Using the broken record technique again (ARs use it 24/7)–let’s AGAIN look at why SB917 is simply the worst law EVER to be written re animals that we have seen, and WHY the crafty ARs have gotten away with it. For one thing, AB1634 said what–? “Statewide altering”…right? Well if it becomes illegal to sell or give away an UNsterilized dog [or any animal for that matter]— then that amounts to the same thing as all animals must be altered….right? HOWEVER this time they said it amounts to ANIMAL ABUSE which is criminal–so it’s even worse.
In other words, only non profits can be engaged in selling or giving away animals outside, because their own mantra is “Don’t breed or buy while shelter animals die”– when in reality— if consumers do not WANT shelter animals, why should they be FORCED into buying them? Must consumers only buy altered animals from shelters? Of course not. The public has been led to believe that buying a rescue dog is a piece of cake. Ha ha ha. Not so. We did rescue for about 10 years, and we were not limited to breed specific. We were targeted by Animal Control. More than several times. We were victims of Animal Control’s lies. After having lived through it, we know it, we understand it, and we fight back.
Not only does the law affect Ag-rural people, where tons of things are done “outside”, it is purposely set up to harm hobby breeders without saying so. And for anyone that can’t understand why, then ask someone who has a legal education, and ask them if it’s legally correct to define ”abuse” as “selling or giving away” without more, but saying if a “non profit” does it, it is not abuse. That is no different from saying that if I raise 20 dogs inside, I am not an animal abuser but if I raise 20 dogs in a kennel setting which may be partially outside, I am an animal abuser. Pure bullshit.
That alone shows the law is not based upon “abuse.” It is based upon what ARs have claimed is their “intent” as to “mills” and is not abuse.
Selling and giving away without more simply cannot be abuse. To tolerate that, we would have to say that an un-altered dog is abuse, an un-microchipped dog is abuse, and an un-leashed dog is abuse. Plus millions of other AR myths, like Orca whales have constitutional rights. Let’s be honest folks– the PETA lawyer was stupid enough to go to Federal Court, mind you, to assert that whales have constitutional rights. He might as well have said that ghosts or spirits or cartoon characters have those rights.
We all cannot be that insane. But we can be apathetic, lazy, and simply don’t care?
To begin– the term animal “abuse” is defined (by AR law) under Penal Code 597 et seq. There are many pages of law in numerical order, such as 597.1 and so on. We would be willing to BET that anyone who doesn’t care about SB917 has NEVER looked at the Penal Code. Because if they did read it, even starting with Section 597, it is very obvious when one gets to the 9th line [597(b)] it most clearly states that all owners/keepers or whoever is in charge of the animal —-is/are liable. This includes shelters, rescues, anyone. It includes non profits, 4H, FFA, pet sitters, etc.
The entire intent behind the Penal Code as to animals is supposedly intended to define and punish animal abuse. The crime of “abuse” includes negligence. Negligence charges under “abuse” of animals requires a finding of criminal negligence, not civil negligence. It requires the finding that one’s acts or omissions fell way, way below the reasonable standard of care. Therefore actual abuse of an animal MUST be something that comports with what is listed in the statute under Section 597 of the Penal Code. SELLING AN ANIMAL OR GIVING IT AWAY CAN NEVER BE ABUSE according to the Penal Code and just plain common sense. Never.
Never mentioned in the bill, was the placement of the bill under “mischief.” All data that we had seen in reference to the intent of the bill was that it was intended (by AR drafters HSUS) to be based upon stopping “milled” animals and animal abuse, not stopping “mischief.”
If an animal was stolen it might be something else– but it’s not abuse. Not being on leash– is not abuse. Not being licensed– is not abuse. Not being microchipped –is not abuse. Not having a fence– is not abuse. Not paying a ticket is not abuse. Not having a certain breed is not abuse. Not being “altered” –is not abuse.
Think of it like a kid (since they developed these laws by copying child welfare statutes)– if your kid doesnt’ wear the most expensive clothing is that child abuse? If your kid uses a bus to go to school is that abuse? If your kid brings a lunch to school and doesn’t buy a lunch is that abuse? Of couse not.
Yet SB917 rises to that level of stupidity. Claiming that “selling” or “giving away” is abuse ONLY if you are not a non profit is so asinine it’s pathetic.
What this does is set up a precedent that “selling” and “giving away” under the law is ACTUALLY ABUSE. It does not matter that it affects outside.
The issue that MOST people do not understand is that it will actually affect those sellers/breeders … who want to preserve good breeding practices.
After “sale and give away” become cemented in law as ABUSE, then there is little to stop any WORSE laws from affecting sales, kenneling standards, grooming, etc. Then those items will be added to “abuse” until everything ends up being abuse the way we keep telling everyone. By that time so many laws will call everything abuse that it will be more difficult, if not impossible, to dismantle.
But take our word, you cannot manufacture animal abuse when there is no animal abuse and no Judge in the world is going to find animal abuse. You might be guilty of something else but it is NOT animal abuse. At best, the law needs to be changed FIRST and then moved to a different section of another Code. At worst, it’s wildly overinclusive, calls for disparate application and unilateral implementation, arbitrary enforcement, without having a strong state interest.
Remembering that the entire code was written by HSUS/cronies, we should have some say in why and how these laws do not serve the State’s interest, nor do they serve the purpose for which the alleged intent was claimed. Most of it is all nonsensical, exaggerated, non factual and anecdotal crap, just like the HSUS lawsuit against PETLAND and HUNTE, that failed, NOT surprisingly.
Look at the link below. The guy is right. Ignorance of the law means you create your own demise.