SB917 Spawning More Banning of Animal Sales!!

PIJAC Tells Pet Owners to Beware the Banning of “Sale of                                                            commercially bred dogs in Glendale”…..

BUT–  PIJAC does NOT Voice Opposition to SB917 which Affects                                               ALL Pet Owners, Sellers, Buyers, Re-Homers,                                                                                  and Display of Animals!!

The truth about SB 917 is this: It is flawed as written, on purpose. ARs drafted it. Similar laws exist, BUT not the same way this law was done. The purpose in drafting such a bad law was to fool everyone into focusing on their own exemptions, as if that would make the law “ok.”

As pointed out by other attorneys, statutory construction may create an elimination of “exemptions” given to those groups that are NOT on a boardwalk,  public grounds, etc. Elimination of such exemption may be considered as not relevant- possibly; if so, THEN we basically have the drafting which means it applies to everything outside.

The wording is silent on  selling inside a building or outside a building on a parking lot which is part of the building parcel, such as a public rental hall or a public venue used for shows, BUT since exception was given for dog, cat or bird JUDGED shows ONLY, the inference is that ONLY judged shows are included in exemptions.

AND since such judged “shows” may or may not be done on public property, inside OR outside, who is to say how that is actually treated?   Although the wording claims to exempt “non profits” that mainly deal with shelter animals, that means many types of animals could be considered.

Yet they were all not given exemptions. Again, that could be inferred that all other animals are not included in any exemptions on purpose. The specific and non specific wording indicates that the law was purposely done to snag many people. It alleges that “commercial” purpose is involved, but then claims that “giving away” is included. So if  several groomers or vet techs, NOT a non profit, gave away 2 dogs, they would be guilty, even if they were on the sidewalk of the business.

But an animal “non profit” would be completely exempted. Exactly how “non profit” can be exempted from “abuse” due to the status of the group is crazy, illogical, and not reasonable. Surely we are not trying to exempt people from “abuse” if they in fact actually commit actual “abuse.”  In fact it indicates disparate treatment in selling because it is selling if money is exchanged. Selling does not mean profit. Non profit does not mean there is no profit. Whether there is profit made or not is not relevant to abuse, but according to this law, since “non profit” is exempted, we must somehow figure out how/why that eliminates one from abuse but at same time, would CAUSE another to be guilty of abuse without more. That makes absolutely no sense, there is no basis for it, and it does not relate to the subject of abuse in the first place.

PIJAC voiced “opposition” in San Francisco where the SF Commission of Animal Control and Welfare wants to ban the sale of pets…. and here is what the SF people are planning so far….

“The new proposal up for discussion at the June 9th
meeting targets “dogs, cats, birds, small animals
(including but not limited to hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, guinea pigs, and chinchillas), reptiles,
amphibians, and aquarium fish” and the ordinance would provide that in San Francisco people could acquire pets “of all species” only through pet store adoptions, direct retail sale by small breeders, or adoption from shelters or animal rescue organizations. All other pet sales, including by pet stores, would be completely prohibited.

Pijac stated……………..
“This proposed ban on pet sales is justified by the Commission with the demonstrably false claims that “buying animals from local breeders and adopting from rescue/shelters are healthier companion animal choices” and that “the pet trade fuels an overpopulation problem.

Here is What PIJAC says………….. “The Issue:  The Glendale, California City Council voted unanimously at its June 14th meeting to draft an ordinance which would ban the retail sale of commercially bred dogs and cats in the city The Council will vote again on the adoption of the ordinance once language is drafted.  A date for that vote has yet to be determined. The Impact: The City Council has made a motion directing staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting the sale of all dogs and cats by pet stores in the City of Glendale.

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

“While the Councilmembers are reportedly supportive of rehoming of dogs and cats by pet stores as an alternative to their sale, the motion would appear to prohibit this as well, since it explicitly calls for an ordinance that will ban “transfer” of animals.”  

===============================================“The motion also calls for the ordinance to include a delayed implementation period for existing pet stores to come into compliance. It is unclear precisely what length of time might be allowed for such an “amortization or grandfathering period” as the motion describes it.”

PIJAC Position: PIJAC is strongly supportive of efforts to rehome pets, including participation by pet retailers in such rehoming efforts, but opposes broad bans on the sale of pets.

“Such bans are inconsistent with the right to have pets and provide no benefit to animals, pet owners, or the public in general. In fact, pet bans drive legitimate retailers out of business and create an underground market for illegitimate sellers of pets who need not observe the extensive regulatory requirements to which pet stores are subject.”

And then PIJAC says that  pet stores may suffer?  Well– you don’t actually “think”  you are helping PET BUYERS OR SELLERS by NOT opposing SB917— do ya????????  Surely PIJAC realizes that Animal Rights knows no bounds. That “selling” animals is “animal abuse.”  That owning animals is “animal abuse.” That is the Animal Rights lifestyle belief, perhaps a review of the 12 Steps of Animal Rights is in order?

12 Steps of Animal Rights

From “Politics of Animal Liberation” by Kim Bartlett,published in ANIMAL AGENDA, November 1987 

1. Abolish by law all animal research

2. Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, classroom demonstration and in weapons development

3. Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public institutions, including schools

4. Eliminate all animal agriculture

5. No herbicides, pesticides or other agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control.

6. Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the Department of Agriculture

7. Eliminate fur ranching and the use of furs.

8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.

9. End the international trade in wildlife goods

10. Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including purebred dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Abolish commerce in animals for the pet trade.

11. End the use of animals in entertainment and sports.

12. Prohibit the genetic manipulation of species.

One only has to look at the 12 Steps of Animal Rights to figure out what is going on. We are seeing a consistent and persistent attempt to stop the sales of pets, forcing people to only “adopt”, and making criminals out of innocent people who do rehoming by claiming they are abusers.

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