As we know, there are many different codified regulations, statutes,etc that make up various laws. In California in particular, often joined by Texas, New York, Colorado, Oregon, and many of the states carrying the “Obama” vote, these rules spread like wildfire once California starts a law.
So we figured out long ago, these laws [the no-no laws] are made up usually by going to other codes like health and welfare, child welfare, food/agriculture, business and professions code, and finding ANYTHING that could REMOTELY be used as a template and then applied to an ANIMAL, no matter what kind. The Federal regs are more difficult to change, but the state laws, once the ARs get a FOOTHOLD, are not that difficult to change or add to– as evidenced by our very very pitiful legislature in California. Whenever ANY law is designed to forfeit something, it should be heavily examined.
Legislators for the most part don’t know about dogs or any animals and don’t care. They believe whatever HSUS and cronies throw at them, do not bother to listen to facts–UNLESS HUGE numbers of people speak out in unison. This happened in SB1634 pushed by AR Judie Mancuso [it failed]…. SB861 involving mandated altering of “pitbulls” or generic pitbull types initially.
… from July 2005, http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050716/NEWS01/507160347 regarding generalized information:
“After 900 documented pit bull attacks nationwide in the last three years, including two severe ones in the Bay Area in June, the California Legislature may not want to take many more chances with vicious animals, either.
State Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, has authored SB 816, a bill that would give municipal governments the right to force owners of specific dog breeds to have their pets spayed or neutered. The theory is that doing so will make a vicious dog calmer.
Each city and county would be allowed to devise its own list of breeds. Likely candidates include pit bulls, rottweilers and boxers. Professional breeders could be exempted.
Critics of the bill say it would do nothing to curb aggressive dogs and could lead to emotionally charged ordinances not based on science”
Let’s just say that “900 documented pit bull attacks” is definitely wrong. ANY dog that resembles a generic pitbull is not necessarily a pitbull, or even part actual “pitbull.” It should also be pointed out that the American Staffordshire Terrier and the other bullies go back pretty far in history, and with the mixing of various breeds, a generic “pitbull” appearing dog can mean almost anything. Mixed down dogs can never be realistically categorized and even experts cannot necessarily account for all attributes. Many mixed down dogs have great temperaments but on the other hand, some do not. Many purebred dogs by breed, are by nature going to be dog or animal aggressive to some extent. That is not a defect in trait. Altering is not the cure. The breed is what it is, regardless. But ARs have turned traits or anything they don’t want into the no-no laws.
So when you see these things, you start to think of how ARs could take a code, and just twist it into yet another bad law affecting your property and your animals and your rights. It just isn’t that difficult to do if you simply look at the California codes. Local codes are even worse. They can tweak zoning, and outlaw kennels. They can make set back restrictions, use restrictions, what you must do when you go on vacation [Louieville KY law drafted by HSUS and AR elitists], they can make laws saying “no leash” is animal abuse [Albuquerque NM] for example. In addition, HSUS has taken to using federal regs, such as forfeiture, and then morphing it over to state laws. Docking, cropping, selling, buying, advertising [illegal to have posted sign for animal sales] can all be illegal, but in CA– it can be legal only if a non profit is doing it, if it’s showing or selling or giving away, outside in certain public areas? That law has yet to be tested but we believe that law is far too overbroad and has nothing to do with profit, non profit or PMs.
The courts when faced with a constitutional law challenge, will usually use the rational basis standard which is the lowest of the 3 levels used. Under the lowest level, a law need only show a rational basis and usually this means it affects the safety, health or welfare of the people. Then, ANY reason given which might show the very slightest element of affecting any of the 3 named, gives the law the green light. For example, if generic pitbull dogs are said to account for 20% of animals in a shelter, then they will say 20% of those dogs are killing the 20% that cannot be taken in by the shelter because no one wants the generic pitbulls? Well of course NO ONE wants the generic pitbulls because the ARs mounted the nationwide campaign along with Colleen Lynn formerly of Washington, to make everyone hate the dogs!! run, run, run!!!!
One of the absolute worst blows to our laws was the Los Angeles mandated altering law opposed and pushed into appeal, by CDOC/ Ms. Turner. Many thousands of dollars were used to push the case to the appeals court which should have never, ever been done. An appeals decision out of CA on that subject can be, unfortunately, used in any case in CA. Had it been another state, it would not have the precedent value. So blame Turner or whatever idiot that saw fit to push the law to appeal. They should have let sleeping dogs lie. We don’t think anyone who really understands animals would have done it.
Therefore we blame elitist breeders because they are for the most part, only out for themselves, not animals. Not all breeders are elitist of course. Elitists often believe that only their type of dogs are correct, and they have for the most part, never set foot in a shelter for fear of trailing some disease into their house. It’s all about their animals, not animals in general. There is a distinct difference. They want their pomp and fancy dogs to be exempted but who cares about anyone else’s animals. Because show dogs make up only about 2% of all dogs, and probably less, we can see that the fanciers carry some weight when it comes to laws. After all, they stick together.
Hence AKC being villified, is not surprising, BUT AKC is still one of the leading entities that speaks out against HSUS national bad laws, and even state laws. We do not blame AKC for any allegations of so called PMs that HSUS loves to sling, not at all. We must remember that HSUS being AR, will always argue against commerce that they don’t want, and for commerce that can bring THEM money. We should always remember that commercial kennels are LEGAL and that ARs simply want to ABOLISH them [whether they are good or not] by using propaganda.
Normal agriculture won’t bring HSUS any money per se, but it will bring notoriety in exposes, shock jock videos, fake videos, misrepresented bullshit, fake stories……. HSUS laws will ALWAYS bring HSUS $$$$$. Think hard about that since when HSUS laws go , it’s now free advertising, free poor ‘ole puppy, free don’t hurt that kitty, free this dog was abused, free video materials, free snitch off contests, etc for HSUS. Many non profits get their stuff paid for. Then there is the national branding of HSUS brand crap, trying to gain HUMANE certified, etc. It’s all about the jack and if there is no jack involved, you won’t find HSUS there. HSUS’ goal is to be the paid regulator for the government. In case you didn’t know.