Posted on 03/24/2009 5:11:41 AM PDT by eaglerock814
Texas Legislation Would Restore Constitution For Animal Owners
Please Support House Bill 1046 To Fight Against Robbery Of Rights For Seizures, Forced Euthanasia
by JOHN YATES American Sporting Dog Alliance http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org asda@conline.net
This article is archived at: http://eaglerock814.proboards107.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=31
AUSTIN, TX – In Texas, a not guilty verdict can be a dog owner’s worst nightmare.
Under current law, even if a dog owner conclusively proves her or his innocence of animal cruelty charges in a court of law and is fully exonerated, it would be too late to save his or her dogs from confiscation, forced adoption, sterilization and death.
The verdict is not guilty.
But the dogs are dead.
Animal rights groups think that’s a good idea, and are fighting hard to keep this law. They care nothing about the Constitution or basic civil rights in their fanatic persecution of animal owners. In their eyes, dog owners should be branded with the Mark of Cain.
Dog owners are trying to restore the Constitution to animal cruelty cases by supporting House Bill 1046, but were badly outgunned by animal rights extremists in a committee hearing last week. At the hearing, 23 animal rights activists lined up against HB 1046, while only eight advocates of the rights of dog owners showed up to support it.
Many of the people who lined up against the bill are closely associated with the radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the ultra-radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Others represented repressive animal control agencies, including a delegation from the City of Dallas.
A vote was not taken, but HB 1046 remains before the House Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. A committee vote could come at any time. If the bill passes the committee, it would move to the full House for consideration.
In the strongest possible terms, the American Sporting Dog Alliance urges all Texas dog owners, sportsmen, farmers and ranchers to contact members of this committee immediately to express support for HB 1046.
Current Law
The current law is a horror story for animal owners and strongly reflects the animal rights agenda of turning animal owners into second class citizens and denying them equal protection under the law.
Current law allows posses of animal rights vigilantes to act under the guise of law to sweep down on dog owners and seize animals, and then railroad the case though a magisterial hearing for an order to forcibly confiscate the animals and dispose of them.
Railroading is not too strong of a description of the process. A dog owner is given only a few days (if that!) before a hearing to hire an attorney, gather evidence, find witnesses and prepare his or her defense. During this period, the dog owner can expect to be the target of inflammatory news coverage and stigmatization by the community.
At the hearing, the dog owner will face an intimidating array of animal control officers, animal cruelty officers, animal rights activists posing as expert witnesses, and municipal prosecutors.
A fair hearing is impossible under this scenario.
Moreover, dog owners are granted only a single hearing, and are not given the right to a trial. There is no trial. No jury. No recourse. No appeal.
It’s a kangaroo court, plain and simple. If you lose, you’re screwed, and so are your beloved dogs.
A loss before this kind of kangaroo court allows your dogs to be confiscated by animal control officers, turned over to animal shelters, spayed or neutered, sold at auction, put up for adoption or killed.
There is nothing you can do about it. There is no place to turn.
However, dog owners will be assessed court costs including paying for the cost of the investigation, paying for expert witnesses for the prosecution, paying for the cost of caring for the dogs after they are seized, paying for the costs of an auction, and even paying for the dogs’ euthanization. There is no limit to these costs, and an accused dog owner would face bankruptcy.
And there is no appeal.
This law can be found in Section 821.022 through 821.025 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. Please read this frightening law for yourself. Here is a link: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.010.00.000821.00.htm#821.022.00 .
How can dog owners’ rights be denied? After all, there is a Constitution and Bill of Rights, isn’t there? How could it happen?
Current law is a legal sleight of hand to turn criminal law into civil law under health and safety codes. The criminal code prosecution is separate, and happens far after the civil code hearing and confiscation, when it is too late to save your dogs.
By hiding behind civil court procedures, the law denies an accused dog owner the right to a jury trial, court trial and appeal. The dog owner cannot even cross-examine witnesses against him or her, under the law.
Current law allows an appeal ONLY for a public auction of the animals. It specifically forbids an appeal for confiscating n animal in order to turn its ownership over to an animal shelter, in order to put it up for adoption, force sterilization or to kill it.
Needless to say, animal rights fanatics love this law.
House Bill 1046
The best way to understand HB 1046 is to read it for yourself. It is short and simple.
Here is a direct link: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB01046I.htm
In reading the bill, please note that is the actual text of part of the existing law. The language that the bill would remove from the law is covered with a strike-through line. New language that would be inserted is underlined.
Here is what HB 1046 does:
· It restores the right of appeal from a magisterial court to a county court.
· While the appeal is in progress, ownership of the dogs cannot be transferred to an animal shelter or animal control agency.
· The dogs cannot be forcibly euthanized or sold while the appeal is in progress.
· In order to appeal, the dog owner must post a bond to guarantee the costs of caring for the animals while the appeal is being decided. The amount of the bond is set by the county court, not by the magistrate.
Those simple changes will preserve the basic rights of dog owners to follow the same legal process that is granted to any accused killer, rapist or thief.
The animal rights groups are screaming bloody murder about it. These fanatics want the law to be a bludgeon to beat dog owners into submission.
I won’t mince words. The animal rights groups are fascists. The kinds of laws they advocate are characteristic of a fascist state, and are utterly in opposition to the principles of American law under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A typical animal cruelty raid bears far more resemblance to a ruthless gang of Nazi Brown Shirts than it does to the American concept of justice.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is a staunch and unwavering advocate of freedom and civil liberties. We will not agree to any law that compromises the Bill of Rights or trashes the Constitution. Current Texas law does exactly that.
While we sincerely congratulate the sponsors of HB 1046 for defending freedom, we also are urging them to go farther. We are asking them to add language to HB 1046 that would allow the animals to stay with their owners, unless it can be proven before a county court judge that they are in immediate danger.
What You Need To Do
It is imperative for Texas dog owners to contact every member of the House committee to express your strong support for HB 1046. This must be done quickly, as the committee could vote on the legislation at any time.
The time to act is NOW!
Please write, fax, phone and/or email the members of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence Committee:
· Rep. Todd Hunter (Chair) - todd.hunter@house.state.tx.us - phone (512) 463-0672 – fax (512)463-2101 · Rep. Bryan Hughes (Vice-Chair) - bryan.hughes@house.state.tx.us - phone (512) 463-0271 – fax (512) 463-1515 · Rep. Roberto Alonzo - roberto.alonzo@house.state.tx.us - phone (512) 463-0408 – fax (512) 463-1817 · Rep. Dan Branch - dan.branch@house.state.tx.us - phone (512) 463-0367 – fax (512) 322-9935 · Rep. Will Hartnett - will.hartnett@house.state.tx.us - phone (512) 463-0576 – fax (512) 463 -7827 · Rep. Jim Jackson - jim.jackson@house.state.tx.us - phone (512) 463-0468 – fax (512) 463-1044 · Rep. David Leibowitz - david.leibowitz@house.state.tx.us - phone (512) 463-0269 – fax (512) 320-0555 · Rep. Tryon Lewis - tryon.lewis@house.state.tx.us - phone (512 463-0546 – fax (512) 463-8067 · Rep. Jerry Madden - jerry.madden@house.state.tx.us - phone (512) 463-0544 – fax (512) 463-9974 · Rep. Armando “Mando”Martinez - mando.martinez@house.state.tx.us - phone (512) 463-0530 – fax (512) 463-0849 · Rep. Beverly Woolley - beverly.woolley@house.state.tx.us - (512) 463-0696 – fax (512) 463-9333
Letters and faxes are best, followed by phone calls and emails.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also is asking all dog owners to contact the sponsors and co-sponsors of HB 1046. Please thank them for their support of dog owners, and their commitment to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
They are:
· Sponsor – Rep, Mark Homer: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/email.php?dist=3&rep=mark.homer
· Co-sponsor – Rep. Rep Dan Flynn: · http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist2/flynn.php
· Co-sponsor - Rep. Charles “Doc” Anderson: · http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist56/anderson.php
· Co-sponsor - Rep. Drew Darby: · http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/dist72/darby.php
We also urge dog owners to actively support at least one organization that fights hard to protect the rights of dog owners. We would be honored with your support.
We also highly recommend supporting the Texas-based Responsible Pet Owners Alliance, Inc. Here is a link to the RPOA website: http://www.responsiblepetowners.org/ . This group has been at the forefront in animal issues in Texas for many years. The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org . Our email is asda@csonline.net .
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
Doggie ping.
...Not in Texas, but yer got my support. If it happens in Cain-tuck, deal me in...
The animal rights wackos have become very emboldened (not to mention well funded by well meaning folk who contribute to things like HSUS thinking they run shelters—which they don’t—they fund really bad legislation aimed at the same agenda as PETA). These laws are cropping up everywhere. To heck with the Constitution, the heck with property rights, and to heck with anyone eventually having pets.
ping
RDO Woof
My family was victimized by some of those people and my elderly mother put in such fear that I had to ask the sheriff to order the wacko to stay way.The "animal rights" wackos are ready to use the law against you,and very knowledgeable about how to make your attempt to order them away appear as threatening bodily harm,etc. They run in vicious packs,and will lie.I lost several well-behaved dogs to these sorry b-----s,and there is no legal recourse.
Are you exaggerating?
Are you saying they can bypass local dog/animal enforcement?
It doesn't help if you wildly overstate the case.
It’s extremely frustrating. Part of the problem is that Americans have made pets into furry people. When that happened, it became easy for the AR crazies to start passing laws for their *welfare* that turned owners into *guardians*. It’s crazy, and they are moving fast. The many mandatory spay/neuter laws springing up have one aim only. Stop hobby breeders (they do nothing for what most folks call puppy mills since most of them are already regulated by the USDA). Eventually that will be the only place to get puppies, and I suspect they will be regulated out of business as well.
And sadly, people right here on FR will say that’s a good thing.
Sounds to me like the “Protect Puppy Mills Act”.
How am I wrong?
BTW - someone once turned me in for abusing my dog...said the dog was in need of immediate vet care. The County sent a person out ASAP, who determined the dog was in “optimum health”, had plenty of food, water, & shelter, and was primarily a pampered pet.
I’m sorry but what Article is the Constitutional right to own a dog in?
“...they do nothing for what most folks call puppy mills since most of them are already regulated by the USDA...”
The USDA does a HORRIBLE job of policing puppy mills. I’m not sure the average USDA inspector can tell the difference between a dog and a chicken!
This is probably true, but they do not come under the auspices of the mandatory spay/neuter laws. If the USDA needs to tighten up, that’s a separate issue.
Support for better USDA enforcement would qualify as ‘stimulus’ to me, but I doubt it is in the cards. The animal rights activists want more power than that, and the puppy mills want less.
While I don’t like puppy mills, they are not all the disgusting places you see on the news (and the Oprah show for that matter).
There are puppy mills, and there are large commercial breeders. I’m not fond of either, but only favor policing the former - only because I’m a limited government type.
I still feel free to think badly of someone who churns out a few hundred or more puppies a year...
The Animal Rights folks are really making a full court press! Propelled by more money than they know what to do with, donated often my well-meaning but uninformed animal lovers, they have caused all these bills to be introduced. NOTE: this is only from the 1st of the year and it is only March! They are SERIOUS - it's time we got serious too!
AR -- License if 12 or more dogs + cats. Authorities may inspect for violations without warrant.
SB 864
http://www.arkleg.state.ar. us/assembly/2009/R/Bills/SB864.pdf
CA =- Limit of 50 dogs+CATS that are intact, euthanasia must be by vet. AB 241
http://www.leginfo. ca.gov/pub/ 09-10/bill/ asm/ab_0201- 0250/ab_241_ bill_20090210_introduced.html http://tinyurl.com/aldzvn
Assigned to Local Government committee.
CO - 25 limit
SB 1127
Defeated in first Committee hearing.
FL - 50 limit S2002
http://tinyurl.com/czjp5d
Filed 2/23/09
IL - License required if 3 or more females for sale of offspring, limit of 20 unaltered dogs. HB 0198
http://tinyurl.com/apmphl
Hearing Business/occupation al licenses comm. on Feb 19th
IN - Pet dealer if you sell over 5 puppies/year. Registration as commercial breeder reqd. if you breed 10 or more litters/12 month period. Limit of 30 intact animals, standards for confinement, breeding, selling, etc. HB 1468
http://www.in. gov/legislative/bills/2009/HCRF/CR146801.001.html
http://tinyurl.com/b654hy
Passed out of committee on 2/11; passed by House on 2/19. 3/5 Appears to be on hold in Senate, pending possible revisions.
LA- Limit of 50
Passed 2008
MD - Limit of 50 dogs for breeding purposes, if over 10 then enclosure size reqts, at least 2 exercise periods of 2 hrs daily.
HB 495/SB 318
http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/bills/hb/hb0495f.pdf
Hearing on HB 495 scheduled Feb 12th, SB 318 Feb 18th SB 318 reported dead on 3/6
ME -- Limit of 10 dogs or cats for breeding. Intact animal fee $150/each for dogs & cats; if any dogs or cats are sold, then $500/year/intact dog/cat.
LD 1053
HP 0728
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280031924&LD=1053&Type=1&SessionID=8
http://tinyurl.com/bqau8l
MN - 50 total dog limit, SF 5. SF 7/HF 273 - Commercial breeder is 6 bedabble females/50 dog total limit. females in estrus must not be housed with unneutered males, except for breeding purposes; Criminal background checks, licensing,
It is a misdemeanor for an unlicensed breeder to advertise animals for sale. More rules after law passes SF201-Senator/vet who tried to write more reasonable law...probably won't go anywhere.
SF 500 HF 573 Minnesota Puppy and Kitten Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, Commercial breeder limit of 40 animals one has an 'interest' in....includes co ownerships. Gaining co authors.
MT - State Department of Livestock to make regulations for sellers of dogs, including inspection, various facility and other standards.
HB 548 Killed 2/20/2009 in House Ag Committee
NC - Commercial dog breeder if 15 or more females in 12 mos. for purpose of selling offspring. Board of Ag to Establish standards for care, housing, exercise, record keeping.
Females not to be bred if younger than 18 mos or over 8 years, must have vet exam.
SB 460
http://www.ncga. state.nc.us/gascripts/ BillLookUp/ BillLookUp.pl?Session= 2009&BillID=SB+460&submitButton=Go
http://tinyurl.com/acsk6m [status]
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/PDF/S460v0.pdf [bill]
Filed 3/5
NE - Limit of 75 for commercial breeders, engineering standards for kennels. Adds ventilation, fire suppression, other reqts.
LB 677
http://www.nebraska legislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/ Intro/LB677.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/df2ccm
2/20/09 Indefinitely postponed -- usually means 'dead.' LB 241 Has limit of 250.
NH - Must have 60 day license if selling over 1 dog/cat/year, limit 2/year, state already has licensing for commercial breeders.
HB0337
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HB0337.html
http://tinyurl.com/dcvru3
Bill killed in Agriculture Committee on 2/11/09
NV- You must have good moral Character. $500 license for the breeder. No more than 2 litters for each dog or cat in its life time. Mandatory microchipping.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/75th2009/Bills/SB/SB241.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/c8yyqa
NY - Limit of 75 dogs if breeder wants to sell or transfer any.
S 518 http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S00518&sh=t
http://tinyurl.com/c8ptoo
A05507-change the definition of a "pet dealer" to mean any person who engages in the sale of more than five animals (rather han nine) per year directly to the consumer. The definition of "pet dealer" is also amended such that a breeder is considered a pet dealer if he or she sells directly to the consumer more than ten animals per year (rather than twenty five) that are raised on the breeder's residence." http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A05507
http://tinyurl.com/cqzllo
OK - Limit of 25 transferred/ given away/sold without license, out of state dealer also requires lic.
HB 1332
http://www.okvma.org/associations /2557/files/2PQA2009HB1332.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/ak7lqw
Out of committee on 2/10 for full house vote
OR - If over 10 must follow stds. for commercial breeder, limit 25. If raise over 3 litters or sell over 20 dogs you are a 'pet dealer'; many reqts.
HB 2470
http://landru.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measures/hb2400.dir/hb2470.intro.html
http://tinyurl.com/cc2oog
TN - License required over 20 female dogs, limit of 75, euthanasia must be done by vet.
SB 258
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/SB0258.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/d6mgxy
TX - Comm. breeder license required over 10 intact female dogs. Inspections, standards. If required to collect sales tax, 'dealer' status with puppy lemon requirements. MSN for dogs over 6 months. $300 license fee per EACH intact dog.
HB 3180
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HB03180I.htm
http://tinyurl.com/d482qt
SB 1910
http://www.legis. state.tx. us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/SB01910I.htm
http://tinyurl. com/bw8ee3
VA - License required if 30/year owned for breeding, limit of 50 for breeding. Sets rules, requires inspections. Local option for higher limit.
HB 538
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?081+ful+CHAP0852
http://tinyurl.com/d7rao9
Passed, effective from 1/1/9
WA - Limit of 25 intact dogs, enclosure rules, 1 hour daily exercise period, ventilation, fire suppression, temperature, and other reqts.
SB5651
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/ billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/Senate% 20Bills/5651.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/badjq5
HB1936
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/1936.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/cwuph6
3/12/9 SB 5651 has passed Senate, now in house.
WI - Subject: Commercial breeder if over 100 dogs per yr. Last time a similar bill was started, the number went down to 25 during the bill making process.
SB-110 was introduced by Senator Darling on March 11, 2009 Bill History:
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB110hst.html
http://tinyurl.com/cdcazp
Relating to: regulation of certain dog breeders, granting rule-making authority, making an appropria.
SB-110 was referred to committee on Agriculture and Higher Education in the Senate on March 11, 2009
WV - Commercial breeder if over 20 dogs over 1 year, limit of 40, MANY requirements.
HB 2843
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc= hb2843 intr.htm&yr=2009&Sesstype=RS&i=2843
http://tinyurl.com/b9faey
Freedom?
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Property rights?
Dogs are our early warning system against approaching agents of tyranny. The people donating the money don't want us to have them.
In our county that includes tax money, as the "animal control" function has been given over to the SPCA so that the County can go back to more important things, like doling out "disability" checks, "crazy money," the biggest line item on our budget.
5th Amendment: “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
Dogs are property.
They’ll have to pry my Chihuahua from my cold, dead fingers.
“Limit of 50 dogs for breeding purposes, if over 10 then enclosure size reqts, at least 2 exercise periods of 2 hrs daily.”
What is so unreasonable about this?
They are dogs, not chickens.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I guess you're not familiar with the document.
The anti-dog movement is very much like the anti-gun movement. It will only penalize the people who obey the law and do not abuse the law. The puppy mills will continue to function just fine after the spay and neuter laws get their way, after all, the AR people will have eliminated all competition.
I am, but I don't see where it applies. Are you saying that police break in without warrants and take dogs from their owners?
Thanks for the ping. ACBBU has been talking about this, as many of them have springpoles, breaksticks and pitbulls in the same house, which is enough to get thhem arrested for dog fighting anyway. Under this law, they wouldn’t have a chance to defend themselves before their dogs were slaughtered.
26 was meant for you...
Also note the words "unreasonable search and seizure" and the words "no warrant shall issue".
When they pass these laws, yes, you can go to court, but most of the time your dog is DEAD. If you have spent your life breeding a line and they kill off the best of what you have produced all they say is "oops". You'd be lucky to even get back your attorney fees.
Was this an overreaching extreme result from the Michael Vick incident?
‘Current law allows posses of animal rights vigilantes to act under the guise of law to sweep down on dog owners and seize animals, and then railroad the case though a magisterial hearing for an order to forcibly confiscate the animals and dispose of them.
Railroading is not too strong of a description of the process. A dog owner is given only a few days (if that!) before a hearing to hire an attorney, gather evidence, find witnesses and prepare his or her defense. During this period, the dog owner can expect to be the target of inflammatory news coverage and stigmatization by the community.
At the hearing, the dog owner will face an intimidating array of animal control officers, animal cruelty officers, animal rights activists posing as expert witnesses, and municipal prosecutors.
A fair hearing is impossible under this scenario. ‘
A question for the forum. I’m not familiar with whats actually ‘going on in Texas’ on this topic.
What is the most common occurance of this type of ‘vigilante action’?
What type of situation, as specifically as anyone can give me describes whats being ‘swooped down on’ by these groups and animal control officers?
Puppy mills? Racing kennels? Dog fighting outfits?
I love my dogs, folks. Before I commit to something like this, I want to know the background.
Any help is appreciated.
As I said, I don’t like them, but as long as their facilities are clean, they are honest about what they breed, etc, there is no reason for the govt to take action against them. Unfortunately those of us in the dog world (I am guilty of this myself) have talked down puppy mills so effectively that THIS is being used against all breeders now, to get these laws put into place.
Unfortunately the AR folks have convinced large swathes of the public that dogs are in fact people, not property. I love my dogs, but they are not just people in furry suits, they are in fact, my property.
Allow the division to inspect the premises wherein an animal that is the subject of a hobby breeder permit is maintained and to view any animal that is the subject of the permit, if the division has a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of section 4-24, animal care; manner of keeping, exists. Such inspection will be limited to that necessary to ascertain compliance with section 4-24, animal care; manner of keeping. If a hobby breeder refuses to allow the division to perform an inspection as provided herein, the division may apply for a warrant pursuant to F.S. ch. 933. All reports of such inspections shall be in writing and maintained by the division.
In other words, I have to let them into my home basically whenever they want. There's more, but this gives you a taste. BTW the language is pretty vague when it comes to what constitutes things they can nail you on.
I have to sign up for a Hobby Breeder permit. When I agree to that I agree to allow them to come to my house if they have a complaint. The complaintent could be an AR activist. You don’t see a problem there?
I doubt it. Certainly it helped the cause, but this stuff has been in the works as long as I’ve been involved in dogs (which would be the late 1980s).
It isn’t so much a matter of taking action against someone as setting acceptable standards for humane treatment of an animal. For example, in Pima County, AZ, a private owner of a horse is required to provide at least 400 sq ft per horse for the horse to live in. Commercial operations I believe have been grandfathered at a smaller area, although I don’t know what it is.
I realize many animal rights activists really want to stop animal ownership. I’ve met folks who actually believe it is wrong to have breeds of dogs, or to own a horse. Of course, they would have to pry the gun out of my cold, dead hand before they could take my Border Collie or Australian Shepherd away...
I agree the laws can go too far. However, I also believe a line has to be drawn somewhere. A speed limit of 10 mph is as silly as one of 150 mph.
I have to pay an extra $40/year just to keep an intact male, although I have no females to breed him to anyways. I’m not a fan of spay/neuter laws. The question is WHERE to draw the line. I think Pima County has gone too far, so PBC would drive me nuts!
And it’s the incrementalism of the thing. Of course, when you know their real agenda, it all looks bad. But most of the public doesn’t have a clue, so it all sounds fine and dandy. I would love to get out of PBC, it is full of crazy liberals!
On one hand, it's good to outlaw the puppy mills who have no concern for the animals or their genetics. And it perhaps makes sense to have certain laws available to prosecute when necessary.
On the other hand, how regulated do you want your world to be? How often do you want the dog police to check you and your kennel to make sure you're in compliance? How much do you want to be taxed to support and enforce these regulations?
Some see these measures as only the beginning. Some proposals require mandatory spaying and neutering and breeding would be highly regulated. Some groups are attempting to pass laws outlawing dog showing, saying that it is cruel. There are other groups attempting to pass laws outlawing any altering of an animal such as removing dewclaws, altering ears or docking tails.
Some quotes:
"The two sisters say they just called Metro Animal Services last week to find out what kind of license they needed for their small part-time breeding business. Then, on Monday, Janet got a call from a neighbor who saw officers from Animal Services inside her house taking her dogs."
"They were coming in and out of our front door according to our neighbors," Head said. "And I think they broke into my house, and I think that's terrible!"
"I said: 'what are they going to do?' And he said they're not going to do anything to them tonight, but they will be neutered or spayed," Cogswell said.
"These ladies are legitimate breeders," Campbell said. "They take good care of their animals." Campbell told us all the dogs were up to date on their shots and he can't believe the sisters are a target of animal control. "This is not where the problem is. These are not vicious animals. They don't attack people - and they're toy dogs!"
Don't know where you've been, but I have seen several stories like this in the past.
Many here on FR boast what they will do regarding searches for guns or other property but all "they" need do is convince any other family member or even a guest to give permission to enter or search and your property is gone.
Maybe after your dogs are dead,your guns are lost,and thousands spent on lawyers,the judge will rule in your favor.
How many guns has New Orleans returned?
The kinds of allegations can be anything, and the issue goes far beyond Texas.
While it can include extreme cases like dog fighting, it most often involves technical violations (such as soeone not having a license).
Even in extreme cases, normal law enforcement is the key. If the cops were busting a murderer, it would be inapprorprate to show up with a small army of cops, do-gooders, tv crews and outraged college students. Likewise, it would be outrageous to deny a murder suspect his/her basic civil rights.
Most cases are far from extreme. Louisville, KY, passed an ordinance requiring expensive breeder permits. Now, the animal rights groups send out posses in the neighborhoods answer ads as if they want to buy a puppy, and call in a large-scale bust. Dogs and their puppies are confiscated and killed at the “shelter.”
In Palm Beach County, FL, the vigilantes (civilian animal rights activists) are given uniforms, badges and the authority to go door-to-door looking for any animal law violation.
And I could name a hundred other examples....
There is an animal rights website called pet-abuse.com. I consider them the bad guys, but they have a great search engine that I use a lot...every animal cruelty bust in America for several years. Check it out. You’ll find some pretty sickening cases, but you also will find that the law takes care of the situations. The language usually is pretty inflammatory, but it does link to newspaper articles. For every person accused (even those found not guity in court), there is a map to their home...an invitation to harrassment, “humane dog thefts,” spying, and even the potential for violence.
One can never forget that the goal of animal rights groups (such as HSUS and PETA) is not to protect animals. It is to eliminate them. They believe that all animal ownership amounts to exploitation and subjugation, if not slavery...all the way from the farm to the pet poodle on the couch.
When you think of animal rights, think of Karl Marx...simply subsitute animals for “poor, downtrodden, exploited masses,” and you will understand the mindset and implications. Animals are the new slaves that must be liberated...except they fail to mention that liberation equals death, because domesticated animals cannot survive on their own. PETA has a shelter in Virginia, for example. Last year, they killed 95-percent of the dogs that entered their “shelter.” They think of it as mercy killing in order to protect the dogs from being exploited by someone who might adopt and love them. No kidding!
I post on this board because I think the issues go far beyond animals. They apply equally to people who hate animals, because the issues really are constitutional. They apply to everyone. Each of us makes choices in life that other people don’t share, but the essence of freedom is to have the right to make choices and live our lives accordingly, unless there is a compelling reason for the law to intervene.
To accomplish their agenda, the animal rights people are trying to manipulate public opinion to place animal owners in the same light of stigmatization as sexual predators and drug dealers. They are trying to make animal issues into “special cases” that do not deserve the protection of the law, due process and the Bill of Rights. Other groups try to do that with Second Amendment rights, or even “hate speech” laws that are really meant to stifle discourse and debate.
Property rights are very central, too. If you look at all of the animal rights legislation, it takes major steps in legal language to convert dog owners into guardians of dogs. A guardian exists only by virtue of the approval of the state, and a dog becomes the legal equivalent of a ward of the state. The dog has rights. The owner (excuse me, guardian) has none.
That has wide-ranging implications to the entire legal status of private property. Instead of owning and enjoying our private property, it makes it a privilege that may be granted or witheld by the state. Nuts!
It’s happening in Cain-Tuck. Please see my references in another reply on this thread to the Louisville situation. If you really want to have a good time, go to the KY Legislature’s bill search and type in some keywords like animals, dogs and kennels.
My heart goes out to your family.
Perhaps the answer is to use stalking laws to stop these people...and slander.libel laws when good people are assassinated in the press before they have their day in court.
I wish I was guilty of exaggeration!
I’m not.
In most places, animal control people do the mundane stuff...pick up strays, bust people for letting their dogs roam, etc.
Animal cruelty police officers are employed by state-sanctioned humane societies. They are not professional law enforcement officers. They are contractors to government, but are not employed or supervisors by government.
They are hired based on their political connections to animal rights groups. They are rent-a-cops with a deeply held personal axe to grind.
When they sweep down on an animal owner, they come in herds that often include dozens of idealistic animal rights activists with no law enforcement training whatsoever.
They get search and seizure warrants on the magisterial level. If you read the laws, you will find that “probable cause” is not part of the language. There usually will be a substitute, such as “have reason to believe,” that is all it takes to get a warrant. “Reason to believe” translates into anyone making a complaint...that’s whgere the animal rights groups come in. They make a complaint to the animal cruelty police officer that has no foundation whatsoever, which justifies a search warrant under the law...and a Chinese fire drill bust.
I live in PA. Here, animal control officers and state dog wardens are specifically prohibited in the law from investigating animal cruelty reports. Only animal cruelty police officers and municipal uniformed police officers are empowered to investigate and file charges. Cops hate dealing with animals, and simply refer compliants to the cruelty police.
You are very wrong.
Commercial kennels (aka puppy mills) are fully regulated on the federal level by USDA, on the state level by kennel laws, and on the state level by animal cruelty laws. They can be shut down immediately for taking poor care of their dogs, and also face fines and jail time.
The issue is that people who are accused of violating the law deserve the full protection of the Constitution and Bill of Rights...as well as the presumption of innocence that used to be the basis for our system of justice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.