pp 149-156 Notice how they categorize the data? The fact that an animal was confiscated does not necessarily mean it was “abused.” But if you read most of what is shown, there is what is known in the law as a presumption being used here, that it is presumed that anything seized (by AC) was “abused” when in fact, how many if any, were actually “abused” or fell into the category of “abused”, or even met the test for abuse, which in California, requires gross negligence to rise to the level of ‘criminal’? However, these pages are not the manual, they are copied pages from various sources. They are included in the download however, as found.
pp 170-180 seem fairly reasonable.
When applying the word “abused” to California criminal law, abuse is basically anything ANIMAL CONTROL SAYS IT IS. and that is because of the way that PC597 and 597.1 for the most part, was written. Although we don’t know exactly “who” drafted it, we would tend to believe HSUS had some people write it. In any event, the biggest problem with the law is the fact that IF you have animals SEIZED via probable cause, AND you don’t have a hearing, or LOSE the hearing, you do not get the animals back, and usually still owe the fees (according to the way the animal control executes this law) IF you get a hearing, and win, on basis they had no probable cause, then you are not required to pay the storage, and IF Animal Control believes you are competent and financially sound enough to care for the animals, only then may you get them returned. This happens VERY seldom apparently from what we have seen.
Even if you can pay a huge amount of “storage fees” it does not mean you get animals back just because you can pay. So even if you did not abuse any animals, and won the hearing on probable cause, which is normally within 10-15 days of seizure, theory wise, you should not have to pay. Yet we have seen clients win the probable cause hearing, which was delayed for months on end– and then still have to pay to get animals out. Thousands of dollars.
Thus in view of these facts, the best advice is to be very careful when dealing with animal control. Never underestimate what they will do, since most of them just love to bust owners. They will work with rescue people, informants, people who don’t like you, neighbors, and snitches to get dirt on people, or they will simply make it up if they have to, in order to sabotage an owner. We have seen many of these things happen. They are vindictive and act like you are torturing babies and children.
Considering that animal control officers are usually required to KILL animals, killing animals starts to create post traumatic stress disorder, even if it is not recognized. Ingrid (of PETA) is a prime example, as she admits to killing thousands of animals faster and faster in DC where she was an animal control officer. She claims the best gift to a homeless animal is EUTHANASIA. Well, if one worked in a concentration camp and kept killing humans for some time over and over, would they be right-minded? Probably not. It is not that different for those killing animals, since after all, it is killing.
Radicals definitely consider nearly everything to be abuse. They want every single animal or pet to be in a manicured setting. Carpets. Mats. Furniture. Human beds for animals. $75/for food per bag. They want eggs from chickens that run outside 24/7. They want babysitters for every animal. They want no animal outside unless it’s taking a dump. They want no animals sold. Or bought. No animals sold for profit. When you understand what you are working with, just imagine your livestock and any owned animals are really 3mo old babies. Then you get the drift of why everything you do would be abuse, eh?? Because they said so. and they wrote the law.