Lawsuit on Chicago Pet Store Ordinance-Forced Sales of Non profit Sourced Animals

Pet Stores file Lawsuit Challenging Ban on sale of Puppies, but Only for Some…

On Wednesday, March 4th, attorneys on both sides agreed to postpone enacting it (the prohibition banning the sales) until the lawsuit makes its way through the legal system. City clerk stated that pet stores are making $ off animal abuse.

Here’s an example. If someone wants to buy a puppy, you want this:images (15)

NOT this:  24446860-1-800x0

…..but if they can only get this dog, do we really think that they will buy this dog? Hardly.

You can’t force people to buy shelter animals.  We own some ourselves. But forcing others to buy them will never work. They will just find animals elsewhere.

Shelter animals are NOT stock from a pet store, farm, or any breeder– they usually require experienced owners and a lot of time and possibly money. Which is WHY shelters try NOT to adopt them to people who know zero about a dog, for example. As it should be.

ARs are  trying to stop importation of certain goods into the state, period.  No matter if the goods are great. No matter if the methods used were great or legal. They pass local laws to affect interstate trade, and prohibit it. They are trying to say the ordinances are rational but essentially, they are missing a link.  To us, a big link.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/18/chicago-challenged-over-anti-puppy-mill-law.htm

Owners of Park Pet Shop and Pocket Puppies Boutique, both Chicago pet shops, and Cedar Woods Farm, a dog breeding operation in Lebanon, Mo., filed a lawsuit challenging a Chicago ordinance scheduled to go into effect March 5 and when enacted, would ban Chicago pet stores from selling animals purchased from commercial breeders.

The law mandates that Chicago pet shops can only sell cats, dogs and rabbits purchased from an animal shelter, nonprofit humane society or a nonprofit animal rescue organization.

chicago PM M for Pre Inju 2015  (Motion for Injunction)

CHICAGO PM LAWSUIT CEDAR WOODS FARM  (Complaint)

City Atty, Oceanside’s Memo Outlining Recent Legal cases, state and federal, that involve banning sales of animals+only selling rescued animals,etc; at least 4-5 federal lawsuits are currently pending nationwide and Oceanside does expect to be SUED by David Salinas, owner of Oceanside Puppy store. This is a good working summary of what is going on.Oceanside City Atty PM law Legal  and on pg. 6, he clearly cites the CDOC’s failed appeals case to stop MSN in CA.

This is rational basis at work, which is fraught with peril since nearly ANY reason might give some basis.  The best evidence we have is that there is no rational basis between the stated allegations in Oceanside, as there is no evidence that  because one bought Dog A (from pet store) meant he would buy Dog B instead (just because the shelter had it for sale.)  In fact, that comparison is not even tenuous, it’s flat out flagrantly false and plain stupidity. One can claim any law has some rationale, but if it isn’t actually going to have an effect, kills off business, and then makes the non profits in one category while they wholesale, source and then resell–while government knows nothing about how people buy animals–it’s a loser law. It could never be a state law. If these cities slowly but surely wipe out such ordinances, at least that would be a gain. (HSUS knows it would be illegal to make it a state law anywhere so HSUS tells people to do it city by city.) Typical.

The animal ordinance (filled with HSUS  words, nonsense of other ARs, like ASPCA)

http://docs.chicityclerk.com/press/2014/20140205-pr-companion-animal-ordinance.pdf

Pretty much the ordinance is like an accident waiting to happen. It espouses HSUS crap in about 50% of the wording, without any ounce of proof. Propaganda 101. No proof. No connection to what is going on. No mention of other laws. It reads like poor shelters need money so stop selling those expensive puppies so we can sell you what you don’t want.

PD believes this preliminary injunction will succeed, and same for lawsuit, if only based on one of the counts, most likely Count One.

As it reads, they specifically note that the place Plaintiffs buy the animals from is a kennel with no violations, and that the store owners have visited the premises out of state. It mentions that interstate breeders must adhere to the law, but local breeders do not, that over 98% of the kennel breeders are NOT in Illinois, and that pure and specialty breed pups are their focus. They mention the pet warranty/health care, reimbursement clause and more.

They also mention (good job!) that  (1) animals from shelters are not of equal monetary value as purebreds where the breeders are ID’d;  (2) that pet stores are NOT the cause of overcrowding in shelters (well done!) and then–they outright state  (3)  the animals are not from “PMs” (excellent!); they mention  (4)  Chicago VMA warned against the ordinance (absolutely!) and then they claim that (5)  PMs are defined by USDA Inspector General, as ‘large scale dog breeders that failed to provide humane treatment for animals under their care.’

Right away, we can see that what is “humane” will likely be subjective, which immediately puts us on notice that not everyone considers “inhumane” in the same exact opinion. Notice the definition did not say, it must be perfect, it must be 100% no dog poop, it must be 74 degrees, the dogs cannot be bred more than once a year?  In other words: just because someone may not adhere to the “law” in anything, does not mean you wipe out all of the businesses that may use/buy/sell that item. There are far LESS restrictive alternatives, and Oceanside seems to have at least “tried” to pick one, by forcing pet store to buy from smaller breeders. Not saying it will work.

We note that Count One of Complaint IS:   the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Apparently the Chicago ordinance differentiates between in-state and out of state POUNDS. They mention the law substantially affects and burdens interstate commerce because it eliminates nearly all breeders from which the pet stores are permitted to purchase animals. We will have to look up the ordinance to check that section re pounds, so far we did not notice it –if it was there………

Count Two is: Declaratory Relief (Equal Protection)

It mentions the ordinance is both over and underinclusive (which it is) and fact that local breeders can sell anything but exempts the non profits as well [thus discriminating against the pet stores who buy from out of state]  As between local breeders (who we assume would be sellers to some extent),  and pet stores, to us, they are all selling. Some of them are raising and selling; stores are mostly just selling. Usually there are state laws on what pet stores are required to do in order to stay in business.

Count Three is: Preemption

It mentions that because the conditions under which animals are bought  (owner to buyer) is a matter of statewide concern and national concern, a local law is preempted if the subject has state/national concern,and occupies the field, or a local law will conflict with the state law. [We believe this is true but we do not know the State law on pet sales in Illinois]

Count Four is:  Contract Clause

It states the law will force Plaintiffs out of business. The overbroad nature of the ordinance is claimed improper, burdensome and lacks a legitimate public purpose because it does not remedy a broad and general social or economic problem. (We read that to infer it serves no rational basis which can be any health, safety or welfare issue for most part….which is what HSUS would have to claim if they were on this case…that it serves some legitimate purpose. Even if it served some purpose, we don’t believe that would be tailored appropriately since local breeders are not affected at all….)

Count Five:  Irreparable Harm   … this goes without saying…..

Count Six:  Vagueness

Alleged that wording of ordinance would lead to selective enforcement in arbitrary and discriminatory way.

Section 4-384-015 forbids city pet shops in Chicago from selling dogs, kittens and rabbits raised by breeders, limiting these businesses to selling animals purchased only from animal shelters, nonprofit humane societies, or animal-rescue organizations.

Lawsuit says the ordinance “has the opposite effect” of eliminating substandard.
“Instead of eliminating  substandard facilities, the ordinance actually favors their expansion, by eliminating the source of commercially bred puppies in the county that are regulated on multiple levels,” the complaint states.
The stores say the ordinance prevents Plaintiffs from working with “loving, responsible breeders, who are devoted to raising animals the responsible and ethical way.”
—>    “For instance, (1) even if a breeder is licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), (2) meets and exceeds all USDA requirements, and (3) breeds and rears puppies in impeccable conditions, (4) a pet shop still cannot sell a puppy purchased from that breeder,” the complaint states.
Cook County, where Chicago is located, passed a similar law scheduled to take effect last year in October, but a federal judge stayed the law when pet stores filed suit alleging the ordinance violated commerce and equal protection laws.

HERE, the Chicago VMA agrees that outlawing is nonsensical:

http://www.chicagovma.org/cvma-statement-on-city-of-chicago-proposed-companion-animal-and-consumer-protection-ordinance/  and:

  • Smaller ‘hobbyist’ or backyard breeders, AKC breeders, and breeders or parties that offer pets for sale over the internet or in the newspaper are not regulated by this ordinance;
  • A consumer purchasing a pet from a retail pet store has greater degree of protection due to IL Public Act 098-0509 than a consumer answering an advertisement for puppies in a newspaper or from a local breeder;
  • A pet sold in a pet store has the greatest chance of receiving the highest quality veterinary care should it become ill within the first year of life as a result of IL Public Act 098-0509

PD: we believe this is correct– even though we knew it years ago…….and  we don’t believe that a dog or pup from a kennel (any kennel)– means abuse,  the non profit STATUS is used here, to purposely gain only for the non profit, while the non profit status is also used to create a monopoly for their own sales,  by forcing out the other businesses.

“Non” profits are considered commerce in the United States. They are allowed to profit, HSUS is a prime example. They try to use the angle that their “exception” as a rescue,humane,shelter,etc. is OK because of the status of same. In some instances, the exception is allowed, such as in the taxes. However, this law is based on eliminating bona fide businesses, because of competition. So ARs claim everything is inhumane in order to try and gain favor, yet it is obvious, that the kennels are still sanctioned as legal, by the Federal Government? this is mentioned in lawsuit also.

The rehoming of animals by non profits is done for the mission of the group; whether they make more or less per sale is not at issue. The issue is prohibiting sales, and forced sourcing for others: the non profit, humane,etc. must be the SOURCE. We don’t believe a non profit or non profit based ordinance can dictate the source, particularly when they ADMIT it is to cut out sales of dogs from kennels, which are legal. Why do you think HSUS tells them to go town to town, city to city? Because it would be illegal to make it into a state law.

Forced sales of non profit sourced animals seems to be very wrong, no matter how they got the non profit animals, since they  (the non profit) could buy them at auction FROM a commercial kennel themselves, like the Oaklahoma non profit Small Paws used to brag about? They sell those dogs so fast it’s pathetic.  Essentially HSUS has trained people to think “don’t buy eggs from caged chickens”; don’t buy pups from kennels, etc.

To purposely run people out of business simply because ARs want certain animals sold which come from ONLY certain sources– is the work of HSUS, plain and simple. It is the work of HSUS to recover from losing their lawsuits in Arizona where they attempted to challenge sales of pups from commercial kennels by attacking Hunte and Petland.

When HSUS pretty much lost, they then went on rampage on TV and got with other ARs to make every commercial kennel into the pariah of all things–THEN using their high paid marketing team, they repeated it endlessly over and over and over until they linked PM word with BAD–until some people started to use the PM word themselves. Typical USA residents. Dumb and dumber. Never use AR slang, never take HSUS’ side unless you really believe that WP is God. In which case, that is your right to hold that belief and we will think you are 5150.

LASSIE SNOW DOG

 

Yes below is ranting v Gina Spadafori, former syndicated writer and HSUS supporter and AR elitist. If you LIKE Spad, you probably do NOT want to keep reading further.

SO….Let’s not forget Gina Spadafori, syndicated writer and HSUS believer, in 2009 (she helped close down a pet store along w/Jennifer Fearing of HSUS); in 2012 she apparently moved to a 1 acre parcel “farm” which is nonsense, and not really large enough for horses for most part. See her pic of flooding–just wonderful if one had a horse, eh?  Well she claimed to have at least 2 and maybe 3……….Really…it was flooded for TWO months? Would that not be animal abuse  per HSUS? Think of the bacteria and the ‘no’ well..no electricity and no drinking water…..think e-coli?  yep…probably so…

So here goes the ‘expert’ Spad on animals again, her own words:

…and………”  I couldn’t get to the barn safely, but I knew from seeing it the night before that another inch or so of rain would have pushed the flooded pasture above the level of the barn floor. The water would have destroyed about $3,000 worth of hay, that couldn’t be replaced for less than 25 percent over what I’d paid for it, since hay is more expensive in the winter………..No power means no well, which means no tap water, which means no toilet.
“No heat, OK, well you can usually bundle up enough to get by in this part of California, but then there was also the little matter of the Sacramento River less than a quarter-mile from my house and held in place by levees voted the nation’s most likely to fail by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.   …..And none of that took into account that I was already dealing with the fact that my dog McKenzie, diagnosed last February with a very deadly form of cancer, had just three days before run out of chemo options and been given not long to live. And she was throwing up.”                                                                                                                                                                                                     —–>>Oh, and I was out of Xanax. And wine. And chocolate.<————– The first wasn’t fixable on a Sunday, the second  and third not worth risking street flooding and accidents to make it up to the store.”

NOW–this is the same person …some type of alleged “authority” on animals because she wrote “for dummies” books..… Well, we never thought she was an authority on ANYTHING and still don’t.

She can claim she knows it all, but seriously, owning an alleged 1 acre parcel “farm” and having equines (even 2 of them) is a HELLUVA lot of work, mucking, and buying hay. With no pasture, you got a big feed bill and you gotta lot mucky muck muck, PLUS all that equine urine is likely ruining the soil because it’s only 1 acre.  We won’t be surprised if some neighbors sue her for having too many horses on such a small parcel and polluting the groundwater somehow, since she knew that it flooded and failed to grade it. Until after the fact.

Overweight heavy people  (Spad is overweight) –who have little and no knowledge of ranching/horses/actual animal husbandry (not just “dummy books)  should not take in sick,or ill or subpar horses. But this “authority” person did, and has back problems, is probably still overwight (fat)  and has to get rid of horses. She even wanted to get rid of her rooster.

If her flooded yard is any indication, she would have done better to have a commercial kennel with small dogs that she could have simply picked up and put inside her office, if in fact she has one. But that would have not been ethical, right?

Anyone syndicated for that many years with that many published books should not have to worry about $3,000 of hay.

Below is what we have always hated about Spad.

She thinks she knows everything but realistically, does not,

as she shoots her mouth off re “PMs”…

“[B]y the way, there IS a difference between HSUS and PETA, and that agenda is it. With puppy-mills, real change will come only when everyone knows what’s behind those cute puppies in the pet-store window or on the pictures on an Internet site. Laws don’t work as well as changing attitudes do. We need to help people realize that the only sensible and ethical options are to get a pet from a shelter or rescue group, or from a  breeder who raises puppies in the home with all the proven advantages of constant socialization and early training.”

PD: This AR elitist breed talk. There is no difference between PETA, HSUS or any national AR group. Zero. Clearly Spad has no idea that RICO means racketeering…. “sensible and ethical” “from breeder who raises puppies in the home w/all proven advantages of constant socialization/early training.” yeah,yeah,yeah..more AR crap…training doesn’t stop cancer in a dog, right Spad? Right.

MILLIONS of pups from kennel that are NOT from a home with constant socialization/training do just fine as a pet. For decades upon decades. RESCUE animals may have never had ANY training or socialization, and NOT everyone wants their dog to be heavily socialized.   PLUS– Spad’s own DOG died of cancer, Spad claimed she sold the dog’s litter and kept a puppy. So now Spad will have to worry about the daughter of the cancer dog dying? Maybe she should take the Xanax and forget the farm completely.

Being AR leaning elitist and known syndicated writer but unattractive, overweight and one sided, Spad—with no knowledge of how change really comes about (she consistently ignores facts and takes her own side of how ethical she is); can you imagine how awful she would be raising kids? Bigot-leaning we suspect…like, no, no, no, that kid is not good enough for my kid.  And as for that so-called ‘ranch’ of hers, it’s nothing more than an overcrowded piece of 1 acre land, poor drainage, that should not have more than 1 horse to begin with.

And as someone that must rely on XANAX, who can hardly handle mucking, she should toss the towel in and give up. Horses require much time, energy, money, and knowledge. Which we don’t believe Spad has an abundance of,  judging from her “blogging.” Get off that high horse Spad, before you fall off.

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY WITH LIVESTOCK IS NOT THE SAME AS WRITING BOOKS FOR ‘DUMMIES’ SPAD…..karma is a bitch after you help take down the money, the business and the pet store that you helped close down, (Roseville California) — you were above selling of puppies because it was not ETHICAL, and teamed up with RICO tainted HSUS time and again on your blog. Thank God your blog is history. It was annoying to see AR pitches by someone who knows almost nothing about ARs to begin with. Much less real animals.

——————————————————————————————-

Advertisements