Join the Crusade-Crackdown v H$U$ and Pass it Forward!
Notice: We allow/welcome permissible online copying of our written posts, HOWEVER we simply ask that you employ the proper common courtesy of citing Pet Defense as original author. To do otherwise is to imply that you are the author [and amounts to plagarism.] Thanks.
By Pet Defense: For those concerned re getting BSL dismantled, the handwriting is on the wall. Animal Rights are now pushing lawsuits to bring down BSL So the newest lawsuit against Denver might work [Arnold, Martinez, Pit Bull Band, Sturdivant- Plaintiffs v City/County of Denver, Doug Kelley, Rick Mounton, Dave Romerco, Micahel Gabriel; US District Court Colorado]—– but Denver will likely just dismantle the BSL law and move it to potentially dangerous.
With Million dollar liability required, excessive confined kennel specs, excessive regulation of all related dog laws, just like Louisville; no intact dogs, no breeding, no selling, no dog parks, no doggie day care, and the words custodian and harborer or similar will be used. Probably force people to get permission to go on vacation if dog has not yet been altered and dog will remain at home, and a scratch by your dog will mean a death sentence. If you think this is too far fetched, then you don’t know HSUS, and you don’t know the Louisville case? Currently in Federal Court in KY? Probably the worst laws in the entire United States. They are currently seeing search/seizure of puppy sellers, claiming they violated the law, when the words in the laws explain the opposite.
So owning the “potentially” dangerous dog, if allowed, will come at a big $PRICE$—–and you can rest assured, that such ownership will be targeted heavily by Animal Control. Along with those changes, it is believed the Penal Code will be changed, so that manslaughter charges might be automatic by sheer ownership, if anything were to happen. Remember folks–it’s HSUS that says “cropped ears on a dog” mean prima facia felony—and “ownership” of a “pitbull” in Ohio automatically means vicious dog. THINK–THINK–THINK!!!!! Remember—there is a way to TWIST every single law ever drafted in the United States. And HSUS has plenty of practice at it.
In other words, HSUS doesn’t want anyone to own a dog in reality, unless it’s a Golden Retriever or a 3lb mutt from the shelter, OH—or one that HSUS raided/seized to sell via Best Friends AS, which is building a huge new PUPPY Housing BUILDING FOR ALL THE NEW Puppies THAT WILL CONTINUED TO BE SEIZED by HSUS. AND let’s remember—it’s Best Friends that owns ‘dontbuypuppies.com,net,org’ ????
What the owners of APBTs+ other dogs DON’T understand is this:
HSUS CLAIMS they don’t like BSL, and yet HSUS keeps killing APBT dogs, or those dogs that HSUS thinks are APBT dogs. HOWEVER that problem is not resolved, is it? Nope.
BUT this is what HSUS has been planning all along, legally…..HSUS intends to CULL All pitbull TYPE dogs, mixed pitbull TYPE dogs, and of course, all registered APBT dogs and AmStaffs+ the entire breeds registered which are now often banned via BSL—and will have every single breed classified, and mixed breed alleged to be a bully type dog—as potentially dangerous. They are ALREADY doing it.
Yes, potentially dangerous. Automatically, due to breed type. That will just be the start of the revolution, because BSL only prohibits people from owning such dogs in certain jurisdictions. Once HSUS and their huge animal rights legal team gets to working on classifying all the terrier bullies, they will make new laws, and start including dogs such as Cane Corso, Mastiff, Tosas, Rotties, Wolf hybirds, Inus,Presas, Chows, Dobies, etc. Just wait.
And once YOU register, license, or admit that is what your dog is, they can USE that fact against you in court. It is a fact, that the New York Housing Authority type rules have just stated, that owning such a dog (similar to named above) is illegal for those in the projects or low income housing type dwellings and all dogs over 25lb are prohibited. So it’s even focused on poor people! Now WHO do you think GAVE them THAT idea? We all know who. Here is the letter from AKC to NY Housing Authority http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation/NYCHA_0409.pdf
WHY DO You THINK THAT HSUS PUT THEIR 3cents WORTH BY SUBMITTING AN AMICUS BRIEF IN the first (under appeal) DENVER BSL CASE? Let’s face it, HSUS HATES pitbull type dogs, so why bother with a “brief to the court?
WHY DID HSUS SAY THAT DNA TESTING IS 99% ACCURATE?
Because the obvious “answer” is that HSUS INTENDS to use that case brief, as evidence that the courts are aware of DNA testing, then when the time is right, HSUS will use it to prove dog breeds/to kill “dangerous” dogs/prosecute owners……… DUH???????? [and let’s not forget that the Animal Rights atty for the case, Karen Breslin, welcomed the amicus brief by HSUS and ASPCA. ASPCA’s brief was not so bad. HSUS’ is another matter completely.]
State legislatures have enacted “findings” which supposedly relate to the so-called “dog bite epidemic.” For example, the Colorado State Legislature enacted this finding (codified in Colorado Revised Statutes):
18-9-204.5. Unlawful ownership of dangerous dog.
(1) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that:
(a) Dangerous dogs are a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens throughout the state because of the number and serious nature of attacks by such dogs; and
(b) The regulation and control of dangerous dogs is a matter of statewide concern.
Similarly, the California State Legislature studied dog bites and passed this finding (which is codified as section 31601 of the Food & Agriculture Code):
31601. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Potentially dangerous and vicious dogs have become a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of citizens of this state. In recent years, they have assaulted without provocation and seriously injured numerous individuals, particularly children, and have killed numerous dogs. Many of these attacks have occurred in public places.
(b) The number and severity of these attacks are attributable to the failure of owners to register, confine, and properly control vicious and potentially dangerous dogs.
(c) The necessity for the regulation and control of vicious and potentially dangerous dogs is a statewide problem, requiring statewide regulation, and existing laws are inadequate to deal with the threat to public health and safety posed by vicious and potentially dangerous dogs law.
For example, the bill that amended section 399 of the California Penal Code (Bill No. AB 1709) contained this:
SEC. 3. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect….
In order to protect the public from the rising incidents of dog maulings across the state it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
From Title 10 of the Los Angeles County Code:
10.37.010 Purpose of this chapter. Within the county of Los Angeles there are potentially dangerous and vicious dogs that have become a serious and widespread threat to the safety and welfare of the citizens of the county which should be abated.
Even “dangerous playfulness” or overly demonstrative affection, according to the Restatement Second of Torts, sec. 509, comment (c) and (i) are mentioned [from Drake v Dean (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 915]
Even “too many” dogs [such as “4” (four)] could be dangerous, according to Bevery Hills, CA Muni Code Sec. 5-2.204 re Walking Dogs.
Last but not least, it has been alleged and asserted for decades, that ANY dog which might have a propensity to attack other dogs or animals, is automatically dangerous. And we all know that many dog breeds are dog (dog to dog) aggressive, from small 10 pounders to larger dogs.
IMAGINE an accordian, and on the left we put the commercial breeders of dogs, say like 10lb breeds. Then on the right side, we put the kennels that produce the dogs such as APBTs and bully types, or larger dogs often thought of as “potentially” dangerous by many.
Then imagine HSUS starts coming from BOTH sides, squeezing the ends toward the middle, and in the middle are the pet stores, bird+fish breeders, chicken breeders, farmers, and agricultural animals.
NOW then—when pressure comes from the left, and the right, what happens in the middle? It blows up.
——> HSUS PRESSURE —> ***Pet Trade*** <——HSUS Pressure <—- *Commercial kennels* “Dangerous” Dogs
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HSUS IS DOING. Claiming that everything (commercial kennel, cropped ears, cropped tail, debark, declawed,Breeding,buying,selling,trading,showing, and pet stores, etc) equals “A*B*U*S*E. Saying that offering a pet for sale outside should be a crime, turning hobby breeders into abusers?
We could also call it a shotgun effect, by making ALL NEW laws (hundreds natiowide) and aiming it at every type of animal, every source of animals, and at the OWNERS THEMSELVES. One would have to be blind to not see this.
You might as well truthfully say it—HSUS is thinking up devious NEW ways to change LAWS, to categorize animals, to stop the buying/selling of pets, to stop pet stores, to make determinations for everyone that we are not capable of owning animals, that animals have the rights as people, that animals are not property, and the whole gamut of animal rights law.
CA is struggling now, with 3 main laws pushed by HSUS, none of which is worth the paper written on. In particular, AB1122 (transfers of animals in public areas) is of particular concern. Many have ignored it, but they will live to regret it if it ends up taking out dog shows or rescue events, or people are killed and robbed by thieves because they let buyers into their homes. Like on Craigslist? The alleged murdered targeted gals from there, and thieves have even targeted owners selling cars. So why must animal transactions ALL be inside YOUR house?