals you could sell due to animal rights claiming that no one can do a good job with such dogs, or that everyone who has that many animals is an abuser.  Further, HSUS has instructed proponents to go into the legislature in following years and modify the number downward, again–this is capping economic activity and sales, a clear violation of interstate commerce to us. 

MSN (mandated altering) is also a restraint on trade, since even though MSN is enacted in various locations, it does not work to cull shelter animals, and it will never work.  That is NOT how you obtain less shelter animals, as we have said for years on end. You do not target the animals that are sold, the animals NOT sold must be targeted at the source, since they are the ones that have to be killed when no one wants to buy them.    

This is a clear restraint on  legal sales.  They do not cap sales of cars or trucks due to pollution.  They do not cap sales of alcohol due to drunk driving. CALL YOUR SENATOR IN CALIFORNIA!

SB250:   Just another animal rights proposal to bankrupt the shelters and states, and low income people by forcing more impounds, more fines and more killing.  [Ha ha ha HSUS says it is not supporting it but clearly they are, since they donated $$ to the groups that ARE supporting it. Just more proof of the lies of HSUS, how typical.]

HOW DUMB DO WE HAVE TO BE TO ENACT ANOTHER ANIMAL RIGHTS LAW THAT HAS BANKRUPTED LOS ANGELES SHELTERS ALREADY, RUINED THE MORALE OF THE EMPLOYEES, AND DESPITE YEARS OF ANIMAL RIGHTS LAWS, HAS CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO BRING ABOUT ANY CHANGE IN PART, BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO ENGAGE IN TARGETED ALTERING OF ANIMALS.  In other words, they don’t send mobile spay neuter vans to the communities that need them, they ignore the people and just take in dogs for $5 surrender fee??  There is only ONE word for animal rights law: FAILURE  FAILURE  FAILURE

“This bill would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund cost of the Animal Adoption mandate.  The Animal Adoption mandate currently costs more than $24 million annually to reimburse local government shelters’ cost to care for impounded animals. Given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners’ inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines.”

“Mandatory spay and neuter provisions have failed throughout California at the local government level.  According to the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA), Los Angeles City experienced a 20 percent increase in shelter impounds and a 30 percent increase in shelter euthanasias after passage of a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance. NAIA also indicates that in Santa Cruz County, animal control costs doubled after mandatory spay and neuter ordinances were passed.”

<http://www.dof.ca.gov/legislative_analyses/LIS_PDF/09/SB-250-20090624015733PM-SB00250.pdf>

AB1122:  This is a proposed law covering ALL animal “sales” whereby no one can offer, sell, display or give away a live animal”  as part of a “commercial transaction” on any “street, public right of way, commercial parking lot, or at any outdoor special sale, parking lot sale, carnival, or boardwalk.”  UNDER this law, live lobster or crab could not be sold on Fisherman’s Wharf or ANY wharf for that matter……. the legislature removed the words “flea market and swap meet” after the CA swap meet association had a cow over the wording.  The bill exempted shelters and non profit rescues, but did not exempt dog trainers or groomers or any other pet related service dogs.

Since many re-homed animals are transferred to the new home by meeting halfway at a park, or parking lot (for privacy concerns of unknown persons coming into one’s home), this is still a problem bill.  

 See above, the NAIA and other groups are pushing to get MORE signs up like this–informing the public!!

We are helping to collect donations so that more signs can be put up in different areas. There are at least 100 (one hundred!! ) signs ALREADY put up in Los angeles California!!!

Endangered Animals: YOUR Pets+Puppies

Join the crusade Against HSUS Anti-Pet Laws+Pass It Forward!—>

Can you tell lies, deception, and misleading propaganda by Animal Rights  extremists like HSUS+Peta,   from the truth?  Most people cannot. The public cannot. Shelters cannot. Many rescuers cannot.

We have ordered shirts and truck/auto decals re HSUS but they are not finished.  We apologize for how slow these people are, but they will eventually finish them and we will give bulk discounts to any groups that can move the products.  The more people see them, the more the public will know. 

http://asabirds.org/home.htm  this is an excellent summary of who is Animal Rights!

http://www.hatchedintheusa.com/   New Anti-Pet Items

HSUS PDF brochure: Proves…HSUS is animal RIGHTS…… (link is below)

http://www.ncraoa.com/PDF/NCRAOA/TruthAboutHSUS.pdf

http://reviews.ebay.com/ANTI-PET-LAWS-WHO-IS-PUSHING-THEM-H-U-Friends_W0QQugidZ10000000001703056    Review over Anti-Pet Laws+Court Cases+Updates, viewed over 6,000 times.  Now in the top 5,000 in the largest online marketplace. [Used to be in top 10,000 and went up thanks to HSUS BS]

http://endangeredowner.blogspot.com   No minced half-truths here, by dog owner and legislative liason in KY.  

 

Common lies:

All dogs in shelters came from a “breeder”  Big lie. Animal extremists KNOW this is pure BS but they figure the public doesn’t know it.

All animals killed in shelters are the fault of “breeders”  Lie.  There is no proof and there cannot be shown any proof, as there are no national shelter standards or intake requirements.  In fact, HSUS only tried to COUNT shelters nationwide in 2006, and they don’t know if they even got all of them. 

All wonderful purebred pets can be obtained in shelters, even for small kids  Lie. Re-homed dogs are 500% more likely to inflict a fatal attack. And there are NOT 20-30% purebreds in shelters. That is a lie made up by animal extremists.

All shelters have great pets.  All commercial kennels have crappy dogs. Huge Lie. No foundation for this lie. About 30% of shelter dogs are recycled back into shelters. Unfortunately, many shelter dogs are exposed to diseases and excessive stress which does not make them easier to sell. There is no evidence that all commercial kennel dogs are either abused or ill. In fact commercial kennel dogs are highly sought after in shelters, despite the AR talk.

All homeless pets are because of “breeders” Another huge lie. LOL This is so far fetched it’s pathetic. The majority of shelter animals are mixed breed,unknown origin, male juveniles which don’t get adopted. such dogs are NOT the result of planned breeding, but usually from unplanned tie of 2 unknown dogs in same neighborhood.

All  non adopted dogs in shelters are because of “breeders”  Another lie. When dogs/cats don’t get adopted–it’s for 2 reasons. Inadequate marketing, and failure to use targeted or free, low cost altering to lower the number of incoming, unwanted animals. Feral cats are usually not adoptable and can make up to 70% of the killed animals.

All commercial kennels are mills. Lie.  Commercial kennels are not all mills, they are legal and not necessarily out of compliance. But HSUS instead USES their DOG RAIDS to claim all kennels abuse dogs. In fact, there are dog raids where no dogs are abused at all, yet the dogs are all seized and killed, or seized and sold by shelters.

Media lies like the above, fuel the public into having emotional contempt for dog breeders. Yet dog breeders are probably the ONLY people trying to keep good dogs out there. No, they are not usually inexpensive. And no, a milled dog doesn’t mean it cannot be a good dog (contrary to the extremists)

More deception:  HSUS Campaign Groups  [Stop "Puppy Mills"]   (Using BS to claim all breeders of any kind are abusive, unethical,responsible for every dog in every shelter)

Factory Farming–   (Working on forcing animal producers to use different animal enclosures)

Fur-free–(Elimination of all hunting and clothing or any other uses of fur)

Humane Society Youth   (Indoctrination of children to vegan lifestyle and against animal use, business, ownership, etc. Children will not realize they are being brainwashed……)

HSUS State Groups    New York, and Tennessee 

HSUS ADMITS:  Agenda of the HSUS  ”More money will mean more pet protection, but also more ballot initiatives to restrict inhumane and unsporting hunting practices, more state legislation, more local ordinances.”

IF….  HSUS wants to save so many dogs, or cats, then why doesn’t HSUS donate $50 million to 100 shelters? 200 shelters?  Because HSUS is NOT about saving individual or shelter dogs, that’s why. HSUS JUST  wants to  stop  people from using, owning or selling animals—by making it so expensive, so difficult, so laden with red tape, bureaucratic nightmares, penal code violations, search/seizure problems, NO DUE PROCESS………

 They want no farming with animals. No zoos. Nothing having to do with people using an animals in any form, any business. Nothing. HSUS as actually the “Political PETA.”

And if we don’t get enough of the public informed, we will have nothing, and you will have nothing. No pets. No ownership. No nothing.

‘My Dog’s Better than Your Dog’: Can We Afford This Now?

Join the Crusade Against HSUS+Pass It Forward!

I can always tell the Elitist owners.  When they spy your dog out of the corner of their eye (assuming they even looked at your dog) they actually get a look on their face which basically amounts to their dog is better than yours.  Or they will actually look at your dog like you have a piece of crap.  I saw a lady once, (she was a Black lady from the Bay Area), going into the dog supply store, carrying her Yorkie dog.

Now I knew it was a York, but as she ventured past our dog rescue table, she actually had that “look” on her face; the look of ” OMG look at those awful rescued animals” and I quickly asked her what kind of dog she had with her.  She replied “Yorkie” and practically ran into the store.

I have to say, I have never in my entire life, seen anyone, much less a minority person, act as high and mighty as that lady did, with her expensive dog, and expensive automobile.  It didn’t matter to us that she thought she was better or richer, or that her dog was the best. What was so sad was the haughty look on her face—-never the sign of a true animal person, but only that this person could not even control her emotions long enough that her true colors emerged.

And that my friends, is the way the public looks at many dog owners, especially those that have expensive purebred dogs, or show expensive purebred dogs in shows. That is one of the reasons that people do not care for the Elitist mentality. But wait—don’t get mad—just because it could be true.  Who you need to be MAD at is groups like HSUS–because the Elitist are not causing the problems — it’s just that HSUS has set up the scene so that people will feel sorry for certain dogs.  And those dogs are not owned by Elitists…..

No, the dogs are not owned by the Elitists. The dogs are usually owned by people that can’t or don’t want to pay the high price for dogs that start at $1,000 and up. So they buy a dog for $250 and ship it for another $200 on their credit card.  Can we blame them for wanting the dog? Of course not.  Can we blame anyone for buying what they can afford? No.  Should we be pointing fingers at others who can’t buy what you offer? No.   And last but not least?  Should we be differentiating NOW–as to why the Elitist product is better—and the less expensive product is not as good? Should we belittle designer dogs that people love?  Ah–that’s the big question.  And that’s where HSUS knows HSUS can snag us.

HSUS knows something about dogs, they know that there is a weak link in the dog business. And that weak link is not inexpensive dogs, but the manner in which the owner can be negligent. Dog breeders can do as they want in the breeding of dogs, until HSUS and the BBC intervene. Then all of a sudden, breeders are not doing things correctly. This isn’t good enough or that is too much of whatever, or that shows lack of this, or that shows abuse, etc etc.

So if we know this, that HSUS is going to pounce on alleged negligence, then why be negligent? Why give HSUS + friends anything to work with? If owners are truly negligent, then they can’t blame anyone else.  But when owners are not grossly negligent, and charges are manufactured; when misleading campaigns are run which ignore the truth and tell the public a false story; when there is no evidence of wrongdoing, but evidence is exaggerated, or manufactured; when snitches are employed and dogs are killed without due process, or seized without any cause, or little cause, creating scenarios which end in owners having to forfeit their property, THAT is definitely cause for concern.  And that is what HSUS engages in. Very extreme, concerning action.

I  say this: If you are an Elitist, just admit it, but don’t disparage other people’s animals just because they are not as well bred, or as good as, or as beautiful as yours. This is not the time, the place, or the season for that, because there are NOW only TWO sides to the war at hand.  Side One:  Dog ownership.   Side Two:  NO dog ownership.  That’s it. 

If you want Side ONE, then you cannot afford the luxury of being critical of other dog breeders, other dogs, or where the dogs come from.  The only valid point that I know which cannot be very harmful (as against HSUS) is that re-homed dogs are 500% more likely to cause a fatality.  Rescuers hate it and many dog owners don’t want to hear it, but the reality is that re-homed dogs cause a very disproportionate amount of damage to people. An example is the re-homed dog of author Jon Katz, who had his own re-homed dog killed after it bit 3 people, and after trying every known remedy.  

I am not saying it’s not the dog’s fault (as I know it’s possible)—but if we listen to HSUS say  “sold” dogs are not socialized enough, then aren’t the seized dogs sold by HSUS-related shelters (meaning HSUS engages these shelters to take the dogs) the VERY same dogs they claim should not be SOLD?    Yes.  And aren’t many dogs in shelters, strays of unknown breeds?  Yes. 

 And aren’t many dogs in shelters the product of two unknown parent dogs with unknown health backgrounds?  Yes.  And doesn’t HSUS et al keep saying people put dogs in shelters but haven’t trained them? Yes.  And isn’t it true that most small breed dogs fly out of shelters quickly, especially when the shelter does not get that many of them?  Yes.  

So we all know that shelter dogs are not necessarily the best trained, most expensive, most socialized, best tempered, health tested, bred for perfection dogs. Many shelter dogs simply had owners who were poor, or not educated, or ran into personal issues and bad times.   BUT that doesn’t make them bad dogs.  It usually means most shelter dogs are not the purposeful product of dog breeders!

 Studies show (even HSUS estimates) that only 2%-3% of all owned dogs come from petstores.  So why is HSUS picking on petstore dogs? Because it’s a weak link HSUS can prey upon. No one forces people to buy the dogs.

Knowing all this to be true or very close to true, then you can see that HSUS et al–in pushing dying shelter dogs as the alleged reason for not buying/selling dogs–  is doing it only to make people, the public, NOT LIKE breeders of ANY type.

And HSUS started with the weak link, large kennels that might not keep up with their management, or people  who lost control of managing their property.  That pretty much is what HSUS is doing, using a weak link, and then getting the public’s ire up, and then lumping all dog breeders into the bag, even though you may not actually qualify to be in there.

 THAT IS WHY YOU SHOULD BE VERY MAD AT HSUS ET AL—not at other people or breeders.  That is all you have to be MAD at–HSUS the corporate conglomerate, the greed king, the conglomerate trying to ruin your dog business, your dog shows, everything. Channel the OUTRAGE feelings into action against HSUS+ friends, because HSUS—- is the ENEMY making the terrible anti-pet laws.

HSUS No Credibility “Anti-Pet Laws”,Louisville Example

Join the Crusade Against the HSUS+Pass It Forward! —>

Some think that we are ranting about HSUS but let’s be realistic?    

 Let’s  look at just ONE bad ordinance that HSUS *helped*  draft…..they started in 2005 and ordinance went up 2006, lawsuit filed in 2007……believe me— HSUS does this type of thing regularly but also attempts to make state laws as well……….normally we don’t spend time to hand type+ copy lawsuit excerpts,  so everyone can see them. (We normally do not give out entire PDF copies from the courts)..

..But I decided to spend the time, just to prove what we are saying, which has been known for years— to get people to understand that ”just telling people the truth”— doesn’t get results. We actually have to get people mad to become involved. 

Most people just figure who cares, someone else will fight the battle! 

Well, WE ARE fighting the battle just about every day,  because in order to overcome the media manipulation of HSUS (multi millions of media $$)  one  cannot just say ‘Hey–that’s not true.’  It takes getting people mad, and mad enough to realize what is happening.  

Mad enough to forward the Crusade Against HSUS+Pass It Forward,  to everyone possible—because HSUS has all the $$$ but we have most of the PEOPLE  who care, and want to stand up for their rights.

HSUS misleads the public/pet owners. This shows clearly that HSUS has no love for pets or pet owners! 

HSUS  *helped*  the Louisville  KY  Metro Animal Services (MAS) devise a 100 page so-called dog ordinance law, and it has been admitted that HSUS Kentucky Director gave MAS+the Council access to HSUS  “studies” and “data” re dangerous dogs. HSUS director made recommendations  to the Council.  We are fairly sure HSUS  did a lot more than just recommend…………as HSUS has Directors in many states, and multiple states have attempted to enact similar laws concurrently.

————————————————————————————————————–

*  [At this juncture it should be recalled, it has been HSUS which has helped do SWAT team raids, help kill off dogs over a weekend while  Courts are not open, where in MANY cases, owners are found not guilty of any criminal charges (but all the dogs were already killed);  HSUS helps raid kennels of smaller breed dogs even when dogs are not abused, yet helps get all dogs seized/sold starting the next week by working with groups like Best Friends Animal Society, and local "law enforcement"; HSUS goes around the country trying to implement "forfeiture" legislation (denied in CA +TN) where it would end up  benefitting HSUS + tending to create police corruption; and HSUS advocatesin most of the states that Obama carried, for altering all pets or 'MSN',  such as in California AB1634, defeated after 1.5 years of  public outrage+opposition, as shown on this blog;  HSUS  advocates for excessive anti-pet  dog/cat breeder restrictions across the United States;  HSUS works with other AR groups  like Best Friends and Last Chance for Animals to help close down legal businesses;  HSUS spends thousands --like over $400,000 --- to manipulate different church groups into buying into their misleading campaigns by calling it compassion;  HSUS helps set up other draconian laws like the one at hand here, which is admitted by the Metro Animal Services in the case below....and this is just the TIP of the iceberg known as HSUS-- the Political-conglomerate animal extremist]  

————————————————————————————————-

con’t……..

Metro Animal Services (MAS)  submitted to the Federal Court,

                    …..that HSUS’ role in the litigation is  “but  an   extension of the role it has undertaken”, and substantially responsible for assisting Council…….. in pursuing a “comprehensive” approach.  HSUS submitted its own brief twice, and was twice denied by the Court;  HSUS’ brief was NOT allowed over objection,  to be admitted.

HSUS is not even a party to the lawsuit but has a habit of filing amicus briefs.  HSUS wanted to submit its own amicus brief to help defend Metro animal Services–since HSUS “helped” draft the law!

Main reason for HSUS brief being denied TWICE? 

 As stated by Plaintiffs, the HSUS brief was “an improper and thinly-disguised attempt to make HSUS a party to the lawsuit without having met the requirements of Rule 24 for intervention as a matter of right“;

in addition, a member of HSUS’ law firm had previously represented the Plaintiff(Louisville Kennel Club) through the legislative process leading up to the enactiment of the ordinance. A clear conflict of interest.

The court obviously agreed and HSUS failed to get its amicus brief admitted, despite having tried TWICE on 2 separate motions, to get it admitted.  HSUS routinely does this because they keep a brief bank of every document they get filed, and try to use them in other areas over time.    [This type of behavior by HSUS is typical!]  and in my opinion, it is unethical as well in this case.

How much money, time, and savings  had to be SPENT —JUST because of HSUS!!!

What is wrong with the Ordinance?  Here are  some examples…and this is not all of them!

1.  It was admitted it would be enforced “selectively”  [legally meaning, arbitrarily]

2.  No animal may be sold or given away without written permission of MAS [this is absurd]

3.  Unaltered dog can’t be taken on vacation or left with pet sitter without notifying MAS  [this is unconstitutional]

4.  All dogs must be RE-VACCINATED for Rabies EACH time they are removed from a boarding kennel!  [absurd and attempts to regulate vet procedures, serves no govt interest]

5.  Attempts to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine and the ‘cruelty’ sections are in conflictwith the scheme of animay cruelty at existing section of law.

6.  Ordinanceprovides that unaltered dogs are more aggressive than altered dogs.  [A longstanding tenet of ARs, that altering solves everything except responsibility and training]

7.  Definition of an “at-risk” dog includes one which would “chase a person, menace a person, display “aggressive” behavior, cause physical injury to any domestic pet (including mice, rat, rabbit), or livestock ; and an “unaltered” dog which is not licensed, is also categorized as “at risk”   [another insane provision that is wacked, as the altered roaming dog is ignored!]

8.  Ordinance defines “attack” as something that causes “a scratch, abrasion, bruising or on a domestic pet or livestock, that causes death or injury.” [No measurable standards given] (Another ridiculous, but attempted try by HSUS to get rid of dogs/cats)

9.  Ordinance defines “cruelty” as, among other things, “failing to provide adequate food/water, failing to detect the need for or witholding vet care, creating or allowing UNHEALTHFUL living conditions, “striking” an animal, “infliction of suffering” through the use of “objects” and FAILING TO PROVIDE “HEALTH RELATED GROOMING.”         [HSUS has already helped conduct raids using these terms and put forth other ordinances with similar  terms, those will also require lawsuits in court] 

10.  Ordinance defines “nuisance” as any act of an animal that IRRITATES OR PERTURBS ANYONE, or any act of an ANIMAL’S OWNER THAT IRRITATES OR PERTURBS ANYONE,  Nuisance can be subject to criminal punishment, including jail.  [So ludicrous we can't even believe they had the nerve to write it down!]

11.  Ordinance defines ‘potentially dangerous dog’ as any which would bite, scratch, or bruise anyone (among other items listed) [another ridiculous provision, purposely drafted like this to take out any dog or cat]

12.  Ordinance “restraint” requires every dog off premises of the owner to altered dogs only for “off leash” areas, with no leash longer than 4 feet. [In other words, show dogs that are intact can't go to off leash areas?]

13.  Ordinance licensing requirements authorizes MAS to designate anyone to determine +inspect dogs re spay/neuter, notwithstanding that such altering certificate has been issued by licensed vet. [this is purposely set up for harassment reasons so quasi legal steps can be taken by private people against dogs/cats] 

14. Ordinance requires owner of unaltered dog to notify director of MAS every time the unaltered dog was placed in a kennel, taken on vacation, or left with a pet sitter and also prohibits certain sales of unaltered dogs in a manner that affects individuals OUTSIDE of affected county. [ More insanity, pluse there is no jurisdiction for this if in another county]

15.  Ordinance requires all unaltered dogs be kept in an enclosure that is approved by the Director of MAS in writing.

16.  Ordinance requires any animal removed from a kennel or cattery must be re-vaccinated against rabies AND re-licensed by MAS EACH time it is removed… [Ridiculous]

17. Ordinance requires written permission from MAS for any person to sell any animal, and for any person to purchase an unaltered “potentially” dangerous dog.

18.  Prohibits owner of 1/2 acre or less of residential property from quartering more than 3 dogs outdoors on his property…

19. Impounded dog or cat shall not be released until microchip placed and unaltered dog MUST be altered BEFORE being released. [Meaning if someone let your show dog out accidentally, you just lost yor show dog!]

20. Any animal which has scratched a person must be quarantined for 10 days. [Good way to get rid of cats, as HSUS does not advocate to save cats, saying they spread vermin and are predators to wildlife]

21.  Anyone who sells or transfers ownership of animals MUST notify MAS w/in 10 days, EVEN if sold or transferred outside the jurisdiction.

22. One section appears to prohibit restraining a dog by tether or chain from 8am-6pm and during any 8hr period for more than 1 hour.  [Recall Tammy Grimes stealing another's tethered dog and being found guilty, but many ARs have now passed anti-tethering laws with HSUS advocating for it?]

23.  Ordinance prohibits mutilation of any animal, dead or alive/prohibits the dissection of animals in the educational setting at all levels.[No definition for term mutilate]

24.  Ordinance provides that all pet shops must clean/disinfect all cages every day and prescribes a SPECIFIC feeding schedule applicable to ALL animals. [Surprisingly HSUS did not attempt to outlaw commercial kennel dogs]

These are just some of the ridiculous provisions. Yet the MAS and council insist that the ordinance is worthy.  And that’s because the HSUS is telling them to keep the ordinance. All of these provisions are purposely devised and drafted in the manner shown, so that owners will be fearful at every turn that they might be accused of something. The rules are either extra broad, covering far too much, or frightfully overly specific, and amounting to either privacy concerns, or outright illegality. 

The question is this:  WHY should pet owners anywhere have to be facing  “laws” like this,   JUST BECAUSE HSUS can afford to keep doing it?

Anyone in their right mind can see this ordinance is an outrage. 

Yet that is what HSUS is doing behind the scenes. Outwardly HSUS keeps saying it wants to save animals. NOT.  HSUS’ only interest is its OWN interest–animal extremist.

 Not until people and dog owners that are outspoken and not afraid to tell everyone they can, gets the word out—can this be stopped! 

 The  *PERCEIVED*  crediblity of  HSUS needs to be destroyed.  Prior to becoming a huge AR conglomerate, HSUS did very little. ONLY after merging or swallowing up other groups, did HSUS take the $$$ and start enacting more legislation, more TV media, more and more marketing to young people and children, and now churches……..

If the ordinance provisions do not get you mad, then you have bought into the HSUS method of misleading the public. 

http://www.asabirds.org/docs/ARvsAW.pdf  is an excellent summary of animal rights vs animal welfare.  HSUS is NOT animal welfare, but they say they are. All one has to do is look at the above lawsuit concerns. That alone is enough to prove the real agenda of HSUS. Actions speak louder than words? 

We can’t argue with anyone who believes this junk that HSUS pushes,  is either worthy or realistic. It’s downright anti-pet, animal extremist agenda cloaked in the whitewash of misleading media propaganda.  And we ain’t buying into it!

Join the Crusade Against HSUS+Pass It Forward!

Join the Crusade Against HSUS+Pass It Forward!—–>

One of the fastest methods of marketing used to quickly gain other participants, which can be exponential in breadth and scope –is by using levels of people.  Just pick out say 10-50 as an initial goal, and all you do is forward this article. That’s right.  This is just to inform people of the truth. Many pet owners or fanciers, business owners or community people have tons of friends and others who would like to KNOW the truth about HSUS et al…. People who want to buy a dog. People who don’t know about HSUS.

Make sure to tell THEM to do the same thing with 10-50 emails. This is VITAL.  Do not spam people. Either send to someone you know, or post it online somewhere (blog, forum, newspaper blog replies, Kijiji forum, wherever..)  This is for education purposes.  HSUS hires telemarketers. We don’t need to hire telemarketers because we already have enough people.

We have way more people than HSUS does. Especially if each person does what is stated above.  If you know anything about math, (exponential power)  you can see that we can get millions of postings and emails.  And when millions of people know, they tell others.  That is how Obama got a lot of people to vote. Email and posting online.

You know how  rumors get started and end up as “urban legends?” 

 Well, we are going to make this one a non-urban legend about HSUS. 

http://www.asabirds.org/docs/ARvsAW.pdf   An excellent summary showing which groups are actually Animal Rights (not animal welfare)  by Avicultural society of America, Inc.

If you doubt the ability to get this done, then you haven’t been online enough.  Word travels so fast online, it can take the place of 100 news broadcasts because so many people see it AT THE SAME TIME.  HSUS is like Peta— but with the Political Push. 

For 2008, HSUS pushed 10 goals…6-7 of the 10 goals involved spay/neuter, dogs/cat laws, or farm animal laws. One  other goal was to increase media exposure and another to involve Venture Capital (to make more $$$)…only ONE goal involved outside issue (seal hunting, Canada)  Much of the laws HSUS pushes is against dog kennel owners of all types, dog owners, and dog breeders, regardless of size or type. HSUS loves to pretend that every dog breeder is a high volume business, yet HSUS pushes for laws against even small hobby breeders.  In other words, HSUS says one thing, but does another.

HSUS in 2008, attempted to pass a forfeiture law in CA so that alleged dog raids could garner additional forfeiture proceeds.  And we all know HSUS loves to help orchestrate kennel raids of all types, small dogs, big dogs, etc…..The state did not pass the legislation; they tried to pass it in Tennessee, and that also did not pass…. and now it seems HSUS  closed its Western Regional office in Sacramento, CA December 2008 and laid off everyone, but one person.

HSUS like PETA, spends $$ to try and both devalue the production of certain food sources, to cause the public to think badly of agriculture/farm raised animals; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, esp. for dogs, end the breeding of  purebred dogs; end zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS employs fulltime attorneys that do nothing but file lawsuits; it is not disputed that HSUS does not believe pets are our property, which is why they advocate for treating animals on same level as people.  Guardianship is NOT ownership.

Not convinced about HSUS  misleading the public?  http://www.v-abs.com/HSUS.htm   and http://www.humanewatch.org  [ Make sure to see   below, which tell about HSUS' involvement in different lawsuits.] What kind of group besides PETA— wants to hire convicted felons? HSUS. Yet, HSUS contributed $$ toward the proposed law against radical extremists targeting scientists and their families in CA.   Why? 

Because HSUS is attempting to make it look like they don’t condone violence, yet HSUS does fundraisers for convicted eco-terrorists, one of which was on 12/13/08.   For example, If one didn’t like a rapist, would one be paying the attorney fees of a rapist?

Recently HSUS made videos against Petland stores and then published pictures/footage. But what was found, is that HSUS put footage/pictures of dogs or animals that were NOT at Petland stores, that were not taken at Petland stores, and where no disclosure was made that these pictures had nothing to do with the Petland stores. Petland then published a huge news release on this and HSUS did not deny that such footage or pictures were included in either the video or website.

  This is EXACTLY the type of behavior that HSUS engages in. HSUS then organized protests for outside of such stores to try and run the stores out of business, just like Best Friends Animal Society who owns the website URLs dontbuypuppies.com, net,org and info.  These are all tactics to force the public into NOT having the ability to buy a dog or cat or whatever pet they choose.

 In 2005  Pacelle announced the formation of a new “Animal Protection Litigation Section” within HSUS, dedicated to “the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court.”

 [Note: What this really means is  HSUS becomes involved in LEGISLATION aimed at stopping the selling of pets, notably dogs; HSUS puts videos on mainstream TV and then tells the public to donate, while saying HSUS is busting dog kennels--but behind the scenes, they are advising cities to implement sterilization of all pets, no buying, no breeding of animals, and forced adoption of shelter animals, not buying from stores; HSUS attempts to help pass laws pushing MSN, forfeiture of dogs, and restrictions of pets including no tethering, etc]

2000………….HSUS uses convicted felon, avowed member of Animal Liberation Front (ALF),  JP Goodwin  (2008)–Goodwin is claimed to be an “expert” in dogfighting by HSUS, however when in court to testify as such, the court found he was NOT an expert. He may have experience being in prison, but he’s not an expert on dogs.

 HSUS is responsible for helping Louisville KY come up with the draconian pet laws now the subject of a federal lawsuit (2008), in which the COURT denied the amicus briefs of HSUS TWICE (in other words, the Court refused to allow it to be filed)  See Petdefense blog and search ‘Lousiville’ in search box to see specific provisions of ordinance that prove HSUS has NO love for dogs or their owners, or any pet for that matter.

 HSUS submitted to the Denver Fed Appellate Court this year (2008) an amicus brief claiming that dog breeds can be identified with 99% accuracy without bothering to explain such “accuracy” is only considered to be for entertainment purposes, not scientifically used as a reliable  test at this stage (for breed)– due to the testing being in infancy stage.  HSUS also submitted an amicus brief on the R.  Stevens case, and Stevens was found not guilty in a precedential case on free speech issues (2008.)

HSUS is going around the country offering $5,000 for info leading to conviction of “dogfighters” and has purposely helped/ engaged in  killing ALL the dogs upon seizure,  even when the court verdicts led to acquittal of the owners.  HSUS has bragged about taking down dog people and made a big deal of it, yet after 3-4 years, the accused are aquitted quickly but their dogs were killed right after the raids.  This is becoming a pattern for the HSUS, which is NOT a legal enforcement team.  Thought HSUS was about “saving” animals?

HSUS solicited donations for the Vick dogs when they did not HAVE custody of such dogs!!  In fact HSUS wrote letters advocating the dogs should be killed. Soliciting donations for dogs one doesn’t have amounts to fabrication. Lying. 

HSUS purposely engages itself  with local humane society groups so that HSUS can be involved in KENNEL RAIDS of small dogs, with the intent being that all such dogs will be seized and taken. HSUS often uses Best Friends, ASPCA, Last Chance for Animals and the like, to help out.  No charges of abuse or gross neglect need be filed, in fact in one case, it was set up to seize the animals by saying there was an “environmental” violation of putting dog urine in the river.  HSUS then broadcasts such RAIDS across the United States, and then helps groups sell the dogs the week following the RAID.

HSUS purposely has “merged” with other large AR groups (Doris Day, etc) so they can take over as the monopoly advocacy of AR issues in all areas (legislate, advocate,lawsuits) and WP admitted, they intend to push hard in several areas, including legislation and gaining donations. 

 Just looking at the huge list of corporations owned by HSUS , (there are 35 countries and millions of acres of land, multi-city offices, full staff of attorneys, huge departments of media strategists, production, and multi million dollar advertising budgets, and an additional CHILDREN’S marketing group to say the least)——-  do you not see the potential for harm?  Do we need to become victims first like in the mortgage business? Do we need to lose our rights before fighting this cancer? 

Note: You can shorten this to whatever amount you think is sufficient, you can add to it, and subtract.  Just make sure when you send it out, you tell the other people to share it with 10-50 others. (You can also make a PDF, but many people are lazy and won’t open it.)

Please forward to others who will do the same!  The truth about PETA has been out for awhile, but HSUS credibilty needs to be hit with the sledgehammer. And it’s now Hammertime!     AB1634 was defeated in CA with massive numbers of opposition.  We need to do the same, only MORE–against HSUS.  Our work lies before us.  Now we just need to do it!  Below is example when everyone does their share……………. 

 Results 1 – 10 of about 50,000 for crusade  hsus. (0.05 seconds) 

Search Results

1. Join the Crusade Against HSUS+Pass it Forward… « Pet Defense  

   Dec 22, 2008 … Note: For the postings to rise on Google, keep using the ‘Join the Crusade against HSUS+Pass it Forward’ as the Header, so that the spiders …
   petdefense.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/join-the-crusade-against-hsuspass-it-forward/ – 54k – Cached – Similar pages

2. And we Thought it was JUST whales,Polar bears,seals?! « Pet Defense  

   Dec 24, 2008 … Join us in the Crusade against HSUS+Pass It Forward—>. Petdefense: Many of us take for granted that we own our pets. …
   petdefense.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/and-we-thought-it-was-just-whalespolar-bearsseals/ – 19 hours ago – Similar pages
   More results from petdefense.wordpress.com »

3. The Endangered Owner: ALERT: Join The Crusade AGAINST The HSUS …  

   Dec 22, 2008 … JOIN THE CRUSADE AGAINST THE HSUS! The following is from the petdefense blog:. Do you know one of the fastest methods of marketing used to …
   endangeredowner.blogspot.com/2008/12/alert-join-crusade-against-hsuspass-it.html – 133k – Cached – Similar pages

Join the Crusade Against HSUS Whitewash/Anti-PET Laws, Pass It Forward –>

Join the Crusade Against HSUS Whitewash+Pass It Forward—->

IMPORTANT:  WE NEED 18 MORE PEOPLE TO HELP RIGHT NOW….

Please join us in the Crusade Against HSUS+pass this post forward and ask 10-50 others to do the same, or post somewhere online (news blog, blogs on pets, websites, NY Times or any big newspaper blogs, but not AR blogs), the more we post, the faster we reach the goal………and we will reach it!   WE  Will NOT be SILENCED. Thanks to many people helping, this blog has increased in rank by over  300,500 making it one of the top 100 growing blogs (twice) on WordPress in December 2008/January 2009.

APBT and all Bully Type Dogs, Boxers, Mastiff Owners, Dobies, Danes, Rotties, Cane Corso, any medium-large dog breeds-AND small dog owners or any dog breeders, kennels, show dog owners, dog/cat owners, trainers, pet sitters, Parents with kids who own dogs of any kind:

Please consider joining the Crusade Against HSUS.  Everyone is faced with the same losses that HSUS presents….

All of you and the public at large may or may not know about HSUS, the Humane Society of the United States….the giant conglomerate multi-state, multi-country corporate entity with tons of sub corporations, and merged corporations….the largest Animal Rights conglomerated group with all the $$$$…..

If you think the “work”    HSUS does is just work for seals or whales or lambs/pigs? 

VERY VERY VERY WRONG.  W–R–O–N–G…….

Maybe you think HSUS works for the government to shut down commercial kennels which HSUS and sidekick non profit Best Friends call “mills?”  Like on OPRAH? Same OPRAH named by PETA as person of the year?  Or maybe you think HSUS “really” likes APBT dogs, but just doesn’t want them bred by anyone?  If so, you are sadly mistaken.

1.  HSUS doesn’t work for the government, not publicly anyway

2.  HSUS isn’t about saving shelter animals or milled dogs–no matter what they claim.

3.  HSUS is a non profit that must do some work with/for animals in order to maintain that 501(c)(3)  status

4.  HSUS  has bragged “From Congress to Courthouse to Statehouse the Victories Mount” [yeah, against owners]

5.  HSUS bragged it passed 86 NEW State laws in 2007 [Since when do state laws cover whales or artic seals or polar bears? They usually don't]

6.  HSUS’ actual agenda is really the same as PETAs, but without the stunts (main difference) and because of that PLUS the BIG $$$$$—-HSUS can use their $$ to buy+push power. Political power.  It took HSUS nearly $9,000,000 to fund the proposition 2 in California re the chicken battery cages.  Yes, they did win, by showing confinement of OTHER animals on TV

7.  HSUS KNOWS the public is fooled by their misleading ads, videos, websites, blogs, U Tube, campaigns+more–because of the purposely “sugar-sweet” covers….children, puppies, poor little calves, poor little piggies, poor little dogs in raids, poor little u-name-it, and then there is the bad owner, bad dogs campaign against all APBT dogs or dogs that resemble APBTs, or even if they don’t resemble them, but HSUS says they are one anyway—

They get KILLED all at once, all 140, 150, whatever number of dogs owned. Wiped out. Disposed of. Conveniently done with engaged authority with local law enforcement or SPCA or other “Humane” societies.  No need for any guilty verdicts, or worry about forfeiture violations. Nope, dead is dead and HSUS is on its merry way to the next raid.

8.  HSUS is a political marketing+media organization.  That is what they do.  Tell STORIES.  Draft  laws AGAINST pet owners, pet breeders, pet sellers, pet would-be owners, former pet owners, owners who have done nothing wrong, innocent people, poor people, old people, people that they know cannot defend themselves, people with less education, people who are in poor areas, people who don’t know their rights.  People who may have tethered dogs, who may have owned 1 dog over the limit, who may have had puppies without a license beforehand, people who have done none of those things.

9.  HSUS is NOT a friend to pet owners, breeders, or pet businesses of any kind; nor to reptile or bird owners, hunters, fisherman/women, pet stores, pet retail sellers, ANYONE selling in the pet trade, regardless of what you are selling.

HSUS would like to stop the Pet Trade in its entirety because            HSUS doesn’t believe animals should be owned, much less used as a food product.  HSUS only wants pet guardians, if at all, with HSUS RESTRICTIONS ON HOW TO TAKE CARE OF ANIMALS.

6 0r 7 of the goals for HSUS (of 10)  in 2008 were either against pet owners or involved spay-neuter, or companion animals, limits on animals, or something adverse to either ownership or involved restrictions/animals.  None of the goals involved helping companion animals in their relationship with owners. Rather, HSUS passed laws  prohibiting horse slaughter,cockfighting,internet hunting,and private ownership of EXOTIC pets.

For example, no $ or laws were made to provide for dog safety education for kids,  or restitution for victims of crimes where animals were used. Instead HSUS gives Louisiana shelters some $$ so they can kill more dogs, not save them. Responsible education leads to saving dogs+cats. HSUS could easily have done that. They didn’t. 

10.  HSUS purposely makes LAWS against  pets, animals and the pet trade in general. You may not know what those laws are, but they are out there.  Nearly all of them usually prohibit something rather than creating change for the better.

 And HSUS is behind them. One of the worst laws is currently in Louisville KY because HSUS  “helped” Metro with that law over the course of a year.  We have quoted provisions from that ordinance on this blog site.  That ordinance is the subject of a Federal court case now.

11.  HSUS wants to pass the PUPS law before Congress. That is why HSUS purposely built up the milled dog thing on OPRAH and did exposes, and hired investigators.  HSUS wants to stop the breeding of dogs that people want, and dogs that people want but can’t afford, and dogs that are bred in general, regardless of what type, kind, or breed. 

After reading the provisions cited above, every single owner, breeder, business person, trainer and any pet related group of any type should realize—you should be very MAD at HSUS if  YOUR RIGHTS  mean anything to you. 

Our economic times are unprecedented–and what better time for HSUS to bulldoze us all down?!

Because HSUS is here to enact more/more laws to make the ownership of pets so expensive and difficult, no one will be able to really afford it.  Too much criminal and civil laws make ownership too hard, too expensive, and EASY for the government to claim people were NOT in compliance. 

People were “abusive”, people didn’t groom correctly, people didn’t feed correctly, people didn’t vaccinate correctly, people didn’t notify government timely, and on and on and on.

Please consider posting the Crusade Against HSUS+Pass It Forward,  to Public Forums, website blogs, blog comments, other owners, families, members of the public, including parents and teachers.  And please send at least 10 times, and ask others to do the same.  Bad news can do a lot of damage, if urban legends show us anything.  This will be the NON Urban Legend.

EVERYONE should be aware:  

 HSUS does NOT represent the rights of animal owners,

 especially companion pets+owners. 

HSUS is animal extremist+  whitewashed fairytale. 

 Help Spread the TRUTH–> 

When Rescuers Go Too Far To Save, or Kill

Much has been said about dog-human fatalities, but much of it is centered on the breeds or breed of dog that people like to pick out as “dangerous.”  A lot of the public think that herding dogs or flock guardian types are all “dangerous.”

What most people do not realize is, many dogs can be made as dangerous as you would like by purposely  not training it, and then expecting the dog to get along perfectly with kids, or allowing children unfettered discretion to do with a dog as they please, and not supervising the children and dog.  When you place a re-homed dog into situations such as this, you are creating a recipe for disaster.

It seems that because some rescuers are aware of this, there are rescuers at each end of the spectrum. Those that want any dogs with perceived aggression put down, and those that think marginal dogs can all be “fixed.”

A recent case came to light involving a Golden Retriever Rescue Group in California.  The rescue had sent dogs to a certain dog trainer, who seemed to have done a good job rehabilitating dogs.  A volunteer of the rescue apparently found out that the trainer was “adopting” out a dog that the volunteer felt should not be adopted out, despite having been trained by the trainer.  In any event, the volunteer ended up pretending she was someone else, and managed to get the dog which was being adopted out, by subterfuge.

She then took the dog and had it killed.

Her reason was because she claimed to be protecting the rescue group “from liability” but of course, as a volunteer of the rescue, her liability would have been very limited, if any.  Needless to say, the trainer was mortified when he found out but it was too late.

According to the news report,  the volunteer was not authorized to intervene, and whether the trainer actually held title to the dog was unclear to me.   But the issue here is, there is a remarkable difference of opinion as to whether a dog is or is not dangerous.

My experience with rescued dogs (and it’s substantial)– shows that many rescuers take questionable dogs.  That is, they purposely take marginal dogs, dogs that have bitten, dogs that show outright aggression, dogs that have been in 4-5 homes and each family kicks it out for temperament issues, this type of thing.

And each rescuer that will take questionable dogs, those with questionable temperaments, believes he/she can “fix” the dog, despite not being a professional trainer or rehabilitative specialist.  “Oh, that dog is just a fear biter and I can stop that” or “Oh that dog didn’t mean to do that”, or “Oh that dog is nice, just give him a chance” etc etc.

I am not a professional trainer nor rehabilitative specialist.  But I usually can tell if a dog is questionable enough such that it would present a liability issue.  Bad health issues create excessive cost and potential temperament issues.  Being kicked out of multiple homes in a short time is a very red flag.  Having bitten on consecutive times in different homes is a huge issue.  Excessive fear or shyness is never good, growling at people (for no apparent reason)  is just plain NO.

And what about Craig’s List? Well, number One, it’s filled with animal extremists posting animals, so right off, you’re looking at a higher risk since many of them take in marginal dogs.  And Number Two, many extremists hate people, and don’t really care if an animal hurts someone.  That’s pretty obvious because they choose to take that risk when they take them in, to find the animal a home. But in the back of their mind, they want to get back at “people” for “making” the dog the way it is.  And they could be right in some cases, some dogs were made bad by people.

When I see incidents like this, where a volunteer feels she has to lie to have a dog get killed by using subterfuge, I know this is going too far.  But the rescue did not seem to care about the incident; and one of the board members then quit the rescue, because this made the rescue seem unprofessional, and that such antics made them look like a “nutcase.”  I am afraid I have to agree with that.

The volunteer was way off base, and if she felt the dog was that much of a liability, all she had to do was instruct whoever was in charge of the rescue. That’s it.  Even if the dog was that much of a hazard, the trainer and rescue would bear the blame, not the volunteer.  Now the volunteer has caused herself to look like the wing nut, the rescue looks bad because they knew nothing about it, and the trainer is beside himself.  Would you want to adopt from that rescue?  A rescue that allowed the volunteer’s actions to go unchecked even after the fact?

I am not judging the trainer or whether he did or didn’t out train the dog’s bad habits.  That’s not even a known fact. I would say that because the previous behavorist/trainer said the dog should wear a muzzle in public, it’s questionable.   But the methods used by the volunteer, and the failure of the rescue to remove the volunteer from the group speaks very loudly.  It’s almost like admitting they thought the dog was  definitely potentially dangerous,  but they let the dog go to a trainer anyway.  And that speaks as to the discretion of the rescue group itself.  Not good.  http://tinyurl.com/7rcbg7

Animal Rights Agenda Explained

Join the Crusade Against HSUS+Pass It Forward—->

 

Below is the link to understanding how laws are passed by animal extremists to make animal use, breeding and ownership (yes, ownership) more difficult, and more EXPENSIVE………….

The money to support the animal rights agenda comes from millions of Americans who love animals and who, without understanding how their money will actually be used, mail checks to HSUS, PeTA, and other lesser known AR organizations.

This is America: It is our right to believe whatever we want and to try to convince others of what we believe. However the AR movement goes beyond that. The biggest thing they do is pass laws that make animal use, breeding, and ownership steadily harder and more costly. This happens in several steps.

How Animal Rightists Pass Laws

http://www.pet-law.com/future/whatis.html

—————————————————————————————-

The above link is from pet-law, not Petdefense, but it is accurate and true.

Petdefense:  Huge conglomerates that spend millions and millions in campaigns to pass ONE law use that money bascially from different sources, but MUCH of it pours in from $25 donations from pet owners who don’t know better.

Many young people (let’s say 18-20yr old) actually believe that the HSUS is helping save animals, or that HSUS is actually saving homeless cats and dogs.  Unfortunately, because HSUS shows commercials and websites and videos of cute dogs/cats, many people believe HSUS is saving such animals.  DON’T FALL INTO THIS TRAP FOR THE UNWARY!

Obama Appointed Prof is an Animal Rights Extremist?

Join the Crusade Against HSUS+Pass It Forward—>

 

Story re Obama picking Animal Rights Professor

“[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture,” Sunstein wrote in a 2002 working paper while at the University of Chicago Law school.

“Extensive regulation of the use of animals.” That’s PETA-speak for using government to get everything PETA and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) can’t get through gentle pressure or not-so-gentle coercion. Not exactly the kind of thing American ranchers, restaurateurs, hunters, and biomedical researchers (to say nothing of ordinary consumers) would like to hear from their next “regulatory czar.”

Consumer Freedom says:

He concluded his Harvard speech by expressing his “more ambitious animating concern” that the current treatment of livestock and other animals should be considered “a form of unconscionable barbarity not the same as, but in many ways morally akin to, slavery and mass extermination of human beings.” Sound familiar? 

[If it doesn't sound familar, it should, because it follows the well known abolitionist theory of radical animal rights Gary Francione]And not something that pet owners, animal owners, puppy owners, cat and kitten owners, bird owners, or any type of animal owned at all, would want to hear, including reptile owners.  Because HSUS is not limited to claiming they save animals, they want to make sure that HSUS can SAVE animals FROM HUMANS.

Post by consumer Freedom on HSUS $$ Political Machine

Vermont Supreme Ct: ‘Animals=People’ Case LOSES!!

Join the Crusade Against HSUS+Peta,Best Friends+Last Chance For Animals+Pass It Forward!—->

Plaintiffs, Robert and Susan Goodby, were having their two cats treated for hypertension in 2002. The cats were given the  medication and died, allegedly because it had a higher concentration than labeled. According to the AVMA:

“Claims for noneconomic damages over the wrongful death or injury of a pet are rare but on the rise. These suits are almost always dismissed, however, because animals are considered property for the purpose of determining compensatory value.

“Tort laws allow owners to recover an animal’s market value, associated medical expenses, and, at times, other economic damages, such as breeding status, pedigree, and special training. The exceptions are Tennessee and Illinois, where the state legislatures have allowed non-economic rewards in companion animal cases in very limited circumstances, excluding veterinary negligence cases.”  [TN and IL are a few of the states where HSUS  IS pushing the worst laws!] 

Update:  The Vermont State Supreme Court has ruled that they have affirmed the lower court’s ruling, REJECTING the Plaintiff’s (cat owners) contention that NON -economic damages should be awarded—-(such as pain and suffering, emotional distress)…… the court stated it would not expand the law to provide recovery options for pets that are not available in many human-human relationships. To rule otherwise, the court stated, would be “a dramatic alteration to the law.”  http://sev.prnewswire.com/government/20090508/DC1414008052009-1.html

“Plaintiffs” [the cat owners] “ fail to demonstrate a compelling reason why, as a matter of public policy, the law should offer broader compensation for the loss of a pet than would be available for the loss of a friend, relative, work animal, heirloom or memento — all of which can be prized beyond measure, but for which this state’s law does not recognize recovery for sentimental loss.”

According to the Goodbys’ attorney, Steven Wise, the time has come for courts to allow noneconomic rewards when a pet dies or is injured as a result of negligence. “I’ve been waiting for a case like this for a long time,” said Wise, who teaches animal rights law at Vermont Law School.

“The only reason we’re filing this suit is to get noneconomic damages. We’re not interested in winning a hundred dollars just because that’s what the cats are worth,” he said.

[Wise is the animal rights extremist professor- attorney presenting Plaintiff's claim in the Court]

“In a brief urging denial of the Goodbys’ appeal, the Animal Health Institute and American Kennel Club noted how the courts won’t allow a person to collect emotional loss damages for wrongful injuries to friends, siblings, and other important relatives. “We have asked the Vermont Supreme Court to stick with traditional law,” said Dr. Kent McClure, AHI general counsel.”

The Humane Society of the United States is one of the organizations fighting for new laws that reflect ’society’s current attitude’ towards animals.

“We favor a general provision to recognize that there is an emotional dimension to this issue, and there should be compensation for people whose pets are the victims of cruelty,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society.    ”History shows that cruelty issues are settled on the state level. State lawmakers will be considering public opinion as they introduce new legislation to reflect society’s antipathy towards acts of animal cruelty,” Pacelle said.  and WP said this in 2006,       http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,235240,00.html

“Case precedent is a significant step in paving the way for legislation,” said Dana Campbell, senior attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund. “These cases can help show that loss of companionship should be a cause of action.”

Victor Schwartz, a partner at the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Shook, Hardy & Bacon and co-author of the Pepperdine law review article, “Non-Economic Damages in Pet Litigation: The Serious Need to Preserve a Rational Rule,” is an animal lover.

But Schwartz says courts siding on the side of emotion are risking heading down a slippery slope, since veterinarians, pet boarders, and animal medicine manufacturers will be plagued with lawsuits and liability insurance will skyrocket.

“If everyone is able to sue for unspecified amounts based on emotional damages, the cost of veterinary medicine will become unaffordable for most people,” he said. Schwartz added that means for seeking damages in cases of animal cruelty already exist in the courts.

In most states, including Vermont, civil lawsuits allow people to sue for punitive damages in cases of “conscious reckless wrongdoing.” That means if someone’s animal is intentionally hurt or killed, pet owners already have the option to sue for damages and deter such behavior. So, Schwartz said, the need to award damages based on emotional loss is unnecessary and would only hurt pet owners in the long run.

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may08/080515h.asp  (AVMA article)

So what is the DANGER of this case?

If the Vermont Supreme Court should find that NON economic damages could be awarded, we are looking at animals being considered on the same level as children.  In fact that could place animals higher than perhaps siblings, relatives, best friends, etc.  Is this where the court should venture?  According to animal rights extremists, YES is the answer.  BEWARE!!!!

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 at 2:00 PM (30 min. hearing)   VT Supreme Court http://www.vermontjudiciary.org/audioindex/Sep08.htm

(click above link, scroll to #17 , click on the underlined case 2008-030,  to hear  attorney argument)

    2008-030     SUSAN GOODBY* and ROBERT GOODBY*                             VETPHARM, INC. d/b/a BCP          
                                            VETERINARY PHARMACY, VALERIE      
                                            YANKAUSKAS, DVM, PAULA                                                                                                            YANKAUSKAS,
                                                                                 DVM, CYNTHIA PRATT,     DVM, AL.   
     

  Dein, Pamela, Esq.                                                                   Hoar, Samuel, Esq. (Vets)
       Illuzzi, Vincent, Esq.                                                      Marks, Michael, Esq.
       Burns, James E., Esq.                                                  Miller, Elizabeth, Esq.
       Roth, Nicole A., Esq.                                                     Simon, Thomas, Esq.
                                                                                               Goldberg, Philip S., Esq.
   Wise, Steven M., Esq.
     Schwartz, Vincent E., Esq.

Defendants arguments say the questions are “policy” questions for the legislature, not the courts.

One judge mentioned that there was no evidence in the record because the prior claims were dismissed with prejudice, no affidavits on Plaintiffs former other claims were included. Only the issue of whether the non economic damages could be allowed went forward.  Defendants counsel and at least one Justice,  seemed to indicate that procedural issues would cause the issue to not prevail.  My guess is that the Plaintiff did not prove the case, but the final decision has not come out yet from what I could find.

BAD,BAD NEWS HSUS ON WARP SPEED ANTI-PET State LAWS

Join the Crusade Against HSUS+Pass It Forward!

 ALL PET OWNERS+FRIENDS !!  Pass It Forward!

 What’s wrong with this picture?

 HSUS is trying to eliminate puppies,and sale of pups, with no breeding laws+MSN.  In fact in CA, HSUS helped a bill which would have forced people to GIVE pups away for free. That bill failed after 1.5yrs of trying.        

                

        hsus-2009-asda   This is the  PDF of ALL info re HSUS Proposed**NEW  Anti-Pet and Anti-Owner LAWS  NATIONWIDE—and this is only JANUARY!!! 

 This is what happens when you have the LARGEST Animal Rights LOBBYING group, (with the largest number of animal rights attorneys) in the UNITED STATES trying to:

1)   purposely erode/destroy the pet commerce economy +  increasing unnecessary rules, regulations+$ expense $ to citizens and city government budgets+ wreaking havoc on already strained budgets which cannot keep up with current shortfalls. Financial disasters waiting to happen, all engineered by HSUS monopoly corporations. 

2)  work hardships/economic harm on pet owners+pet businesses, and those in the pet/animal industry that make their livelihoods on the existence of pets, animals, pet-related commerce; retail jobs involving pets, vet techs, pet handlers and trainers, pet advertising,  pet sitters, groomers, pet boarding kennels, etc.

3)  further destroy the WORK that shelters overall have done in the past 2 decades.  Reductions in shelter killings (50%-70%)  will all be LOST due to $EXPENSIVE$  laws that don’t work, but end up bankrupting a city’s animal control budget, without producing the intended EFFECT. [See info. re Los Angeles debacle going on currently after the asinine MSN was pushed into effect for LA city and LAcounty. All of the $$ is nearly gone, killings are up 30%,  and they may have to privatize the entire control of shelter animals.] 

HSUS has even put the SNITCH A BREEDER OFF into a proposed law, so the snitch COLLECTS A REWARD $$$ out of the money that is levied on the accused !!

PET breeding is NOT the culprit.  HSUS is purposely IGNORING the source of most shelter dogs, which come from the least economically viable areas with the highest shelter kill rates.  Rather than TARGETING such areas, INSTEAD HSUS and Peta want to focus on the “breeders”–yet very clearly shelters do NOT contain 85% of purebred dogs, small designer 5lb dogs, highly sought after toy purebreds, or any other highly sought after, highly desired, or commonly purchased dogs.

The bottom line is that ALL animal rights people LIKE TO LIE and will ignore the true facts.

 As I have attempted to stress, month after month, HSUS is NO FRIEND to pet owners, pet businesses, or any type of pet breeder, pet related business, kennel owner, kennel boarding, pet groomers, veterinarians, pet stores, pet retail sellers, or animal owners, or even pet rescues! 

More proof, this was forwarded to me and it was sent to them from an AR.  I finally located it as the words of allegedly John Kullberg who spoke at an AR conference.

“Those who argue that smoking is a personal right, for example, fail to consider the health costs society bears from smoking-related diseases and rural as well as urban and suburban smoking-related fires. Social tolerance of abuse encourages seeing animals as things and not sentient beings. …

In this country wives, children and slaves once shared the opprobrium of legally being considered property. This is still the case in some other countries. Humans abusing humans who were women, children and slaves and whose nationalities were looked down upon, including those whose origins were Irish, Chinese and Scandinavian, legally ended when the law recognized their personhoods and rejected their status as humanely inferior property. “

“Animal rights lawyers are now seeking similar personhood recognition for non-human animals, or at least some non-human animals, since this would establish a much needed legal precedent that recognizes protection from abuse for non-human animals as an inalienable right.”

I don’t know how much clearer this has to be stated. Saying that “…since this would establish a much needed legal precedent….for non-human animals as an inalienable right” pretty much takes the CAKE.   I am now informed (4 days later)  that HSUS has the complete speech online.  Well if you really want to, I am sure you can look at HSUS’ site to find it buried in there, probably wayyyyyyy in the BACK.  

These are the so-called animal habitats (below)  claimed by HSUS (supposedly almost 2 million acres) including seven foreign countries, HOWEVER if you do the research, these “programs” below  are the property of  The Fund for Animals, and somewhere along the conglomeration timeline, HSUS says HSUS has them in HSUS’  “portfolio”……… what that means to me is that HSUS didn’t establish them, and in the trade or conglomerating facade, HSUS claims them.  Gee, wouldn’t we like to see the terms of THAT conglomeration?????  Cleveland Amory (TX), Fund/animals (So cal) Cape Wildlife (MA) Rabbits (SC)

Absurd Animal Rights-HSUS, “Felonies”

 Join the crusade Against HSUS+Pass It Forward!—->

I don’t know why I should be surprised.  The animal rights faction pushed or “helped”  by HSUS is now saying back East (I think it’s ILLinois)–that ear cropping on a dog is prima facie evidence of animal abuse, a FELONY?  In other words you can’t defend against the charge because evidence of having   cropped ears equals guilt?

And then we have the accusation that horses taking tourists around Central Park amounts to animal abuse?

Why does there appear to be a definite and heightened pattern to these things?  Why would a horse pulling a wagon be abuse?  Why would cropped ears on a dog be abuse? We don’t stop people from getting tatoos, having their bikini waxes, or electrolysis hair removal, plastic surgery, reconstructive surgery, any type of cosmetic surgery, dental veneers, liposuction, or many other procedures like hair implants, and other procedures that are not only somewhat risky, but are not related to health?

Yet animal rights extremists “believe” that tail docking is abuse?  Ear cropping is abuse?   But it’s NOT abuse when they wack off the testicles?  And it’s not abuse to do invasive surgery to remove a uterus?  Plenty of studies show that altering pets leads to a shorter life span, more aggression for females, and little or no change necessarily in aggression for males.  Those are all material effects upon the pet.

It’s gotten to the point that animal rights extremists are not even in the ballpark anymore.  There are many procedures that can be done to animals but not every single one is a CRIME, and not every one should be DECIDED by the NON-OWNER.   

Animal rights extremists (like HSUS) want to DICTATE TO EVERY PET OWNER: [For examples, see Lousiville KY post here on Petdefense, or investigate the Volusia County Ordinance, FL ordinance. I do not have the Volusia county ord. posted on here though]

How to feed, when to feed, what to feed, how to exercise, when to exercise, what temperature is allowed, what type shelter is allowed, what crates are not allowed, what tethering is and isn’t allowed, what size leash is allowed, what type of restraint (if any) is or isn’t allowed, what type of fencing is allowed, what type of confinement if kept outdoors is allowed, what type of flooring is allowed, what type of bedding is allowed, what type of vet can be used, what type of documents must be filed when one goes on vacation, what vaccinations are required when removing a pet from a kennel, what documents/permissions are needed to go on vacation without your dog (which is not altered), what pet sitter is or is not allowed, what dog trainer is or isn’t allowed, what shock or non shock collar is or isn’t allowed, what choke chain can be used, what treadmill can’t be used as exercise, what outside surfaces can’t be used for exercise yard, what size rocks can and cannot be used for kennels, what size doors/gates are ok and not prohibited, how high the fencing must be for a kennel, THE LIST IS ENDLESS.   And who are the idiots that keep making these ridiculous lists?  It’s called:  HSUS, where no regulation, no rule, no law is too much for them. 

SERIOUSLY FOLKS………. I think the time has come to say enough is enough.  Animal rights extremists have proven that they are not only completely off base and completely irrational, their methods are so fraught with insanity and overreaching that they amount to pure dictatorship, far  exceeding any rational relationship that any government might even think of…..AND  HSUS IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT!!   http://humanewatch.org  <—-Click if you haven’t read the 7 Things you Didn’t know About HSUS.

How HSUS uses alleged “mills” to Ruin Dogs/Pet commerce

 Join the Crusade Against HSUS+its Anti-Pet Laws,Pass it Forward!–>

HSUS focused on kennels back East where owners were being targeted.  Calling a lot of attention to this, HSUS tried to make it appear as if every dog sold in America came from exactly the same background, which of course, is completely not true.

Unknown to most of the PUBLIC, HSUS +ASPCA were working, using all of their DONATED money from the public–to get laws passed so that dog kennels and sporting dog kennels would be non -existent.

Praying that more people get on the stick and help us against the evil HSUS agenda!

<———————

 

Remember—Pass It Forward–HSUS pushes Anti-Pet Laws!  Send a PDF copy of the brochure (which is located on http://www.ncraoa.com/download.html )

 With “help” likely from HSUS–45 (forty five) pages of BAD  regulations were drafted applying to  dog kennels.   The laws applied to ALL licensed kennels.

The regulations were overly restrictive, overly specific, burdensome, and of course, cost-prohibitive on purpose.

For example, the rules dictated HOW ALL kennels MUST be constructed, and HOW MANY air exchanges MUST occur in each kennel for each hour.  Each kennel must meet specific temperature requirements for the air and the flooring of the kennel, the light diffusion must meet certain requirements, specifically. [Normally on construction projects the HVAC guys can estimate/test for air cycling exchanges. But sometimes you need a specialized engineer, depending on the project]

If rust was found on a kennel fence, that would constitute a violation of the law.  The regulations required WRITTEN exercise PLANS for EVERY dog in each kennel.  A veterinary EXEMPTION was required for a dog which missed even one day of the REQUIRED twenty minutes of daily exercise; hunting and field trials did not count toward the requirement.  There were many, mnay more regulations, including allowance of search/seizure without due process.

Masters of Foxhounds Assn, USSA and others, including AKC, Farm Bureau, sporting dog groups, dog clubs, rescue  kennel officials, animal shelter operators, and university research kennels and pet owners were outraged. http://www.mfha.com/legislat-puppymill.htm

What the public didn’t realize, was that this WASN’T about a few substandard kennels.  But the way HSUS set it up, was to make people think it IS about certain kennels.  The facts are that HSUS does not want any dogs in any kennels, no matter how good, no matter how expensive.

The USA is not in a good economic position. Nearly every industry is down.  GMC, Ford, even Toyota, the housing market, construction, retail, banks, just about everything. People are fearful of losing jobs.  Unemployment is high.  Probably the only worst time was the Depression—so in terms of the economy—not only is ruining the pet trade commerce a bad idea,  it’s also a bad time to be allocating more money toward EXPENSIVE+UNNECESSARY+OVERREACHING LAWS that require excessive time, money and man hours IN ORDER TO  O-V-E-R   R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E!

The goals of HSUS et al is NOT saving pets. Instead, the goal is to ELIMINATE people from buying, selling and owning them.  That is why it took 45 pages of regulations.  They tried to cover everything.  Fortunately, with united help, all objectionable provisions but 2 were either modified or removed.  The question is: WHY must people suffer because of the HSUS?

PA Fed Lawsuit Filed v law pushed by HSUS+ASPCA

Join the Crusade Against HSUS+Anti-Pet Laws+Pass It Forward!—>

YIPPEEEE!!  I am so thankful that the commercial kennel industry is fighting back in Federal Court PA against the HSUS-ASPCA “helped-along anti-pet law!”   This is extremely important because a big win here will enable us to use the bad LAW HSUS “helped” draft– against further episodes of the same.   

Sorry, unable to load the complaint file. You can try this and then you will have to follow directions. http://tinyurl.com/baezup
   I already have the file but after spending 2 hrs trying to download it I am giving up. It’s not possible with this dialup I am forced to currently use. Sorry.

I read the 52 pg. complaint and feel fairly sure that the main provisions can be proven. HSUS will likely make modifications in their future proposed laws (such as Colorado, Maryland, Tennessee, there are 19-20 states, including California–with 3 new proposed laws)

 We know that HSUS knows that ordinances/laws HSUS pushes are NOT all legal–but if they are not challenged—they will remain.

A reading of the complaint in PA Middle District Federal Court shows that the Commerce clause is being argued, and that is correct. The dormant commerce clause was used in San Francisco against Los Angeles when LA issued MSN (the county, not the current lawsuit for the LA city) but San Francisco was NOT the chosen venue for the case. It only went to San Francisco because the city of San Francisco MOVED it there. 

–and altho that dumb Judge Chesney of San Francisco, animal rights haven USA,  said the “overpopulation” made the MSN “rational”, she was wrong since MSN is NOT rational—because it bankrupts counties, doesn’t work, and cannot be enforced. I hope that idiot Judge Chesney figures out her little decision re Los Angeles has had disastarous consequences—killings are up by almost 30% thanks to * MSN*  and non targeted altering.

If you’re mad at MSN in Los Angeles, you can blame San Francisco judge Chesney. She is an animal rights sympathizer. Like most of San Francisco.

Blaming dog breeders is not the proper answer. Anyone who knows shelters and what is going on should be able to figure that one out.   I should ALSO add that the city attorney for San Francisco believed that the commerce clause was applicable to the case. ( I know because he told me.)

“It is a generally held principle of law that the warrantless search of a home or business is presumptively unreasonable, and the test for reasonableness of probable cause is the need to search against the invasion the search entails. “

“Warrants are necessary and a tolerable limitation on the right to enter upon and inspect commercial premises. Act 119 allows the Department and its agents to enter into not only the business premises but the homes of kennel owners without a constitutionally sufficient search warrant.

 According to the filing, the Director of Dog Law Enforcement, Jessie Smith, has stated at meetings that if a kennel owner has any pet dogs in their home, then the home is subject to search under the new dog law. The filing alleges that such laws violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

“According to the complaint, the Department’s effort to regulate interstate commerce constitutes economic protectionism, which is a regulatory measure designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors, as well as discriminating against out of state dealers by charging them a higher fee for a kennel license than those charged to instate dealers. State laws that have the “practical effect” of regulating business outside of the state constitute per se violations of the Commerce Clause.”

The government needs to know how HSUS runs roughshod over the pet trade, just because it thinks it can.  The problem is, when you have a hidden agenda to take out pet commerce, it’s very very obvious, as I have said and keep saying over and over.

You cannot take out pet commerce across the United States by claiming you are saving shelter dogs, you cannot MSN every animal alive by using shelter dogs as a ruse, you cannot shut down petstores by claiming you don’t want kennel dogs sold, you cannot stop the public from buying and selling dogs because HSUS “thinks” it is “ABUSE.” And yet HSUS has done it in Louisville, KY, Dallas TX, New Mexico, and I am sure they are working on Illinois and 15 other states.

What HSUS is doing by going to 20 states simultaneously is attempting to bankrupt both the shelters and rescues and hobby breeders and kennels all at one time, by hoping they can’t or won’t fight back because they don’t have the legal power or the brains to figure out what is going on.  

HSUS claims they have tons of pro bono attorneys but if they spend all their time tied up in court (they usually have 40 cases)–can HSUS afford to take 10 more cases, plus their 40 cases, but still raise $$$ and still move quickly when the public FIGURES out—HSUS misleads…………..the public….???  

http://www.usagnet.com/state_headlines/state_story.php?tble=PA2009&ID=109

WHAT “GROUP” HELPS KILL over 140 Pups+Dogs? HSUS

Join the Crusade Against HSUS+Anti-Pet Laws!–>Pass Forward!

What group uses 4 letters for their name? HSUS

What group just helped get over 50 100 140

 more than 140 dogs+pups killed all at once?

HSUS

HSUS

HSUS

——————————

And….How many thousands killed overall?

HSUS is Animal Rights, just like PeTa- 

especially if it looks like a terrier.

http://tinyurl.com/bo2y33  (this is from a blog which has the words animal rights in the title)

Excerpt below, by someone with some sense:

“What’s “special” about this case, however, is that the HSUS “rescued” these animals from a dogfighting operation, used this “victory” to solicit donations, and then turned around and actively campaigned to have the dogs they “saved,” killed. Despite the HSUS’s resources and the willingness of *other* animal rescue groups to step in and help.”"To add insult to injury, supposedly the reason these dogs were killed is because they were former fighting dogs, and thus too vicious to adopt out.

But what of the puppies who weren’t born until *after* the rescue? They’d never been exposed to dogfighting (and related “training methods”) at all in their short lives. Yet, they were killed anyway.”"It’s outrageous. The HSUS ought to be ashamed. In the case of the puppies, they can’t even claim to have had their “welfare” in mind (i.e., the HSUS is a welfare, not rights, group).”         

Posted by Kelly G. on 02/19/2009 @ 07:12AM PST

Petdefense:

Of course it’s outrageous. But even more so for all the HSUS raids in the years past, where no one bothered to even give a second thought about any behavior testing, and the owners were not found guilty OF THE  alleged “crimes” HSUS tried so hard to bring?! 

What the above poster said, is all correct, except for the one part about HSUS is a “welfare group”—HSUS only CLAIMS to be a welfare group.  HSUS is an animal rights group that PRETENDS to be animal “welfare.”   

No animal welfare group would knowingly kill pups just born, at least I do not think they would.  Except PETA and HSUS. And both groups are animal rights, one is just the DIVERSion for the other. HSUS is the lobbying arm, Peta is the distractor.

Below is a free HSUS brochure, you can send to everyone which tells the truth about HSUS hidden agenda…………..

http://www.ncraoa.com/PDF/NCRAOA/TruthAboutHSUS.pdf

 

 

 

HSUS $$$ HELPS PUSH MORE ANTI-PET Laws,Even v RESCUES

 Join the Crusade Against HSUS+ANTI-PET LAWS..+Pass It Forward!—->

Animal welfarists…do you think HSUS wants to “help”  animals or animal rescues??????  Look closely at the law in OK proposed below….NOTICE that “rescues” are not exempted……….this is typical of most laws pushed by HSUS.

 This can all be seen here, on the legislative page, and is analyzed by attorneys which go over all of the proposed wording…..  http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3737

The AKC is disappointed that although the bill’s sponsor agreed to address concerns about this measure voiced by the AKC and its federation prior to bringing the measure to the floor, these discussions have not yet taken place.
Provisions of HB 1332 would:

• Duplicate existing federal laws and also require that anyone who is a breeder, person, firm, corporation or other association that qualifies and is certified as a breeder, dealer, animal rescue, out-of-state dealer/breeder, shelter, or retail pet store that sells, gives away, or transfers a cumulative total of 25 or more animals of any age in any one (1) calendar be subject to licensure and inspections that mirror USDA standards. This includes all animal rescue organizations that utilize foster homes if they transfer more than 25 animals per calendar year, but excludes all shelters.

Provide for warrantless search and seizure by poorly-defined enforcement personnel. The measure states, “Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry personnel and agents shall have the right to enter the premises of an individual or facility and conduct inspections.” The bill language does not define an “individual”. This appears to leave the door open for those that do not qualify to be subjected to unwarranted searches and seizures. The legislation should state specifically that inspections/searches pertain to only those that are applicants and/or licensees……. HB 1332 as amended cannot solve the issues of producing healthy pets for consumers and eliminating substandard breeding practices.

2/6/09…. the Colorado House Agriculture Committee voted to table indefinitely House Bill 1172, which sought to strictly regulate dog breeders. HB 1172 would have: limited the number of dogs a person could own to 25, provided the Commissioner of Agriculture with extraordinary rulemaking powers, and have infringed upon privacy rights by allowing inspections of breeder’s facilities at any time.

Below is a free HSUS brochure, you can send to everyone which tells the truth about HSUS hidden agenda…………..

http://www.ncraoa.com/PDF/NCRAOA/TruthAboutHSUS.pdf

HOW YOUR DONATIONS ARE SPENT BY ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUPS LIKE HSUS AND FRIENDS……………….

Below is just an “example” of how many proposed laws keep popping up across the USA–often sponsored or started by HSUS and friends.  As we can see, there is NO LACK of such proposed laws.  This does not stop. It just keeps going and going and going.  This is what HSUS does with donations, in addition to their political lobbying, political media marketing, obtaining key poltical positions to get their AR agenda in place, expensive TV media advertisements, websites, Celebrity endorsements……by using pics/videos of “poor” little doggies and piglets…………..  

UPDATE: Illinois Breeders Bill and Crop/Dock Bill to be Redrafted

UPDATE: Indiana Breeders’ Restrictions Bill Heading to a Floor Vote

URGENT: Oklahoma Measure Would Restrict Movement of Breeders and Allow for Unreasonable Search and Seizure

UPDATED: Hearing Set for IL Breeder Licensing Bill

UPDATED: Hearing Set for IL Crop/Dock Bill

UPDATED: BSL to be Removed from NM House Bill 667

Rottweilers and Pit Bulls Targeted in New Mexico BSL

URGENT: Responsible Indiana Dog Owners/Breeders Needed to Help Stop Breeders Bill on February 11

Maryland Alert- Breeders Bill to Be Considered Thursday, February 12

New Hampshire Bill Restricting Sale of Litters to Be Heard February 11

Maryland Alert: Strict Breeders Bill to be Heard February 18

Breed-Specific Bill Introduced in Hawaii

Nebraska Alert: Strict Breeders Bill to be Heard Tues., Feb. 3!

Mandatory Spay Neuter Bill Defeated in Virginia

Minnesota Alert: Breeders Bills Up for Consideration on Jan. 27

UPDATE: Montana BSL Legislation Soundly Defeated

Florida Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill Introduced

HSUS Push:NO Animals in Petstore,no ANIMALS Displayed–see Below…

 Join the Crusade Against HSUS+Anti-Pet Laws+Pass It Forward–>

Associated Press ———South Lake Tahoe considers bans on dogs and cats   http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11924278?nclick_check=1  This is the link but it gutted out 4x so I have copied it  to read.  Posted: 03/16/2009 07:43:41 AM PDT

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, — South Lake Tahoe has moved one step closer to becoming the latest city to ban the retail sale of dogs and cats by pet stores. The city’s planning commission recommended approval of the proposed ordinance on a 4-1 vote Thursday. It now will go to the City Council for consideration.

Supporters say the ordinance would allow the city to do its part to combat puppy ‘mills’ - that the Humane Society of the United States considers to be inhumane. Information from: Tahoe Daily Tribune———————————————————————————Do not be misled about it just being “cats or dogs” as HSUS/Peta want NO animal, no reptile, no birds, no farm animals–no animals of any type, domestic, exotic, livestock–no animals sold, bought or traded. 

HSUS is pushing a new law (AB1122)— in CA claiming that NO animals can be displayed, bought, sold, traded,offered, etc, in any venue, highway,public right of way, street, parking lot (commercial), swap meet, flea market, parking log, carnival, boardwalk or any outdoor special sale.  HSUS is attempting to make a penal code violation specifically for TRANSFERRING, AS A COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION, A LIVE ANIMAL IN CERTAIN PLACES.

The way the law is written, it appears a volunteer dog handler group could not display dogs  which needed new homes–at a park or outside a pet store.  Neither could dog trainers, vets, groomers, or anyone who had a pet business IF IT WAS NOT A 501(c)(3) corporation.  Do you see how this would work?  It would actually take out many of the possibilites of finding homes for animals at offsite locations!

This is just ONE of the HSUS’ steps toward eradication of the ability to buy/sell/own dogs/other pets. Using the “belief” that people might “sell” dogs,cats,birds or other animals in public—and not be “regulated.” 

 What that means is that if you wanted to re-home a dog, you would be forced to go inside another person’s home, or they would have to go to your home. Rescues without 501(c)(3) could not transfer animals. Not all rescues have 501(c)(3) status since they are not large enough to warrant the corporation. Farmers’ markets could not sell baby chicks or chickens, birds, or small lizards or box turtles for example.  If you wanted to re-home your parrot you could not meet a prospective new owner at a pet store outside, or at an outdoor mall or standalone store of any kind, outside.  Volunteers could not show animals if they did not have the 501(c)(3) corporate status.  People don’t forsee these things, but HSUS helps to purposely draft these regulations like this, so that they can be used to take down people–not help pets find homes. 

When animal rights groups like HSUS start pushing laws (and they are doing it in 20-34 states even as we speak) then you can imagine what the alws would be like if PETA formulated the laws?  Well HSUS is no different. HSUS just does not use the overt antics, but goes behind the scenes to do lobbying, media wars, political pandering, and money mongering. 

HSUS is nothing more than a self perpetuating ANIMAL POLICE FORCE WHICH HAS APPOINTED ITSELF AS THE DRAFTER OF ANTI-PET LAWS IN EVERY STATE,  self appointed kennel buster, self-appointed animal control, self appointed “dog” expert by employing criminals, self appointed Celebrity-wanker by donating Awards and giving Media hype to Movie stars that donate $$$$ to HSUS.

Like Paris Hilton [allegedly donated 100k to HSUS],  007 Pierce Brosnan [has donated millions to many groups, including Peta/whaling ship people of Sea Shepherd] and  Carrie Underwood [who will donate to HSUS when American Idol people get kicked off show] and many more. 

HSUS has no love of cats since they often tell others that feral cats should all be killed because they are “predators” and because they kill birds outside? And HSUS already kills dogs and pups (they just killed over 140 dogs including about 60 pups, some even yanked out of foster homes!)  

HSUS does not own or oversee any shelters. HSUS just tells other people (who operate shelters) what to do.  HSUS does not know very much about the breeding of dogs, whelping, or what is associated with it. What HSUS “knows” is that they don’t want PEOPLE breeding animals, final answer.

HSUS has NEVER accounted for the $34 million taken in for Katrina pets. HSUS has accounted for maybe $7million. Where is the accountability? Katrina was in 2005.  Only in 2007 did HSUS supposedly give grant money to LSU and to some shelters. And that didn’t make up the difference. Yet it has been stated that the Louisiana Atty General investigating it, closed the case without disclosing how such funds had been dispersed, whether or not HSUS had proven the funds were actually spent on Katrina.  Coincidentally, HSUS in 2005 and later years, started “merging” or conglomerating with other AR groups to expand their money and reach. Such $$ from Katrina could have easily been papered as “spent” on specific items, when in actuality they were not.  It is very, very doubtful that anywhere NEAR 30million was spent on Katrina. If it was, we are SURE that HSUS would have publicized the expenditures. D oNOT trust HSUS because HSUS misleads the public using YOUR DONATIONS!! 

 HSUS is getting away with murder. Killing dogs, pups, fleecing the public, and then having the nerve to make ANTI-PET LAWS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. Both Louisville KY ordinance and the PA state law HSUS pushed are NOW in Federal Court lawsuits over constitutional issues.  When HSUS pushes pet stores that cannot market any pets, that also will result in lawsuits.  Wait and see. DO NOT DONATE TO HSUS AND TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND PASS IT FORWARD. WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED!

American Lawyer.com Says HSUS IS “Animal Rights”

 Join Crusade Against HSUS+Anti-Pet Laws+Pass It Forward!—–>

Read it and affirm, that The American Lawyer, a well-known online attorney site,  states CLEARLY that HSUS is an *ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP*.

Read it and see the truth, as to HSUS receiving over 10,000 FREE hours of time (pro Bono) from newer lawyers. That’s  over 10,000 hr. of billable  time HSUS did not have to pay for! That’s 3.52 SOLID YEARS OF 8HR/DAY OF LEGAL WORK FOR ABSOLUTELY FREE. At $200/hr, that’s  $2,054,600.00 of legal time given to ANIMAL RIGHTS, for FREE,  folks.

[ Pet Defense did not write the article below, it was written for The American Lawyer online by the author stated below.]

————————————————————————————–

Petland Discounts: Pro Bono Work for Animal Rights Skyrockets

The American Lawyer

By Zach Lowe  http://tinyurl.com/dy8zb3 [link to American Lawyer online]

February 19, 2009

When Bruce Wagman of Schiff Hardin told management at one of his first law jobs that he wanted to do pro bono work in the area of animal law, the firm told him that wasn’t an option. So Wagman left. 

Flash forward more than a decade, and animal law has become one of the fastest-growing areas of study in the U.S., with nearly 100 courses available to law school students (just nine schools offered such courses in 2000) and more high-profile litigation than ever. 

Now, statistics from 2008 show that Am Law firms contributed a record number of pro bono hours to the Humane Society of the United States and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, two of the country’s leading animal rights organizations–and those that pursue litigation most aggressively. (A third, the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, did not respond to repeated requests for comparable figures and interviews.) 

In 2008 major firms contributed 10,273 pro bono hours to the Humane Society, up from about 6,500 in 2007. The Animal Legal Defense Fund doesn’t track pro bono work by the hour, but the organization signed up 113 new volunteer attorneys–a record, and a jump from 98 in 2007 and just 63 in 2006.

“Lawyers are cold calling me,” says Wagman, the ALDF’s general outside counsel. “I don’t have to solicit anyone.”

Elizabeth Day, a partner at DLA Piper, was one of those who called Wagman out of the blue last year after hearing him discuss dogfighting on National Public Radio, both lawyers say. Day called him at Schiff and asked if he would speak to a group of interested lawyers at DLA, she says. Now, the firm has about two dozen associates (plus Day) working on pro bono matters that range from the rescue of a group of chimps from a troubled Texas facility to creating corporations that could file civil suits against organizations for mistreating animals. (Individuals who say they observe mistreatment of animals often have traditionally had trouble proving the standing necessary to file litigation.) 

“I thought it would be a great way to get our lawyers involved,” Day says.

Neither organization released the names of the firms that do the most pro bono work, though Wagman complimented DLA, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Morrison & Foerster for their increased commitment to animal rights.

Wagman says the more lawyers learn about animal rights, the more they want to get involved.

That’s one reason for the jump in pro bono work, says Eric Bernthal, a partner at Latham & Watkins and a board member with the Humane Society. (Latham is the only firm the Humane Society would name among its major contributors.)

Other factors Bernthal cites for the pro bono jump: the Humane Society’s commitment to litigation and an increase in time available to attorneys to pursue such efforts due to the down economy.

“Certainly, there’s less work now with commercial clients,” Bernthal says, which, in turns, provides “more capacity” for the pro bono work.

One example of the kind of matter being taken on: Latham is counsel to the Humane Society in a case that may head to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal appeals court threw out the conviction of a Virginia man for selling videos of dogfights. The appellate court in effect overturned a law, passed in 1999, that bans people from distributing videos and other depictions of an animal cruelty, a law First Amendment gurus consider troublesome. Both the government and the Humane Society have asked the  Supreme Court to take the case.

Something else that makes the Humane Society and the ALDF attractive clients is they avoid most of the extreme stances and practices that some animal rights groups are known for, Bernthal says.

“I may not be a vegetarian, but I can still agree that a calf shouldn’t live its entire life in an enclosure so small it can’t turn around,” he says. Whatever the reason, Wagman and Jonathan Lovvorn, the Humane Society’s general counsel and vice president, are happy for the increased pro bono interest.  “Animal law is flourishing,” Wagman says. “People are starting to discover that these groups bring really interesting cases.” [*all emphasis added]

———————————————————————————————————-

Petdefense: It is nearly unanimous with con law professors that the specific law used against  Stevens (of the dogfight videos, where Stevens did not create the video) would not past constitutional muster.

IF YOU ARE DONATING TO HSUS THINKING THAT YOU ARE HELPING ANIMALS, WHAT YOU ARE ACTUALLY DOING IS HELPING ANIMAL RIGHTS. 

This is supposed to be a FREE country, but when Animal Rights pretends to be something else, using the ploy that they are saving our own pets, our own animals, YET at every turn are, instead, making laws to take away the RIGHT to show, breed, sell, buy or trade such animals, then we have a problem Houston.

AND THAT PROBLEM IS  KNOWN— AS H$US.

H$U$=The Madoff of Animal Rights???

Join the Crusade Against HSUS Anti-Pet LAWS+Pass It Forward!—>

Are you one of the “welfarists” that keeps buying into the H$US Animal Rights nonsense, even where H$U$ now has over 180 ANTI-PET LAWS set up for 2009 across the USA?

Are you one of the people that actually *believes* that H$U$ loves shelter animals and wants to get them homes? Are you one of the people that *believes*  H$U$ actually  is  ”saving”  cats/dogs  from being killed? Do you *believe*  that H$U$ can prove they spent all the millions of Katrina donations on the Katrina pets, where a criminal investigation had to take place because people complained their pets were given to “adopters” because they were better people, and the complaint ended up being swept under the rug? Do you actually *believe* that H$U$ is NOT Animal Rights, but is helping protect cats/dogs/birds/reptiles for owners??!!

If so, you have bought into one of the most misleading media campaigns for Animal Rights in the USA—just like Peta. Peta kills 90-97% of all animals they take IN–so they can “save” them.  Isn’t it a little strange that animal groups have to keep killing animals in order to “save them?” 

  Do you actually *believe* that H$U$ prints all that eye candy, glossy brochures and calendars with puppies and kittens on it, because H$U$ wants to $AVE the animals—or is it done in order to take your hard earned $$money$$ and draft Animal Rights Laws across America without people noticing?  So H$U$ can  force ANIMAL RIGHTS LIFESTYLE CHANGES by *changing* the animal related laws, by implementing MORE PENAL CODE SECTIONS??  By creating NEW laws and letting H$U$ run/influence the afflicted Department instead of Dept. of Agriculture?

[If you don't know what Animal Rights lifestyle changes are, there is a post on this site that explains it, but basically it means being forced into  a vegan and the vegan lifestyle of no animals and no animal products in any way,shape,form and where legal rights are given to animals so that human rights are not paramount to animal rights ]

 You don’t *believe* that H$U$ keeps defending and upholding the killing of animals,  using shelter animals as a ploy to raise money, using pitbulls for same reason, is against “NO-Kill”, has consistently advocated for the killing of dogs such as pitbulls (such as the Michael Vick dogs, despite using the plight of the dogs to raise money for H$U$ themselves! and despite claiming that H$U$ does not advocate for BSL);  and far more?

Then read what Nathan Winograd, author of Redemption,  the champion of No Kill sheltering— says about H$US http://www.nathanwinograd.com/index.php?s=fighting+no+kill+san+francisco: [all emphasis added by Petdefense]

“There is also reason to doubt HSUS’ sincerity. Regardless of what HSUS says at the meeting or even publicly, they ultimately cannot be trusted to act in a manner consistent with their promises. After all, the support and participation in the Wilkes County massacre comes after HSUS publicly stated that shelter killing is needless and shelters are not doing enough to save lives.”

“Their defense of it reverted to old patterns of blaming pet overpopulation and even suggesting that we cannot ask shelters to be more humane, because they’ll just do a worse job. “

“According to HSUS, if you “impose” the “burdens” of being humane on these shelters, “they may decline to intervene in criminal fighting cases, allowing the dogfighters to continue to operate.” In other words, HSUS believes we can’t ask more of shelters because if we do, they’ll just decide to be even less humane.”

“In addition, their defense of the needless slaughter of almost every animal at the Tangipahoa Parish shelter last August which claimed the lives of over 170 dogs and cats came after they promised a “new dawn” of animal sheltering in that region.”

“And despite a “pro-TNR position paper” they published in 2006, HSUS officials said they “didn’t have a problem with humanely killing a stray cat” in April of 2008 after Randolph, Iowa officials announced a bounty on them, offering residents $5.00 for every cat they rounded up and brought to the shelter to be killed. (HSUS supported the plan to round up and kill the cats, but not the process suggesting that people might get bit by cats if the cats were not professionally trapped. They then backpedaled there, too, after a massive public outcry, suggesting it wasn’t a good idea either way. Sound familiar?)”

“In addition, even Pacelle’s announcement of the meeting suggests a diversionary tactic. The issue which needs to be addressed is not, as he misleadingly claims, a discussion concerning dogs “victimized by dog fighting.” We are all in agreement here. The scourge of dog fighting must be ended. We need to pursue and punish dog fighters with all the resources we can muster. The issue is what to do concerning dogs victimized by HSUS and shelters after they have been saved from dog fighters.”

  Nathan routinely will comment on H$US and is far more gracious with them than he needs to be, but this gives you an idea of just how BAD H$U$ really is………and notice, Nathan never says H$U$ is animal rights. Nope, he just mentions they are completely hypocritical, and using every event they can to raise $$ for themselves, and that they advocate for killing animals. Well that pretty much defines Animal Rights, because that’s what they do. Kill animals.

Want to see more?   http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=775 (below)

 ”Hoping we’ll all forget about the puppies killed, HSUS also writes that, “No organization has done more to attack and harm the dogfighting industry than The HSUS.” Despite the “We’re Number 1” bravado, HSUS’ logic in support of the killing comes down to little more than this: According to HSUS, they had to call for the death of puppies who were born after the seizure, who have never known aggression, and who, in some cases, were raised by loving foster parents because some of the other dogs in the same seizure were aggressive.”

“In making such a ludicrous argument, HSUS ignores the whole point of the criticism: it wasn’t a question of whether a dangerous dog should be put up for adoption no matter how hard HSUS pretends that is what this is about.”

“ It was a question of whether the decision that any of the dogs were truly dangerous was made after the dogs were individually and fairly assessed. It ignores that there were puppies killed who posed no threat to public safety, that there were rescue groups willing to provide needed support, and that HSUS has the enormous resources to intervene in a life affirming way, choosing instead to champion the dogs’ death.”

“ It ignores that the experience with the dogs in the case of Michael Vick undermined everything HSUS thought it knew about the nature of dog aggression.”

“ Like in this one, it was HSUS which led the call for mass killing of those dogs after Wayne Pacelle falsely claimed that “Officials from our organization have examined some of these dogs and, generally speaking, they are some of the most aggressively trained pit bulls in the country.”

“In fact, following their actual assessment, only one dog was deemed too vicious to save. In overruling HSUS, the court concurred that most of the dogs were rehabilitatable…………and TWO ARE NOW THERAPY DOGS…….”

Even more, this one about Peta (Ingrid Newkirk) where Nathan even calls Ingrid the Butcher of Norfolk! Because Ingrid openly admits, YES Peta kills animals, absolutely, when they don’t find homes. And in 2006 killed 97%, 2007 killed 91%, and 2008, Peta killed 96%. 7 animals were adopted, 34 went to another facility. The rest of the 2,216 taken in were killed by Peta.  

As Nathan says: “As if that was not shameful enough, others go further and actually embrace her. The groups which organize the Animal Rights Conference inducted her into their Animal Rights Hall of Fame. Wayne Pacelle and HSUS have allowed her and her pro-killing apologists to give workshops at their national conference, HSUS Expo, to promote PETA’s ghastly vision of killing” http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=907

—————————————————————————————–

PD:    We can tell you why Peta is allowed to continue on their merry way of killing animals, in part anyway. Mostly because Peta is bait in order to try and catch the people who espouse Peta’s theory, in burning down and harming people. In other words, terrorists. The same animal extremist terrorists that Animal Rights people claim shouldn’t go to jail for conspiring to burn down buildings or blow up towers/bridges.  Those people.

Well now…… it was not Petdefense that said all of that about HSUS…..even Nathan W. says it.  Anyone with a brain says it.  Petdefense just tells the truth because there is no need to hide that part in relation to Animal Rights’ Hidden Agenda.    It was Nathan, and as usual, he is nice about it.  We don’t think there is a need to be nice about it, because we already know what is going on, and it surely isn’t NICE. 

The bottom line, the TRUTH: H$U$ consistently puts out both misleading and contradictory statements, and ALL of it is done in an effort to mislead the public into thinking that H$U$ is *helping* animals.

NO———> H$U$ is helping themselves, helping Animal Rights, and making Anti-Pet laws across America.  That is what H$U$ is doing.  H$U$ is about Animal Rights.  H$U$ is about making horrific Anti-Pet LAWS across the USA, and making the entire country bow down to the STANDARDS THAT H$U$ SETS UP.

HSUS is now the main AR group pushing Anti-Pet Laws across the USA. If 180 laws aren’t good enough, they will probably file 350 next year.  If we don’t stand up for our own rights, we will be rolled over by HSUS.

HSUS HR669 Update:Ban Fish,Birds,Reptiles+More–Again

Find out the truth about HSUS Animal Rights conglomerate with the millions/millions, and how it can affect YOU NOW due to the numerous (over 180) Anti-Pet Laws filed!

The Pet Industry is one of the largest in the United States, rivaling the Toy and the Candy industry, it is now at least $42billion, even in recession.  Animal rights would like to see the pet industry collapse, and the pets/owners not own animals (since they believe it is slavery.) 

Update April 2009  on HR669 by NAIA:

In one internet media blog, Michael Markarian, HSUS VP, usually reporting on HSUS legislation reportedly stated the following:

 

“First, the bill is aimed at exotic wildlife, not domestic household pets. It includes a specific exemption for cats, dogs, rabbits, goldfish, and horses. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is allowed to add more exempted species as it sees fit. The HSUS and HSLF are specifically requesting that hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, and ferrets be added to the exempted list.”

This is an indication that there will be attempts to make the bill appear non threatening to owners and breeders of nonnative species. However, while we remain hopeful, we do not expect any positive changes in this bill due to the agenda of those making the changes.

We recommend that individuals continue to contact their Representatives and express their concerns about interstate transport of their animals, the ability to sell or give away their animals, and the ability to breed their animals, all of which would be prohibited under HR 669. As further changes occur, we will update this message.

HR 669 bans import, export, transport, breeding, sale or barter of ALL nonnative species unless they are placed on an Approved List established by the USFWS after extensive study. This law would affect most pet owners of non native species.

Most pet birds, ornamental aquarium fish, reptiles and small pet mammals are nonnative species and would be ILLEGAL under this act, unless placed on the Approved List!

Any company manufacturing or selling product for these pet species would be affected by this act. This means hundreds of thousands of pet birds and animals, reptiles and fish would be affected

Thousands of small businesses involved in any aspect of the pet industry, from breeding, selling and transporting animals to manufacturing and selling products for animals, such as foods, toys, and equipment.

HR669 to BAN Nonnative Wildlife by HSUS, Defenders of wildlife/ Nature conservancy, et al, PREVIOUSLY introduced last year, 2008,  as HR6311, see http://www.turtletimes.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php?t66193.html  or USARK (United States Ass’n of Reptile Keepers) and click here  http://www.usark.org/   “The AR Movement has lobbied in a number of States to pass legislation that would designate many reptiles as “Inherently Dangerous”, seeking to ban private ownership.”

And you thought HSUS was just out to “BAN Dogs?”  Nope. HSUS will get every single animal AR group and tries to ELIMINATE ALL of Everything: dogs,cats,birds,fish,reptiles,you name it. When that is accomplished there can be NO zoos, NO rodeos, NO aquariums, NO fishkeeping of tropicals, NO pet selling, NO pet movement in interstane commerce!  

 —-> BEWARE–HSUS is Animal Rights and we aim to tell the entire USA if it takes 20 years!!! <—–

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zDgIld_eM0

Unfortunately, the way the law is proposed, it would require proponents to prove that each species could never cause any type of harm but it is a complicated procedure and you need to read the PIJAC site to really understand the methodology involved, which was about 3 pages long.  Suffice to say, if all tropical fish and all birds and reptiles would be affected, it’s just another law devised by AR groups trying to stop the Pet Trade, but masquerading as a “HELPING” law.  Woe to those who believe that any law HSUS makes helps owners or animals, in general all of their laws make HSUS wealthy, and eliminate animals from people being able to get them, responsible owners included.

 

CLEARLY—–we do NOT want a law that the animal extremists are telling people to pass since all animal extremist laws are done to further the Animal Rights 12 Step Plan across the USA.

http://pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=175  [click here to see PIJAC page/legislation and READ HR669

According to posting on http://www.plantedtank.net/forums/lounge/85672-future-aquarium-hobby-your-hands.html  this is what was stated: 

Should HR669 be adopted as written only the following nonnative animals would be allowed:

any cat (Felis catus)
cattle or oxen (Bos taurus)
chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus)
dog (Canis lupus familiaris)
donkey or ass (Equus asinus)
domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese)
duck (domesticated Anas spp.)
goat (Capra aegagrus hircus)
goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus)
horse (Equus caballus)
llama (Lama glama)
mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus)
pig or hog (Sus scrofa domestica)
domesticated varieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)
sheep (Ovis aries)

The ARs further state that PIJAC (Pet  Industry Joint Advisory council) is very concerned, since it affects birds, and especially aquarium related species. In general, the proposed law could SHUT DOWN major segments of the pet industry almost overnight. There is also a user fee system for funding assessments in the bill, a long term desire of animal extremists since most fees can become cost prohibitive and would eliminate small interest groups and businesses from participating. The wealthy and “non profits” could still participate. Much of the law is lacking because it is unclear (as usual, HSUS purposely drafts either vague or overly specific laws) and it is not possible to tell how the law will even be able to function in reality.

PD Note:  We can see that ARs are organized in this, and every time HSUS+Defenders of Wildlife, Defense of Animals etc FILES a law, they all PILE on like a bunch of zealot clones.  Unfortunately some govt officials believe them.  Our job is to raise the truth and show outrage, not agreeing with them. It is a sad truth that many animal welfarists believe that HSUS is doing the “right” thing. This is a completely FALSE belief and indicates they are not properly informed of facts.

———————————————————————————

The lifestyle of “Animal Rights” is a very focused belief with an emotionally based, zealous and determined push behind it. Many of the zealots are never going to stop, and the closest thing I can compare it to is the middle Eastern zealots that kill themselves to bring glory. Animal extremists have stepped up their antics as of late and are now injuring people, and threatening them and harming kids. This happened in CA already, in a home invasion. And animal extremists have been indicted on both blackmail and extortion charges.

So groups like HSUS try to appear “non radical” and hide their actual hidden agenda, or intent. But the intent always remains the same, same, same. And that hidden agenda is to dismantle the Pet Industry. If an animal cannot be owned, bought, sold, traded, bred, raised, whelped—then we are looking at a HUGE economic loss. And that’s what the animal rights extremists WANT–because they all believe that animals are not property, and should not be bought, sold, traded, or made the subject of any business. Not an animal business. Extremists even have the nerve to tell the public that you can sell pet “accessoires” but you cannot sell a dog, cat or bird.  How stupid is that?

Well apparently the animal rights extremists all believe it. So they want to stop it and HSUS+friends comes into the picture, and makes hundreds of proposed laws, year after year, which in effect are often Anti-Pet laws.  For example, it is likely HSUS pushing to limit the dog dealers to 25 dogs (Oregon), 25 dogs (WA), 25 dogs (Delaware) 30 dogs (Indiana), 40 dogs (W Virginia) 50 dogs (CA) 50 dogs (MD) 50 dogs (Florida)  50 dogs (Minnesota) 75  dogs (Nebraska)—But what will happen down theline, is that HSUS will come back and decrease the numbers until they are so low, they will have eliminated the issue completely.  At least in theory. That is the KNOWN method of eliminating animals and pets—not necessarily saving any animals.  Saving means more animals might get homes, but eliminating is completely different.

But due to the photoshop type eye candy pictures, videos, websites, and media marketing, much of the public think they are  only donating to save whales or seals.

This is not so, because last year for 07-08, 7 of the 10 goals in passing laws for HSUS INVOLVED CATS/DOGS, MANDATED ALTERING, SPAY/NEUTER, AND REGULATIONS INVOLVING HOUSEHOLD ANIMALS.  And that involved over 80 state laws. So now for this year, HSUS has more than doubled their number of laws to 180 and next year would likely be double that to 360. We expect to see it increase every single year unless the public discredits the HSUS conglomerate for what it is, which is Animal Rights.

 HSUS already has endowments in place which cover a lot of that “wildlife” and foreign countries’ expense.  HSUS attempts to get monthly donations from the public, by showing the sappy poor kittie, poor doggie, poor 3 legged dog, poor birdie, etc, etc, yet HSUS  doesn’t own animal shelters, and doesn’t really help animal shelters unless they give a grant to build an animal shelter, but HSUS is not a no kill fan.  In fact, HSUS is against No Kill because it doesn’t want animals staying around too long.

Most of the legal challenges to the HSUS advocated laws are in Federal Courts (mostly because HSUS keeps moving them to Federal Courts) and  involve consitutional issues such as free speech, equal protection, and of course the Commerce Clause. Beware–HSUS is in 20-34 states across the nation, pushing laws for Anti-pet provisions.  You can see many of those attempts in the postings on this site, or find the legislative page on the AKC website.  

http://www.aspenpet.com/stats.cfm

http://pijac.org  Check Breaking News to read important legislation

CA AB1122: WHY HSUS DOESN’T WANT “TRANSFERS” OF ANIMALS

How does HSUS Work Against Pets+Owners?

HSUS passes laws (HSUS has almost 200 laws for this year)  then uses those laws for cases it plans to bring forward, then uses those cases in their incremental process to bring down both interstate commerce and pet ownership, kennels, pet stores, dog breeders, along with difficulties for agriculture and other animals.

  We can guarantee that the CA Prop 2 (battery cages) will come back to haunt us in pet ownership, or farming. HSUS  will probably find some other ways to outlaw farm animals or make a huge problem for farming–after all HSUS right NOW is trying to outlaw all “non-native” species including birds, herps,guineas,ferrets, turtles and many other common species in the USA that have been owned for 50-100 years. 

Ownership in the law, is of the highest legal nature, and as a concept, usually means the ultimate control over the item owned.  It also usually refers to having the control legally over such item (property) and also the right to use it for as long as is allowed in the law, and in many instances, to bring a lawsuit where the owner’s rights are affected.  Guardianship does NOT necessarily mean any of the same things, which is why animal rights prefers it over “owner.”

CA law has statutes that show one of the main incidents of ownership in property, is the right to TRANSFER it (Bias v Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 14,16).  Or, “A common characteristic of a property right, is that it may be disposed of,  transferred to another.” (Douglas Aircraft Co. v Byram (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 311, 317)

Thefore we can see why Peta wanted to take possession/ownership of different animals because after they owned them, they could just dispose of them in the garbage dump (after killing them via lethal injection)—and they suffered no consequences. [Actually it appeared there was fraud in the procurement of the animals but we don't know if they were hit for that.]

And, we can see why HSUS doesn’t want animals TRANSFERRED to others because that’s an element of OWNERSHIP.

The obvious next step for HSUS is to claim if animals can’t be sold or transferred, then that means THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY.

HSUS is currently trying to outlaw the use (import, export, transport, breeding) or movement in interstate commerce of any non native species via HR669 in Congress by using the Lacey Act. See the PIJAC website for details, or see the post on this site with the link to PIJAC.

This would encompass virtually every bird, reptile, amphibian, fish and some mammals kept as pets.  In general only a small number of species have caused environmental issues (in FL and HI.)

This nonsense by HSUS subterfuge has not been lost on us.

We are VERY aware of what HSUS and Animal Rights are trying to do. Clearly the agenda is to chip away at the ownership of animals until we miss the fact that the WORDS USED FOR OWNERSHIP have been eliminated, then next thing you know—-HSUS has eliminated the ownership of animals.  No transfers, no selling, no bartering, no trading, etc. This has already been attempted in HSUS anti pet laws where a dog with cropped ears couldn’t be transferred/owned by a rescue because the rescue didn’t have the documents proving how the ears were done.

It would be easier to make “owning” something next to impossible, or exorbitantly too expensive or far too much red tape, than to outright say “you can’t own that”–which is Animal Rights done the HSUS way–as can be seen by the multitude of 180 Anti pet laws HSUS is pushing just this year…..

HSUS has a habit of  purposely drafting bad laws, then getting them passed, then taking cases, and using the laws that HSUS has HELPED PASS—as proof that such ideas have already been cemented IN THE LAW. In other words, HSUS makes the very laws it fully intends to use as part of a case it has already planned, then if they win that case, it will set some precedent in the law.  THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE HSUS GOAL—TO SET ANIMAL RIGHTS LAW PRECEDENT……………………

If you value your ownership over your pets and animals, and the fact that pet-related businesses are allowed to profit over the selling, buying, trading, owning, or otherwise pet-related legal business ownership;  if you want CHOICE in what dog or cat or bird or fish that you can BUY, own, or trade or sell;  if you want the ability to eat the foods you like (milk, eggs, cheese, meat) then you do NOT want to support ANY HSUS LAWS.

As has been stated on this blog ever since it started—you don’t join the KKK if you’re Black, you don’t push Hitler if you’re Jewish, and you don’t help HSUS if you value ownership of animals. 

And because the Pet connection blog online, is one that keeps saying (especially author Gina Spadafori) that HSUS can be trusted to do the right thing—where HSUS cannot be trusted at all…………….it is our opinion that Pet connection lacks the ability to discern Animal Rights in disguise—-and we do not recommend anyone following  the opinions of much of the blog—mostly because Spadafori only harps on Peta–but not HSUS. 

 Just because one authors books, doesn’t mean that one knows Animal Rights.  Further, Spadafori harped on Petland claiming that they should be OUT of business if they didn’t ADOPT out dogs, rather than SELL them?  That is a very very dangerous proposition, and one that we surely don’t want to push as owners.  NOT if you understand the HSUS concept of animal rights–which we don’t believe Spadafori understands [unless she is animal rights herself---]

 HSUS is the FAR more dangerous group—if you understand Animal Rights.  Spadafori also commended HSUS on filing the lawsuit against Hunte and Petland—that is a mistake, because it indicates that one does NOT understand what HSUS is doing strategy wise.

For example, HSUS pushed the Stevens free speech case, so that Stevens would be prosecuted for selling videos which showed dog fighting (he didn’t make the videos)—BUT the Appeals court held that the statute used (which was likely pushed by HSUS)— which was set up for “crush films”, could cause LEGAL acts to become illegal if the law was upheld, and might even cause the Disney film (Bambi) to be illegal. [See the Stevens case on the Front Page on this blogsite]

Another case is Amazon, where after HSUS pushed the Stevens case (Stevens convicted under the statute )  HSUS sued Amazon to stop the sale of chicken videos or dog video sales, claiming they were violating the law.  Another case is the PA commercial kennel laws pushed by HSUS and ASPCA, where after the law was passed, HSUS then sued Petland and Hunte, no doubt so they could use their own law that passed (PA) as proof of concern over the commercial kennel issues.  All of this is just a part of the pattern and practice of getting incremental steps in place, passing laws, filing lawsuits, and using the laws to set up precedence for HSUS Animal Rights.  We don’t doubt for a second that their entire 16 attorney team or 160 member team or whatever,  just goes to the conference room and has a session on strategy for the next 5 years.

Don’t think for a second that we haven’t noticed it, because we knew it a long time ago.  Another example is the DNA testing and Breed Specific Legislation that HSUS  “claims”  it doesn’t support?

  HSUS filed an amicus animal rights brief in the DENVER 2008 case re BSL, [yes, we did read it]—- claiming that the  DNA companies claimed their DNA test “was 99% accurate.”  Then on the animal law and historical society page (Michigan School of Law, Animal Rights Section)—the school has  pages which show “how DNA proved” that a particular dog WAS NOT a pitbull subject to BSL.  But the key really is, if they can prove it ISN’T a pitbull, and it’s actually 99% accurate, can it prove that IT IS A PITBULL? 

And that’s why HSUS put that amicus brief in the Federal Court to Denver.  So when that issue comes up down the line, HSUS will be the first to claim that DNA testing should be used [to have pitbull dogs killed], because it’s 99% accurate, despite the fact that the AKC and UKC don’t have the exact same breed name/types for American Pitbull Terriers, or American Stafforshire Terriers. AKC doesn’t recognize the APBT.  But that won’t stop HSUS—you wait and see.  They like to keep people fooled.

Any Animal Rights group like HSUS that has that much time and money into killing pitbull type dogs is definitely going to try and eliminate more of those dogs, use such dogs as a ploy to raise more funding, and then kill more of them.  We have long ago figured out HSUS’ pattern and practice, and that’s why we keep telling everyone not to trust HSUS.   They are just Animal Rights that think no one can figure out what they are doing.

WRONG.

You don’t have to be an attorney or have a legal education to figure that one out.  And you don’t even have to be a pet owner. You just have to have some logic and common sense  to see what is going on.

Not in our lifetime, never, never ever.  The demise of HSUS will come first.  Because too many people will see what they are REALLY doing. Help us spread the word!  Tell everyone you know and make it a point to tell at least 10-50 other people.  This is the only way that legislators are going to figure it out, and the only way the public will stop donating.

People that donate to HSUS Animal rights might as well donate to PETA. Because they are carrying out the Peta agenda.

NEW “STOP H$U$ Anti Pet Laws” SHIRTS ARE READY

NEW Stop H$U$ Anti-Pet T Shirts are Finally Ready!  Please HELP by wearing one or getting one for your team people?  Wholesale to those in pet groups, who order minimum of 5.  please email petdefense@yahoo.com for info, and we are  going to use online payment method for credit cards, and online checks.

ON TV —–> THESE SHIRTS WILL REALLY STAND OUT—HARD TO MISS

Right now we have Lg (42-44)  and X Lg (46-48)  They are Hanes Beefy T, short sleeve, preshrunk.. . 

We also were supposed to have the Decpetion for $$$ Dollars decals–but they aren’t ready yet.

About 5 x 6″ in white vinyl for windows [works well on tinted windows] Order 5@ wholesale price.

CA AB1122 (HSUS+Peta+ASPCA): Hobby Breeders’ Demise Disguised

CALIFORNIA BILL TO BAN SWAP MEETS,

FLEA MARKETS, OUTDOOR PUBLIC SALES? Or is it More?

Caution:  Just take a look at the sponsors and you will know the answer…………..  why not just call this Baffle us with Bullshit or Bamboozle us with Baloney, because the reality is, this is just a thinly veiled piece of ludicrous legislation that isn’t worth the piece of paper it was printed on.

Sponsors: All are animal Rights……. ASPCA  animal Place  Born Free USA United with API  Food Empowerment promect, HSUS, League of Humane Voters, OC People for animals, the paw project, Peta, San diego Animal Advocates, United animal nations (J Fearing of HSUS)

Question: Are Pet Exhibits, chicken exhibits, dog and cat expos, pet parades and sales, outdoor pet shows, demonstrations, exhibits, vendors selling at dog shows in commercial parking lots, dogs in X pens in same, owners showing dogs in rings on commercial property, or state owned property, flea markets where farmers have chicks, or small birds, OR— individuals trying to re-home and place pets due to life circumstances—subject to this horribly drafted law?

CAN ANY OR ALL of these situations be snared into this horribly drafted Bill?  Could they all be guilty????  YEP.  The words commercial transaction, even under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code, Sale of Goods Art. II) usually means a contract or agreement for a sale of goods. Goods are tangible property, and an animal is tangible property. Agreeing to sell something or agreeing to trade for something in exchange still pretty much amounts to some type of transaction, and you can be sure that ARs will want to categorize it against the buyer, seller, owner or what have you.

Since the word ‘commercial’ could imply a business-business or business-buyer, or seller-buyer, or owner-customer, it’s possible to categorize a LOT of scenarios into that “commercial” category. And once a law is passed, if questioned, they often look to the intent of the legislature. Surely the intent of the legislature is NOT to end the sales of pets or animals?  Or is it?  This bill practically qualifies as criminal against animal owners to us!! 

——————————————————————————————————-

Also NOT lost on us, was that proponents purposely EXEMPTED themselves (alleged non profits for animals) without saying ‘why’  they should be exempt? What is the difference if a rescue  SELLS 100 rabbits outside? 100 birds?  100 CATS?

We ask this question because—HSUS is passing laws even against animal rescues in different states, saying they belong in same category as commercial kennels. For example–HSUS says that rescues need to be investigated, licensed, inspected, pay fees every year, have their homes investigated and subject to unannounced search/seizure,  pay licensing every year, can be unilaterally turned down, can’t have criminal history, blah blah blah—yet they will exempt them from selling on the public areas—but a private person can’t do it as well???  HUH???  This is nothing more than the SAME hypocritical nonsense usually pushed by Animal Rights.   

Even if they were INSIDE they could be guilty.  Wouldn’t even NEED to be outside.

Reason being, the CA definititon of swap meet and flea market do not quantify them as JUST being outside.

Update: 5/15/09  Proponents “removed” swap meet and flea markets. Oh great, they knew that wasn’t going to fly in the first place. Nevertheless, the “commercial” element is still present, and most pet expos, exposition fairs, even agility demos, and contests or rallies, are all commercial.  After all, it is open to the public and it’s not exactly a one to one person deal. Vendors are still commercial, and they are not at flea markets, they are at dog shows, and even at rescue exhibits, where NOT every rescue is non profit tax exempt.

Vendors are there to make money. Sell products. Why would THOSE vendors be exempt if they owned dogs and had their dogs visible? they would not be exempt.  In facts, in the parking lots, if a breeder or dog show person had several dogs that were not ready to be sold, and someone asked about them, they would qualify as guilty under the law as written, even without the flea market or swap meet. It would not be difficult for an AR to simply cruise the parking lot, take pictures, and make accusations? 

———————————————————————————————————

AB 1122 which, as amended, would make it a crime “to willfully sell, display, or offer for sale, or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, commercial parking lot, or at any outdoor special sale, swap meet, flea market, parking lot sale, carnival, or boardwalk.”

Peta people have gone to DOG SHOWS–and opened up dog crates and released dogs. Peta knows what dog shows look like and how they are set up. The dogs shows would be under this “LAW” as it is written.  Honestly, this so-called “law” is a real piece of work, attempting to carve out exceptions for only the proponents.

A public right of way could be a dog park, a city park, a land preserve, a beach, a lake, a picnic area or pet area, there are many public areas…….

The Impact.As drafted, it could be interpreted that this bill would ban reptile shows, bird shows, fish shows, dog and at shows, etc. that are sponsored events, normally housed within buildings and under supervision of an organization specializing in promoting and hosting of such events for such types of animals.

The [purposely] poor definition re swap meet etc, could also prohibit pet fairs like the Family Pet Expo in Orange County, pet industry trade shows, or other specialty shows which would not even necessarily fall into the general perception of swap meet or flea market.

——————————————————————————————————–

Personally, we (Pet Defense)—> think that IF this law  carves out “exceptions” for pet shows, it will only later be modified to cut such “exemptions” out, and we (not PIJAC) do NOT recommend acceptance of such “exemptions.”  We can see it now, oh “we only exempted shows with 900 dogs” or  “we only exempted shows that give money to animal shelters” or “we only exempted shows that bring in X dollars to the city” etc……….. they will definitely manage to screw over fanciers.  Mark our word—it’s more than obvious.

————— WARNING——WARNING———WARNING——————–WARNING—WARNING—–

There is NO WAY that this Bill was drafted to “accidentally snare”  pet shows, or any pet sales. It was already admitted at a conference with the sponsoring people,  that it was purposely done to stifle animals being sold. Period.  You don’t neeed to be a Lobbyist, Legislator, Attorney, or even a Pet Advocate to figure it out.

Let’s face it folks–HSUS-Peta-ASPCA etc doesn’t want any of this:

1. No pets sold in pet stores  

2.  No pets sold by commercial breeders   3. No pets sold by someone who got it from a commercial breeder  

4. No pets sold by someone who obtained the dog outside their own state   5.  NO pets sold “outside” in a public place except if you are the non profit shelter and rescue? [Don't forget,rescues/ shelters re-sell commercial kennel dogs]

       6.  No pets sold  by “backyard” breeders   7. No pets sold by people from their own house, even with Federal licensing, instead, they MUST also get STATE licensing and be subject to search/seizure

  8.  If one is allowed to sell from their house where they keep a dog or cat *inside* then they allow their entire house to be the subject of search and seizure because that’s the HSUS law                                    

 9.  No pets should be sold “online” or  in newspaper ads [even though shelters/rescues and individuals can do it]

  10.  No pets should be purchased because it amounts to abuse, period.

After reading the list above, if you cannot figure out that HSUS+Friends don’t want any breeding or pet sales, then you must be on glue.

After reading the above list, you can see that HSUS+Peta+ASPCA are simply part of a runaway train that is gaining speed, every time they pass one of these ludicrous laws disguised as “stopping abuse”…no one has to believe what they say—yet everyone automatically assumes they are telling the truth, and no one sees BEYOND the immediate day–for the nightmare HSUS has the $$$$ to create— nationwide?   You know that band “Duffy” with the song I’m not your Stepping Stone? Well, those are the words in the song, anyway.  You hobby breeders are just being USED as a stepping stone to YOUR OWN demise!!!  

 For any legislator to UNDERSTAND why these laws are nothing but incremental hogwash to wear down interstate commerce and SALES,  to wear down the ownership and breeding of any well tempered animals, the background of HSUS has to be explained, and the 12 Steps of Animal Rights+ the link in general, to extortion and violence.

Even if HSUS appears to be ”mainstream”,  that doesn’t matter because they are there to push the laws, and purposely use the wolf in sheep clothing ploy–while leaving Peta to the stunts and demonstrations.   You must remember, these days many legislators are NOT attorneys, and many people really don’t care that much [as we do] about animals–and the rights that we should have regarding our property……and who knows what promise of future funding could have been made-to legislators—–but if enough people clamor and bug them with the same stuff–they have no choice but to listen. Here is a portion of the bill:

Date of Hearing:   April 21, 2009

                   ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
                                 Mary Hayashi, Chair
                     AB 1122 (Lieu) – As Amended:  April 13, 2009
         
          SUBJECT :   Animal abuse: sale of live animals: flea markets.

          EXISTING LAW proscribes animal abuse, as specified, including 
          the failure to maintain and care for the premises and animals at 
          pet shops, and generally provides that a pet store shall not 
          sell any dog or cat under 8 weeks of age, but may sell a dog or 
          cat over 8 weeks of age if the animal is weaned.

          FISCAL EFFECT :   Unknown

          COMMENTS :  

          Purpose of the bill .  According to the author’s office, “There 
          is a growing concern with the sale of pets along streets and at 
          flea markets, swap meets, and other outdoor venues.  Numerous 
          local governments have enacted ordinances addressing this issue 
          – Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Jose Counties all currently 
          restrict the sale of animals at flea markets, swap meets, and 
          roadsides.    animal population. [PetDefense: This is not a proven fact but a

          "In California, backyard breeding and puppy mills present a 
          significant problem with ensuring the health and safety of our  
      

          non factual premise alleged.] Currently the result of these unregulated 
          and irresponsible breeding practices is the sale of young 
          animals on roadsides and store fronts.

          “California law provides that pet stores that sell animals must 
          abide by animal welfare standards to protect the health and 
          safety of the animals.  These regulations promote proper care 
          and treatment and reduce the risk of disease outbreaks.  This 
          law does not apply to the sale of animals at flea markets, swap 
          meets, and/or roadside venues.

          “Unfortunately, roadside pet sales offer low prices for designer 
          breeds, presenting deals that are too good to be true.  Often 
          times these animals are sick which can result in significant 
          financial costs for treatment and sometimes death of the animal. 
           Consumers have no recourse if the animal is sick or it dies 
          because there is no way to track the seller.” [Petdefense: No proof presented]

          Support .  The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
          Animals writes in support, “There is growing evidence that pet 
          animals are increasingly being sold at flea markets, swap meets, 
          and other outdoor venues.  The absence of effective regulations 
          has resulted in puppies, kittens and other pet animals being 
          sold in terrible conditions – including unsanitary crowded pens 
          or cages, without food and/or water, in extreme heat.  This bill 
          would alleviate the suffering of these animals while they are 
          awaiting sale. {PD: Allegations; where is the proof?]

          “There are also public health and safety issues posed by the 
          sale of animals at temporary retail venues.  The Centers for 
          Disease Control estimates that 93,000 salmonella cases caused by 
          exposure to reptiles are reported each year in the U.S.  And it 
          takes only one undetected bird, infected with psittacosis, for 
          example, to start an outbreak or epidemic.”

[PD: This is HSUS trying to bamboozle everyone again with epidemic]             

                                     
          Opposition .  The California Swap Meet Owners Association writes 
          in opposition, “The Swap Meet Owners have continually argued to 
          be treated as other retail entities would, to create a set of 
          standards that we are given the opportunity to meet in order to 
          sell certain items, rather than a blanket prohibition of selling 
          an item. 

          “Some counties in California have already set standards and 
          criteria for the sale of certain items at flea markets and swap 
          meets, which our vendors abide by.  It is our understanding that  

         the sponsors of the bill want to ensure that the health and 
          welfare of animals are protected and that the proper treatment 
          and care for animals is provided – similar to the new 
          regulations California provides for pet stores.  We agree with 
          this premise and would be willing to abide by criteria and 
          standards to ensure these protections of animals are met at our 
          facilities.”

          The Northern California Samoyed Fanciers and numerous 
          individuals in opposition have objected to the language of AB 
          1122 that makes it unlawful to display or offer for sale live 
          animals on streets and other specified outdoor venues stating, 
          “This is clearly a restraint of trade.  The offer or display 
          could include notices being posted in grocery stores or on any 
          place where offers for sale or free to a good home may be 
          placed?.  Display could mean anything from placing the animal’s 
          picture someplace in public or placing the animal in a favorable 
          pose while people are watching. 

                                   

          REGISTERED SUPPORT  :  

          Support
         
          California Animal Association (sponsor)
          American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 
          (ASPCA)
          Animal Place
          Born Free USA
          East Bay Animal Advocates
          House Rabbit Society
          The Human Society
          League of Humane Voters
          Orange County People for Animals
          Parrots First
          Paw Pac

          Opposition
         
          American Herding Breed Association
          California Swap Meet Owners Association
          Feline Friends Internationale
          Northern California Samoyed Fanciers
          Numerous individuals [Petpac and We the People USA, which they did not list]
          
          Analysis Prepared by :    Whitney Clark / B. & P. / (916) 
          319-3301 
 The bottom line is, HSUS, PETA and UAN have put their names on this proposed LAW–and when the time comes that hobby breeders cannot sell out of their homes, but will be required to have some type of commercial “licensing”–which they won’t want to do, won’t be able to afford to do, and won’t want to REMODEL their HOMES just to sell 8 dogs a year, if that??  We can guarantee you that IS on next year’s agenda for California!

It’s not that hard for laws such as that to pass, because it’s already happening?  and HSUS started with commercial breeders. HSUS has NO intention of allowing home breeding without search and seizure ramifications…… Just remember, HSUS cannot be trusted, and their intention is to rein in ALL breeding.  LOUISVILLE KY has the worst law (”helpfully” drafted with HSUS *help*) in the USA, is in Federal Court (because HSUS thinks it can win in Federal Court)—– and look at what is happening there? Illegal search and seizure cases?  They cannot even interpret their own asinine, animal rights laws!

 //====>The AB1122 bill [purposely]  fails to define a swap meet or flea market and could  encompass bird shows, reptile shows, cat shows, and aquarium shows.  *The definition of swap meet and flea market in CA law indicates that the Bill WOULD apply to almost any animal show, whether INside, or OUTside.

//===>The tricky proponents *claimed* they only were attempting to regulate OUTside venues.—> Hahahahahah  One doesn’t have to look VERY FAR to see all this calculated, deceptive, misrepresented, and with full knowledge——- ridiculously “drafted” nonsense. 

//===> For one thing, whether something is “inside” or “outside” really has nothing to do with what is going on. And to throw that word “commercial” into the mix on purpose was done simply to cast AN EXTREMELY WIDE NET to snag any possible sale.  When we see crap like this, it makes us cringe. And it should make YOU madder than hell!<——- 

Insist that there is NO WAY that this bill can exempt every possible or conceivable transaction or event.

 Note: PiJAC recommends that everyone interested in supporting the ability of people to host, promote and participate in reptile, bird, fish, cat, dog, trade, consumer pet shows, etc where animals are displayed and/or sold/or funds are raised to support the organization’s goals and objectives, to contact CA Assembly Appropriations Committee and point out the need for such exemptions, /or clear definitions of swap meet or flea market. 

WE DO NOT AGREE,  You can ask for exemptions, and you might get some. Then the law gets passed?  When you allow “exemptions” you give them the right to take such exemptions away, and they always WILL do that.

Then next year, ARs just come back and eliminate them.

==>>>NO THANKS. <====

Once people start “collaborating” with HSUS, you can rest assured you will LOSE. LOSE. LOSE.

H$U$ KATRINA: LA MAY RE-OPEN INVESTIGATION

Due to excessive public outcry, the Louisiana AG’s office may re-open the investigation into H$U$’s handling of Katrina, where the $34million alleged to have been taken in, has never been accounted for……….$7million has been.

http://www.vidoosh.tv/play.php?vid=4360

For years, rescuers, owners, and volunteers at the Katrina site have lamented that H$U$ has never made good on its promise to use the taken in money on actual Katrina expenses.  THIS MEANS THAT H$U$ FLEECED THE PUBLIC AND DONATORS–THIS MEANS H$U$ HAS NO CREDIBILITY—THIS MEANS THE 2005 -2006-2007 CONGLOMERATION OF H$U$ MAY HAVE BEEN LEVERAGED ON THE BACKS OF THE DONATORS AND THE PUBLIC

In fact, rescuers who were present at the Katrina site have stated that H$U$ workers sat in air conditioned trailers while rescue volunteers did most of the work outside.  That H$U$ allowed dogs with puppies to remain inside flooded homes, without attempting to get them out. That H$U$ did nothing in some instances except to run forward to be filmed, while pushing aside other volunteer rescues. 

 That H$U$ was made aware of an airlift willing to help remove animals, and that H$U$ refused to even consider that.  There are MANY many more complaints.  Including complaints that owner dogs were refused to be re-united with their pets, where the rescue group told owners that the “new” owners were better suited for the animals (than the actual owners were.) Also, just the opposite, where foster homes were not allowed to take animals, and who knows if such animals were ever reunited with owners.  More:   http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:vT3nrGQlDIkJ:rantand.blogspot.com/2006/03/hsus-katrina-relief-effort-under.html+hsus+in+trouble&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

These kinds of allegations do not show H$U$ as the alleged “compassion”, no “abuse” group that they keep claiming.                                       It’s Time to KICK Some Ass !

 

A perfect example is that H$U$ is just in 2009—advocating for nearly 200 laws nationwide, most of which impact dog owners, breeders, pet related businesses, pet stores, and businesses in general;  in addition, most of the laws cost the states more money, and we all know there is not more $$$$ to be had these days with the high foreclosure rates, unemployment and recession, loss of retirement and corporate greed.

We think H$U$ is nothing but an Animal Rights group that focuse NOT on the animals, but actually on THEMSELVES and their “lifestyle” Animal Rights beliefs—all in an attempt to raise donations to finance their Animal Rights campaign across America. to:

Ruin the Pet Trade and Interstate commerce in general, so that business owners and pet breeders will lose their ability to produce a decent pet, lose sales, lose business, and so consumers cannot and won’t be able to buy a pet either in person, online, from a newspaper, and won’t be able to participate in dog or cat shows or expos, without the constant threat of H$U$ making new laws to stop it all.    

H$U$ will NEVER come out and say the truth.  BUT WE WILL.

Contact the Louisiana AG’s office and put in your request to have the investigation re-opened!

“FORCIBLE ENTRY” GRANTED….. Orange County, CA dog Owner

SO……you think the groups like H$U$ aren’t all about raiding and seizing, using local officers to break down your door and seize your stuff?  Then look at this Search Warrant from Orange County, California.

It most clearly authorized forceable entry just on a MISDEMEANOR allegation of not having a “proper” kennel or pet shop license.  Absolutely no animal cruelty was involved. No fighting charges were alleged. No selling for fighting was alleged.  No transporting for fighting, or abuse, or any of that.  Read it for yourself.

 

IN CASE you cannot see the wording for the property to be SEIZED:

“Any and all electronics consisting of video cameras, digital cameras, cell phones, computers, laptop computers, and hard drives. Any and all software consisting of disks, floppy disks, compact disks, memory cards, and flash drives.  Any and all documentation pertaining to veterinary records, ledgers, registry papers, show records and photos. Any and all pitbull dogs on the property used for the pupose of illegal dog breeding and kenneling.”

What the hell is illegal dog breeding and kenneling?  It can’t be for “fighting” because that would be a felony.  So it’s a misdemeanor if you don’t have a license to sell a dog, even if you aren’t selling a dog? 

Folks, this case is just ONE example of what happens to dog owners when H$U$ wants to stop both bully dogs from being owned, and dog kennels from being owned—- this owner was purposely being made into a scapegoat example.

  This owner wasn’t selling dogs, he exhibited them in shows and has plenty of titles.  Yet this owner was told by AC that if he were to enter the animal control building, he would be arrested for trespassing and he was warned not to enter the building!  And that’s after his dogs were seized!  

It was related to us that the AC and police descended upon the property, with approximately 10 officers total, in order to search the premises.  The owner was at work but came home to witness the nightmare that unfolded. Allegedly a gun was even pointed at a 7yr old child in the home.

SO— if you own a dog or several dogs—and you think AC or the police don’t pick on dog owners, beware.  H$U$ has helped to screw over countless animal owners, ignore due process, and pushed media attention  to get people to think that every pitbull or bully dog must be used or sold for illegal reasons, and that if you own several of them, it must mean you are guilty of  ’something’, and your door needs to be broken down so your place can be searched and plundered.

TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW THAT OWNS A PET OR ANIMAL…..SPREAD THE WORD—H$U$ HELPS  PROMOTE THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT,  TO PUSH$U$ anti-pet legislation.  By using innocent animals that have done nothing, by targeting owners that have done nothing,  these animal rights groups are attempting to over-regulate our lives !!

And let’s not forget—H$U$ has hired MICHAEL VICK, who actually went to prison for dogfighting—to be an H$U$ spokesperson—-for H$U$ !!!!

Please post and forward this to everyone you know and ask your friends to pass it forward to everyone they know!!!!!   We need this to be shown far and wide—pet owners who know of similar incidents are urged to contact Petdefense ASAP.

H$U$ PUNKS ELITIST DOG OWNERS+OTHER SHEEPLE

Join the Crusade Against H$U$ Anti Pet Laws+Pass It Forward!

California Rally at the Capitol 7/15/09  See petpac.net for information

We are going to try and make it simple, since some  sheep-aholics actually “believe” that if H$U$ does not ’sponsor’ a bill in the CA legislature, that means they are not “for” the bill.

Oh, but to the contrary.

What elitists like Gina Spadafori of the Pet connection blog, and other dog fanciers  don’t understand— and don’t want to say? 

Quite clearly, after the debacle with AB1634 last year, H$U$ is not in a good strategic position to PUSH SB250—that’s simply strategy.  H$U$  MIGHT lose and H$U$ doesn’t want to push mandated altering WHILE allegedly PARTNERING with MADDIE’S Fund—which does not support mandated sterilization??!!!  DUH? 

 Anyone who keeps talking about “mills” completely fails to either understand animal rights, or is just plain dense.  Animal rights has targeted commercial kennels because they were unable to make headway against Federal law on the issue years ago. However, H$U$ places all breeders in one basket–whether good, bad, or otherwise.

 For animal rights, breeding animals is a sin, but killing them in shelters is seemingly ok.  We say that because H$U$ and other AR groups keep promoting proposed laws that create more shelter killing.  Of course, they will blame the killing on other people, not their laws.

And since H$U$ has so many other bad bills around the country, why tie a rock to your neck?  Why OPENLY support the very bill that H$U$ KNOWS will creat havoc?  More killing?  More financial ruin? INSTEAD—H$U$ donates thousands of $$ to ASPCA ($250,000+) and Social Compassion ($10,000 minimum+) and scads of other smaller groups, like Jennifer Fearing’s groups. Then is behind the scenes while THOSE groups push the proposed law, USING the info given by H$U$. That’s not a secret. 

Then H$U$ simply pretends it is “neutral” on SB250 and doesn’t talk about it.  Yeah, H$U$ isn’t talking all right, because they planned it that way on purpose. 

H$U$ is REALLY more interested in their other bills, including the AB 241 which limits intact animals (dogs,cats) for kennels to 50. That’s including puppies or kittens.  Clearly, that is a restraint on legal trade and capping sales in the open market.

Yet H$U$ comes in as the know it all, rich, and deceptive and greedy Animal Rights faction, in every single state that H$U$ thinks it can make headway.  H$U$ then cons elitist kennel clubs to bargain with them to devise laws that limit intact dogs to 20, 10, then probably zero intact dogs down the road.

Now before you say this is a good idea, what everyone is missing or ignoring, is the fact that H$U$ is not the government.  Yet H$U$ is taking over the function of the government by bringing in its special interest laws, all in the name of Animal Rights.  This is so very obvious.  It is not animal welfare, BUT H$U$ simply calls it animal welfare.  In fact, it is simply animal rights law. 

 Anyone who has ever read an animal rights textbook, animal rights book, philosophy of animal rights, or even books against animal rights, anyone who has done their research will CLEARLY, CLEARLY, CLEARLY SEE—->>>>  H$U$ is an animal rights group. An animal rights conglomeration lobbying group. Fund for Animals and Animal Defense Leage have all attempted to push lawsuits year after year.  While some of the earlier lawsuits involved trying to get Federal Courts to force changes in the various laws involving methods of killing animals, the fact is that ARs don’t believe animal are property.  So if animals are not property, then nothing could be done with them. NOT bought, NOT sold, NOT owned, NOT used in movies, NOT in any zoo, aquarium, dog show, agility show, NOT in an animal rescue because they could not be sold.

===============================================================

Consider this–straight out of the animal law legal casebook  Animal Law Cases and Materials(Waisman,Frasch,Wagman, Carolina Academic Press, Third Edition, 2006,  under “Property and Beyond: The Evolution of Rights”):

..if the “property status of animals were to be abolished,                 

what would be the legal and practical effects on   

the commercial use of animals?                          

      What would happen to the animals themselves–should they be put in sanctuaries, sterilized, or permitted to move towards extinction?”

Notice that NONE of the CHOICES allows for animals to be owned, bred, sold, or kept as pets.  THIS IS THE ANIMAL LAW CASEBOOK FOLKS, JUST AS WE COPIED IT HERE.

===============================================================

The online lawyer site clearly states H$U$ is animal rights.  We all know H$U$ is animal rights.  So why do ANY welfarisits believe that H$U$ pushes laws for either:

1)  So called “ethical breeders”

2) So called “animal welfare”

H$U$ does nothing of the sort. What H$U$ does, is to run a strategically based, media campaign using photoshop and investigators with cameras and videos.  That is what H$U$ does.  H$U$ focuses on SWAT teams, snitches, buying off animal control in smaller cities, offering to fund campaigns to animal rights groups, giving awards to celebrities that donate to H$U$, and probably using deception with government employees.

Just by looking at the above, what truthful animal welfare group would do those type of things? None.

Animal rights does not believe that deception, lying, tricking, manipulation, misrepresentation or anything akin to these things is wrong.  They believe that the entire basis for animal rights means they can take whatever steps they deem necessary, even if it means killing.  If you don’t believe that, then you have not done enough research.  You are an absolute fool to believe ANYTHING the H$U$ says because they are liars.

The final decision to actually HIRE Michael Vick, the dogfighter, dog killer, dog torturer guy is OK with H$U$ because H$U$ thinks Vick will help make H$U$ money.  And H$U$ doesn’t want to be targeted by Vick getting back at them for helping ruin his career, while H$U$ made Vick the dogfigher poster child. So they offer the guy a job, but claim it was Vick that came to them.  What a bunch of liars.

H$U$ couldn’t tell the truth if they had to do so.  H$U$ lies to the Courts, and to the government.  H$U$ has likely bought off people but eventually the true colors will always show.  They have been shown to us for over 20 years, but some people STILL don’t get it.  If you hated what Hitler did, you should hate what H$U$ does, because there is little difference. It’s called manipulating the masses via propaganda. 

And it works,  judging from the nonsense we see on other blogs which advocate both for H$U$ and the H$U$ alleged “change” they claim to make.  H$U$ will only get worse and worse until it is too late to cut it out, like a cancer.  H$U$ is a cancer to all interstate pet trade businesses and those who own a pet.    Just remember—animal rights attorneys are paid to do the H$U$ work.  Students work for free, believing they are helping animals.  In very few cases they might be helping wild animals, in nearly all of the rest–the companion animals are the target. 

It is no surprise that H$U$ targets kennels, breeders, owners, and owners of intact animals. H$U$ is all about getting rid of animals and stifling the ability to sell animals.  If we were to suddently be able to eliminate all shelter killing, we can guarantee you–H$U$ will come up with more animal rights laws to stop the breeding of animals.  Shelter animals have nothing to do with H$U$ saving them. They are simply a ploy that H$U$ uses to raise funding. And that was shown by the video H$U$ doesn’t want anyone to see, which came out in May 2009.  You can see it by looking for it on the blogroll or posts on Petdefense.

ASININE PATHETIC H$U$– HIRES MICHAEL VICK!!!!!

Join the Crusade AGAINST H$U$ Anti-PET Laws +Pass It Forward!

According to  ANIMAL PEOPLE, editor Merritt Clifton,  

HSUS’ new spokes person.. is NOW Michael Vick—

the VERY person–criminal—- that H$U$ used as poster child,

to  raise+make $$$$$$$$$$$$$  for H$U$ —

 after VICK was caught

involved with DOG FIGHTING???!!!

Let’s be realistic folks, advocates, and logically minded people?

Hiring VICK is the H$U$ method of deception.  OH YES—->>>>>

Just take a look at what Pacelle of H$U$ said about corporate sponsors that used Vick in ads:

“They enlisted Vick, like any company signs on an athlete, because they hope consumers will follow the lead of the star and buy their product. Well, Vick is best-known now for peddling cruelty, and that’s not a product they have any business selling to consumers. They need to steer clear of this man. Nike has thus far recapitulated the NFL’s line of argument—let’s wait until the courts adjudicate the matter. That’s just not sufficient”    …AND  let’s NOT forget that H$U$ told the COURTS that ALL the dogs should be KILLED ASAP and even wrote letters to that effect.  KILLING, not saving.  Of course in the end, then the H$U$ employee Goodwin claimed they were not trained fighting dogs, yet H$U$ claimed they were, and all needed to be killed.

The bottom line is this: H$U$ and its CEO Pacelle, is a snake oil salesman, focused only on two things:

(1)   Getting donations for H$U$ Animal Rights Laws, mostly all against pet owners, breeders

(2)   Pushing the Animal Rights 12 Step Program set out in the late 1980’s by Kim Bartlett (see link on blogroll)  

This act of hiring VICK as spokesperson, no matter what he speaks on—is nothing more than a PLOY to make people think that H$U$ is doing an act of forgiveness, of charitable concern, and for the ANIMALS.

BIGGEST LIE OF THE CENTURY.

Let us tell you what’s really going on in ONE sentence.

H$U$ is USING VICK to gain both $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and then possible EMOTIONAL acceptance as a “forgiving” and “compassionate” group of animal rights extremists.

There is only one word for this

Make that  five words:  SHAM, DECEPTION, LIES, PLOY,SUBTERFUGE

Any group that is truthful about the very  *ACT*  they claim to hate (dog fighting) where they PAY people to snitch people off, where they arrest and seize innocent people and dogs, where they USE the dogs to make $$$$ for the “charity” ——–would NEVER in a million years, HIRE VICK.  Unless they are afraid VICK might hurt them? LOL

—————————————————————————————————

This is from Nathan Winograd: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?page_id=166    and  http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=1174   for example…………

” From New Orleans, LA after Hurricane Gustav where he [Pacelle]  fundraised off the largest evacuation of animals in U.S. history conducted by a rescue group by falsely claiming it was an HSUS effort, to Virginia where he [Pacelle]  demanded that the Vick dogs be killed only to fundraise off of them by telling donors that they were caring for them, when they were not.”………………..  [all emphasis added by Petdefense]

Nathan’s excerpt, see entire article at links above……….

“HSUS says it is changing (how long does it take to change? It’s been 50 years!) despite recent mass killing support in Tangipahoa, Wilkes County, and elsewhere, just a couple of short months ago, killing apologist Wayne Pacelle wrote San Francisco telling them:

• if they mandate No Kill, the end result will be warehousing and animal suffering (essentially likening No Kill to the Lied Animal Shelter fiasco in Las Vegas),
• it is wrong to regulate shelters even though we regulate pet owners, and,
• that despite a per capita intake that is at the bottom of national rates and despite the fact that even the local SPCA says it has no choice but to import thousands of animals into San Francisco because of an inability to meet adoption demand, San Francisco is suffering from “pet overpopulation.”

This from someone who is asking us to get in bed with a monster by embracing the most notorious animal abuser of our time as a spokesperson for the animal protection movement  [M Vick]

—————————————————————————————————-

 We don’t care if  Vick stayed in jail for 10 years. We don’t care if he get back into football.   If that’s all H$U$ can come up with, and people are stupid enough to give H$U$ money because they think  H$U$  is  ”saving dogs”, when in fact, H$U$ tells judges to kill them ALL—–  just wait.  You cannot keep doing wrong  and expect to come out on top. 

CANINE EXPERT SUES ANTI-PITBULL SITE OWNER

Join the Crusade v HSUS Anti-Pet Laws+Pass it Forward!

One of the canine experts from the American Canine Fdn (ACF) is suing the owner of the anti-pitbull website [ Colleen Lynn in Washington] after she alleged that the ACF is linked to dog fighting groups, and that the ACF expert had testified in the Stevens’ free speech case. It has been disclosed recently that the same expert has worked undercover for a key governmental agency for more than five years.

The Stevens case, according to constitutional attorneys, will likely result in the statute being overturned for free speech violation.[See that and the case reversal on the Front page of this blog, above the picture of the courtroom]  The statute, which was drafted to stop “crush” videos,  was used against Stevens for selling a video on the history of dogfighting in Japan,  but upon appeal, the Appeals Court found that the statute was problematic because it created a crime where  no crime existed [upon application of the law] and would end up making every single depiction of animal injury a crime, even if it was a depiction and not actual harm, such as in children’s films like Bambi.   

Lehr Birsbin, a national canine expert on pitbull type dogs, was also categorized in the same manner by Lynn.  It would appear that anyone who takes the side of dogs in the pitbull category are instantly criticized by Lynn, but to claim that such canine group advocates, experts, or members are linked to dog fighting is outrageous.   It should be noted that Kory Nelson in 2006, made the same accusation when he placed the statement that American Canine Foundation members were strawmen for dogfighters on his personal Yahoo group message board. After direct demand by counsel, Nelson removed the defamatory statement.

Lynn was allegely bitten by a dog that she called a pitbull or pitbull type several years ago, and subsequent to that she started a website that works much like Animal People newspaper, as she collect news stories re dog bites by alleged pitbull type dogs. She then castigates the dogs, owners, and anything else she can while taking the same side as Kory Nelson does.

We have been asked to possibly assist in the case against Lynn, and would gladly do so when the case moves forward in court. We have also been asked for opinion re a case in Southern CA where an owner of titled dogs was threatened by animal control officers.  It seems that AC officers or employees told the owner if he ever shows up at the shelter, he would be arrested for trespassing.  The AC officers also performed a C-section on a third party’s dog without permission, and the dogs ended up dying.  The case is very involved but in the end, it is obvious to see that Southern CA animal control wants to run down owners of dogs that they don’t care for, no matter what it takes.

CA AB241 TRIES TO LIMIT HOW MANY DOGS CAN BE SOLD

California AB241 09 finalPDF

As usual, the AR gang has submitted to the CA legislature, more bad laws that will do nothing to help shelters, but instead, will stop the sales of dogs, create more killing for shelters, and more red tape for stuff that is not a problem, but has been amped up as a problem on purpose.

Several of the main AR laws are going to be considered again next week in CA. Advocates are working hard to make sure they do not pass!