How HSUS Uses Deception to Pass Laws Affecting Ownership of Animals Revisited 2011, SB917 (formerly AB1122, passed by legislature in 2010, then vetoed by governor)
We are currently researching how the other AR bill that was amended (AB117) would affect owners with the change in liens, seizure, and forfeiture. If SB917 passes and everything becomes “animal abuse” because of “display” and “sell” then there would be a lot of people guilty of animal “abuse” and maybe subject to forfeiture.
HSUS passes laws (HSUS had almost 200 laws nationwide for 2009) then uses those laws for cases it plans to bring forward, then uses those cases in their incremental process to bring down both interstate commerce and pet ownership, kennels, pet stores, dog breeders, along with difficulties for agriculture and other livestock animals.
Ownership in the law, is of the highest legal nature, and as a concept, usually means the ultimate control over the item owned. It also usually refers to having the control legally over such item (property) and also the right to use it for as long as is allowed in the law, and in many instances, to bring a lawsuit where the owner’s rights are affected. Guardianship does NOT necessarily mean any or all of the same things, which is why animal rights prefers it over “owner.” In addition, due process plays a key part in an ownership property issue case. Forfeiture with drugs and contraband is used in both State and Federal law but the Federal law exclusively is unforgiving.
That is why HSUS uses the term “contraband” in the code for Louisiana, such that probable cause alone (alleging dog used for fighting purposes) will enable the immediate killing of every single animal— no need to save for evidence because HSUS wrote the law see Sect. 102.6 A(2) see
Lest you think we are making this up, we already spoke to a minimum of 3 of the owners– and yep, ALL of the dogs were killed immediately. That’s hundreds of dogs. One of the key cases was Floyd Boudreaux where all of his dogs were killed. He was acquitted on all dogfighting charges but of course, his dogs were all dead.
California law has statutes that show one of the main incidents of ownership in property, is the right to TRANSFER it (Bias v Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 14,16). Or, “A common characteristic of a property right, is that it may be disposed of, transferred to another.” (Douglas Aircraft Co. v Byram (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 311, 317)
Thefore we can see why Peta wanted to take possession/ownership of different animals because after they owned them, they could just dispose of them in the garbage dump (after killing them via lethal injection)—and they suffered no consequences. [Actually it appeared there was fraud in the procurement of the animals but we don’t know if they were hit for that.]
And, we can see why HSUS doesn’t want animals TRANSFERRED to others because that’s an element of OWNERSHIP.
The obvious next step for HSUS is to claim if animals can’t be sold or transferred, then that means THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY.
HSUS has for years, been trying to outlaw the use (import, export, transport, breeding) or movement in interstate commerce of any non native species via HR669 in Congress by using the Lacey Act. See the PIJAC website for details, or see the post on this site with the link to PIJAC.
This would encompass virtually every bird, reptile, amphibian, fish and some mammals kept as pets. In general only a small number of species have caused environmental issues (in FL and HI.)
This nonsense by HSUS subterfuge has not been lost on us.
We are VERY aware of what HSUS and Animal Rights are trying to do. Clearly the agenda is to chip away at the ownership of animals until we miss the fact that the WORDS USED FOR OWNERSHIP have been eliminated, then next thing you know—-HSUS has eliminated the ownership of animals.
No transfers, no selling, no bartering, no trading, etc. This has already been attempted in HSUS anti pet laws where a dog with cropped ears couldn’t be transferred/owned by a rescue because the rescue didn’t have the documents proving how the ears were done. Look at this:
It would be easier to make “owning” something next to impossible, or exorbitantly too expensive or far too much red tape, than to outright say “you can’t own that”–which is Animal Rights done the HSUS way–as can be seen by the multitude of 180 Anti pet laws HSUS pushed in 2009 alone…..
If you value your ownership over your pets and animals, and the fact that pet-related businesses are allowed to profit over the selling, buying, trading, owning, or otherwise pet-related legal business ownership; if you want a CHOICE in what dog or cat or bird or fish that you can BUY, own, or trade or sell; if you want the ability to eat the foods you like (milk, eggs, cheese, meat) —- then you do NOT want to support ANY HSUS LAWS.
As has been stated on this blog ever since it started—you don’t join the KKK if you’re Black, you don’t push Hitler if you’re Jewish, and you don’t help HSUS if you value ownership of animals.
And because the “Pet connection” blog online, is one that keeps saying (especially author Gina Spadafori) that ” HSUS can be trusted to do the right thing” —where HSUS cannot be trusted at all…………….it is our opinion that Pet connection lacks the ability to discern Animal Rights in disguise—-and we do not recommend anyone following the opinions of much of the blog—mostly because Spadafori only harps on Peta–but not HSUS. Spadafori (aka “Spad” to us) –is, unfortunately, either not the brighest crayon in the box, or she’s shilling for HSUS.
Just because one authors books, doesn’t mean that one knows Animal Rights. Further, Spadafori harped on Petland claiming that they should be OUT of business if they didn’t ADOPT out dogs, rather than SELL them? WTH?? That’s pure and simple animal rights galore. HSUS nonsense.
That is a very very dangerous proposition, and one that we surely don’t want to push as owners. NOT if you understand the 12 Steps of Animal Rights.
HSUS is the FAR more dangerous group—if you understand Animal Rights. Spadafori also commended HSUS on filing the lawsuit against Hunte and Petland—that is a mistake, because it indicates that one does NOT understand what HSUS is doing strategy wise. HSUS already lost those suits and lost the U.S. v Stevens case re their animal abuse depictions. Again, just another purposely poorly drafted law by HSUS found unconstitutional. No surprise.
All of this is just a part of the pattern and practice of getting incremental steps in place, passing laws, filing lawsuits, and using the laws to set up precedence for HSUS Animal Rights. We don’t doubt for a second that their entire 16 attorney team or 160 member team or whatever, just goes to the conference room and has a session on strategy for the next 5 years.
Don’t think for a second that we haven’t noticed it, because we knew it a long time ago. Another example is the DNA testing and Breed Specific Legislation that HSUS “claims” it doesn’t support?
THE TRUTH ABOUT HSUS AND DNA TESTING AND BSL:
HSUS filed an amicus animal rights brief in the DENVER 2008 case re BSL, [yes, we did read it]—- claiming that the DNA companies claimed their DNA test “was 99% accurate.”
Then on the animal law and historical society page (Michigan School of Law, Animal Rights Section)—the school has pages which show “how DNA proved” that a particular dog WAS NOT a pitbull subject to BSL. But the key really is, if they can prove it ISN’T a pitbull, and it’s actually 99% accurate, can it prove that IT IS A PITBULL? As we know, there is no breed actually known as pitbull.
And that’s why HSUS put that amicus brief in the Federal Court to Denver. So when that issue comes up down the line, HSUS will be the first to claim that DNA testing should be used [to have pitbull dogs killed], because it’s allegedly “99% accurate”, despite the fact that the AKC and UKC don’t have the exact same breed name/types for American Pitbull Terriers, or American Stafforshire Terriers, etc. Mixed down breeds could be nearly impossible to identify. It would not be that difficult to overcome an expert opinion on that by having both a genetics and a canine expert at trial.
AKC doesn’t recognize the APBT. [Much of the DNA used in such testing comes from the AKC which designates the offspring as having been authenticated from the parents for registry purposes] Despite the fact that such DNA testing is in its infancy and that test results are used as a source of entertainment, not court certified expert admissible on disputed breed. Not yet. This is known as being careful so what you think might help you doesn’t come back to bite you in the butt.
People that donate to HSUS Animal rights might as well donate to PETA. Because they are carrying out the Peta agenda. Peta has no credibility. Neither does HSUS or their clones like ASPCA. Same crap, different name.