AR laws Target Legal Displays, Sales, Transfers

For anyone believing that AB1122 from 2009, which prohibited display, transfer, sale, offer for sale, of any animal in any public area, including any parking lot, was a “good” law (vetoed by Governor)– AB1122 was one of the absolute WORST laws ever put forward.  It actually criminalized legal behavior into “animal abuse” but then exempted humane societies?

We have two perfect examples of how animal rights laws cause more animals to NOT get homes. One, the following story illustrates exactly how AB1122 of 2009, passed by CA legislature and vetoed by Governor, would have worked. Story out of PA proves that even transporting rescued dogs are targets of STING operations.

Second, one of the Petdefense legal counsel was accosted in parking lot by PETCO employee who claimed that counsel was in violation of some law in CA regarding transfering or showing an animal because it was in a “private” parking lot? 

 Livestock poultry is livestock, not a cat or a dog.  [Even the chick in the shell knows that!] There is likely no local ordinance prohibiting transfer. We couldn’t find it if there was one.   Subsequently, one of the largest law firms in Los Angeles will be writing to Petco re this incident.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

 Rescue driver busted in Delco, raises fears among transporters

 Rescue transports are human chains on wheels that can stretch hundreds or even a thousand miles or more. They whisk dogs from high kill animal shelters, often in the South, to safe havens in the more affluent Northeast. Almost all come through Pennsylvania, by the dozens every weekend.

 On Saturday an unidentified transport driver was busted by the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement in Delaware County and charged with “selling dogs in a public place” – a violation of the state dog law. The 16 dogs were surrendered by the driver and sent to the Pennsylvania SPCA – which had just closed its animal intake facility and was desperately trying to reduce the number of its dogs, crowded into a garage, with a discount adoption event.

 Now rescue operators and drivers are asking why they are being targeted by the state for trying to save lives. PSPCA spokeswoman Liz Williamson says humane officers were called by dog law to meet them at a location on the 2300 block of Market St. in Marcus Hook at 11:30 p.m. The dogs, including Lab mixes and hounds, among other breeds, were adults or young adults. The dogs were brought to the PSPCA and received medical evaluations. The dogs are still in the PSPCA custody and will be available for adoption or placement with an approved rescue organization. There were no cruelty charges filed, Williamson said. On board the transport was a Husky named Luna who had been surrendered to a Florida-based rescue and was being shipping to a young volunteer for the rescue now living in Pennsylvania.

Gisele Veilleux, operator of The Dog Liberator, which pulls dogs from high kill shelters and shelters that gas dogs in the South, said her volunteer had to spend hours proving to the PSPCA that the dog was hers and that it had proper paperwork. Veilleux says she is confused. She wants to continue to send dogs through Pennsylvania and wants to comply with the law. But doesn’t know how. The bureau says the transporter violated dog law by selling a dog in a public place. So does that mean adopting a dog in a public place – where no money is exchanged, is illegal? What if a dog is simply being handed off to another transporter and the dog going to a location outside of the state?

If all so-called “transfers” of dogs are vulnerable to a BDLE sting – on a weekend, when dog wardens were working on state overtime no less – it would have a chilling effect on the network of hundreds of people who volunteer to help needy dogs and cats by chauffeuring them from certain death to safety through Pennsylvania every week. The issue cries out for clarity – and some say, a little empathy – from the state. Posted by Amy Worden @ 12:25 AM Permalink | 18 comments

Last but not least: this is from another blog……..   although Petdefense had noticed this in early 2009 while waiting for humanewatch to get going online.

“….From a marketing perspective, The North Face should be content to let this go. Yes, it’s irritating, and yes, legally it’s an affront. But making too big of a deal of the situation likely will backfire.

Here’s another example that should not be taken lying down.

HSUS and HumaneWatch logos

“If I were the Humane Society of the United States, I would be preparing my lawsuit at this moment. Say what you will about the politics of the HSUS (suffice to say, it is not just about finding homes for adorable puppies), HumaneWatch is making a visual affront to the organization and its ability to distinguish itself in the market. In short, the competing organization is using HSUS intellectual property (the logo) to bolster its own low standing, confusing people into paying attention.”

Petdefense note: Amazingly HSUS has not taken any action on the logo that humanewatch produced. Apparently HSUS is more concerned with gaining more $$$ from unsuspecting members of the public, making fake videos, and eliminating animal ownership by supporting kill shelters.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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