Example of what we don’t necessarily believe…………HSUS and “5 other groups” went and seized animals from “deplorable” conditions, alleged skin or eye infections, yet it wasn’t even clear that the owner was charged. AND if the animals were in that bad of condition, why would they be evaluated for ADOPTION if they were that bad off? Was the owner over the limit if they even had a limit? why wouldn’t the owner be immediately charged?
We have seen so many of these seizures shown to the media, we have gotten to the point that we plain don’t believe the stories, unless someone we personally know was there. It is WAY too easy to descend upon any owner, whether they have “too many” animals or not, and whether they are alleged to be hoarding or not. So if the place was NOT “deplorable”– do they get to SEIZE every single animal? Had the owner been warned before? Usually those facts never come out. The place might not be the cleanest but if the animals are actually not in bad condition, what is the REAL point of seizure? The real point of seizure is because HSUS has either made laws where they CAN seize ALL of the animals, or just pretends they can do so.
In CA the child welfare laws allow for seizing ALL of your children if they find one kid that they believe should be removed. They do not leave kids behind, even if they are in perfect shape.
Hence HSUS simply drafted the seizure laws in CA (starting with PC597 et seq) and it calls for seizure of ALL the animals once they can supposedly seize one. Well, we think that law is absurd. HSUS’ obvious intent was to make sure if ANYONE is EVER caught by animal control— they will not own animals again, and they won’t be able to afford them anyway after they seize them.
Maybe even lien the property due to the outrageous forfeiture $$$ costs for “holding” and storage. Yet HSUS managed to pass this law and far, far more, because no one objected. and if they did object, no one else joined in to stop it.
Only in very few cases, such as the 50 dog limit for breeders, and the mandated altering for every dog/cat in existence, did the animal owning populace speak out.
Having these HSUS laws makes defense attorney’s job about 10 times harder, because animals that were not being abused are taken despite them being in good condition. and we have little defense since that is WHAT the law allows. These animals are NOT kids. It is the same as seizing an entire herd of cattle or horses or pigs if they find ONE that they claim is not perfect. We don’t care what the law says. It’s ridiculous.
AND, it’s no secret that when doing the seizures, HSUS usually only seizes:
1. small, desirable animals 2. cases where the small desirable animals have more than 30-50 animals 3. pitbulls (which are then killed) 4. horses (which are then never heard of again) 5. puppies, and lots of them, usually small breeds 6. purebred kennels with small breeds 7. breeder with only small breeds that advertises to the public 8. designer type dogs, small breeds
Only in very few instances does HSUS target seizure for animals which are old, mixed breed of medium sizes, large dogs, or shelters that don’t take care of animals. Once in awhile HSUS will seize cats but it’s pretty useless since they can’t be RESOLD for much money. Based upon the types designated above, you can see that we are correct in our analysis. HSUS purposely seeks out these types of seizures so they can claim “PM, mill, commerce, USDA” etc. and then clamor for their PUPS legislation. Propaganda fodder. Marketing to be used to gain $$$$. Advertising to gain $$$. Stories to raise $$$$.
We aren’t stupid.
ROUGEMONT, N.C. — More than 100 animals were seized Tuesday from what authorities described as “deplorable conditions” at a home in Rougemont.
The Person County Sheriff’s Office, Person County Animal Control, the Humane Society of the United States and five other animal advocacy groups assisted in the rescue effort at 1133 Berea Road. They said they found 39 horses and about 70 small-breed dogs, cats and birds housed in squalor. The horses were very thin, and some required immediate medical attention, a Humane Society spokeswoman said. Many of the dogs and cats had eye and skin infections and other signs of neglect. [PD note: yea, yea yea...same 'ole, same old story]
The owners surrendered all the animals, which were taken to area shelters for treatment. They will be evaluated for adoption, the spokeswoman said.
Authorities said they acted after receiving complaints from the community about the conditions at the house. [PD: yea, right...don't believe it..]
“The situation here deteriorated so badly that we knew it was time to act,” Ron Shaw, director of Person County Animal Control, said in a statement. “I’m incredibly grateful that we did, because the conditions for the small animals living inside were deplorable.”
Guilford County Animal Shelter, Safe Haven Equine Rescue & Retirement, Paws Ranch, Central Virginia Horse Rescue and Allen’s Place assisted with removing the animals from the property. It wasn’t immediately clear whether any charges were filed against the owner. [Yeah, the large animal rescue who just happens to want to seize that many horses in bad condition???!]
“The Humane Society of the United States is glad to help Person County Animal Control with this very sad case of neglect,” Kim Alboum, North Carolina state director for the organization, said in a statement. “The conditions in this home are egregious and these animals desperately needed rescue. Now they are on the path to much better lives. [BARK and BARF]
And as a big example of how we have seen this nonsense, when HSUS affiliate The Grace Foundation helped the planned seizure, and “seized” horses, she CLAIMS she was to get ownership of the horses, yet CA state law doesn’t allow ownership to pass until the owner has forfeited the property. There was never a deprivation hearing. No warrant. No opposition allowed. The Grace Foundation knew that. So when the bank attorney’s “Receiver” claims to have seized the animals FOR Lassen County, HOW exactly did that work? IF IT WAS actually for Lassen County, then Lassen County needed to follow the law.
The “receiver” was a 3rd party, which functions as the arm of the COURT— and just supposedly followed what the bank attorney DRAFTED and argued in court. A rents and profits receiver cannot take property that is not part of the property for which the “bank” has some type of lien, such as the residence. Yet that’s exactly what the bank’s receiver did.
There is no WAY that seizure could be legal. If it was, then I could go in your backyard and take everything you own and presto, give it to my church and say THEY own it. That’s how egregious that ill-fated “seizure” was. Enough so that the bank attorney would do even worse actions afterward. Because he thought he could get away with it.