WORST 3 HSUS AR BILLS DEFEATED FOR 2009

This is from the San Diego Union Tribute Newspaper—it doesn’t get more AR than this, and it is loaded with MISREPRESENTATIONS, as usual.  [We address the bills that affect pets and have not included the issue of the cow tails.]  No, they didn’t publish the picture, we are doing it to let you know, it’s all misrepresentations, as you will see below.  NOT explaining something and leaving out MATERIAL issues is:

                                   D*E*C*E*P*T*I*O*N

lying_game-713531 

We address all 6 bills (below)  as shown from the newspaper, starting with the worst, AB1122:

“AB 1122, carried by Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, prohibits the roadside sale of animals, many of which are undernourished, live in unsanitary conditions and are subjected to the extremes of weather.”  WAIT WAIT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    COMMENT:   Before you buy into that BIG LIE——– check out the reality….. 

===> What this bill actually SAYS is<===

that it is illegal to sell an animal

but that a shelter or rescue can sell animals.

It does not matter if it is inside or outside, but the proposed bill alleges that it applies to outside areas—so you COULDN’T display and SHOW your dog that you want to SELL outside on the sidewalk, or in a public area like a dog park, or any park, or even a pet store parking lot when you take it out of the car. All of those actions would be ILLEGAL, because “you” are not a humane society, shelter, or rescue. 

  BUT if you WERE, then you would NOT be guilty of ANIMAL ABUSE

 OTHERWISE, YOU WILL BE GUILTY OF ANIMAL ABUSE. YES, ANIMAL ABUSE.

     There could NOT be animal shows in public

venues (like a park) even with a permit,

because the “exemptions” do NOT cover OUTSIDE.

Now you can plainly see why you just CANNOT trust the news articles you read, especially editorials by AR people that think they can fool everyone. Not only did they not explain the LAW, they claimed they were “animal welfare” laws. HA!  What a joke!

Absolutely not!!  None of the laws  by H$U$, ASPCA, PETA+more,  are animal welfare laws–they are ALL animal rights (AR) laws designed to set precedent in the law for ARs. All AR laws are based on the belief that ANIMALS ARE NOT PROPERTY

IF animals are NOT property (we have said this thousands of times)— then you don’t have any RIGHTS over the “non-property” because nearly all rights under the constitution are derived from PROPERTY or liberty interests!

====> Governor has vetoed AB241, 243 and 1122 on 10/11/09 !!!  <=====

Animal rights like to use the issue of women’s rights, slavery, and children, to push animals as  NON property.  BUT animals are not humans. AR beliefs (not facts) want animals are same level as your kids, your parents, your grandkids. Then they can ELIMINATE animals from being OWNEDThat is why ARs  want excessive regulation on animals, tracking, tracing, they want background checks, driver’s license, social security, etc etc etc.  Excessive, punitive, non-factual laws  cause divisiveness in animal advocate groups– which is exactly how Animal Rights trick the dog and animal fanciers, businesses, and owners.  But their strategy has not been lost on us.

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

TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW, SEND THEM THIS POST, PUT IT OUT THERE FOR EVERY OWNER. HELP YOUR FELLOW ANIMAL OWNERS, BY TELLING THEM THE AWFUL TRUTH BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.

Any law that goes into obtaining your personal information is supect to start with, and when SELLING an animal becomes THE CRIME OF ANIMAL ABUSE— then you KNOW we are telling the truth.  See our other posts on AB1122—the most horrific AR law out there right now.  Don’t be fooled by the crap the ARs feed people. They don’t know their head from their asses.

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

Legislative alert – CA AB 1122 – September 18, 2009
A message from the California Federation of Dog Clubs

Appropriate forwarding is encouragedACTION IS NEEDED NOW- from all California clubs and pet lovers. CA AB 1122 has already passed BOTH houses of the California Legislature, and awaits action by Governor Schwarzenegger.This bill would make it a criminal offense to sell, offer for sale, or give away a live animal in a public venue. Amendments do not exempt most common scenarios for the transfer of animal ownership.  

IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NEEDED from clubs/organizations and individuals to WRITE and CALL Governor Schwarzenegger urging him to veto this bill.PHONE CALLS!!
The Governor has set up an automated phone poll to solicit your opinion on several of the bills before him. It’s very simple! 
CALL TODAY!The automated phone line is on 24/7 and seems to accept calls from out of California. To use the automated voicemail to express your opposition (you don’t need to state your reason it is just counting numbers of calls for and against):

1. Call 916.445.2841
2. Press 1 for English
3. Press 2 for legislation and you will get options
4. Press 4 for AB 1122
5. Press 2 to express  opposition You will need to be persistent, this number has been BUSY lately, 
 Animal Rights often hire telemarketers and students to call in, so keep calling!!! (Dog Fed didn’t say that, we said that because it’s true) 

FOR LETTERS:
 Please FAX your letter as time is essential20now.
Governor’s Office:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160 

 Reference the title – Re: AB 1122 requesting VETOBegin yo ur letter by stating that your club is OPPOSED to AB 1122 and you are asking the Governor to VETO the bill. If you are an out of state breed clubs with members in California, please be sure to note that fact.Put comments in your own words so the letters do not appear to be “form”. You may use the sample ideas below – make only a few brief points. Try to focus on the negative fiscal impact of the bill.Conclude your letter by again stating your opposition to the Bill; thank the Governor and again ask that he VETO AB 1122.

SOME TALKING POINTS

** AB 1122 is unnecessary and does not address animal welfare. Existing law (Penal Code 597.1) already makes it a misdemeanor to permit an animal to be kept without proper care and attention. 

** AB 1122 is an unfunded mandate on local government. Once implemented, the investigations into the requirements for exemptions will take staff time and resources. It will only further burden the counties and municipalities and divert limited resources that would be better utilized elsewhere.

** AB 1122 could have unintended consequences, such as driving animal sales underground. Unregulated sales could create serious public health risks.

** AB 1122 contains exemptions for “show” sales but only if special conditions can be met. Some of these are so outlandish and impossible to comply with, that any exemption becomes meaningless.

** The California Department of Finance “… is opposed to this bill because it has unknown costs associated with the enforcement and implementation…”

The Secretary explained that, unlike wholesale dealers, “retail dealers, especially those who sell from their homes, are already subject to a degree of self-regulation and oversight by persons who purchase animals from the retailers’ homes, as well as by breed and registry organizations.”  **(Of course, we know that H$U$ has been attempting to regulate the home bred breeders for years, by claiming that one must remodel their home to conform the plans devised by H$U$, or that animal control can inspect your entire house where the law is made [that any area an animal is whelped, raised, or shown] can be inspected…so they will inspect your bedroom???)**   

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

” AB 242 by Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, is intended to go after the admission fees and gambling that fuel dogfighting by increasing the penalties on spectators who attend staged dogfights.”

  Comment: That might be the intent, but the $$ seized, if any, ends up going to H$U$ AND FRIENDS, ASPCA and local groups (that will be created if it passes, by H$U$ or friends) … so in other words, the money will go to H$U$ or affiliated—who usually just KILL all of the animals anyway????? See bluedogstate.blogspot.com, for all of the killing H$U$ has done…..in past 6 years, probably thousands of dogs.    H$U$  KILLS the same type dogs (this is not disputed),  seizes innocent people’s dogs (like Joe Woodall’s dogs in Georgia, and they were not returned after 2 months, then Joe had to rent a vehicle and drive 5hr each way, to go fetch them in another county). H$U$ in turn, will use $$ to further file more bad anti-pet laws as they have done for  years now.

” SB 318 by Assemblyman Charles Calderon, D-Montebello, also goes after the money by allowing for the forfeiture of dogfighting assets, with proceeds to be distributed to law enforcement and nonprofit animal- welfare groups.”

 Comment:  This is incorrect, the proposed law gives reimbursment to Dept. of General Services, or possibly local enforcement;  then the rest goes to H$U$/friends/ affiliates locally. H$U$ shut down their Sacramento office, so it would go to H$U$ affiliate groups (which they will ensure get the money, trust us.) 

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0301-0350/sb_318_bill_20090825_enrolled.html   (3) “The petitioner shall have the burden of establishing probable cause to believe that even in the event of acquittal, the owner cannot and will not provide the necessary care for, or that the owner will not legally be permitted to retain, any of the animals in question. If the court finds probable cause exists, the court shall order immediate forfeiture of the animal to the petitioner. “

 Unfortunately, to find “probable cause” is something that is used at the BEGINNING of a case–for a search warrant, for example.  NOT after conviction for the sole purpose of “undoing” the acquittal……..  Why bother to even HAVE a trial if you are losing the animals even though you are NOT convicted?  There is PURE ANIMAL RIGHTS ATTEMPTING TO CIRCUMVENT THE COURT SYSTEM.   If you are not convicted of child abuse, should your kids be forfeited?  If you are not guilty of selling drugs, should your car be forfeited?  If you are not guilty of arson, should your house be forfeited?  Duh???

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

This clearly means, IF one is acquited —- it means nothing, because they can go and seize your animals anyway.  Talk about a dog and pony scenario!!!!   this is a complete JOKE.

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

AB 241 and AB 243, by NAVA. ….. “are designed to curb abuses at so-called puppy and kitty mills, and to prevent convicted animal abusers from owning animals in the future.”  

Comment:  Misleading; claimed to be against “mills” but the truth is, H$U$ wants to shut down all dog kennels everywhere, and they especially want a kennel [which would fall under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to be extinguished. Giving a NUMERICAL limit (AB241) with the full intent to modify it downward (admitted by H$U$) is a blatant attempt to stop and stifle legal sales of animals. The NUMERICAL limit has NOTHING to do with the method of care. (See CA Dog Federation points below)  

 The reason is that H$U$ years ago,  filed a lawsuit against the AWA and wanted them to include “hobby” or home breeders, under the AWA, claiming that selling out of a home equates with being a pet store.   On appeal,  H$U$ and friends lost, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s decision, and ruled that the AWA did not include home breeders, in part because they said Congress did not intend to have the Federal Government intruding into the private homes of citizens to see if they homes were clean.   DORIS DAY V VENEMAN (Doris Day Animal League is an Animal Rights group now conglomerated with H$U$, there are many more than conglomerated with H$U$, that is partly why they have the use of more $$$$$$) Since the loss of that case, H$U$ has been hot on the track to make animal rights laws come alive across the nation, with their belief that no animal is  property in the law.

 The court of appeals properly found, however, that “the Secretary’s decision and policy statement declining to modify the regulation is supported with reasoning that is persuasive and faithful to the Act’s purposes.” Pet. App. 29a. Specifically,the Secretary concluded in her decision “that a change to the definition of ‘retail pet store’ would not improve animal welfare in general or [the agency’s] current regulatory program.” 64 Fed. Reg. at 38,547.
 
 
 AB243:  This awful bill  SAYS—IF ONE IS acquitted ON A CHARGE,  a petition can be filed,  and all the animals can be seized for forfeiture anyway. It also allows the provision to be used with search warrants (which is not an arrest or conviction) http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0201-0250/ab_243_bill_20090911_enrolled.html 
SB250:  Miraculously, the San diego article (as we received it) did not seem to address SB250.  Perhaps SB250 was too much even for some Animal Rights people?  SB250 states that all animals must be sterilized by 6months or have an intact permit. However, one often cannot obtain or afford intact permits for breeding stock AND then face all the other laws recently devised by ARs like H$U$.
Further, SB250 imposes penalties, fines, and “animal abuse” charges if one does not “have” an intact permit/or licensing and is cited. A penalty under the proposed law is to sterilize YOUR animal, which then triggers a host of OTHER laws such as forfeiture. 
Actually nearly all of the 6 laws cause triggering of another law–and you have H$U$, PETA, ASPCA to thank for all that. 
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s