Two news items: 1) Lady groomer allegedly hit poodle’s head, it later died
2) Florida County shelter AC can hunt down strays they see, and enter your private property, without permission or apparently anything else required.
Allegedly, the owner of a pet grooming business hit a poodle in the head and it later died? She has not been convicted or aquitted and was placed on 2 yr probation [without a “finding”, according to the news]
This is quite interesting, as a DOCTOR (cardiologist) and his wife (a NURSE), both working in a well known hospital in Northern CA, were both arrested for MURDER when their 2 yr old adopted son died. The DA claims the mother hit the kid on the head. Despite the Attorney General asking the Judge to have their medical credentials suspended (so as to stop them from working) the JUDGE refused to do it, stating that their jobs did not involve children at all.
NOW when you look at the law in MA, yes, the conviction could come from the animal related accusation. But what IF the person had a crappy public defender, or someone who didn’t do a good job defending the person, and the person was actually INNOCENT? Then that person just lost their business. This could be a vet, a kennel owner, a dog handler, a pet sitter, a dog behaviorist, a dog trainer, maybe even a clerk at a feed store, if you had to handle animals.
When you contrast this with the actual database of the only known court records on alleged animal abuse, you will see that the numbers of alleged abuse are nowhere near what HSUS, ASPCA and every AR group in America likes to drum up. Oh sure, they sneak in and find one place that did such and such, but seriously, there is no way to make slaughter into something beautiful. We don’t approve of course, of people who are sadistic to animals or people, unless the people willingly consent, that is none of our business.
However, if you look at AR propaganda they make it seem as if on every corner there is animal abuse, rehoming abuse, selling abuse, breeding abuse, etc. If there really was such rampant abuse, it is likely in SHELTERS because that is what is proven nationwide. Unwanted animals are treated like dirt by people who get post traumatic stress disorder from killing too much….. (like Ingrid, who worked in a D.C. shelter, killing thousands and thousands of animals for their wonderful final beautiful release, her words, not ours)
And these killings are not in wealthy areas. Predominately they are in lower income areas, such as where Ingrid moved the PETA headquarters, believing they could do more killing since there is a lot of it to be done apparently. Wealthy areas may have shootings, drug problems and other issues, but they don’t usually have high kill rate shelters. No matter what the AR groups tell us, widespread killing in shelters is a SOCIAL WELFARE ISSUE, just like gangs and juvenile delinquents.
Most of the animals in shelters, come from the lower economic areas. At least in CA but also in many of the other states. It is those areas that should be targeted for altering animals, not everywhere else. This common sense approach is never used in CA, despite seeing the evidence. CA must be one of the dumbest states when it comes to having any common sense. The Los Angeles nuts and the idiots in the Sacramento Legislature must be on glue. Bullet Trains while people can’t afford to live, scarcity of jobs, retirement funds being raided? No wonder the ARs work CA so much. They have a receptive, insane audience.
http://www.pet-law.com/articles/39 This is an oldie but good recap of what AR laws really DO. They sell STORIES, not facts.
AND EVEN WORSE, IN FLORIDA:
A new animal control law was passed in Hernando County, Fla. It allows animal control officers to enter private property in pursuit of strays without the property owners permission. It also has provisions that allow dogs and other animals to be shot to death on site by Animal Services officers. [PD note: it should be called an ANIMAL RIGHTS law, not just AC law.]
According to the new ordinance, “If an Animal Control Authority agent personally witness an animal at large, the agent shall have the authority to enter upon private property in pursuit of the animal,” without the owner’s permission or a warrant.
During earlier revisions of the new ordinance, violations of private property rights were questioned and Hernando County attorney Jon Jouben told The Tampa Tribune, that the clause that violated federally protected property rights “was never in the ordinance and couldn’t be because the U.S. Constitution would forbid it.”
But Joubin’s statement is not supported. The clause that directly contradicts the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution remained in the final version of the ordinance that was approved by Hernando County Commissioners on Friday, in Brooksville.
Another troubling clause in the new animal ordinance involves methods of euthanasia. It allows animal control officers “immediate euthanasia” powers to “destroy” animals “by shooting the animal or injecting it with a barbiturate drug,” pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 828.05.
While the stated goal of the new law might have been to improve animal survival rates at the county’s high-kill shelter, the details suggest that is it more likely to achieve the opposite.
Pet owners will no longer be allowed to surrender animals to the shelter as they did in the past, and the chances for adoption remain slim, since there is nothing in the ordinance that expands access to impounded animals through extended or weekend adoption hours.
There are some provisions in the law that provide new requirements for shelter from weather, as well as stricter rules for spaying and neutering. However, they will do nothing to save the lives of the unfortunate animals that are taken by Hernando County Animal Services.
Hernando County’s disregard for 4th Amendment rights leaves it open to lawsuits when residents refuse to tolerate animal control officers chasing stray animals through their yards. It should also be noted that Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law may also puts human lives at risk. Property owners might feel threatened by unannounced and unwelcome animal control officers on their land.
Our question: Why the hell would an AC officer want to hunt down a stray animal that bad UNLESS it tried to kill a person?
WHO WANTS TO BET THAT SOME AR GROUP PUSHED THIS STUPID LAW????
The NABR Animal Law §ection focuses on the potentially disruptive and rapidly growing area of animal law. Animal rights advocates are using increasingly sophisticated and coordinated legal strategies in an attempt to incrementally change our laws as they relate to animals. The potential consequences for biomedical research are not readily apparent, but it is clear that many animal rights organizations and animal rights lawyers believe research on animals should be severely restricted or prohibited completely. This Web site is intended to serve as a resource for those who wish to learn more about animal law. It does not endeavor to be an exhaustive survey of issues pertaining to the legal status of animals, or of the “animal rights” movement.
§Section information is organized as follows:
- Research Animal Protection – existing system of laws, regulations and standards
- Federal – legislation, regulations and court cases
- State – legislation, court cases and other initiatives
- Personhood – new proposals aimed at achieving personhood status for animals
- Law Schools – animal law courses
- Bar Associations – animal law sections and committees
- International – animal law news
PD note: The site is generalized and does not have all of the recent bad laws and cases by
ARs. They are likely awaiting the Federal Court case in Massachusetts re the AETA. They would be likely highly affected, since AR attacks on scientists in CA is fairly common. and last but not least…………………http://www.ecoenquirer.com/animal-rights-act.htm
Make of it what you will…………………..
President Bush Signs Animal Rights Act into Law
|President Bush signing the controversial Animal Right Act into law, providing for a wide range of new rights for all native-born animals in the United States.|
|After considerable partisan bickering and then an eventual compromise in congress, President Bush has finally signed the controversial Animal Rights Act (ARA) into law.The ARA will provide new and wide ranging legal rights to all native-born animals in the United States. Among the myriad new rights included in the ARA are a minimum wage, slaughterhouse and roadkill survivor compensation, unemployment benefits, animal lanes added to all new federally funded highways, and abortion on demand.While detractors have warned of numerous problems that will arise from the new legislation, animal rights activists have hailed the ARA as the biggest environmental victory since the original Clean Air Act. “Now all citizens of the United States, human and non-human, will enjoy nearly equal levels of protection under the law”, declared Greenpolice spokeperson Butterfly Chang. “While we will continue to push for changes in the exemptions regarding the slaughter of animals for food preparation, we believe that this is a huge, positive first step”.As flocks of pigeons outside the White House took to the air in apparent glee over the news, numerous furs and mink coats were set ablaze by animal rights activists in a nearby park.The new law also creates an Animal Rights Enforcement branch of the FBI, to investigate claims of federal law violations.
Already, some activists were finding fault with the new law. “Where does this leave immigrant and migrant animals, which constitute up to twenty percent of the animal population of the United States?”, asked Reynaldo Chavez, president of ‘All Animals Now’. “Even though these animals contribute immensely to the rich diversity of our nation’s wildlife, they have been left out in the cold”.
New master’s program concentrates on animal rights
LOS ANGELES — Mitzi Bolanos adopted a pit bull a few years ago, only to find that discrimination was part of the deal. Because of her dog, she was often told where she could or couldn’t live or work.
‘‘I am a Hispanic female, and I never felt discriminated against in this country until I started walking around with my pit bull,’’ Bolanos said.
In September, the 28-year-old lawyer went back to school to get a master’s of laws in animal law. She wants to use her degree — the first of its kind in the world — to help fight breed bias.
Bolanos will be among the first class of six students to get such a degree from Lewis & Clark Law School’s Center for Animal Law Studies. Enrollment in the yearlong program is expected to grow to 15 or 20 students in three to five years, said attorney Pamela D. Frasch, assistant dean and executive director of the law center. (PD note: Frasch is one of the co-authors of the Animal Law case textbook, Third edition.)
Interest and enrollment at Lewis & Clark for the $35,000-a-year program have mirrored the pet revolution in the United States, Frasch said.
‘‘But while laws have improved and grown, there is still a disconnect between what animals deserve and what protections they get,’’ Frasch said.
Bolanos grew up in Miami, where pit bulls are banned. When she moved to New Orleans in 2011, she volunteered at the Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. She adopted a pit bull named Bubba, who was covered in scars and had a fresh chemical burn down his back.
Life with a pit bull hasn’t been easy. She said she has faced citywide breed bans and at homes in cities without bans. She said their travel was restricted when she wanted to take the 65-pound Bubba home for the holidays, but most airlines banned Bubba’s breed and one required an expensive ‘‘dangerous dog’’ crate.
More than 650 U.S. cities ban pit bulls or require sterilization, muzzles in public or extra insurance. Some regulate the size of fences that keep pit bulls enclosed or the weight of leashes that keep them restrained.
Their reputation has made them targets of the acts of discrimination that Bolanos encountered
Well, it’s good that someone can get an advanced degree. But one doesn’t need an advanced degree on the subject to realize constitutional law bases all the pitbull bans and other breed bans on rational basis facts and they need NOT be supported by science or other animal welfare facts, or even discrimination. A law that is administered equally (as opposed to arbitrarily) will likely pass muster, even if there is NO health, safety or welfare issue. HSUS turns laws INTO “health, safety or welfare” issues– so that can enable them to PASS laws that really are not based on the health, safety or welfare of the public. For that matter, you can practically outlaw most things, if you can get enough dumb people to vote for it, and it can be linked to health, safety and welfare. In fact, ANY reason can be used to show a rational basis, even if it isn’t directly related to the issue at hand, according to Judge W. Daniels in Denver Federal District Court.