PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL
http://pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=175
PIJAC Amendments Prevail In D.C. Legislation
[UPDATE: DC B17-089 ("Animal Protection Amendment Act") was enacted by the DC City Council on July 15th.]
By Petdefense: Major changes attempted by animal extremists included the ones listed below. Likely HSUS is heavily PUSHING or advocating the guardianship, the ability of NON police employees to engage in POLICE powers, the ability of the public to engage in the TAKING of private property (another person’s pets or animals) by simply CLAIMING to be “concerned” with humane treatment. As we know, the former Tammy Grimes did this, when she took a dog that was on a chain, and she allegedly refused to return it, resulting in a conviction against her.
In Los Angeles, the AR volunteers supposedly have the ability to write up their opinions re potential violations, but they are not supposed to take action on their own. However since these laws will allow the “power trip” people on a mission to misuse their authority, it is just a matter of time before it goes too far and I see lawsuits just waiting to happen as we speak.
Some of the MOST Objectionable provisions of the Washington DC bill were:
Guardianship: Where it could be argued that animals have individual rights under the law. Extremists seeking to eliminate the rights of those who own or sell pets, push laws which allow others to challenge the guardian relationship in court (take your pets away) and provide the subjects of the guardianship (pets) legal standing similar to people. By opening the door to evaluating guardian rights and obligations, this would be a VERY CLEAR STEP IN THE AGENDA TO ELIMINATE PET OWNERSHIP COMPLETELY.
While it is often said that we do not own our kids, the fact is that in order to take a kid away from a parent, the parental rights must be terminated and due process must be used. Removing a child temporarily is a different matter. In order to establish “guardianship” over a child, due process is used, but the guardian may actually take the child physically froma parent temporarily. Ex Parte court orders can be done without giving “Notice” if the declaration includes circumstances that makes it appear such notice should not be given. Even if “Notice” is given, in CA it is usually only 24hr notice, and it may be given by phone call. This is not what we want for animals, because in the situation of many owners, they may not even be home, or at work, or able to respond properly if they “miss” the notice.
I know this only because I have done cases where Ex Parte Hearings come up fairly frequently. They are expensive to do and it is quite easy to get screwed if opposing counsel is not trustworthy. [That is another reason I recommend the legal plan. It is very difficult to get an attorney for an ex parte hearing when you only had 24hr notice. In fact it is likely you would not be able to obtain an attorney on that short of notice, and you would pay a premium as well.]
I believe that the concept of guardianship as it applies to children was used to set up similar guidelines for animals. Even the fiduciary duty owing from one to another in certain relationships (such as a trustor-beneficiary) has been used to try and create rights for animals. California already has pet trusts which are used to hold the funds left in trust for owner’s pets. It would not surprise me if HSUS also tries to invade those funds as well by claiming the trustor was not spending the money wisely for the animal.
Elimination of “ownership” is pushed because extremists believe animals are not property, that owning pets is akin to slavery, and that if pets are not property, then THERE GOES OUR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AS TO OUR PROPERTY. This would be opening Pandora’s Box and I am sure that most pet owners in America DO NOT WANT THIS. Do not support the closing down of any pet store, because closing down pet businesses is just another tactic to make the public believe that pets are not property which can be sold. Do not buy into the crap about “Don’t buy” a pet. If you want a pet, it is your right to buy whatever pet you choose.
Private Right of Action against Animal Owners: “NONPROFIT” claiming to be “concerned with humane treatment of animals” could legally enter private property, confiscate another’s animals, and “correct conditions giving rise to cruelty.” No oversight or training involved………This obvious police power has “HSUS” written all over it.
Non-Economic Damages: Vets would have been subjected to new liabilty standards, with damages for loss of society, companionship, confort, protection, love affections and services”…..these damages are not usually awarded in cases involving loss of a pet. There are only a few cases in the USA which have done so, and there is one which is on appeal in Vermont.
Mandatory spay neuter: Exception only with breeding permit with extensive disclosure of information to govt with right to inspect private property, no license cost specified, so private owner would have been treated as a commercial kennel with potential fees of $100-$500 or higher.
Nearly all of the most objectionable provisions were eventually stricken but it took over 12 months, which is similar to California’s AB1634, the 3 time loser bill.
Note: For any of the details below, you must be a member of PIJAC to access the archives. I am a member but have not gotten all the details, however, you can plainly see that this listing (I only listed a sample)– is but a small part of the legislation that is going on across the country——-and it will not be stopping. The extremists have had their mission set for over 25 years and they are becoming emboldened because they have made progress (guardianship, MSN, breed bans, limit laws, private enforcement, etc) and they are NOW trying to make ALL dog breeders LOOK LIKE PUPPYMILLERS. I will be obtaining the puppymiller’s constitutional lawsuit against the government (in PA) as soon as I can download from the Court, as the site was not accessible for 2 days.
Arizona Implements Kennel Permit and Animal Sales Restrictions
[UPDATE: HB 2701 & HB 2485 have been signed by the Governor. Please click on link above to read PIJAC's PetAlert and to to see final version of bill text.]
Vermont Introduces Dog Breeder Limitations
[UPDATE: SB 341 died in committee as the 2007-2008 legislative session adjourned on May 3rd.]
Tennessee To Ban Dog Ownership
[UPDATE: SB 2738 and SB 3827 both died in committee on May 21st as the Tennessee Legislature adjourned for the 2007-2008 session.]
Virginia Committee Sets Last Minute Hearing on Bills Impacting Pet Stores and Breeders
[UPDATE: HB 538 (substituted on January 23rd to include HB 690 and HB 1232) became law without the Governor's signature on April 23rd. HB 673 was signed by the Governor on March 2nd.]
Rhode Island Considers Mandatory Spay/Neuter Law
[UPDATE: HB 7354 died in committee on June 21st as the 2007-2008 Rhode Island General Assembly adjourned.]
New Hampshire Department Estimates Half of Pet Stores to be Put out of Business
[UPDATE: SB 504 failed to pass the Senate on March 6th. This bill is dead for the 2008 session.]
Legislation in Tennessee Restricts Commercial Breeders
[UPDATE: SB 3147 and HB 2914 both died in their respective committees on May 21st as the Tennessee Legislature adjourned for the 2007-2008 session.]
Legislation in Hawaii Threatens Saltwater Aquarium Industry
[UPDATE: SB 3225, SCR 17 and HB 3330 all died in committee as the 2007-2008 legislative session adjourned on May 2nd.]
Arizona Introduces Mandatory Spay/Neuter Legislation
[UPDATE: HB 2516 died in the House Government Committee as the Arizona Legislature adjourned for the 2008 session.]
Maine Considers Puppy Mill Legislation
[UPDATE: HB 1394 (amended to resolve that a working group be apopinted to evaluate and recommend changes to the statutory definition of "breeding kennel") was enacted on April 15th. HB 1545 was enacted on April 25th.]
Colorado Bill Creates Extraordinary Damages For Loss Of Companionship Of A Pet
[UPDATE: HB 1308 was signed into law by the Governor on May 29th. The bill was substituted in the House Judiciary Committee, striking the 'non-economic damages' language. Click on link above to see final language.]
Rhode Island House Committee To Hold Hearing On Cat Spay/Neuter Legislation
[UPDATE: HB 7354 was re-referred to the House Committee on Health, Education & Welfare on May 27th.]
Rhode Island Proposes Non-Economic Damages For Loss Of Pets
[UPDATE: HB 7935 died in committee on June 21st as the 2007-2008 Rhode Island General Assembly adjourned.]
Iowa Legislation To Affect Dog Breeders and Dealers
[UPDATE: SB 2293 died in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources & Environment, as the 2007-2008 legislative session adjourned on April 26th.]
More Animals Prohibited In California
[UPDATE: SB 1424 died on the Assembly Inactive File when the California Legislature adjourned on August 31, 2008.]
Pet Stores Included in Palm Beach County, FL Spay/Neuter Ordinance
[UPDATE: Ordinance took effect April 1, 2008.]
Virginia Department of Agriculture Redefines Companion Animal
[UPDATE: No public hearing will be held on this rulemaking. Comment submission deadline was May 28, 2008.]
Rhode Island Set Guidelines For Outdoor Dogs
[UPDATE: SB 2096 died in committee on June 21st as the 2007-2008 Rhode Island General Assembly adjourned.]
Delaware To Set Age Limitations On Puppy Sales
[UPDATE: HB 467 died in the House Judiciary Committee on June 30th as the Delaware Legislature adjourned for the 2007-2008 session.]
