07.24.11
Posted in Animal Activists at 4:46 pm by Administrator
July 7, 2011
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_animal_rights_extremists_nearing_victory_in_california.html
http://tinyurl.com/432kgco
July 7, 2011
The Animal Rights Extremists Nearing Victory in California
By Diane Amble
It is becoming clearer with each passing day that something is terribly,
terribly wrong in California. Gradually, unnoticed by most, California
is slowly deteriorating over time like a grand old mansion with a
steadily crumbling foundation. The California Dream is slowly dying and
what seems to be rising from the ashes is a nightmare. Why? How did
this happen? The answer is quite simple. Deliberate and strategic
social and political engineering by motivated special interest groups.
These groups seek to force their agendas upon us via carefully crafted
and legislated mandates.
The most powerful, dangerous, and influential of these groups are found
in the realms of environmental activism (green groups) and animal
rights. Homeland Security has identified in an official national
security report that these groups constitute one of the most dangerous
terrorist threats to America on a par with Muslim jihadists. While we
have been busily pursuing our livelihoods and enjoying our families and
animals, these dangerous groups have been stealthily working behind the
scenes to gain more and more political power and influence over us all.
Permalink
Posted in Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights at 4:38 pm by Administrator
|
— On Mon, 7/11/11, AKC’s Government Relations Department <mba@akc.org> wrote:
From: AKC’s Government Relations Department <mba@akc.org>
Subject: MA Update: Committee to Consider Requiring Licensing for Dog Events on July 19
To: apete1962@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, July 11, 2011, 3:25 PM
July 11, 2011
A Massachusetts legislative committee is scheduled to consider House Bill 1023 on July 19 – a bill that would significantly change the definition of kennel to encompass training facilities or any dog event with more than 12 dogs. All those meeting the new criteria would be required to comply with all state and local licensing and other regulations currently reserved just for large kennels.
It is essential that the committee members hear from responsible dog owners, exhibitors, trainers, and breeders who either reside in the Commonwealth or participate in Massachusetts dog events:
- Attend the committee hearing on July 19. The meeting information is as follows:
Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure
Date: July 19, 2011
Time: 1:00 p.m.
Location: Massachusetts State House, Room A-2
**If you plan to attend, please contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners so they can know how many plan to testify and can provide you with any last-minute information:
The AKC will continue to closely monitor this legislation. For questions or more information, contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs & Responsible Dog Owners at the e-mail addresses listed above, or the AKC Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org. If you would rather not receive future communications from The American Kennel Club, let us know by clicking here.
The American Kennel Club, 8051 Arco Corporate Dr. Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27617 United States
|
Permalink
Posted in Animal Ownership, Guardians? Or Owners?, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights at 4:07 pm by Administrator
TX-RPOA E-News
>From RPOA Texas Outreach and
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
“Animal welfare, not animal ‘rights’
and, yes, there is a difference.”
Crossposting is encouraged.
July 15, 2011
Excellent article below from The Dog Place: www.thedogplace.org . Thanks,
Diane! Animals are being seized in Texas on a regular basis by law
enforcement officers assisted by local humane societies that house the
animals. Many times offers to help from national purebred dog and cat
rescue groups are refused and the seizures turn into major fundraisers for
the humane societies. If Animal Control knocks on your door, know your
rights as animal owners. Do not let them in without a Search Warrant even
if you feel you’ve nothing to fear.
…………………………………………………
http://www.thedogplace.org/RIGHTS/Illegal-Animal-Seizure-1107_Amble.asp
OR Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/64ap3z7
Your Dog’s Best Friend May Be His Attorney
by Diane Amble I July 12, 2011
Dealing with illegal animal seizures and the consequences; the expert’s
handbook, part 1.
(EXCERPTS), read at URL above for rest of the story!)
Warrantless seizures plague animal owners! If contacted by animal control
authorities SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL IMMEDIATELY to prevent illegal seizure.
In fact, you may want to find a good attorney now.
“Why?” you ask. The answer is by the time the knock comes at your door, it
may be too late to protect your animals and prevent them from being seized.
Often times, seizure of animals results in the injury and death of the
animals by the same authorities that claim to be “rescuing” said animals.
Too many believe that the law protects their rights and their property as we
were taught in Civics and Government class in middle school.
Too many believe that because they provide optimal care for their animals
and live in a nice neighborhood or a rural countryside that they will never
be subjected to the onerous raids one hears about. “Those people” you assume
did not properly care for their animals. We are told “those people” are
hoarders.
The reality is that even people with four animals have been labeled
“hoarders” by rogue raiders. Once they release often contrived raid details
to the press, you will be presumed guilty by the media and the public.
<MORE AT http://tinyurl.com/64ap3z7
Permalink
Posted in Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws at 3:57 pm by Administrator
http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/07/21/38327.htm
Woman Says Dog Police Acted Like Gangsters
By REUBEN KRAMER
PHILADELPHIA (CN) – A breeder of basset hounds claims gun-toting officers from the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals broke her heart and “decimated” her pack of dogs, seizing 12 of them after illegally searching the dogs’ heated barn without a warrant, and threatening to “return with television cameras.”
Wendy Willard sued the PSPCA and two of its officers, George Bengal and Tara Loller, on constitutional charges in Federal Court.
Willard, a retired public school teacher, Ivy League graduate and volunteer for conservancy organizations, says she “has loved and worked with sporting hounds for more than 40 years.”
Willard says she is an “internationally recognized” breeder of dogs known as the “Murder Hollow Bassets.” An Internet search this morning turned up a trove of comments on the case from dog groups.
In her 26-page complaint, Willard says she has spent tens of thousands of dollars to care for her dogs, $30,000 on the heated barn she built for them, and has raised 17 litters of “highly regarded hounds.”
Willard’s attorney Emily Bell told Courthouse News that Willard, a cause célèbre in some dog-breeding circles, is “a really lovely woman who has endured some pretty terrible things” at the hands of the PSPCA. Bell is an attorney with Clymer, Musser, Brown & Conrad, of Lancaster, Pa.
The Murder Hollow Bassets get their name from a grisly 19th-century triple homicide that occurred near the dead-end, single-lane, wooded private road where Willard lives.
Until July 27, 2009, Willard lived in her home with a pair of older hounds and another 21 dogs lived in the $30,000 heated barn she built for them on her 2-acre Philadelphia property, which includes “100-foot runs and an exercise area,” according to her complaint.
But Willard says her world was turned upside-down that summer day when a group of gun-toting PSPCA officers paid an unannounced visit and asked for permission to enter the barn.
“When Miss Willard refused them permission to search without a warrant, the officers and wardens temporarily left her property,” but not before an officer “threatened Miss Willard that if she did not consent to a warrantless search of her property, the group … could return with television cameras,” according to the complaint.
“Rather than seek a warrant, the officers and wardens, however, simply entered the adjoining property of her neighbor, crossing from that property’s grassy area to trespass onto the wooded area on Miss Willard’s property,” according to the complaint.
Willard says the manager of the 340-acre preserve next door had told the PSPCA officers they were trespassing, but the officers responded “that they did not care and that as PSPCA agents they would go wherever they pleased and do whatever they wanted.”
“From their trespassing vantage point, the wardens and officers observed the fenced-in area behind Miss Willard’s barn and spied on Miss Willard as she went about her daily chore of cleaning her dogs’ exercise runs,” the complaint states.
Warrants were subsequently issued “in spite of the fact that the officers and wardens had observed no criminal activity from an area in which they were not authorized to be,” Willard says.
The crew returned at about 5 p.m., handed Willard a search warrant, and raided her dogs.
“Miss Willard’s hounds had sensed danger and begun to bark,” the complaint states. Willard says the PSPCA crew searched and photographed her barn, and a fleet of eight law-enforcement vehicles parked outside her home.
Willard says defendant PSPCA officer Tara Loller falsely accused her of violating Philadelphia’s “Limit Law,” which prohibits having more than 12 dogs in a single residence.
“Defendants improperly brandished this ‘Limit Law’ as the pretext to seize Miss Willard’s hounds from the heated barn. This inapplicable ordinance was used to oppress and badger Miss Willard into complying with defendants’ demands.”
Willard says the 12-dog limit applies to a “residential dwelling unit,” which the Philadelphia Zoning Code defines as a building “intended to be used for living or sleeping by human occupants.”
“Miss Willard’s barn is not a dwelling; no human occupants use it for living or sleeping and it was obvious to anyone on the property that the barn was not a residential dwelling. In fact, Miss Willard’s barn is a private stable under the Philadelphia Zoning Code. As no business is conducted on the property, her barn is not a kennel,” Willard says.
Willard says she involuntarily signed “surrender agreements” for seizure of 11 of her dogs after officers threatened to take all 23 of them “if she refused to sign over the others.” She says the officers told her “that the forms had to be signed immediately because one of the dog wardens was going into diabetic shock and needed medical attention; that if she did not sign the dogs over she would get so many citations that PSPCA would ‘own her home;’ and that defendants Bengal and Loller would not leave her kitchen until the documents were signed.”
Meanwhile, defendant George Bengal was a quarter-mile uphill, telling Willard’s neighbor that Willard was “running a puppy mill,” the complaint states. Willard says that charge is bogus, as she “does not sell her hounds, preferring instead to give them away to people she knows will provide warm homes and good care or to keep and raise them herself.”
She says the PSPCA claimed its raid was precipitated by “unattributed complaints about barking,” and that it forced her to make a “heart-rending” decision: “After defendant Loller informed Miss Willard that she would be seizing 10 of her dogs because she was violating the law, she directed Miss Willard to choose the dogs that would be seized.”
Tearful pleading didn’t sway Loller: “As night fell, Miss Willard was forced to undertake the traumatic task of choosing which of her dogs – most of which had been whelped in her home and spent every day of their lives with her – to hand over to the PSPCA.
“As Miss Willard tearfully decided which of her dogs to part with, defendant Bengal threatened her that defendants could give her enough citations to take her house,” the complaint states.
Willard says the officers’ heartless behavior continued. She says Bengal scoured her house with a flashlight until he found Hansel, Willard’s 12-year-old “house hound.”
“Defendant Bengal then demanded that Miss Willard surrender yet another of her dogs. Miss Willard was then forced to say a hysterical goodbye to the other dog who lived in the house with her, taking off the dog’s identification collar and Invisible Fence collar as defendants Loller and Bengal pulled her away.
The complaint continues: “Incredibly, although defendant Loller had previously stated to Miss Willard that Nellie, one of the hounds, would be seized because of the length of her toenails, while Miss Willard stood beside the impound truck while Nellie was being loaded and promised the dog she would do whatever she could to get her back, defendant Loller relented and permitted Miss Willard to choose any other dog to ‘swap’ for Nellie.”
Willard adds: “While in Miss Willard’s kitchen, defendant Bengal began to look through Miss Willard’s mail. When Miss Willard asked defendant Bengal to stop reading her mail, he retorted, ‘We got a warrant. We can look through anything we want.’”
The arbitrary abuses did not stop with the seizures, Willard says. She claims that for months, PSPCA acted as if all the seized dogs were still alive, though it knew that one had been euthanized after a botched surgical procedure.
And “Incredibly, defendant PSPCA records list 11 hounds being spayed or neutered in its facility, despite the fact that two of those seized hounds had previously been spayed,” Willard says.
“Not content to destroy Miss Willard’s pack of hounds and steal her animals, the PSPCA began a campaign of harassment by irrelevant ordinance,” slapping Willard with multiple code-violation notices for alleged “animal sounds,” which were later dismissed, she says.
Those citations were followed by a barrage of 22 citations concerning animal welfare, none of which resulted in conviction, Willard says.
Willard says her “pack of hounds was irreplaceable and her loss was tremendous.”
She adds: “The loss of genetic material is significant because those particular hounds had participated in recognized hunts, been bred with hounds of other packs and traded for generic diversity.”
The PSPCA did not return a phone calling seeking comment.
Attorney Bell told Courthouse News that nearly 2 years after her client’s ordeal, “We are not sure where these dogs are,” a painful uncertainty “that Ms. Willard faces every day.”
Willard seeks compensatory and punitive damages for constitutional violations.
Permalink
07.06.11
Posted in Animal Ownership, Pet Laws at 8:25 pm by Administrator
may be cross-posted from Sharyn Hutchens:
I received permission to forward this with the writer’s name removed. (I
also removed other identifying information) You know all those scenarios
we predict when stupid laws like this are passed? How are they going to
define “show dog”? How will you prove the dog is showing? How about a
dog too young to show? What about if the person with an intact dog is
showing but does not EVER plan to breed? Read on…it’s all happening.
PS “schutzhund and all that garbage”??????????
============Original message text===============
Just had an interesting phone discussion? confrontation? with an animal
control nazi in City of LA. I live in —— county (– miles outside of LA
County), but placed a not quite 6 month old imported puppy with a family
in LA last week. Deal is they have to keep him intact, I own all
breeding rights, and I knew I would have to show him to get the
exemption from their “breeding permit”, even though I have not decided
if he is show quality yet.
So, they get his rabies, go to the shelter to get his license. They took
a copy of our contract. Woman at the counter says, have to pay the
intact licensing fee, but also have to get a breeders permit for $235
per year. They say, we aren’t breeders. Well, no exceptions, if he is
intact, have to have permit.
Calls me, I talk to the woman, get handed off to an officer. She tries
to bluff every way she can.
1) Dog is already illegal, should have been licensed at 4 months.
No – he’s been living in —— County. Finally has to admit the dog has
to be in LA for 30 days continuously to need a license. Was like pulling
nails to get her to admit that. She was sure she could tack a late
penalty of some kind on them.
2) No exceptions, any intact dog means a breeders permit is needed. Hmm
- No, don’t think that’s right. Finally admitted that if the dog was
being shown, no breeder’s permit was needed. Well, he’s too young to
show. Doesn’t matter, have to have proof of showing or get the permit.
(Just curious – if he had been 4 months old, what then?) So, I ask what
is proof? Copy of an entry? No, “breeder’s are always lying about that”,
with “schutzhund and all that garbage”. Have to have a “receipt” from
the show, a “real show”, saying he was there. Tell her there is no such
thing, that the only proof a dog was there is a catalogue page showing
he wasn’t absent. She had obviously never been to a show in her life.
OK, they would take that. I may pursue this, see if an entry should be
proof. She could have been lying about that.
3) Dog has to be showing regularly.
OK, define regular. He’s young (and not pretty right now), so I won’t be
showing him regular. How often – once a month, every 6 months, every
year – what is regular? Give me a definition. Well, turns out no such
requirement. Provide proof of showing when licensing, all that is
needed. Another thing she hated to admit.
She tried to turn herself inside out lying about what the law said. I
had followed the regs when passed, remembered enough of the details to
get to the truth (mostly). But she didn’t just withhold information, she
actively lied about it. Makes me so pissed off. I think my coowners
could have walked in with a child with a black eye in rags, and been
considered better people than anyone wanting to keep a dog intact. I
know this in the abstract, but hadn’t had my nose rubbed in it in a
while. She was so incredibly rude, kept talking over me, threats, etc.
Finally told her I had been in meetings with the head of LA City Animal
Control and several captains (job related), was also in the animal
regulation business, and she at least let me talk.
Upshot, next show is 37 days after they got the dog, so he will probably
have to come back here since it won’t be in the 30 day period, and they
are now on the radar of animal control. Coowner suggested she should
just pay the $235 this year, I told her no way did she want to be in
their records as a breeder! An invitation to be harassed for years.
Permalink
05.17.11
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, Pet Laws, What is a puppy mill? at 7:59 pm by Administrator
NEW TRENDS IN ANTI-DOG LEGISLATION
By Amy Peterson
Having faced strong opposition across the nation from the animal-loving public to whom animal ownership is dear, the anti-animal forces – or the Animal Rights agenda – has adapted to our opposition and is changing tactics.
New breeder limit laws being introduced include the concept of co-ownership, regardless of where the dog may actually reside. Here is an example of how this could affect any breeder having co-ownership of a couple of dogs: Breeder A lives in a jurisdiction in which “high volume laws” limit her to a total of 20 puppies annually. She co-owns a bitch with Breeder B and Breeder C. Breeder A has a litter of 7 puppies. Breeder B has a litter of 8 puppies the same year, and Breeder C produces a litter of 7 puppies as well. Now Breeder A, who co-owns the two bitches, will suddenly become a “high volume breeder” simply because of her ownership interest in the bitches owned by Breeder B and Breeder C, subjecting her to the “high volume breeder” regulations of her state, which could include unreasonably expensive and intrusive licensing (such as a criminal background check, bank references, professional references), bringing her “breeding facilities” in line with state regulations (regardless of the fact that she whelps her litter in the house), and subjecting her home to state inspections.
A newer tactic is the “hoarder” bill. These bills seek to criminalize the act of “hoarding.” Seemingly a harmless bill, right? After all, no one thinks well of an “animal hoarder.” However, those bills that have been introduced have very low thresholds – 7 animals in one state, 5 animals in another – as the threshold at which you are a criminal “hoarder”, unless, of course you buy a state license. There is no distinction across species, so this would include cats, ferrets, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits…Penalties range from simple misdemeanors to felonies. Included are vague phrases such as “inadequate care” and “is unable to recognize their actions.” What is inadequate care? Is it an older dog that is losing teeth because of age? Would your friendly ACO find that a sebaceous cyst on a dog proves “inadequate care?” What if you are feeding a BARF diet and the ACO doesn’t feel it is adequate nutrition? And what if you simply disagree with the ACO about the living conditions of your dogs? Will they find that you are “unable to recognize” your actions? What about a family with 2 dogs, a cat, and a son who has a ferret and a daughter with a guinea pig? Are these people hoarders?
Regardless of how good a piece of proposed legislation may appear based on its title or summary, it is in the best interests of all dog owners, breeders, and lovers to delve into the bill and truly understand what it is they are legislation.
AKC maintains a legislative tracking page at http://www.akc.org/news/sections/legislative_alerts.cfm. Please take the time to visit and see what legislation may be affecting your state, as well as AKC’s position on the legislation. And, more importantly, please contact your legislators expressing your concern – your voice can make a difference.
Permalink
05.08.11
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights at 1:04 am by Administrator
This is frightening in its ramifications for dog owners
Cecil County, MD May Consider “Exhibitor Licensing” May 10
From AKC Government Relations:
May 6, 2011
The Cecil County (MD) Board of County Commissioners will likely discuss numerous changes to its kennel and licensing laws during its 2012 budget public hearing on May 10, 2011. While it is not certain that a final vote will be taken on these changes on Tuesday, it is important that the commission hear that residents are concerned with the proposal.
Background:
Current law requires a kennel license for anyone “engaged in the business of breeding, buying, selling, boarding, grooming or training” five or more “customary household pets” over four months of age.
A proposal released in February would significantly broaden these requirements by requiring those that meet this definition to obtain an annual commercial kennel license, an individual license for every dog they own, and a business
License. Commercial kennels must schedule annual inspections with the Animal Care & Control Authority, the Department of Environmental Health and the Department of Permits and Inspections.
These kennels may be given a special exemption to exist in certain residential zones, provided they comply with numerous requirements, including having a minimum of 5 acres if the dogs are kept outside, or 2 acres if the dogs are kept in a soundproof building.
Among other provisions, the proposal would also require a higher individual dog license fee for owners of intact dogs.
Licensing/Inspections for Dog Sport Participants?
Since February, a task force has been assigned to examine this proposal and present amendments to the commission. The AKC has learned that these amendments may include changing the definition of “commercial kennel” to those who breed two or more litters and buy or sell any dogs for compensation.
Furthermore, these amendments may propose a “hobby kennel” license for anyone who keeps dogs for hunting, tracking, participating in dog shows, performance events, or field or obedience trials. Even if dogs are not being bred and sold, those meeting this definition would be required to obtain an annual hobby kennel license and individual licenses for every dog they own, obtain site approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, develop a program of veterinary care and exercise for dogs and display them in a prominent location, and submit to annual inspections prior to renewing the license.
Both commercial and hobby kennels may also be subject to unannounced inspections at any time.
Permalink
04.24.11
Posted in Animal Activists, Animal Ownership, On the National Front, Pet Laws, Pet Owner Bill of Rights at 10:59 pm by Administrator
WooHoo!! Rep Leutkemeyer is another one of our area’s guys!
http://www..agrimarketing.com/ss.php?id=66714
MISSOURI CONGRESSMEN ASK TREASURY DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE HSUS’ 501(C)(3) STATUS Apr. 21, 2011
Agri-Pulse reports:
A letter sent by several members of Missouri’s congressional delegation to Eric Thorson, Inspector General for the Treasury Department, requests an investigation into what the lawmakers describe as “apparent improper activities” under the tax-exempt status of the Humane Society of the
U.S. (HSUS).
“Over the past two years, this organization has conducted substantial political activities within Missouri that brought into question its tax exempt 501 (c) (3) status,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter signed by Missouri Republican Reps. Vicky Hartzler, Jo Ann Emerson, Blaine
Luetkemeyer, Sam Graves and Billy Long, along with Alaska GOP Rep. DonYoung.
“We believe that HSUS’s own public documents show beyond question that lobbying is a “substantial part” of its activities and feel that IRS’s failure to act is attributable to the politically sensitive nature of HSUS’s activities,” they wrote. Under the definition of Section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Service code, an organization “may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities.”
On March 23, 2010, Rep. Luetkemeyer notified IRS Commissioner Shulman of the organization’s potential violation of the tax exemption laws. On May 12, Luetkemeyer followed up with a letter to Lois Lerner, Director of Exempt Organizations. “Yet to our knowledge, no remedial action was taken against HSUS,” the lawmakers wrote.
Elaine Wallace
Permalink
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
