Breeders, Owners, Seizures+PC 597.1,PC 597.1(h)(k)


~ Sophocles

Warning to all Breeders, Owners and Show Dog People and even Rescues:


Due to the new APHIS (AWA USDA APHIS) which formerly only affected commercial breeders, the new rule(s) now appear to change the legal landscape drastically, and appear to force those with more than 4 breeding females into a new legal position, plus other hooks in the rule appear to affect those who do not meet the buyer in person– and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.—connection-to-aphis-rule.html

This purported huge change, which is currently challenged in D.C. Federal Court, seems to make it appear that the Feds have preempted all sales of dogs, since the rule appears to cover both breeders and rescues, but does not apply to Pet Stores, which often sell dogs from commercial kennels [but let’s not forget, ordinances banning commercial kennels dogs are springing up widely thanks to ASPCA HSUS CAPS and Best Friends]

In other words:  1. HSUS worked for years to get the APHIS regs into place    2.  HSUS worked for years to get Congress to change APHIS by implementing the HSUS PUPS bill or different versions, all of which failed   3.  HSUS positioned Sarah Conant, former HSUS attorney, into a job at APHIS   4.  HSUS worked nearly two years with APHIS to bring out the NEW rules for who can sell what, where, why and how—- by transforming hobby breeders into “pet stores” while APHIS regs currently do not affect, in general, brick and mortar pet stores, which in CA, are already heavily regulated by the State. Such pets stores generally are not breeding dogs but just selling them.

Instead, it makes many small time breeders INTO pet stores– and perhaps others as well.* see pg. 7 of Federal complaint. APHIS COMPLAINT DC PACER

 We suggest you read the AKC research* on this, but essentially since HSUS was admittedly instrumentally and materially involved in CREATING the new APHIS rule(s)— even rescues are seemingly affected. If this is true, then rescues would also have to conform, thus making another financial hurdle even for rehomed dogs. [APHIS did not apply to small time breeders known as hobby breeders, via court decision Doris Day v Venneman 2003– however HSUS restructuring APHIS rules appears to change that?]  *

We knew it was the WORK of HSUS— since HSUS spent years trying to “raid” kennels that weren’t even signed up as kennels, then HSUS would use each “bust” as the reason for changing laws re commercial kenneling. In other words, it would be like taking the kids in juvenile hall or those in jail and claiming we need all parents to be altered/neutered because of bad kids? Only the bad examples are ever, ever, EVER used by Animal Rights.   (goes over issues/problems and anonymous complaints, with HSUS pushing people to submit complaints)

When bad “BANNING” ordinances, such as the ones in CA (San Diego, Lake Tahoe, Los Angeles, and many So Cal cities) are passed– which ban sales by entities which sell animals, forcing their “source” to only BE rehomed dogs/cats— this is not legal, in our opinion, and when coupled with the APHIS rule(s) it is very clear that nearly all sources of BUYING a dog/puppy are now drastically either eliminated, curtailed, banned, or made too expensive—all in the name of HSUS+AR clones claiming it’s because of “PMs”—- and the dummy dum dums of the world— too immersed in Facebook to know reality–have all bought into it.

What the public doesn’t see, is the fact that the noose around the buying public’s neck has been completed—such that everyone involved in breeding, showing or selling a puppy or dog is basically fair game for seizure. We do not say this knowingly without realizing what we are saying. In California, Penal Code 597.1 et seq is famously used to take, seize, and make money off owner animals. While it can be used for those who truly ARE abusing animals, it is often used simply to target people that AC want to single out, since most calls for these cases are due to complaints by either neighbors, enemies, or other protesters who hate breeding, selling or showing of dogs.

We have seen a marked increase in PC 597 and 597.1 citations and seizure, and even in one week, had 4-5 calls.  That is considered a lot of calls on seizure issues. Currently in court, we are working on no less than 3-4 of these cases in criminal court and civil court. Most criminal attorneys have never handled animal seizure cases, and most criminal attorneys do not like handling these cases. As we have long stated, IF your animals are seized in CA,  you need to immediately call an attorney because your time is very very short under the law, and the fines/storage begin very quickly.

Very seldom do owners get their animals returned, mostly due to the very high cost of fines. Very seldom do owners get their animals back under the PC 597.1 hearings.  We have a case where owner was allowed to take back the animals, and there is one case near Nevada City where the owner was put on probation and could still have animals; however another attorney in that case pushed to try and force the District Attorney to eliminate ownership for 5 years; that failed.

WAGONS HO secured (1) (800x618)


2 thoughts on “Breeders, Owners, Seizures+PC 597.1,PC 597.1(h)(k)

  1. Everyone who owns any animal needs to know that you have only ten (10) days to contest the seizure of an animal under 597.1 of the California Penal Code. Otherwise, you have waived your “due process” rights to seek the return of the seized animal. Also, you need to retain a very experienced attorney for these matters. John R. Cogorno, Attorney at law

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s