Helmut at the beach with a Great Dane. (pic from earlier this year, via Geno) It's just always great to see happy pics and good news about dogs. :)
'Animal Wrongs' seems to be a better and more accurate phrase than 'Animal Rights' as practiced by HSUS, PeTA and other supporters, including some local animal shelters. Lots of reports suggesting reform abound, but they are still killing pets as they see fit and making it difficult for pet lovers to keep their rights. Seems counter intuitive regarding 'humane' organizations but until reform happens, we still have quite a fight at hand.
CA AB1122: WHY HSUS DOESN’T WANT “TRANSFERS” OF ANIMALS April 19, 2009 How does HSUS Work Against Pets+Owners?
HSUS passes laws (HSUS has almost 200 laws for this year) then uses those laws for cases it plans to bring forward, then uses those cases in their incremental process to bring down both interstate commerce and pet ownership, kennels, pet stores, dog breeders, along with difficulties for agriculture and other animals.
We can guarantee that the CA Prop 2 (battery cages) will come back to haunt us in pet ownership, or farming. HSUS will probably find some other ways to outlaw farm animals or make a huge problem for farming–after all HSUS right NOW is trying to outlaw all “non-native” species including birds, herps,guineas,ferrets, turtles and many other common species in the USA that have been owned for 50-100 years.
Ownership in the law, is of the highest legal nature, and as a concept, usually means the ultimate control over the item owned. It also usually refers to having the control legally over such item (property) and also the right to use it for as long as is allowed in the law, and in many instances, to bring a lawsuit where the owner’s rights are affected. Guardianship does NOT necessarily mean any of the same things, which is why animal rights prefers it over “owner.”
CA law has statutes that show one of the main incidents of ownership in property, is the right to TRANSFER it (Bias v Ohio Farmers Indemnity Co (1938) 28 Cal.App.2d 14,16). Or, “A common characteristic of a property right, is that it may be disposed of, transferred to another.” (Douglas Aircraft Co. v Byram (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 311, 317)
Thefore we can see why Peta wanted to take possession/ownership of different animals because after they owned them, they could just dispose of them in the garbage dump (after killing them via lethal injection)—and they suffered no consequences. [Actually it appeared there was fraud in the procurement of the animals but we don't know if they were hit for that.]
And, we can see why HSUS doesn’t want animals TRANSFERRED to others because that’s an element of OWNERSHIP.
The obvious next step for HSUS is to claim if animals can’t be sold or transferred, then that means THEY ARE NOT PROPERTY.
HSUS is currently trying to outlaw the use (import, export, transport, breeding) or movement in interstate commerce of any non native species via HR669 in Congress by using the Lacey Act. See the PIJAC website for details, or see the post on this site with the link to PIJAC.
This would encompass virtually every bird, reptile, amphibian, fish and some mammals kept as pets. In general only a small number of species have caused environmental issues (in FL and HI.)
This nonsense by HSUS subterfuge has not been lost on us.
We are VERY aware of what HSUS and Animal Rights are trying to do. Clearly the agenda is to chip away at the ownership of animals until we miss the fact that the WORDS USED FOR OWNERSHIP have been eliminated, then next thing you know—-HSUS has eliminated the ownership of animals. No transfers, no selling, no bartering, no trading, etc. This has already been attempted in HSUS anti pet laws where a dog with cropped ears couldn’t be transferred/owned by a rescue because the rescue didn’t have the documents proving how the ears were done.
It would be easier to make “owning” something next to impossible, or exorbitantly too expensive or far too much red tape, than to outright say “you can’t own that”–which is Animal Rights done the HSUS way–as can be seen by the multidue of 180 Anti pet laws HSUS is pushing just this year…..
HSUS has a habit of purposely drafting bad laws, then getting them passed, then taking cases, and using the laws that HSUS has HELPED PASS—as proof that such ideas have already been cemented IN THE LAW. In other words, HSUS makes the very laws it fully intends to use as part of a case it has already planned, then if they win that case, it will set some precedent in the law. THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE HSUS GOAL—TO SET ANIMAL RIGHTS LAW PRECEDENT……………………
If you value your ownership over your pets and animals, and the fact that pet-related businesses are allowed to profit over the selling, buying, trading, owning, or otherwise pet-related legal businesse ownership; if you want CHOICE in what dog or cat or bird or fish that you can BUY, own, or trade or sell; if you want the ability to eat the foods you like (milk, eggs, cheese, meat) then you do NOT want to support ANY HSUS LAWS.
As has been stated on this blog ever since it started—you don’t join the KKK if you’re Black, you don’t push Hitler if you’re Jewish, and you don’t help HSUS if you value ownership of animals.
And because the Pet connection blog online, is one that keeps saying (especially author Gina Spadafori) that HSUS can be trusted to do the right thing—where HSUS cannot be trusted at all…………….it is our opinion that Pet connection lacks the ability to discern Animal Rights in disguise—-and we do not recommend anyone following the opinions of much of the blog—mostly because Spadafori only harps on Peta–but not HSUS.
Just because one authors books, doesn’t mean that one knows Animal Rights. Further, Spadifori harped on Petland claiming that they should be OUT of business if they didn’t ADOPT out dogs, rather than SELL them? That is a very very dangerous proposition, and one that we surely don’t want to push as owners. NOT if you understand the HSUS concept of animal rights–which we don’t believe Spadafori understands [unless she is animal rights herself---]
HSUS is the FAR more dangerous group—if you understand Animal Rights. Spadifori also commended HSUS on filing the lawsuit against Hunte and Petland—that is a mistake, because it indicates that one does NOT understand what HSUS is doing strategy wise.
For example, HSUS pushed the Stevens free speech case, so that Stevens would be prosecuted for selling videos which showed dog fighting (he didn’t make the videos)—BUT the Appeals court held that the statute used (which was likely pushed by HSUS)— which was set up for “crush films”, could cause LEGAL acts to become illegal if the law was upheld, and might even cause the Disney film (Bambi) to be illegal. [See the Stevens case on the Front Page on this blogsite]
Another case is Amazon, where after HSUS pushed the Stevens case (Stevens convicted under the statute ) HSUS sued Amazon to stop the sale of chicken videos or dog video sales, claiming they were violating the law. Another case is the PA commercial kennel laws pushed by HSUS and ASPCA, where after the law was passed, HSUS then sued Petland and Hunte, no doubt so they could use their own law that passed (PA) as proof of concern over the commercial kennel issues. All of this is just a part of the pattern and practice of getting incremental steps in place, passing laws, filing lawsuits, and using the laws to set up precedence for HSUS Animal Rights. We don’t doubt for a second that their entire 16 attorney team or 160 member team or whatever, just goes to the conference room and has a session on strategy for the next 5 years.
Don’t think for a second that we haven’t noticed it, because we knew it a long time ago. Another example is the DNA testing and Breed Specific Legislation that HSUS “claims” it doesn’t support?
HSUS filed an amicus animal rights brief in the DENVER 2008 case re BSL, [yes, we did read it]—- claiming that the DNA companies claimed their DNA test “was 99% accurate.” Then on the animal law and historical society page (Michigan School of Law, Animal Rights Section)—the school has pages which show “how DNA proved” that a particular dog WAS NOT a pitbull subject to BSL. But the key really is, if they can prove it ISN’T a pitbull, and it’s actually 99% accurate, can it prove that IT IS A PITBULL?
And that’s why HSUS put that amicus brief in the Federal Court to Denver. So when that issue comes up down the line, HSUS will be the first to claim that DNA testing should be used [to have pitbull dogs killed], because it’s 99% accurate, despite the fact that the AKC and UKC don’t have the exact same breed name/types for American Pitbull Terriers, or American Stafforshire Terriers. AKC doesn’t recognize the APBT. But that won’t stop HSUS—you wait and see. They like to keep people fooled.
Any Animal Rights group like HSUS that has that much time and money into killing pitbull type dogs is definitely going to try and eliminate more of those dogs, use such dogs as a ploy to raise more funding, and then kill more of them. We have long ago figured out HSUS’ pattern and practice, and that’s why we keep telling everyone not to trust HSUS. They are just Animal Rights that think no one can figure out what they are doing.
You don’t have to be an attorney or have a legal education to figure that one out. And you don’t even have to be a pet owner. You just have to have some logic and common sense to see what is going on.
Not in our lifetime, never, never ever. The demise of HSUS will come first. Because too many people will see what they are REALLY doing. Help us spread the word! Tell everyone you know and make it a point to tell at least 10-50 other people. This is the only way that legislators are going to figure it out, and the only way the public will stop donating.
People that donate to HSUS Animal rights might as well donate to PETA. Because they are carrying out the Peta agenda.
There's been some good news but it's still no time to sit back. To see an example of how convoluted and disgusting some of the problems are, see this article on the removal of Ed Boks from L.A. Animal Services. He was major component in pushing some extremist bills in L.A. County and attempted to get all of California to buy the rotten goods.
One of the things that has taken so much time from me over the past weeks has been the effort to keep up with over two dozen animal related bills on the California agenda. The extremist strategy of chopping up the concepts of larger failed bills, into smaller bite sizes, makes it considerably more difficult to get people to realize that all of the bills are part of the greater goals.
Now for some fun. I just have to share this video. No need for captions on this one. :)
And more fun! Free game giveaway of the day is "Around the World in 80 Days", with only eleven hours left for downloads of an unlocked version of the game as I write. This is a beautiful match-3 game and it comes with a screen saver that increases options as you gain levels within the game. Gamezebo reviews this game and gives it a nice write up.