The "Targeted Audience" for this "Out-of-the-Box" CALL
TO ACTIONincludes all who own, breed, raise, sell and responsibly use
all types of animals, such as dogs, horses, cows, pigs, chickens and animals used in circuses and zoos.
Although
we hate to admit it, and sometimes refuse to admit it, the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) enjoys incredible "credibility"
in the minds of the American Public, and an ever growing number of Federal and State Legislators.That is why it is so important to rise above parochial issues, and focus on the one, single issue that the HSUS will have the greatest difficulty in defending itself.That issue is the fact that the overwhelming evidence suggests that the HSUS has never complied with the Lobbying Disclosure
Act of 1995 for 16 continuous years!!!!!Unlike the ASPCA, which has registered
itself as a Lobbying Organization with Both Houses of Congress, the HSUS has not.Instead,
the HSUS has, with impunity and a totaldisregard for the sanctity of "TheLaw," consciously chosen to "Thumb its Nose" at the Law enacted by Congress
- - the same Congress that it curries the favor ofwith itsaggressiveand invasive Legislative Agenda.
"Together" and collectively, all sectors have thePower to put the HSUS on the defensive in the U.S. Congress ifweallstay focused,
and with a unified VOICE, limit our request to Members of Congress to simply asking that they ensure that all tax-exempt,
public charities comply with the Law that Congress enacted.That is why it so
important not to mention any animal related issue in the E-Mails to Members of Congress.Just a simple request that highlights the fact that the HSUS is violating the law.If volumes of E-Mails are received by Members of Congress concerning this single, focusedissue, no one needs to mention "animals."The Members of Congress
will think of it themselves.That is the essence of the "ART OF FINESSE!"
I urge each who reads this message to take but a few
minutes to sendthreeE-Mails with
the exact wording in the Suggested Text.This will enhancethe possibility that the seemingly impossiblewill happen
- - A DAY OF RECKONING FOR THE HSUS!!!!!!!
DECEMBER CALL TO ACTION
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 BY THE HSUS
If you believe that the Senior Leadership
of theHumane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) has made more than one "Lobbying Contact"
with Members of Congress or their respective staffs in the last five years, then there is reason to believe that the HSUS
and its Senior Leadership have failed to comply with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 because they have never registered
as a lobbying organization or as lobbyists with the appropriate Congressional Offices.
If every Member of Congress were to
receive Hundreds, or possibly thousands, of E-Mails from their constituents which asks Six Pointed Questions, those E-Mails
may shine a BIG BRIGHT SPOTLIGHT on the fact that the HSUS has been acting "ABOVE THE LAW" and should be held accountable.
You will help to BRIGHTEN THAT
SPOTLIGHT if you will take less than 20 Minutes to send an E-Mail to your two U.S. Senators and to your U.S. Representative
and ask six pointed questions.If you wish to do so, follow the instructions
set out below and use the suggested Text for your E-Mails.And yes, send E-Mails
to the Members of Congress who are supporting the HSUS Legislative Agenda.LARGE
NUMBERS OF E-MAILS CAN AND DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!!!!!!That
is why the HSUS literally generates Millions of E-Mails going to Members of Congress.
2.Fill in your state and ZIP Code on the prompt that appears.
3.Add your name, address and E-Mail address on E-Mail Form for your U.S. Representative; and on the Subject Line
add: LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995; and then add then add the message set out below.
5.Click onto the E-Mail Address for each of your two U.S. Senators.
6.Add your name, address and E-Mail address on E-Mail Form for your U.S. Representative; and on the Subject Line
add: LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995; and then add then add the message set out
below.
7.So that a running
count of total E-Mails may be maintained, send a confirmation that the three E-Mails were sent from which State to Frank Losey:
<f.losey@insightbb.com>
Suggested Text
of E-Mail Message
NOTE:Resist the temptation to mention your parochial "beef" with the HSUS.This "High Road" Approach is designed to,in essence, eliminate the opportunity
for a "boilerplate" response to be sent back to you which merely states "Thank You for bringing your issues of concern to
my attention."Instead, the "Suggested Text" raises questions that will increase
the likelihood that the Members of Congress will need to address a very, very specific violation
of the Law by the HSUS, which violation is not directly related to any specific Bill in Congress.The GOAL is to raise a serious question as to the "credibility"
of the HSUS.If successful, it will affect the ability of the HSUS to influence Congress. And if it resultsin the HSUS "registering" with Congress, this could affect its IRS "public charity" status!!!
Dear Representative/Senator______________
I would appreciate receiving your
responses to the following Six Questions that relate to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. This
Act, as currently written, provides that a person or organization that makes more than one contact with a "Covered Executive
Branch Official" or a "Covered Legislative Branch Official," such as Members of Congress and their respective Staffs, must
register as a Lobbyist or a Lobbying Organization with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate.
QUESTION 1:Do you believe that the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 should be strictly enforced?
QUESTION 2:If you believe that the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 should be strictly enforced, why has neither the
Clerk of the House nor the Secretary of the Senate published specific procedures that would permit concerned citizens to report
apparent violations of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to an appropriate Congressional Office?
QUESTION 3:Do you believe that a tax-exempt, public charity
and its senior leadership should be required to comply with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and register as a lobbying
organization and aslobbyists with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of
the Senate if they have more than one contact with Members of Congress or their respective staffs for the purpose of influencing
legislation?
QUESTION 4:If you believe that a tax-exempt, public charity and its senior leadership should be requiredto register as a lobbying organization and as lobbyists if they have had more than one contact with a Member
of Congress or his or her staff for the purpose of influencing legislation, why has the Humane Society of theU. S. (HSUS) and its Senior Leadership been permitted to ignore the registration requirements of the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 when they have literally made thousands of contacts with Members of Congress and their respective staffs
during the last five years?For example, in March of 2011 the Humane Society
of the U.S. hosted an Awards Banquet during which they honored the 146 Members of Congress who best supported the Legislative
Agenda of the HSUS in 2010.
QUESTION 5:If theOffice of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia
is the Office in the Justice Department that is responsible for enforcing the Lobbying Disclosure Act of1995, why has Mr. Keith Morgan, the Assistant U.S. Attorney in that Office not acted on a Complaint that
he received during the first week in August of 2011 - - morethan four months
ago - -which documented the thousands of lobbying contactsmadeby the Senior Leadership of Humane Society of the U.S.
, and its self-described "Lobbying Arm," the Humane Society Legislative Fund that has oversight over three PACsthat have submitted over 2,300 pages of lobbying-related documents to the Federal Election Commission?
QUESTION 6:Will you call Mr. Morgan or someone else in the Justice Department and ask why no action has been taken
on the documented Complaint received by Mr. Morgan in early August of 2011 so that you and your colleagues in Congress may
decide whether or not to repeal the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or to ensure that it is strictly enforced?
Respectfully submitted,
California’s Vegan Revolution- Animal Owners, Raisers, and Farmers
in the Crosshairs
California has long been a bastion for those who dare to dream, innovate, and strive
to create new frontiers whether it is in science, academia, the arts, business, or politics. From these creative forces we
Californians have given the nation significant advances in science and technology (the microchip), the movie industry ( Hollywood
), a gifted president (President Reagan), and last, but certainly not least, some of the finest agriculture the world has
ever known. At its zenith, all of these wonderful achievements coalesced to form the quintessential “California Dream”
and from this wellspring came forth the famous and factual saying “so goes California , so goes the nation”. But,
it is becoming more clear 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.
Among the more potent of these special interest groups are HSUS (Humane Society of the
United States ) and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). HSUS is the richest and most politically powerful
Animal Rights organization in the world. They seek to synthesize an unnatural world devoid of all animal use including the
abolition of pet ownership and animal based farming. Their ultimate goal is nothing less than the extinction of all domestic
species. Here is one of the more infamous quotes from the president of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, which clearly conveys this horrific
goal: “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding
...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective
breeding.”— Animal People News, May 1993 PETA, funded by George Soros’ Tides Foundation, is no less
radical in their beliefs as conveyed by their president Ingrid Newkirk: “There’s no rational basis for saying
that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.”— Ingrid Newkirk,
Washingtonian magazine, Aug 1986 and: “Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the
earth.”— Ingrid Newkirk, Washingtonian magazine, Feb 1990 Shockingly, PETA kills over 95% of the animals it take
into their Norfolk, Virginia “shelter” annually according to state records. One can only assume that they equate
death with kindness.
Unbelievably, HSUS, and to a lesser extent PETA, have grown into well funded juggernauts
with tremendous political influence at the local, state, and federal levels in the United States . HSUS pushes for a thousand
plus laws on all levels per year to usher in their brave new vegan vision. Most of this lobbying activity is illegal and based
upon fraudulent fundraising activity. There is an ongoing IRS investigation into this matter. Meanwhile, PETA’s focus
is the media, education, and influencing public opinion to embrace the Animal Rights agenda. Horrifically, they have been
incredibly successful to this end.
It has long been the goal of HSUS and PETA to “capture” California
and to mandate veganism through carefully worded and placed state laws. The “capture” of California would be the
crown jewel of their Animal Rights movement knowing that “so goes California , so goes the nation”. To this end,
HSUS has ushered forth SB 917 and AB 1117. SB 917 will legally redefine the term “animal cruelty” with purposefully
overbroad and poorly defined law to include the transportation, display, and all sales of animals on public property.
Think carefully about that. This would mean that if you walk your dog or if your cat suns herself in your front yard
you are, be the strictest interpretation of this law, “displaying” an animal and are guilty of “animal cruelty”
which will be a misdemeanor replete with arrest, jail time, seizure of your animal, and punitive fines. If you transport rabbits
to a show or take your dog to the vet you would, according to SB 917, be committing an act of animal cruelty. If your child
gives away kittens in front of WalMart, she will instantly become a criminal in doing so. AB 1117 further expands the scope
and reach of SB 917 by mandating seizure of all animals in one’s possession if a single act of “animal cruelty”
has occurred (see SB 917). Heavy fines and “upkeep” fees are then levied against the owner for each animal seized.
AB 1117 allows for the killing or other disposition of seized animals before the accused can prove their innocence in court.
This bill allows for the destruction of evidence and the theft of real property under the color of law. Furthermore, if the
accusation is founded (remember all evidence has been destroyed or disposed of) then the accused will not be allowed to own
any animal again for 5 years. All other people living with the accused are bound by the same mandate. It does not take a lot
of imagination to figure out how such bills might destroy all animal based agriculture, pet breeding, and animal ownership
in California.
Horrifically, both of these bills have nearly passed through both the California Assembly and
Senate. If you find this both shocking and terrifying, then please immediately contact your representatives at the state and
federal levels. Contact the governor of California and urge him to veto both SB 919 and AB 1117. After contacting your representatives,
it is equally important to inform as many people as possible to do like-wise. Tell family members, friends, co-workers,
and anyone else you can think of about these dangerous bills. Contact your local Tea Party and as many groups who have an
interest in animal ownership that you can. Write to the editor of your local paper to get the word out. Knowledge is power.
With knowledge and the fortitude to oppose those in power who push for these laws, we can effectively fight back against these
highly influential Animal Rights special interest groups (HSUS and PETA) to save animal ownership in California .
Permission to utilize this graphic to fight pet laws use granted
JUST ONE MORE REASON WHY THIS BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
Consider this part of SB 917:
This bill would provide, in addition and with specified exceptions, that it shall be a crime, punishable as specified,
for any person to willfully sell or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway, public
right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk, or to display or offer for sale,
or display or offer to give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal if the act of selling or giving
away the live animal is to occur on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk.
Then read this article below regarding a constitutional challenge that was WON when Los Angeles tried to make it illegal to sell cars on public streets.
Furthermore, I met with Lieu 2 years ago (AB 1122) and gave him the case law on this AS HE ASKED FOR IT,
and yet, he proceeds
again with this unconstitutional farce! And he is an attorney! He has no excuse!
A federal judge has halted enforcement of a Los Angeles ordinance that bans
“for sale” signs in cars parked on city streets and other areas.
Edward Burkow challenged the constitutionality of the law after receiving a $35 fine for placing two 8 1/2-by-11 inch
“for sale” signs in his parked car on Willoughby Street.
Burkow paid the fine and then unsuccessfully contested the citation before an administrative officer and in Los Angeles
Municipal Court.
The ordinance provides that “no person shall display for the purpose of sale or rent … any bicycle or vehicle
… upon any public or private property which is not the place of business of a bicycle retailer or a duly licensed
vehicle dealer.”
The ordinance allows the signs to be displayed in moving vehicles or upon land owned by the seller.
In his federal lawsuit, Burkow contended the regulation violated his commercial free-speech rights. The city countered
that the ordinance furthered their goals of preserving safety by reducing distractions, promoting the flow of traffic
and protecting public streets from blight, and discouraging trafficking in stolen vehicles.
Judge A. Howard Matz
analyzed the restriction under the Supreme Court’s test for examining
restrictions on commercial
speech established in the 1980 decision Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Service Commission.
Under the Central Hudson test, the government can regulate truthful and nonmisleading commercial speech if:
The regulation serves a substantial governmental interest.
The regulation directly and materially advances the governmental interest.
The regulation is no more extensive than necessary to further the governmental interest.
Matz reasoned that the government had substantial interests in safety and
aesthetics. However, he ruled that the government did not show that the ordinance directly and materially advanced its
interests. In fact, the city’s goals were undermined rather than furthered by the ordinance, Matz said.
“First only ‘For Sale’ signs are prohibited; all other signs are permitted on parked cars, although
they could be even more distracting to passing motorists,” Matz wrote in Burkow v. City
of Los Angeles.
“The Court cannot fathom how a sign in a parked car is more dangerous than
the same sign in a moving car; indeed, there is a greater likelihood that a passing motorist will avert his eyes to read
a sign posted in a moving vehicle,” Matz wrote.
“Every Southern Californian knows that automobiles are also vehicles of
self-expression,” said Peter Eliasberg, staff attorney with the American Civil
Liberties Union of Southern
California, in a news release.
“We use our cars as platforms to pitch our web-sites and herbal formulas, to argue about whales and fetuses, to
joke with each other, to promote our acting careers, to advertise our tastes in music, fast food, politicians, deities,
and sexual partners — in short, to engage in virtually every kind of conversation that can be imagined, from the
inane to the profound,” Eliasberg said.
June 23, 2011
In Re: OPPOSE SB 917, as amended and in any and all
forms
Assembly Appropriations Committee Capitol Office Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Esteemed
Committee Members:
Our goal is to implement no-kill policy statewide. We firmly believe that punitive laws such
as SB 917 though seemingly fraught with benevolent intentions to the naive and trusting, will result in the opposite of
protecting animals. It will cause not only suffering by humans, but likewise for the animals that would be supposedly
protected. These animals would instead be brought into shelters where the likelihood of death by contagious disease would
only be surpassed by the reality of shelter euthanasia. In other words, if you are a puppy, kitten or any animal,
the least safe place to be is a shelter.
Discussion of SB 917 The vague and undefined terms in SB 917 serve
to only breed fear that many longtime traditions and hobbies will fall prey to misinterpretation. These include but
are not limited to: transport and transfer of rescued animals by volunteer good Samaritans, animal shows and exhibitions
such as dog shows, equestrian trials, cat shows, reptile exhibitions, agility events, herding and hunting trials.
It is often a common practice that animals be transferred, sold or placed at such events. This could have a negative impact
in the millions of dollars on the California budget as exhibitors from other States will not want to take the risk
of being charged under the Penal code and/or having their animals impounded. The famous and highly successful Eukanuba
Dog Show, once a $65 million dollar windfall for Long Beach, has now been moved to Florida due to concerns with punitive
laws in California that could jeopardize the exhibited dogs. Should this bill pass in its current form, thousands of
other animal shows, expos, exhibitions, and trials will be forced to follow suit. The resulting economic impact on California
would have been avoidable, especially during this recession.
As written SB 917 will cause more problems
than it solves - SECTION 1. Sec.4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully sell, Just the mere inclusion
of the word "display" can certainly be interpreted to include exhibition events such as dog trials and puppy events which
are informal events with no registration required. Is the intent of this bill to make criminals of those exhibitors
who display their animals? Is it the intent of this bill to include exhibitors that display their animals that are for
sale at these events which in many cases is a longtime tradition? Kittens, rabbits, birds and reptiles are often offered
for sale at these shows.
"It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully display a live animal on any street,
highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, or…"
This phrase as written means no: •walking the animal
(a sidewalk is a public right-of-way) •driving the animal (seen in the car window is a display on a street, highway,
or public right-of-way)
•taking the animal to the vet or Petco or your own parking lot (display in a parking
lot) It could literally mean animals shall be housebound and can’t even be taken to the vet or exercised by walking. Is
this the best our legislature and legislative counsel can do when writing intelligent laws? In addressing the issue
of making criminals out of now presently law abiding citizens, let’s examine this part of the bill:
Section
597.4 is added to the penal code to read; We respectfully ask what is the intent of this section: (2) A PERSON WHO
VIOLATES THIS SECTION FOR THE FIRST TIME AND BY THAT VIOLATION EITHER CAUSES OR PERMITS ANY ANIMAL TO SUFFER OR BE INJURED
OR CAUSE OR PERMIT ANY ANIMAL TO BE PLACED IN A SITUATION IN WHICH ITS LIFE OR HEALTH MAY BE ENDANGERED SHALL BE GUILTY
OF A MISDEMEANOR ... This is out of place here and does not seem to fit with the rest of the bill but could be misused
as a catchall for all sorts of things. Any sporting event an animal participates in involves risks: agility competitions,
horse jumping events, hunting and most certainly rodeos ..... It appears on the face to apply even if the animal(s)
are not injured, just the potential of harm is good enough for being guilty of breaking the law. There is no mention of
intent and thereby, even accidents could be included such as a traffic accident involving a horse trailer where the
horse is injured. This is so vague that it could be used to harass anyone with a working animal or use any incidental
injury as a Penal code violation.
d) A notice describing the charge and the penalty for a violation Animal
Control is not a non profit approved by the IRS and state of California. It is a PRIVATE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION which is
a PRIVATE CORPORATION. They do NOT get their powers (which they don’t have anyway) from 14500 thru 14503. A Municipal
Corporation is a PRIVATE CORPORATION. That’s why Animal Control cannot be delegated powers by the Legislature. Only
police departments/ sheriff’s offices are state trained and certified, and therefore, state authorized government
law enforcement. Peace Officer salaries etc. are partially funded by the state. They are in effect State Officers. Animal
Control officers are NOT funded in any way by the state. They can try to read it any way they want, but it remains
unconstitutional to delegate law enforcement powers to private entities. The CORPORATE CODE IS NOT ABOUT STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT.
IT IS ABOUT PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.
To equate animal control officers and humane officers with the same powers,
responsibilities, risks and arming them as peace officers will surely lead to demands for the same salaries, pensions
and other benefits that will amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to the state annually. Humane Officers
are a huge liability to the state because of vague laws, implied powers and the resulting deaths and damages to the
citizens of the State of California . (Pending WRONGFUL DEATH LAWSUIT of senior citizen, Los Angeles ). We are deeply
concerned that the unconstitutional transfer of police power to "humane officers" casually mentioned as enforcing
parties will serve to only expand illegal actions by so-called "humane" organizations against innocent Californians
and their animals. The California Constitution clearly and emphatically states that no law may be enacted that would confer
power to private corporations. The Corporations Code illegally grants powers to a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals, and Humane Society, a private corporation, the ability to authorize employees of that corporation, to enforce
peace officer powers of arrest, enforcement of warrants, carry a loaded firearm while on duty, and powers to affect
an arrest using force. While a Judge of a local Superior Court is involved in the appointment of a Humane Officer, the
court itself does not grant these powers. The Corporations Code allows privately employed humane officers to illegally
display and wear a law enforcement badge. While the Corporations Code requires certain educational qualifications, these
qualifications are not certified by the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training. The Corporations Code
illegally requires local cities and counties to pay $500.00 to a private corporation to augment the salaries of Humane
Officers. It also illegally requires restitution payable to the humane officer as well as counseling and millions of
dollars in state mandate funds are being siphoned for phony "counseling programs". What IS THE DEFINITION OF POLICE
POWERS IN THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION? There is none as there is no such thing as police powers - it is VOID for vagueness.
This is why VOID FOR VAGUENESS is described in our California Constitution just for laws like CPC 830.9, CPC 832,
CPC 836 and many more that are complicit with and lobbyied for by the Animal Rights syndicate. These laws are left to
interpretation for the layman and the untrained and heavily armed humane officers that prey on the citizens through
illegal search and seizures of property with/without illegally issued warrants from judges who also don’t understand
the California Legislature’s vague laws. VOID FOR VAGUENESS creates the unconstitutional 5th Amendment Takings of
Citizen’s Constitutional Rights to own and sell Property; and Interferes with the Commerce Code of the United States
and the basic principals of Free Enterprise. SB 917 states that animals (private property) cannot be sold from public
property which could also face challenge due to three California precedent cases: putting for sale signs on a vehicle
parked on the street, (Ventura County and City of Los Angeles); limiting yard sales (City of Los Angeles) all violating
the constitutional rights of free enterprise, the right to sell property and limiting commerce. (Cases supplied upon request) Article
2. SEC. 12. No amendment to the Constitution, and no statute proposed to the electors by the Legislature or by initiative,
that names any individual to hold any office, or names or identifies any private corporation to perform any function
or to have any power or duty, may be submitted to the electors or have any effect.
THE BILL STATES ANIMAL CONTROL
AND HUMANE ORGANIZATIONS ARE EXEMPT. WHY? ANIMAL CONTROL AND HUMANE ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD NEVER BE EXEMPT WITH REGARD TO
ANY CRUELTY LEGISLATION. HOW CAN WE ALLOW EXEMPTION OF THOSE WHO ARE SUPPOSEDLY THERE TO PROTECT AND SERVE FROM THE
SAME LAWS WE MUST FOLLOW? There are, in fact, figures published that many puppies are coming across the border in the
thousands, many dying in transit. The proposed legislation as written, if enforced against all private individuals with
a single litter of puppies, will use so much manpower and budget dollars that it will compromise and negatively impact
the strategy needed to control and eliminate the illegal importation and sale of puppies and will create an increasing
hazard to health of both humans and animals in the State of California. If domestic born puppies are confiscated by
animal control agencies and confined with sickly imports they will be put at risk of contracting contagious diseases,
potentially resulting in death, creating an even greater burden on State and County budgets. To place these puppies
into shelters places them in harm’s way and the unnecessary tax burden on both local and state government and already
overburdened budgets is something that State and local governments cannot afford.
Yet, another aspect should be
discussed in light of public safety. Many people sell or place rescued animals do so in public places to protect their
families and homes from becoming a target for criminals and vice versa for the buyer that may be coming with cash
in hand. One highly publicized crime occurred in which the family was selling a litter of Yorkshire Terrier puppies and
invited the prospective buyers to come to their house to view the pups and parents. What happened next was a home
invasion with multiple armed assailants in which the family was terrorized at gunpoint and the pups including the mother
dog were stolen, which was all captured on the family’s home security videotape system. Even now, this type
of home invasion and robbery is ever more prevalent to even those re-selling vehicles or even furniture. It has long been
known that in many cases the visitors inspecting puppies at the breeder’s residence for purchase return later
to steal the pups out of the family’s yard. Taking away the ability for people to act in the interest of their
own security by meeting in a public place should not be removed as an option as violent crime could escalate which would
be a far worse outcome than the present issue SB 917 tries to solve. Furthermore, to avoid criminalizing an entire
sector of presently law-abiding citizens, as well as addressing the fact that this bill creates a new "crime" consideration
should be duly given to the protocol for crime or infraction laws. In many cases, when a new crime or infraction thereof,
is put into law, such as the seat-belt and cell phone laws, the first offense merits only a WARNING. Second offense
would be better served with a mandatory assignment of community service within the local municipal animal shelter; and
any subsequent offenses be designated as civil offenses with appropriate fines. To place this new offense of "selling
animals" within the Penal Code, will only serve to increase enforcement costs to the State and thereby costs will be passed
down to the taxpayer. There should also be exclusions of any concurrent charges for the same event.
With so
many abusive and illegal raids by rogue humane officers and organizations happening in this State, we implore you to consider
that in 1995, the Legislature stripped the word humane officer from ALL sections due to the realization that many
were using weapons which includes assault rifles against citizens. Then in 1997, many of the same organizations now supporting
your bill, were able to illegally have their power injected into a innocuous "Water Bill", SB 633 on the last few
pages of a 100 page document. Not only was this manner of stealth unconstitutional but all the subsequent abuse of this
power is illegal and includes illegally obtained search warrants by the same rogue humane officers and organizations.
(See letters by Los Angeles Supervising Judges that humane officers and animal control officers are not peace officers.)
These raids against innocent citizens are resulting in windfall seizures including the relinquishment of citizens
homes due to misdemeanor charges. How can this be happening in our State?
SB 917 as written will only further
expand this racketeering scheme and artifice.
Diane Amble CAVA California Animal Voters Alliance
160 10th Street San Francisco, CA 94103 (650) 296-2169
The
Appropriations Committee will have a hearing on this bill July 6th at 9am and will take comments (support or oppose) from
the public.
Room 4202 Assemblymember Diane Harkey will gladly receive your faxes and present them during
the committee since the Appropriations Committee is refusing to do so or include oppostion on the analysis.
Her
fax # is: 916-319-2173 --------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------
You will need to send a separate letter for AB1117 & SB917
Please do not combine both Bill #'s on the same
page. As they are going though the CA legislative system at different hearings. __________________________________________________________ Please
include these words as your opening statement to be included in the opposition file:
"I (Your name, business, or organization)
strongly oppose SB 917 as amended and in any and all forms." __________________________________________________________
You
will need to send a separate letter for AB1117 & SB917
Please do not combine both Bill #'s on the same page. As
they are going thought the CA legislative system at different hearings.
Here is where to FAX TO: __________________________________________________________ AB1117 Hearing
June 28,2011 Senate Public Safety
WHO TO FAX This bill is in Senate public safety. The following are the committee
members: Public Safety-(7)-Hancock (Chair), Anderson (Vice Chair), Calderon, Harman, Liu, Price and Steinberg.
Donald P. Wagner <http://www.assembly.ca.gov/Wagner> Rep-70 (916) 319-2070 Assemblymember.Wagner@assembly.ca.gov ******************************************
Make sure you get your faxes to Diane L. Harkey. She has agreed to bring
our letters of opposition to the hearing. Thank her please. She is going beyond her duties to help.
Special
thanks to California Show Rabbits Group for the above contact compilation above. Feel free to cross post and use ANY text
or graphics on this site.
Special thanks to CAVA for use of this graphic!
FAX THIS TO EVERY LEGISLATOR AND MEDIA OUTLET PLEASE!
September 21, 2009
In Re: OPPOSE AB 1122, AB 241, SB 318, AB 242, AB 243, SB 135
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Capitol Office
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
Our goal is to implement no-kill policy statewide. We firmly believe that punitive laws such as AB 1122, AB
241, etc., though seemingly fraught with benevolent intentions to the naive and trusting, will result in the opposite of protecting
animals. It will cause not only suffering by humans, but likewise for the animals that would be supposedly protected. These
animals would instead be brought into shelters where the likelihood of death by contagious disease would only be surpassed
by the reality of shelter euthanasia. In other words, if you are a puppy, kitten or any animal, the least safe place to be
is a shelter.
Discussion of AB 1122
The vague and undefined terms in AB 1122 serve to only breed fear that many longtime traditions and hobbies
will fall prey to misinterpretation. These include but are not limited to: transport and transfer of rescued animals by volunteer
good Samaritans, animal shows and exhibitions such as dog shows, equestrian trials, cat shows, reptile exhibitions, agility
events, herding and hunting trials. It is often a common practice that animals be transferred, sold or placed at such events.
This could have a negative impact in the millions of dollars on the California budget as exhibitors from other States will
not want to take the risk of being charged under the Penal code and/or having their animals impounded. The famous and highly
successful Eukanuba Dog Show, once a $65 million dollar windfall for Long Beach, has now been moved to Florida due to concerns
with punitive laws in California that could jeopardize the exhibited dogs. Should this bill pass in its current form, thousands
of other animal shows, expos, exhibitions, and trials will be forced to follow suit. The resulting economic impact on California
would have been avoidable, especially during this recession.
As written AB 1122 will cause more problems than it solves -
SECTION 1. Sec.4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully sell,
display for sale, offer for sale, or give away as part of a
commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway, public
right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk.
Just the mere inclusion of the word "display" can certainly be interpreted to include exhibition events such
as dog trials and puppy events which are informal events with no registration required. Is the intent of this bill to make
criminals of those exhibitors who display their animals? Is it the intent of this bill to include exhibitors that display
their animals that are for sale at these events which in many cases is a longtime tradition? Kittens, rabbits, birds and reptiles
are often offered for sale at these shows.
"It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully display a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way,
parking lot, or…"
This phrase as written means no:
•walking the animal (a sidewalk is a public right-of-way)
•driving the animal (seen in the car window is a display on a street, highway, or public right-of-way)
•taking the animal to the vet or Petco or your own parking lot (display in a parking lot)
It could literally mean animals shall be housebound and can’t even be taken to the vet or exercised by
walking.
Is this the best our legislature and legislative counsel can do when writing intelligent laws?
In addressing the issue of making criminals out of now presently law abiding citizens, let’s examine this
part of the bill:
Section 597.4 is added to the penal code to read;
(b) (1) A person who violates this section for the first time
shall be guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed
two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
(2) A person who violates this section for the first time and by
that violation either causes or permits any animal to suffer or be
injured, or causes or permits any animal to be placed in a situation
in which its life or health may be endangered , shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor.
&nbs p; (3) A person who violates this section for a second or subsequent
time shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) A person who is guilty of a misdemeanor violation of this
section shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000) per violation; the court shall weigh the gravity of
the violation in setting the fine.
We respectfully ask what is the intent of this section:
(2) A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION FOR THE FIRST TIME AND BY THAT
VIOLATION EITHER CAUSES OR PERMITS ANY ANIMAL TO SUFFER OR BE INJURED OR
CAUSE OR PERMIT ANY ANIMAL TO BE PLACED IN A SITUATION IN WHICH ITS LIFE
OR HEALTH MAY BE ENDANGERED SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR ...
This is out of place here and does not seem to fit with the rest of the bill but could be misused as a catchall
for all sorts of things. Any sporting event an animal participates in involves risks: agility competitions, horse jumping
events, hunting and most certainly rodeos ..... It appears on the face to apply even if the animal(s) are not injured, just
the potential of harm is good enough for being guilty of breaking the law. There is no mention of intent and thereby, even
accidents could be included such as a traffic accident involving a horse trailer where the horse is injured. This is so vague
that it could be used to harass anyone with a working animal or use any incidental injury as a Penal code violation.
d) A notice describing the charge and the penalty for a violation
of this section may be issued by any peace officer; animal control
officer, as defined in Section 830.9; or humane officer qualified
pursuant to Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code.
Animal Control is not a non profit approved by the IRS and state of California. It is a PRIVATE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
which is a PRIVATE CORPORATION. They do NOT get their powers (which they don’t have anyway) from 14500 thru 14503. A
Municipal Corporation is a PRIVATE CORPORATION. That’s why Animal Control cannot be delegated powers by the Legislature.
Only police departments/sheriff’s offices are state trained and certified, and therefore, state authorized government
law enforcement. Peace Officer salaries etc. are partially funded by the state. They are in effect State Officers. Animal
Control officers are NOT funded in any way by the state. They can try to read it any way they want, but it remains unconstitutional
to delegate law enforcement powers to private entities. The CORPORATE CODE IS NOT ABOUT STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT. IT IS ABOUT
PRIVATE CORPORATIONS.
To equate animal control officers and humane officers with the same powers, responsibilities, risks and arming
them as peace officers will surely lead to demands for the same salaries, pensions and other benefits that will amount to
hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to the state annually. Humane Officers are a huge liability to the state because
of vague laws, implied powers and the resulting deaths and damages to the citizens of the State of California . (Pending WRONGFUL
DEATH LAWSUIT of senior citizen, Los Angeles ). We are deeply concerned that the unconstitutional transfer of police power
to "humane officers" casually mentioned as enforcing parties will serve to only expand illegal actions by so-called "humane"
organizations against innocent Californians and their animals. The California Constitution clearly and emphatically states
that no law may be enacted that would confer power to private corporations.
The Corporations Code illegally grants powers to a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Humane
Society, a private corporation, the ability to authorize employees of that corporation, to enforce peace officer powers of
arrest, enforcement of warrants, carry a loaded firearm while on duty, and powers to affect an arrest using force. While a
Judge of a local Superior Court is involved in the appointment of a Humane Officer, the court itself does not grant these
powers. The Corporations Code allows privately employed humane officers to illegally display and wear a law enforcement badge.
While the Corporations Code requires certain educational qualifications, these qualifications are not certified by
the Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training. The Corporations Code illegally requires local cities and counties
to pay $500.00 to a private corporation to augment the salaries of Humane Officers. It also illegally requires restitution
payable to the humane officer as well as counseling and millions of dollars in state mandate funds are being siphoned for
phony "counseling programs".
What IS THE DEFINITION OF POLICE POWERS IN THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION? There is none as there is no such thing
as police powers - it is VOID for vagueness. This is why VOID FOR VAGUENESS is described in our California Constitution just
for laws like CPC 830.9, CPC 832, CPC 836 and many more that are complicit with and lobbyied for by the Animal Rights syndicate.
These laws are left to interpretation for the layman and the untrained and heavily armed humane officers that prey on the
citizens through illegal search and seizures of property with/without illegally issued warrants from judges who also don’t
understand the California Legislature’s vague laws. VOID FOR VAGUENESS creates the unconstitutional 5th Amendment Takings
of Citizen’s Constitutional Rights to own and sell Property; and Interferes with the Commerce Code of the United States
and the basic principals of Free Enterprise.
AB 1122 states that animals (private property) cannot be sold from public property which could also face challenge
due to three California precedent cases: putting for sale signs on a vehicle parked on the street, (Ventura County and City
of Los Angeles); limiting yard sales (City of Los Angeles) all violating the constitutional rights of free enterprise, the
right to sell property and limiting commerce. (Cases supplied upon request)
Article 2. SEC. 12. No amendment to the Constitution, and no statute proposed to the electors by the Legislature
or by initiative, that names any individual to hold any office, or names or identifies any private corporation to perform
any function or to have any power or duty, may be submitted to the electors or have any effect.
THE BILL STATES ANIMAL CONTROL AND HUMANE ORGANIZATIONS ARE EXEMPT. WHY?
ANIMAL CONTROL AND HUMANE ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD NEVER BE EXEMPT WITH REGARD TO ANY CRUELTY LEGISLATION.
HOW CAN WE ALLOW EXEMPTION OF THOSE WHO ARE SUPPOSEDLY THERE TO PROTECT AND SERVE FROM THE SAME LAWS WE MUST FOLLOW?
There are, in fact, figures published that many puppies are coming across the border in the thousands, many
dying in transit. The proposed legislation as written, if enforced against all private individuals with a single litter of
puppies, will use so much manpower and budget dollars that it will compromise and negatively impact the strategy needed to
control and eliminate the illegal importation and sale of puppies and will create an increasing hazard to health of both humans
and animals in the State of California. If domestic born puppies are confiscated by animal control agencies and confined with
sickly imports they will be put at risk of contracting contagious diseases, potentially resulting in death, creating an even
greater burden on State and County budgets. To place these puppies into shelters places them in harm’s way and the unnecessary
tax burden on both local and state government and already overburdened budgets is something that State and local governments
cannot afford.
Yet, another aspect should be discussed in light of public safety. Many people sell or place rescued animals
do so in public places to protect their families and homes from becoming a target for criminals and vice versa for the buyer
that may be coming with cash in hand. One highly publicized crime occurred in which the family was selling a litter of Yorkshire
Terrier puppies and invited the prospective buyers to come to their house to view the pups and parents. What happened next
was a home invasion with multiple armed assailants in which the family was terrorized at gunpoint and the pups including the
mother dog were stolen, which was all captured on the family’s home security videotape system. Even now, this type of
home invasion and robbery is ever more prevalent to even those re-selling vehicles or even furniture. It has long been known
that in many cases the visitors inspecting puppies at the breeder’s residence for purchase return later to steal the
pups out of the family’s yard. Taking away the ability for people to act in the interest of their own security by meeting
in a public place should not be removed as an option as violent crime could escalate which would be a far worse outcome than
the present issue AB 1122 tries to solve.
Furthermore, to avoid criminalizing an entire sector of presently law-abiding citizens, as well as addressing
the fact that this bill creates a new "crime" consideration should be duly given to the protocol for crime or infraction laws.
In many cases, when a new crime or infraction thereof, is put into law, such as the seat-belt and cell phone laws, the first
offense merits only a WARNING. Second offense would be better served with a mandatory assignment of community service within
the local municipal animal shelter; and any subsequent offenses be designated as civil offenses with appropriate fines. To
place this new offense of "selling animals" within the Penal Code, will only serve to increase enforcement costs to the State
and thereby costs will be passed down to the taxpayer. There should also be exclusions of any concurrent charges for the same
event.
With so many abusive and illegal raids by rogue humane officers and organizations happening in this State, we
implore you to consider that in 1995, the Legislature stripped the word humane officer from ALL sections due to the realization
that many were using weapons which includes assault rifles against citizens. Then in 1997, many of the same organizations
now supporting your bill, were able to illegally have their power injected into a innocuous "Water Bill", SB 633 on the last
few pages of a 100 page document. Not only was this manner of stealth unconstitutional but all the subsequent abuse of this
power is illegal and includes illegally obtained search warrants by the same rogue humane officers and organizations. (See
letters by Los Angeles Supervising Judges that humane officers and animal control officers are not peace officers.) These
raids against innocent citizens are resulting in windfall seizures including the relinquishment of citizens homes due to misdemeanor
charges. How can this be happening in our State?
AB 1122 as written will only further expand this racketeering scheme and artifice.
Discussion of AB 241
Most limit laws have been proven to be unconstitutional. How can government mandate property limits? Can government
limit the number of cars a citizen owns? acres? homes? cattle? Furthermore, thousands of businesses thrive in the State having
more than 50 animals in their care such as boarding kennels, K-9 training kennels, Guide Dog training kennels, hunting clubs,
etc. This law also audaciously makes it a crime to assist anyone even legal counsel, kennel workers, veterinarians, with over
50 animals. Any "excess animals" heartlessly meet this fate:
relinquish the excess animals within 30 days following notification by authorities specified in subdivision
(b).
If necessary, any euthanasia procedures shall be performed
Discussion of SB 318
The unconstitutional violations of due process and property laws are without parallel in modern American history:
including insufficient notice to third parties owning an interest in the said real and personal property:
(d) Any person claiming an interest in the property or proceeds
seized may, at any time within 30 days from the date of the first
publication of the notice of seizure, or within 30 days after receipt
of the actual notice, file with the superior court of the county in
which the action is pending a verified claim stating his or her
interest in the property or proceeds.
the inability for the accused to leverage their assets for a fair defense or to make bail:
2) Appointment of a receiver to take possession of, care for,
manage, and operate the assets and properties so that the property
may be maintained and preserved.
forces third parties holding an interest in the property to find a way to pay cash for any and all equities
yet cannot leverage said property due to receivership and liens by govt entity:
2) If the holder of the interest elects not to make that payment
to the state or local governmental entity, the property shall be
deemed forfeited to the state or local governmental entity.
forces sale of third party’s property at public auction if unable to make cash pay-off
4) If the amount due to a person holding a valid lien, mortgage,
security interest, or interest under a conditional sales contract is
less than the value of the property and the person elects not to make
payment to the governmental entity, the property shall be sold at
public auction
NEVER BEFORE EVEN UNDER DRUG SEIZURE LAWS HAS GOVT SEIZED PROPERTY BEEN TURNED OVER, "GIFTED" TO PRIVATE ENTITIES>
HUMANE SOCIETIES AND OTHER SUCH PRIVATE CORPORATIONS:
the property forfeited or the proceeds of the sale shall be distributed by the state or local
governmental entity, as follows:
(3) To local nonprofit organizations exempt under Section 501(c)
(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, the primary activities of which
include ongoing rescue, foster, or other care of animals that are the
victims of dogfighting, and to law enforcement entities, including
multiagency task forces, that actively investigate and prosecute
animal fighting crimes.
Please do not hesitate to contact us for further clarification and input on the other egregious bills mentioned.
These bills represent racketeering paid for by the taxpayers of California.
Sincerely,
Diane Amble
Click on pic for link to contact & fax Governor
Permission to copy and use granted
Permission granted to use this image
CALIFORNIA AB1122:
"Sale" of Live Animals Premised Upon Alleged "ABUSE"
Criminal sanctions imposed for ‘Violation’
What is the Actual Intent Behind this Bill?
Proponents are basically Animal Rights groups using another "name" rather than their actual corporate industry titles.
Using the "name" California Animal Association is done purposely so it might appear to be concerned animal owners. However,
PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, Born Free, United Animal Nations and others, are all Animal Rights groups
in existence. In reality, this so-called group actually IS just another combination of Animal Rights groups that don’t
want to put their formal industry titled corporate names on the Bill. United Animal Nations is or was run by J. Fearing of
HSUS, and we all know Peta might ‘sponsor’ (with other groups) a bill, but cannot bring it forward alone as sponsor,
since Peta has no credibility [* Peta purposely kills 90-97% of all animals they take in.]
HSUS’ credibility has been severely undermined, particularly after the national video exposing their tactics was
released in May 2009, wherein HSUS attempted to squelch it and claimed it was not the truth. Ah, but it was–and that’s
why HSUS wanted it taken down. It seems that HSUS solicitations via mail, in interstate commerce, imply that HSUS’ funds
go to running shelters and saving homeless animals. A deceptive and purposely designed strategy to obtain those cash crop
donations. Yet most of HSUS’ companion animal bills, try to not save any animals, but instead are anti-pet in nature,
just like this proposed bill, which aims to punish legal conduct by claiming there is abuse, when, as you will see, there
could be absolutely NO abuse, and yet this law would punish someone FOR abuse, simply by engaging in a legal act.
While this corporate shell game of which groups actually sponsor the bill keeps coming back with "exemptions" on this proposed
bill— we should be highly questioning not only the exact WORDING of the bill— but also the REAL intent behind
the deception of alleged "abuse." A particular concern in this bill, is whether conviction (as infraction, misdemeanor) will
trigger provisions of other laws, which might mean an owner could lose all pets via forfeiture? A person might have two animals
and receive two counts and two convictions, and there is no appeal? Where is the potential for abusive discretion by citing
officers who might decide someone is "selling" or "offering" without even knowing what the two parties are actually doing?
What type of corroborating witness is needed for such an "infraction" and will the alleged animal be seized without notice?
What if I didn’t actually own the animal and was just there to transport it?
Would I be facing a future misdemeanor if I was innocent of the charge, and then I caught a stray animal by the side of
the road, picked it up, and when I brought it back to my car and went to the parking lot of the drugstore to call a friend
who does animal rescue, and he shows up to examine the dog, I am now accused of count two, which is a misdemeanor? Would my
pets be seized? Would animal control issue a forcible warrant to seize my property, claiming I was selling animals in the
street?
If you think this is too farfetched, then you haven’t lived in areas where animal control think they are the Police
from Animal Planet.
It is a well known, and well-worn-out-fact: Animal Rights and their lifestyle "belief" that ANIMALS ARE NOT PROPERTY, indicates
that the premise and foundation of Animal Rights means that every single law devised, stems from the belief that animals are
not property in the law, even though animals clearly ARE property IN THE LAW.
If we then take the belief that animals are NOT property according to Animal Rights, it becomes very clear and evident,
that if one can simply envision a LAW that proscribes certain conduct as CRIMINAL----- then voila!!! To manufacture perceived
"abuse"—Animal Rights must MAKE UP conduct that is completely LEGAL, but where they categorize legal conduct in such
a way that we MUST believe it is actually A-B-U-S-E !!In order to package, prepare, and get ordinary people to LOOK for alleged
"abuse, abuse, abuse" in everyday conduct, Animal Rights must employ some or all of this:
(1) Manufactured reasoning making common conduct which is legal —and which is NOT abuse ======> INTO "abuse" with
criminal sanctions
(2) Manufactured BELIEF that such common conduct is actually "CRIMINAL" in nature....for example, the HSUS attempted to
pass a law that made possession of a dog with cropped ears, a prima facie FELONY.
(3) Irrational and Illogical thinking must be employed, to convince logical persons-- that offering an animal for free,
at no cost, at no charge, without any consideration, or even for $5.00, if the animal is "displayed" —IS A CRIME if
done in public, if done at a park, if done near or at a "parking lot" of a large pet supply store, or a restaurant that is
often used to meet persons you don’t know personally, or outside a coffee shop, or a library, or even the parking area
of AN ANIMAL SHELTER, or animal rescue facility. OR, even in a private parking lot owned by the person accepting the animal.
There is nothing in the proposed bill which gives criteria which outlines "commercial" transaction, but instead, the bill
contains elements which would indicate a non sale or transfer, as part of the "commercial" transaction. Commercial usually
indicates commerce, buying and selling. Transferring an animal without more is neither buying nor selling, and giving away
is not a commercial act. Willfully displaying an animal to re-home or transport an animal is not a crime; and purposely viewing
an animal is not a crime. Therefore, the meaning as written actually consists of:
1. Willfully selling
2. Willfully displaying
3. Willfully offering for sale
4. Willfully giving away as part of a "commercial transaction" (not defined in bill)–but note, the words "as an inducement
to" are not present in the bill
5. A live animal on any street, (apparently even a private street), highway, public right of way (would include just about
anywhere outside including the sidewalk of your front yard)
6. A live animal on any commercial parking lot (it is assumed commercial would include any and all businesses of any type
or size, regardless if city, state or government owned)
7. A live animal at any outdoor special sale (does not say garage sale, rummage sale, estate sale, or charity sales are
not included, but swap meets and flea markets are exempted?)
8. A live animal at a parking lot sale (private lot included; so if a large Lexus dealership helped to sponsor re-homing
of 10 homeless cats, 3 dogs, 2 rabbits, 3 birds by a private volunteer, to help a community group of school kids, under a
tent on the lot, this would be criminal)
9. A live animal at a carnival or boardwalk. (Could include a private school property, PTA or rural community project,
where homeless animals could be shown or displayed, but not necessarily sold or transferred, but this would be illegal also)
(4) Deception must be used to get intelligent persons to believe, that "because" of alleged abuse, abuse, abuse, that it
is now CRIMINAL to attempt to display an animal, a homeless animal, or anything that can be placed in the animal category
that is not a person, in a public place, if I would like to sell it, OR even give it away---- even if I am donating the animal
proceeds, if any, to a worthy cause or even to an animal rehabilitator or Trainer, educator, volunteer, or just plain new
OWNER. While the word "sale" might imply there will be a monetary exchange, that is not specified in the bill. A sale at any
cost, or NO cost could still be applicable, including the "display" of an animal, even if not sold, but just transferred.
Common sense is completely lacking in this ill-devised bill. There is absolutely NO factual data, no factual evidence,
and no proof that indicates the entire state of California needs to stop anyone from giving away, selling or transferring
an animal to a new home BECAUSE of "alleged" ABUSE. In fact, this bill is claimed to be "SALE[s] of live animal" YET the actual
wording of the bill is NOT just about live animal "sales", but goes much, much further and attempts to include ‘giving
away’ and "displaying" into the commercial realm as abuse–but only in certain locations.
Proponents of this nonsensical garbage want us to BELIEVE that giving away an animal, or proposing to display an animal,
or even showing someone an animal can be construed as "abuse" when in fact, proponents do not actually have a basis for "abuse"
at all, because the location "IS the abuse" of this bill.
Quite frankly, from a legal standpoint, non profit groups or rescues [which, like HSUS, PETA, and most others, sell tons
of commercial products and services] are not excluded from interstate commerce. Simply because they might help rescue/sell
animals or engage in commercial transactions and services, this proposed law is about commercial sales, of which the non profits
engage in, when they sell an animal, or any products, books, videos, services, etc.
Even if a non profit is exempted from paying federal tax on profit, that does not mean the sale is not included in interstate
commerce. The fact that the sales are reported is enough to make it a commercial transaction, and most of such groups use
contractual agreements in the exchange. All of these things point to commerce in pets or animals, services involving animals,
and running fee based pet expos, fee based animal class education, fee based publishing service guides, books against owning
reptiles, and far more. Whether it be a horse, fish, dog or cat, it does not matter. So exempting a non profit group has no
basis, since it is just another part of interstate commerce which gets people to spend money via services, products, donations,
videos, pet related clothing, evaluations, and much more. All of this involves the spending of money and sales of goods and
services.
This bill is nothing but subterfuge, in an attempt to limit the venues that ordinary people can use, for normal, lawful
transactions, rather than inside their own homes----to show an animal to another person; to display an animal to another person,
regardless of who it is– known or unknown; and we all know WHY this law is proposed.
This bill is attempting to snare ALL transactions, by terming such transactions as COMMERCIAL, while indicating that such
transactions are in fact criminal under the proposed law.
The intent of this ridiculous bill is done with the purpose to concede that COMMERCIAL transactions, which usually means
a sale or agreement to transfer or sell goods–are being LIMITED, and made a crime, because Animal Rights CLAIM it is
"ABUSE." This is so farfetched, it is almost unbelievable that any reasonable person in the United States would buy into it
at all!
The term "commercial" is generic terminology for buying and selling; and according to Black’s Law Dictionary,
is related to or connected WITH TRADE AND TRAFFIC OR COMMERCE IN GENERAL. Commerce in general, easily means interstate commerce,
which has to do with buying and selling, not necessarily profiting.
What case law or citations are shown, which indicate that certain public venues are considered "abuse" for purposes of
this law? A non-legal substance, or a prohibited chemical, or other tainted property which is in and of itself ILLEGAL to
possess—might be the basis of a transaction which makes it a criminal offense, i.e, buying or selling illegal narcotics,
selling fraudulent goods, buying or selling prescription drugs without the proper authority, etc.
However, one does not have to be guilty of actual abuse under this proposed bill, to be convicted under an abuse provision.
Therefore, one would and could be convicted under a criminal code for an abuse violation, because the given intent of this
bill was based upon alleged abuse, and is placed under the Penal code. In any estimation, this would appear to set up anyone
for subsequent forfeiture or seizure of pets owned, or mandated sterilization, given that other proposed bills by proponents,
clearly are attempting to obtain mandated altering as a penalty for any violations involving animals, and garner seizure of,
or forfeiture of, intact animals; in addition, this may count against an owner even though it is alleged as an infraction
on a first offense.
We are led to believe that specific public venues are criminal in nature for showing, displaying or possibly later offering
to give away or sell–any animal---in any private or non private parking lot in the state of California, because of "abuse."
It is noted that it is apparently NOT abuse to step INTO a pet store, INTO a feed supply, INTO a barn, INTO a supply shed,
INTO a carport, INTO a swap meet or flea market, INTO a structure NOT located on a parking lot, boardwalk or carnival location,
highway or public right of way.
But I could be at a community garage sale, in front of the neighbor’s house, standing on a sidewalk, and be criminally
guilty of displaying a dog to another.
Do we realize how ludicrous this is? Do any of us realize what is happening here? This proposed piece of garbage "legislation"
ought to be completely trashed. It would be impossible to take this garbage and make it into a sensible piece of law. As stated,
this entire nonsense is simply premised upon the notion that animals are not property, so therefore Animal Rights can tell
the rest of the STATE that one cannot give, show, or display or sell their own animal, or someone else’s animal for
that matter—in a public venue that they have selected. Just because one jurisdiction was foolish enough to listen to
Animal Rights does not mean we need to further that agenda by going along for the ride.
Anyone with any semblance of intelligence is going to realize that if someone wishes to bestow an animal for $35.00 on
another, it is something they should be able to do freely, even if they want to get out of their car in a parking lot anywhere
in the state.What is the criminal element of a parking lot? Due to privacy concerns, tons of people these days are afraid
or unwilling to invite people to their homes. It is a known fact that people who may sell something from their home risk being
accosted by would-be buyers down the line. Many people don’t want their telephone numbers listed in phone books. Many
people want to re-home their animals rather than PLACE or surrender them to shelters. Many volunteers help transfer animals
to either transporters, or other secondary locations at night or odd hours depending on what times they are available to "MEET"
the other parties.
Here is just one small example: If animals are pulled from shelters or have to be moved from a location and are arranged
to be taken by volunteers which are not rescues (but could be trainers, educators, behaviorist or teachers) or are simply
willing to be foster families to see if they might eventually keep the animal in question, most often such transfers do not
pick up and deliver directly to the homes of the second party or parties. Therefore, most transports meet in a public location,
and not necessarily inside a structure, since you are transferring animals, and most "inside" places do not allow animals.
The same applies to anyone who meets halfway between two points (such as different cities) to transfer animals to new homes.
Many owners that can no longer keep their pets are embarrassed or depressed to have to find such pets homes, and they are
not likely to stride gleefully into the pet store to have to give away their family pet. Giving away an animal is not necessarily
easy to do, but if one has found another family which appears suitable, should it be a crime to show the pet at a park?
Should it be a crime because the dog climbed into the new owner’s truck in the parking lot of the park area? We don’t
think so, because this has absolutely NOTHING to do with abuse.
Specific issues claimed by proponents allege that "abused" animals are being sold. If an "abused" animal is actually being
sold, the location of the transaction is not necessary for it to be "abuse" but rather the condition of the animal, or lack
of whatever it is that might constitute the alleged "abuse." For those situations, even if animals were being sold, are proponents
saying that they don’t have the inclination to give citations to these "sellers" but want a law so they won’t
have to give out such citations? If such sellers then locate such transfers into locations that are not publicly visible,
does that STOP the abuse? Does not being able to see the transaction mean there will be LESS abuse?
The logical answer is that this law will actually INCREASE such acts, even if there is ONLY "alleged" abuse. Surely if
such abuse was present, would it not be easier to witness it firsthand and squelch it—if in fact, it actually WAS alleged
abuse?
The overall tone and premise of this proposed "abuse" bill, is completely lacking in both logic and reason. To think that
one would become a criminal to re-home an animal, but if one were to step 10 feet inside, one would NOT be a criminal, is
just plain absurd. It’s not as if we are gambling and it is legal inside the gambling establishment only. We are not
talking about being drunk or having sex in public, which is actually tolerated fairly well in this state. Instead, we are
asked to believe that the specific venues chosen by Animal Rights, make those venues ILLEGAL, and that actual legal commercial
transactions, which means usually buying or selling, has now morphed into including giving away, displaying or offering AS
PART of a commercial transaction [which means buying-selling.]
I have read laws involving animals, but I have yet to see a proposed bill for an entire State that was so utterly devoid
of any practical, useful, logical, or redeeming value as this bill. The entire bill is simply built upon a sham foundation,
for which we are to BELIEVE that proponents allege, is "abuse." By passing this bill, we would be creating more of this "alleged"
abuse because those engaging in the "criminal" acts would be hidden from view, but as it stands now, they are right out in
the open where you can give them a citation?
Attempting to carve out "exceptions?" Not all animal shows or exhibits or trade shows, offer to display animals in competition.
An event which is not a competition is not necessarily judged. For example, a demonstration of weight pull ability, or dock
jumping, or swimming can be done on public property, but it is not necessarily always for competition and judging.
Therefore those events and others, would be stricken as "abuse" since it lacks at least one of the listed elements. Playing
frisbee with a pet is not necessarily judged, nor is it necessarily competition even if there are other competitors. Worse,
the listed required "circumstances" such as (B), needed for a dog, cat or bird show, requires that "each and every participant"
complies with all federal, state, and local animal welfare and animal control laws.
Since every state and local jurisdiction has DIFFERING animal control laws, and since every participant will not likely
KNOW every single law of every jurisdiction in regard to every single state, federal, and local animal welfare and animal
control law, an alleged "violation" of ANY type in this case, would seem to invalidate the entire "exemption" per se, due
to a possible circumstance.
In addition, many local jurisdictions have animal laws predicated only on certain types of animals, but do not include
all animals. Under this proposed "law" tropical fish, all reptiles, mice, or any animals NOT specifically listed with 4-H,
future Farmers or state fairs, agricultural fairs or county fairs, and other small mammals not named, are not exempted.
Since case law has already determined that a goldfish may be considered an animal, it is apparent that the trading and
display of a fish in a plastic bag [fish are usually sold then transported in plastic bags or containers] does not merit an
exemption. In Texas, an animal only means domesticated living creature, and wild living creature previously captured; in Virginia,
animals include birds and fowl, but in South Carolina, it does not include fowl. In Missouri, animals must be mammals. In
Maine, animals means everything but humans. And that is just a very, very small sample of some jurisdictions, for some versions
of specific laws.
It is already "illegal" in California to offer for sale, sell, barter or give away on a street or highway, as an inducement
to enter a contest, game, competition or to enter a place of amusement or place of business, a chick, rabbit, duck or fowl.
Had proponents modified that provision by adding other animals to the existing list, that would be one thing. But proponents
are NOT doing that here.
Furthermore, a "second" offense of this proposed legislation makes the "crime" equivalent to a current law [misdemeanor]
for example, whereby attaching a live animal to a powered device or machine (likely a vehicle) so it could be pursued by dogs
(as in using a dog for baiting other dogs, or in dragging the dog to death, to inspire other dogs to further harm it.)
It is not believed that being in a location outside to re-home or even sell a cat or homeless animal is comparable to dragging
a dog to death for sport, but proponents set up the punishment for this bill. We find it not only absurd, but it conveys an
extremist nature to begin with.
SUMMARY: PROPONENTS ARE MANUFACTURING
ABUSE OUT OF LEGAL CONDUCTIt is the opinion of this writer, and many others, that the term animal, while not defined, is
far too broad a category for snaring abuse by "claiming" location or ‘venue’ is what makes the abuse illegal–and
that a different location would not make it illegal or criminal.
Although proponents claim that "abused" pets are being sold, proponents want us to believe that the person selling is automatically
guilty of abuse because of nothing more than location. But if that person with the same animal was not in the named "locations"
stated, then it would not be abuse. We believe it is quite obvious that proponents want to call many things abuse, and if
they don’t actually HAVE abuse, they think of ways to manufacture it for innocent people. Pretending to fend off abuse
is not done correctly by simply reversing the criteria.
If proponents want to target actual abuse, they should think of something more clever than this insane law which has simply
expanded a rule that was defective from the start.
The actual intent of this entire proposed bill is specious, and lacks common sense. Furthermore, AS APPLIED, it is far
too tenuous, at BEST, and it is probably not even legal because there is no actual state interest in either safety or health,
because the provisions are not related to actual abuse, but only to the location of the legal conduct. If we
keep passing laws drafted like this proposed bill, we will be guilty of robbery because we were inside a bank! Isn’t
it true that one normally has to be IN A BANK to rob it? That is how absurd this law is.
==== > In other words, the animal itself could be perfectly fine, and NOT abused, but the owner or transferring
person is labeled as an abuser, despite the animal NOT being abused. That is contradictory and inapposite, and serves absolutely
no purpose but to punish innocent people with healthy animals. < ====
It comes down to the reality that Animal Rights want their subjective notions of what constitutes "abuse" to be applied
to that which is legal conduct. Just because proponents CLAIM the law is well intended does not make it a well drafted
provision. Had the actual conduct which is targeted (supposedly selling or buying) been an illegal act to start with, there
would be no need for this bill.
But because the actual conduct is legal, proponents have had to work in reverse to make it appear that such conduct is
illegal, and they are just there to stop it.
In fact, this proposed bill is just masquerading as an alleged "abuse" law, like many other proposed laws put forth by
proponents. Reality shows us that it is only predicated on criminalizing legal conduct with no actual abuse, and eliminating
prudent safety measures taken by both the public, owners, and others involved in moving, or transferring animals, showing
animals, and the like. It doesn’t get more absurd than this.
This bill treads far too heavily on many elements of commerce in general, has an insufficient nexus causation-wise, and
penalizes on its face and as applied, legal conduct. There are far less burdensome methods of targeting actual abuse, as one
can see just by looking at the California Penal Code. Although abuse is a popular SUBJECT for proponents, it should not be
manufactured where it does not already exist.
The entire bill needs to be trashed. No exceptions.
Contact the "author" of the bill:
Assemblymember Ted Lieu of Torrance to express your concern and outrage. Don't forget Lieu is running for CA Attorney General.
Is this an example of his justice?
District Address 500 Center Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: (310) 615-3515
Fax: (310) 615-3520
News of the MSN-Caused Pet Genocide in Los Angeles Hits the Capitol
Click on above CARTOON to view THE ANIMAL HERALD #1 Issue
READ ALL ABOUT IT!
MSN Law is Abject Failure And Akin to Genocide of Dogs In Los Angeles
If You're
A Dog in Los Angeles your chances of being euthanized in 2009 are 177% higher than in 2008.
This is a result of the Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws.
MSN
has failed miserably everywhere that it has been implemented
and
it is the pets that pay the price with their lives.
Mandatory
Spay/Neuter Law Kills 21,000 Dogs in Los Angeles
Statistics just released by the California Department
of Public Health confirm that Los Angeles shelters killed over 21,000 more dogs in 2008 than in 2007. This represents
an increase in shelter killing of 177% during the year that mandatory spay/neuter became the law in Los Angeles.
Outside of Los
Angeles, the effects of the current recession were in evidence as shelter euthanasia of dogs increased only 1%. Mandatory
spay/neuter laws have been touted by Animal Rights groups as the solution
to animal shelter
overcrowding. Based on these statistics, mandatory spay/neuter laws could be viewed as the "final solution" as the killing of dogs in Los Angeles takes on genocidal proportions.
Are you listening, Assembly Members? Will you listen to your constituents who told you on May 19th, just days
ago, exactly how they feel about spending more $$$$?
If AB241 becomes law, what will shoddy puppy mills that are only in it for
the bucks do if they see Animal Control coming down the road to inspect their facility?
Which dogs are no longer producing? Take 'em out back.
Which dogs are very sick? Take 'em out back.
Which dogs are too old? Take 'em out back.
What will it cost for each of these raids? Nava says $2.2 million if all 5 USDA facilities in California are raided.
All costs are originally paid by local
animal control agencies - but those costs ultimately will go back to the state for reimbursement. CAN
CALIFORNIA AFFORD THIS? Think about yesterday's vote and what the PEOPLE said!
AB241 shows no difference between show dog kennels, show cat catteries,
hunting dog kennels, herding
dog kennels, working dog kennels ... and USDA facilities, or those that legally fall under those definitions.
WHY? And WHY are SPCAs, Humane Societies and 501(c)3 rescues not included
in this bill? Even if it's been the practice in the past, why??? Should they be allowed by law to give
shoddy or horrible care to animals with zero repercussions - as is often the case in Los Angeles (see recent expose) and certain other counties?
AB241
is kind of like AB135, the docked dairy
cattle tails bill. What are dairies going to do to docked cattle? Take 'em out back... well,
off to the slaughterhouse.
If AB241 becomes law, goodbye rescues and breeders taking back every animal for its' lifetime if something
happens to the new owner. They will no longer be able to guarantee in writing that there will always be room with 'grandma.'
What if a feral cat
has kittens in the barn?
What if someone dumps a pregnant dog or cat on their property?
What if ... as is the law in Sacramento city and county -
10 people gather on someone's large property for a private dog show, and
each brings 5 dogs (all intact of course) for 50 intact breeding dogs, and
the owner of the property has a breeding kennel with 15 dogs? - and has a litter of feral kittens in the
barn!
In Sacramento city and county, the law says property owners are fined if they care for one too many dogs
- say, a neighbor's dog when he's working one day. Or fines can be levied if they have a BBQ, invite the neighborhood,
and someone brings one extra dog for the feast. Yea. Found that out last year.
Where in AB241 does it say
that private get-togethers with fanciers and their intact dogs on private property - dog shows, once-a-year- training events,
whatever - are exempt from this bill? I can see it now: AC knows the show is coming. They prepare. Around
11am when everyone's showing in the single ring in the middle of a 20 acre
show site....
NO on AB241 - $2.2 million to destroy the validity of 5 USDA licenses is too much for California.
And all the rest. You think California cares about chickens? What does yesterday's vote say about our POCKETBOOKS?
??
An AKC Judge testified that the author of the bill, Assembly Member Nava, had said that it might cost $400,000
to shut down a commercial breeder and that Mr. Nava's staff had indicated that there were five commercial breeders that they
had identified that might be affected by AB 241. That looks like about $2.0 million of potential cost. Mr. Nava testified
that he had never said that it would cost $400,000 to shut down a "puppy mill." His response, which I will be faxing through out the Assembly is below:
Mr.
Nava, I believe you are wrong.
That day, in front of the Assembly
Appropriations Committee hearing on AB 241, Assembly Member Nava claimed that he had never said that closing
a “Puppy Mill” might cost $400,000. Well, maybe his claim is true if you live in the world that debates what the
definition of “is” is. Here are the facts – you decide.
In the Bill Analysis for the Assembly Committee
on Public Safety, Mr. Nava is quoted,
"A criminal bust of a single puppy mill can yield massive expenses to the state
and local jurisdictions due to the cost of shelter, food, and veterinary care. A puppy mill bust last year in which 249
animals were rescued in Buxton, Maine cost the state $440,000.”
The same language is included verbatim in the
Bill Analysis for the Committee on Business and Professions, but is interestingly absent from Bill Analysis for the Committee
on Appropriations.
Wow, $440,000 to close a single “Puppy Mill” is a lot of potential exposure for the
state. How big is the total exposure? According to information disclosed in private conversations, Mr. Nava’s staff
have identified five dog and cat breeders,
all licensed under the federal Animal Welfare Act, that might be affected by AB 241.
5 breeders
x $440,000 = $2.2 million
According to information supplied by the author of AB 241, this bill could cost jurisdictions
a bunch of money. Why are we considering AB 241?
The reason is this bill is part of an agenda to end companion
animal breeding and ownership by radical animal rights individuals and their pseudo organizations with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) spearheading this agenda. On February 24th, 2009,
Patrick Kwan the HSUS Coordinator for New York held a seminar in Rochester, New York, to promote their legislation agenda.
There details were given as to the strategy:
The initial HSUS bill will set a cap of 50 intact animals
per location, but once this cap is in place, HSUS will strengthen this in the future by lowering the cap each year. Kwan likened
it to getting something criminalized as a misdemeanor at first and then increasing it to a felony. He also agreed with an
attendee who pointed out that, currently, people in New York can have as many animals as they want, but that HSUS
will crack down in later sessions.
AB 241 and many similar bills all introduced this year in other states do exactly this.
First, AB 241 and it's sister bills creates a NEW CRIME. That means presently law abiding citizens will
now become criminals. It will be a CRIME to breed companion animals. It will not just be an infraction, or a fine, to violate
an animal limit law, it will be a CRIME. For the first time ever, those breeding companion animals can be accused of a CRIME.
The social and economic costs of putting into place such a law will have far reaching implications too numerous to mention
in a few paragraphs. What it would cost for more jailed inmates for what is NOT PRESENTLY A CRIME and never has been
in the history of California could easily cost the local and state penal budget many millions of dollars not to mention the
local and state court systems. In fact, it could fill 100 pages. However,
the question is asked again:
Are our Assembly Members listening?
We, their constituents, have sent a message to the legislature and our individual representatives elected
to REPRESENT OUR WISHES, not those of special interest groups which have cost this State billions of dollars. It is long overdue
for the legislature to stop catering to special interests groups at the demise of the State budget and its people.
TODAY may very well be the vote by the entire legislature on AB 241. Please feel free to send this letter
or any portion you so desire to any or all of the California legislators. You can find their contact information below:
It appears three politicians have taken the bite from the witch's poison apple this session: Florez, with aspirations
to become Lt. Governor, Nava, and Lieu, all of Southern California.
Obviously Northern Californian politicans are more politically savvy to not touch the apple as did poor departed
Lloyd Levine, HSUS' longtime 'bought and paid for' puppet. But what did Levine get in return for attempting to mutilate the
dogs and cats of California? The promise of campaign funding. And HSUS and its ilk did indeed deliver on that promise having
its associates donate and fund raise for Levine in his bid for a State Senate seat. Yet, all the money that could be
raised did not result in a win. Hmmmm, guess the egos of the three stooges, Florez (Moe), Nana (Curly) and Lieu (Shep) can
only assume they will prevail because they are "better" than the others that fell on the HSUS sword? Do they not remember
Santorum, a hugely successful politician at the Federal level that made the grave mistake of attempting to mutilate America's
pets' private parts? Santorum had the third ranked position in Congress as the Chair for the Republican Congress, yet, he
lost, as did Levine in a landslide loss, as the largest margin of defeat for an incumbent Senator since 1980. Indeed,
"Santorum’s ethics issues stem from the manner in which he funded his children’s education and his misuse of his
legislative position in exchange for contributions to his political action committee and his re-election campaign. Melanie Sloan was asked if she could prove that Santorum received money from organizations because of his work with them. She said, "I
don't have proof that there's a direct exchange, but the timing of the contributions are enough to warrant an investigation.
Fines were later levied.
Those that do not read history, are destined to repeat it.
We are very aware of the comic strategy by the three stooges to put forth vague and broad bills that would remove pets
for the slightest offense such as selling a chicken at a flea market; then condemning the poor soul to an eternity
of prohibited animal ownership; or the first step to ban dogs and sheep with docked tails. We understand the goals
and the concept of incrementalism to achieve those goals as employed by animal rights fanatics like these two:
My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture. " ~~ HSUS Grass Roots Coordinator, HSUS lead
Dog-Fighting supposed expert, and lastly, felon arsonist-terrorist, J P Goodwin.
“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds
of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”~~ Wayne Pacelle, HSUS.
Let's add these two quotes to each and every letter, fax and email sent to legislators. And ask, WHY
ARE THESE TERRORISTS allowed to walk the halls of our Capitol? Why are they given appointments with legislators and we are
not? Why do politicians line up for promised donations from animal enterprise terrorists?
Then remember the three stooges when you walk into the voting booth.
The blog I write is about reforming animal sheltering in the United States. It is about ending the systematic killing of
animals in these pounds. But this particular blog isn’t about sheltering. This isn’t about the battle between
the No Kill philosophy and its eventual conquest over regressive, kill-oriented approaches. This isn’t about a lazy,
inept, or uncaring shelter director who fails to hold his or her staff accountable. It isn’t about shelters that kill
animals because doing so is easier than putting in place the programs and services to stop it.
This is about something more nefarious. This is about something truly insidious. This is about a bully who seeks out animals
to kill. This is about the creation of death squads that actively go into communities with the specific purpose of finding
dogs and cats to kill. And this is about a movement that has utterly failed to defend the innocent animals being slaughtered.
This blog is about Ingrid Newkirk, the President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). This is about an animal
killing, arrogant, disturbed person. And enough is enough.
Since 1998, PETA has killed over 20,000 animals. Over one year ago, I wrote a blog opining that the reason PETA slaughters
virtually every animal it seeks out and “impounds” has more to do with Ingrid Newkirk’s dark impulses than
with any ideology, philosophy, or belief in overpopulation. This followed a staggering 97% kill rate for animals in 2006,
despite millions of animal loving members, a world-wide reach, and a budget of tens of millions of dollars. It followed the
killing of 1,942 out of 1,960 cats they impounded. It followed the deaths of 988 out of the 1,030 dogs they impounded. It
followed the killing of 50 of the 52 rabbits, guinea pigs, and other animals they took in. It followed the killing of the
one and only chicken they impounded. That blog earned me a letter from PETA’s attorney threatening litigation for defamation.
Then came the 2007 numbers showing a 91% rate of killing—the killing of 1,815 of the 1,997 animals they impounded.
And so I reran the blog. And now we have the 2008 figures and the slaughter—the needless, senseless, evil slaughter—continues
with an equally staggering 96% kill rate. A paltry seven dogs and cats were adopted. A paltry 34 were transferred
to an SPCA whose fates are not known. And out of 2,216 dogs and cats impounded, the rest were systematically put to death
by PETA.
Killed: 555 of the 584 dogs.
Killed: 1,569 of the 1,589 cats.
PETA has argued that all of the animals it kills are “unadoptable.” In fact, PETA’s attorney stated that
in his letter threatening a defamation lawsuit if I did not back down. But this claim is a lie. It is a lie because the numbers
historically come from the State of Virginia’s reporting form which only asks for data for animals taken into custody
“for the purpose of adoption.” It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making that determination.
It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and
adoptable. It is a lie because testimony under oath in court from a veterinarian showed that PETA was given healthy and adoptable
animals who were later found dead by PETA’s hands, their bodies unceremoniously thrown away in a supermarket dumpster.
And it is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much.
In a December 2, 2008 interview with George Stroumboulopoulos of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Stroumboulopoulos asks
Newkirk: “Do you euthanize those pets, the adoptable ones, if you get them?” To which Newkirk responds: “If
we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely.” In short, Newkirk admits that PETA “absolutely” kills
savable animals. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.
Why does the animal protection movement tolerate this woman?
No other movement would allow someone to remain in her position without a massive outcry and public condemnation when their
actions are so counter, so anathema to their movement’s foremost principles. The child protection movement would not
allow someone who kills children to run an organization dedicated to children’s rights. The human rights movement would
not allow some who kills people to run any of their organizations. But the animal rights movement—a movement founded
on the principle that animals have a right to life—allows a very public, avowed, shameless animal killer to run an animal
rights organization. And with the exception of Friends of Animals, the rest of the nation’s animal rights groups remain
deafeningly silent about it.
As if that was not shameful enough, others go further and actually embrace her. The groups which organize the Animal Rights
Conference inducted her into their Animal Rights Hall of Fame. Wayne Pacelle and HSUS have allowed her and her pro-killing apologists to give workshops at their national conference, HSUS
Expo, to promote PETA’s ghastly vision of killing.
So a notice to all would be animal killers out there. One way to avoid the condemnation by the animal rights/welfare community
for your vile actions is to start an animal rights group yourself and use that group as your cover for killing. Because they
won’t stand up to you. There will be no campaign to bring you down. They will kowtow to your power and your position.
You will become their colleague. Some will look the other way. But others will induct you into their hall of fame. Still others
will ask you to present workshops at their national conference.
If history teaches us anything, however, it is that the only way to stop a bully is to stand up to one. The only thing
that will stop Newkirk is challenging Newkirk and calling her killing for what it is: the nefarious acts of a disturbed person.
Because that’s how history will remember and condemn her, despite the aura of legitimacy her untoward actions now receive
from her Board of Directors, the Humane Society of the United States, the groups who promote the Animal Rights Conference,
and the other groups which tolerate her leadership position through their silence.
While those who now dare to call Newkirk’s slaughter for what it is may be threatened with litigation, or be attacked
in other ways, history will vindicate them, as it always does for those who—despite the personal costs—defend
what is right by challenging tyrants. While those who remained silent in the face of these atrocities—the hypocritical
leaders of other organizations who take her telephone calls, shake her hand, stand side-by-side with her, and take personal
pride in their association with her—will someday have to answer for this complicity, and will face the shame that comes
with answering “nothing” when asked what they did to stop Newkirk’s bloody reign at PETA.
Because engrave this in stone: As soon as Newkirk and her pro-killing cultish devotees are gone, PETA will immediately,
completely, and without reservation embrace the No Kill philosophy and become one of its leading champions. When that happens;
when her actions are thoroughly and completely seen by everyone for what they truly are; when she is condemned and finally,
finally, thankfully, finally, we don’t have to hold our breath, clench our teeth, shake with rage, or cry at the thought
of what PETA did to those poor animals, we will all be left wondering just what took us so damned long to rise up and stop
this villain in our midst.
So here it is again: Round 3. Munchausen by PETA. My opinion.
Munchausen by PETA? In search of a diagnosis as to why Ingrid Newkirk and PETA
seek out animals to kill. And a plea for the movement to stop them so that they won’t continue killing.
In 2006, an official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) shows that they took in 3,043 animals,
of which 1,960 were cats, 1,030 were dogs, 52 were other companion animals, and one was a chicken. Of these, they killed the
chicken, killed 1,942 cats, 988 dogs, and 50 classified as “other companion animals.” They found homes for only
2 cats, 8 dogs and 2 of the other companion animals.
By the numbers:
PETA killed 1,942 of the 1,960 cats, finding homes for only 2.
PETA killed 988 of the 1,030 dogs finding homes for only 8.
PETA killed 50 of the 52 other companion animals (rabbits, guinea pigs, etc.), finding homes for only 2.
PETA killed the chicken they took in.
That’s a 97% kill rate. (This was based on PETA’s own reporting to the Commonwealth of Virginia, which only
requires “recordkeeping and reporting of only those animals taken into custody… for purposes of adoption.”)
Despite $30 million in revenues, they found homes for only 12 animals. An additional 21 cats and 25 dogs were transferred
to another agency (likely a kill shelter since PETA has a “policy against No Kill shelters.”) The rest were put
to death. Why?
I’ve tried to explain it by the simple observation that the founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, formerly held a job
killing homeless dogs and cats at the Washington Humane Society, a shelter with a consistently poor record for saving lives
and the subject of historical public acrimony for its over-reliance on killing. But, in my opinion, there appears to be something
more disturbing going on here than Newkirk’s history.
It can’t simply be explained by catch phrases like “they are hypocrites” and “they don’t
really care.” Those are terms which No Kill proponents may use to describe Newkirk’s and PETA’s
position on killing dogs and cats, but they don’t explain it. Nor is this simply a disagreement between No
Kill supporters and traditional “catch and kill” proponents. That is the debate going on with the Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS), where their reputations and donations are being threatened. But with PETA, there appears to be
something much more nefarious at play.
While Newkirk tries to shield her actions by wrapping them in the language of opposition to “No Kill,” PETA
neither has an animal control contract, nor do they operate as a rescue group. Any effort to offer a lifesaving alternative
to killing is dismissed as “no clue” or “warehousing animals” and any dissent by employees or volunteers
is allegedly punished by termination or ousting from the group. In talking with an ex-PETA employee, he indicated that during
a staff meeting, he was subjected to a PETA video of this kind (No Kill equals hoarding). Having lived in San Francisco during
the 1990s when No Kill was in its heyday there and the San Francisco SPCA the nation’s premier shelter, he openly questioned
the veracity of the information and was asked to his supervisor’s office and terminated.
Why? The closest analogy or explanation that I have found which appears to fit is the same phenomenon that causes nurses
to kill their patients, some offshoot of Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (See Attack of the Killer Nurses: A look at a curious
phenomenon - nurses who kill their patients, National Review, May 28, 2001). In the typical case, the nurse or caregiver kills
the patients with lethal injections. They often claim they act from “compassion for their ailing victims,” because
they want “to end their suffering,” and because they and their colleagues are “severely overburdened.”
In their minds, they are the heroes and those who try to stop them are turning their backs on their patients.
The corollary to PETA’s language about “Euthanasia: The Compassionate Option,” about “overburdened”
shelter workers, and about giving animals what Newkirk calls “the gift of euthanasia,” and how “it was the
best gift they’ve ever had,” is eerily similar. In her case, she also believes she is the hero and those who try
to stop her are turning their backs on the animals. (She recently blasted a No Kill supporter by stating: “How dare
you pretend to help animals and turn your back on those who want an exit from an uncaring world!”) Indeed, Newkirk-through-PETA
says that blaming shelters for killing animals is like blaming hospitals for killing patients. Is Newkirk trying to tell us
something?
Unfortunately, I have no psychological evaluation to support such a diagnosis, except for similarity of language and the
acts themselves: the fact of the killing, the death squads, the indoctrination against No Kill, the hateful denunciation of
No Kill, and the proactive efforts to stop communities from trying to embrace No Kill principles.
So what is it? (PETA-apologists have suggested that Newkirk has seen terrible suffering and worries about animals, but
this is nothing more than Orwellian double-speak. I was a prosecutor. I’ve seen and handled cases involving torture,
child rape, murder, arson of animals, and other acts of unspeakable cruelty. I was also an animal control director in a shelter
which investigated and prosecuted horrific crimes against animals. I’ve seen terrible suffering to which is why I want
to end it, regardless of whether it comes at the hands of a single abuser or systematically by killing)
We may never know. But what we do know and what I can say is that animal rights and animal welfare groups should reject
this point of view and actively campaign against it not only for the dogs and cats PETA will kill in the future and whose
interests they theoretically exist to protect, but because it undermines our movement’s credibility when we either ignore
the atrocities PETA is committing against animals, or make excuses for it simply because those perpetrating them claim to
be part of our movement. Moreover, PETA’s position that animals in shelters do not have a right to live subverts the
entire foundation upon which all social justice movements are inherently based.
The right to life is universally acknowledged as a basic or fundamental right. It is basic or fundamental because the enjoyment
of the right to life is a necessary condition of the enjoyment of all other rights. A movement cannot be “rights”
oriented as PETA claims to be and ignore the fundamental right to life. If an animal is dead, the animal’s rights become
irrelevant. Not only does PETA not acknowledge the right to life, they have rejected it saying that they “do not believe
in right to life,” as it relates to dogs and cats.
Of more immediate concern, it is the relationship between Americans and their animal companions that can open a door to
larger animal rights issues. In their daily interactions with their dogs and cats, people experience an animal’s personality,
emotions, and capacity both for great joy and great suffering. They learn empathy for animals. It is not a stretch that someone
who is compassionate—and passionate—about their pets would over time and with the right information be sympathetic
to animal suffering on farms, in circuses, in research facilities, and elsewhere.
Right now, however, the nation’s largest self-proclaimed “animal rights” group is actively working to
ensure that that door is never opened—by actively and proactively arguing that dogs and cats do not have the right to
life, and that killing them is an act of kindness. In my opinion: It is beyond ironic. It is beyond hypocritical. It is beyond
a betrayal. It is beyond obscene. Regardless of whether you believe in “animal rights” or you don’t; regardless
of whether you are a vegetarian or not; regardless of where you stand on animal issues unrelated to animal sheltering, I believe
PETA’s position is insane.
And despite the fact that PETA’s annual killing of thousands of dogs and cats has been common knowledge among the
leaders of our nation’s animal welfare and animal rights groups for years, most of these so-called “leaders”
have chosen to look the other way. In fact, HSUS invites Newkirk and her cronies to give presentations at their national animal
sheltering conference. Two years ago, Newkirk gave a video presentation on what amounted to why Pit Bulls should be killed
and this year, one of her devotees will share PETA’s strategy for how to engage in “damage control” and
“public relations spin” when a shelter or community which kills is challenged by No Kill proponents. Why are groups
like HSUS supporting her? Do they hate the movement to end the systematic killing of shelter animals which No Kill represents
so much that they are willing to embrace a person and organization this zealous in support of the killing of dogs and cats?
The “enemy of my enemy is my friend” can’t be it, can it? Is HSUS so threatened by No Kill that they are
willing to embrace an organization which appears to be working to undermine their other platforms? With friends like these,
the animals truly do not need enemies.
In my opinion, PETA’s position on killing of dogs and cats is irresponsible. But as to the question of why they do
it, I am not a psychiatrist and I very much doubt that Newkirk and her followers will submit to a psychological evaluation.
As a result, I am afraid I have no clear answer, though my personal opinion leans toward Newkirk suffering from the mental
illness of Munchausen by Proxy. And if I am correct, she will never stop killing until she is forced to.
PETA’s Board of Directors, PETA employees, other animal welfare groups, and animal rights activists need to stop
drinking the Ingrid Newkirk Kool-Aid. They must stop making excuses for the killing of animals. They need to openly reject
views that need to be explained in the pages of the Journal of Psychiatry. And, if they are to protect the thousands of animals
whose lives are at future risk from PETA, they must work to remove the political cover provided by her association with PETA
which allows Ingrid Newkirk to continue to act on what I believe are deeply disturbing impulses that result in animals being
killed.
Please note: The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the writer and
no one else, nor any agency or organization. The author is an attorney and notes that the communications are protected by
the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Any attempt to infringe on that right, whether actual or threatened, will be
considered a strategic lawsuit against public participation.
The below two Public Service Announcements are available upon request for YOUR
favorite TV station. Please contact us for instructions.
VISIT www.NOKILLBILL.com and catch all the out takes of Laddie's adventure making the No-Kill Public Service Announcement
for California's shelter pets!
We The People are YOU
Freedom loving Citizens
of the
United States of America.
We will not relinquish
one inch of our rights.
Our Mission
We support all efforts to abolish legislation that is in opposition to our Constitutional
rights and freedoms. Our first mission was to defeat AB 1634 ...again, a bill in California that
was poised to cause the extinction of pets in our state, create economic harm, and deprive its citizens of their
property rights and privacy.
Our focus then expanded to seven ballot initiatives sponsored by We the
People Pets in California for the 2008 November election.
These included the Animal Property Rights Act, the Animal License Law, the Property
Rights Law, the Freedom Against Sterilization Protection Act, the Identification Device Protection Act, the Farm
Animal Protection Act and finally a revolutionary step to stop the killing of pets by shelters statewide,
the Pet Animal Protection Act.
Permission is given for any individual or organization to utilize these petitions in
their fight to protect animals across our nation.
and thank Laddie & Bob personally for their support.
Laddie & Senator Negrete-McLeod discuss politics
The Senator tries to explain why the budget does not cover dog biscuits at the Capitol
Animal Welfare supporters are those that truly care about what
happens to animals and wants them to have a healthy happy life. Animal Rights activists differ in their ultimate goal which
is that no animal be owned or used in any way by any human.
