For the longest time, we have stated again and again and again, that non profit groups are most definitely part of interstate commerce. Just look at HSUS, ASPCA and any huge health related non profit, all of which are in the many millions–and the millions in donations nationwide.
Goodwill, Salvation Army and tons of other non profits make millions, and Goodwill even makes billions of dollars. Yes, Goodwill.
So when looking at the national landscape where the push to obtain a “rescue” animal is purportedly at an all time high– the desire to obtain a “puppy” means one must either buy it, breed for it, or go and use a rescue or a non profit, or a shelter, which is often the government. See: http://www.rescueme.org/ which says, has placed close to half a million animals???? Did they give them all away? Was money exchanged? Did they receive donations? Let’s not be stupid. This pic, just one example, was posted by some group to prove they rescued it, we believe, according to what they claimed. We don’t recall when or where we saw it.
<—–this would be a type of rescue animal that would likely require meds for loss of fur, regardless of the cause. Do we think that people will come running to buy this dog? Maybe, if they feel sorry for it. But seriously, why would you want to spend more money on an animal that you know nothing about and have to spend 8 times the money just to make it normal? The rescue can do that part if they really want to take animals that need work. The job of rescue is to get homes for as many as possible. Instead, they will offer the crappiest they can find to solicit donations and make people feel bad. We don’t call that rescuing, we call that propaganda.
- Taking the stats from the groups that chart how many (estimated) dogs are bought and how many will die over a span of time, it can be seen that if fewer and fewer puppies are available, it is likely due to:
- 1) AR laws against breeding 2) AR laws against selling animals 3) AR laws against trading animals 4) AR laws about owning “pets” 5) AR laws prohibiting sales of pets, animals,or livestock
- 6) AR laws about what “puppies” can be sold online 7) AR laws about what breeds can and cannot be owned or outlawed 8) AR laws shutting down pet stores or swap meet venues with pets 9) AR laws regulating how to care for every pet and animal imaginable, including fish, birds, reptiles 10) AR laws eliminating ownership and instead substituting seizure laws which ignore ownership legality (amounting to forfeiture essentially) 11) AR laws being based on CHILD WELFARE law, thus subjecting owners to having to treat the animal or pet as one would treat a human child………
Those are just some of the types of conduct that pervade our animal and people situation.
When taken as a whole— and considering the multifaceted effect nationally, it is more than obvious that the pet and animal trade, whether it be commercials, films, historical videos and books, movies, donation drives for shelter animals, purported rescue/rehab, groups transporting purported rescued animals, people going overseas to bring back street dogs (when we have plenty of street dogs in south Texas from what has been on the news), pet-people fundraisers, animal shows with movie stars and HSUS fundraisers, livestock competition and 4H, you name it, it is ALL commerce regardless of where the animal came from. A “non profit” status does not necessarily mean tax exempt; one can be a non profit group and be without tax exempt status. But even if an entity IS tax exempt, it does not mean that there is no profit made. We only need to look at HSUS and Goodwill to see that fact.
Thus, currently the government may decide to look at the major, mass business that is taking place in the resale of “rescued” “abandoned” or “surrendered” animals that the ARs claim — is not— interstate commerce.
ARs want to BE THE PETSTORES, and thus they try and make laws to eliminate others from breeding, selling, trading, showing, so that THEY can take over the business instead. We have seen non profits then start up their “retail” non profit stores in various malls and shopping area centers, including giving out product information, lessons, training and pretty much tries to do what a normal pet store would do.
ARs will buy animals here, or go overseas (Mexico, Lebanon, Korea, Puerto Rico, Bulgaria, etc.) and buy animals, and eventually sell those animals in the USA. Mind you, they don’t GIVE THEM AWAY. Let’s not forget that Best Friends spent $140,000 to fly to Beirut, and bring back rescued street dogs. And they already have 1,600 resident dogs on their property???
And who loves to work with Best Friends? HSUS and the entire carnival of AR groups. Just a huge conglomerate of nothing but publicity seeking, political activists that keep telling people where to get animals. From them, of course.
Thus the selling alone amounts to commerce regardless if an alleged profit is made—since the new owner will then buy all kinds of things for the animals, use new services, and in general will spend $$$ on that animal, period. While it is true that cases on interstate commerce hinge upon a variety of various factors and past case law, the ARs will always try and use rational basis as the criteria for laws they get passed, since that is the lowest level of scrutiny based upon health, welfare or safety.
And as shown in well known con law cases, the Supreme court has found that even one person growing extra wheat for his family violated the commerce clause (when no one was to be doing so) because, according to the Court, if many people nationwide were to do the same it would have the cumulative effect of commerce taking place; this same thought was also applied to a California case when one medical marijuana user was found to be in violation of same, because if thousands were to do the same thing, it would have similar effect; the most well known 2 cases (often heavily criticized we might add) are: Gonzales v Raich, and Wickard v Filburn…….
“Defendant Angel Raich used homegrown medical marijuana, which was legal under California law, but illegal under federal law. On August 15, 2002, Butte County Sheriff’s Department officers and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) destroyed all six of California resident Diane Monson’s marijuana plants, facing light resistance. The marijuana plants were illegal Schedule I drugs under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). CSA is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Monson and Angel Raich sued, claiming that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the doctrine ofmedical necessity.”
“While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.
“In 1941 Filburn grew more than the limits permitted and he was ordered to pay a penalty of $117.11. He claimed his wheat was not sold in interstate commerce and so the penalty could not apply to him.
The Supreme Court stated “The intended disposition of the crop here involved has not been expressly stated…” and later … ….”Whether the subject of the regulation in question was “production,” “consumption,” or “marketing” is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us […] [b]ut even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might, at some earlier time, have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.'”
In other words, the cumulative effect if a lot of people were to do the same thing (which rescue resellers nationally are/have been doing for years, at least a decade–)– then a court can find it [the alleged non profit] may be involved in commerce and proceed to apply whichever cases best support that contention.
We fail to see much difference when a group of ARs make laws that will benefit them, but cause harm to others, while selling the same products, and not just locally. In fact, ARs force other sellers to BUY such animals FROM THEM, as was shown by the City of San Diego’s horrible law on pet stores, which forced pet store owners to ONLY source the animals from them; THEM meaning rescues, shelters or non profits. Further, the non profit sources also devised some of the laws, and had oversight, so they ended up sourcing the animals, selling the animals, and regulating the way such animals could be obtained. —-> In most instances, that would be a vertical operation known as a monopoly.<—-
50 humane societies would be doing the same thing in 40 states if no one stopped them.
People, this is nothing short of instituting a monopoly by squeezing out the competition. Anyone that claims that this is not the case needs to go research the commerce issue. When taken as a whole and if duplicated nationally, it is in fact affecting interstate commerce since many animals are moved, sold, or transferred around the USA due to demand for the product. Both online and not online.
As Petland is still in existence, HSUS cannot take Petland down, they already tried. Which is why they go city to city trying to claim it’s just a local issue. In the bigger picture, it is not local since if 1,000 cities did ban stores selling animals from kennels, it would not be local. Why it is being done this way is because to do it on a national level would be a direct violation of interstate commerce. HSUS knows this.
Yes, crafty attorneys can write all the reasons why pet stores can’t sell anything BUT shelter dogs or cats………but we think that unless the kill rate could be proven to actually go DOWN if the pet store doesn’t sell non rescued animals, the fact is that the pet stores have absolutely nothing to do with a kill rate or surrender rate. Instead, ARs simply don’t want animals bred in commercial kennels or ANY kennel actually, and DON’T want people to buy from that source. Well–where do we REALLY think that “rescues” will get puppies to replace those that are purposely bred? They have to either buy them, or put ads out to get them. Very few people raise litters just to give them away.
For one thing, the more an owner pays for an animal, the LESS the chance of surrendering the animal to a shelter. Hence that is why most animals in shelters are not exactly what people want??? Nothing new there.
Animals are products widely sold and used and in demand for businesses and families. The fact that the “rescuers” sell the products indicates they put the product into the stream of commerce. If we take the totality of the sales and the resulting commercial sales that will result from each sale of each animal, it cannot be considered simply a local issue (as ARs claim it is…)…….so even if no one believed us before, the truth is—- Animal Rights always have been and always will be engaged in the very commerce they claim they aren’t in. Making a profit has nothing to do with it, just look at HSUS and Goodwill. Billions. Non profit. Interstate commerce. No joke. And if you still don’t believe us re rescued animals, you might read http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/20/us/nonprofits-get-interstate-trade-protection.html?pagewanted=allthis: