Join the crusade against the HSUS + Pass it forward

HSUS Credibility Sinking,Here’s Proof…Anti-Pet laws
January 8, 2009 ·

Some think that we are ranting about HSUS but let’s be realistic?

Let’s look at just ONE bad ordinance that HSUS *helped* draft…..they started in 2005 and ordinance went up 2006, lawsuit filed in 2007……believe me— HSUS does this type of thing regularly but also attempts to make state laws as well……….normally we don’t spend time to hand type+ copy lawsuit excerpts, so everyone can see them. (We normally do not give out entire PDF copies from the courts)..

..But I decided to spend the time, just to prove what we are saying, which has been known for years— to get people to understand that ”just telling people the truth”— doesn’t get results. We actually have to get people mad to become involved.

Most people just figure who cares, someone else will fight the battle!

Well, WE ARE fighting the battle just about every day, because in order to overcome the media manipulation of HSUS (multi millions of media $$) one cannot just say ‘Hey–that’s not true.’ It takes getting people mad, and mad enough to realize what is happening.

Mad enough to forward the Crusade Against HSUS+Pass It Forward, to everyone possible—because HSUS has all the $$$ but we have most of the PEOPLE who care, and want to stand up for their rights.

HSUS misleads the public/pet owners. This shows clearly that HSUS has no love for pets or pet owners!

HSUS *helped* the Louisville Metro Animal Services (MAS) devise a 100 page so-called dog ordinance law, and it has been admitted that HSUS Kentucky Director gave MAS+the Council access to HSUS “studies” and “data” re dangerous dogs. HSUS director made recommendations to the Council. We are fairly sure HSUS did a lot more than just recommend…………as HSUS has Directors in many states, and multiple states have attempted to enact similar laws concurrently.

————————————————————————————————————–

* [At this juncture it should be recalled, it has been HSUS which has helped do SWAT team raids, help kill off dogs over a weekend while Courts are not open, where in MANY cases, owners are found not guilty of any criminal charges (but all the dogs were already killed); HSUS helps raid kennels of smaller breed dogs even when dogs are not abused, yet helps get all dogs seized/sold starting the next week by working with groups like Best Friends Animal Society, and local "law enforcement"; HSUS goes around the country trying to implement "forfeiture" legislation (denied in CA +TN) where it would end up benefitting HSUS + tending to create police corruption; and HSUS advocatesin most of the states that Obama carried, for altering all pets or 'MSN', such as in California AB1634, defeated after 1.5 years of public outrage+opposition, as shown on this blog; HSUS advocates for excessive anti-pet dog/cat breeder restrictions across the United States; HSUS works with other AR groups like Best Friends and Last Chance for Animals to help close down legal businesses; HSUS spends thousands --like over $400,000 --- to manipulate different church groups into buying into their misleading campaigns by calling it compassion; HSUS helps set up other draconian laws like the one at hand here, which is admitted by the Metro Animal Services in the case below....and this is just the TIP of the iceberg known as HSUS-- the Political-conglomerate animal extremist]

————————————————————————————————-

con’t……..
Metro Animal Services (MAS) submitted to the Federal Court,
…..that HSUS’ role in the litigation is “but an extension of the role it has undertaken”, and substantially responsible for assisting Council…….. in pursuing a “comprehensive” approach. HSUS submitted its own brief twice, and was twice denied by the Court; HSUS’ brief was NOT allowed over objection, to be admitted.

HSUS is not even a party to the lawsuit but has a habit of filing amicus briefs. HSUS wanted to submit its own amicus brief to help defend Metro animal Services–since HSUS “helped” draft the law!

Main reason for HSUS brief being denied TWICE?

As stated by Plaintiffs, the HSUS brief was “an improper and thinly-disguised attempt to make HSUS a party to the lawsuit without having met the requirements of Rule 24 for intervention as a matter of right“;
in addition, a member of HSUS’ law firm had previously represented the Plaintiff(Louisville Kennel Club) through the legislative process leading up to the enactment of the ordinance. A clear conflict of interest.

The court obviously agreed and HSUS failed to get its amicus brief admitted, despite having tried TWICE on 2 separate motions, to get it admitted. HSUS routinely does this because they keep a brief bank of every document they get filed, and try to use them in other areas over time. [This type of behavior by HSUS is typical!] and in my opinion, it is unethical as well in this case.

How much money, time, and savings had to be SPENT —JUST because of HSUS!!!

What is wrong with the Ordinance? Here are some examples…and this is not all of them!

1. It was admitted it would be enforced “selectively” [legally meaning, arbitrarily]

2. No animal may be sold or given away without written permission of MAS [this is absurd]

3. Unaltered dog can’t be taken on vacation or left with pet sitter without notifying MAS [this is unconstitutional]

4. All dogs must be RE-VACCINATED for Rabies EACH time they are removed from a boarding kennel! [absurd and attempts to regulate vet procedures, serves no govt interest]

5. Attempts to regulate the practice of veterinary medicine and the ‘cruelty’ sections are in conflict with the scheme of animal cruelty at existing section of law.

6. Ordinance provides that unaltered dogs are more aggressive than altered dogs. [A longstanding tenet of ARs, that altering solves everything except responsibility and training]

7. Definition of an “at-risk” dog includes one which would “chase a person, menace a person, display “aggressive” behavior, cause physical injury to any domestic pet (including mice, rat, rabbit), or livestock ; and an “unaltered” dog which is not licensed, is also categorized as “at risk” [another insane provision that is wacked, as the altered roaming dog is ignored!]

8. Ordinance defines “attack” as something that causes “a scratch, abrasion, bruising or on a domestic pet or livestock, that causes death or injury.” [No measurable standards given] (Another ridiculous, but attempted try by HSUS to get rid of dogs/cats)

9. Ordinance defines “cruelty” as, among other things, “failing to provide adequate food/water, failing to detect the need for or withholding vet care, creating or allowing UNHEALTHFUL living conditions, “striking” an animal, “infliction of suffering” through the use of “objects” and FAILING TO PROVIDE “HEALTH RELATED GROOMING.” [HSUS has already helped conduct raids using these terms and put forth other ordinances with similar terms, those will also require lawsuits in court]

10. Ordinance defines “nuisance” as any act of an animal that IRRITATES OR PERTURBS ANYONE, or any act of an ANIMAL’S OWNER THAT IRRITATES OR PERTURBS ANYONE, Nuisance can be subject to criminal punishment, including jail. [So ludicrous we can't even believe they had the nerve to write it down!]

11. Ordinance defines ‘potentially dangerous dog’ as any which would bite, scratch, or bruise anyone (among other items listed) [another ridiculous provision, purposely drafted like this to take out any dog or cat]

12. Ordinance “restraint” requires every dog off premises of the owner to altered dogs only for “off leash” areas, with no leash longer than 4 feet. [In other words, show dogs that are intact can't go to off leash areas?]

13. Ordinance licensing requirements authorizes MAS to designate anyone to determine +inspect dogs re spay/neuter, notwithstanding that such altering certificate has been issued by licensed vet. [this is purposely set up for harassment reasons so quasi legal steps can be taken by private people against dogs/cats]

14. Ordinance requires owner of unaltered dog to notify director of MAS every time the unaltered dog was placed in a kennel, taken on vacation, or left with a pet sitter and also prohibits certain sales of unaltered dogs in a manner that affects individuals OUTSIDE of affected county. [ More insanity, plus there is no jurisdiction for this if in another county]

15. Ordinance requires all unaltered dogs be kept in an enclosure that is approved by the Director of MAS in writing.

16. Ordinance requires any animal removed from a kennel or cattery must be re-vaccinated against rabies AND re-licensed by MAS EACH time it is removed… [Ridiculous]

17. Ordinance requires written permission from MAS for any person to sell any animal, and for any person to purchase an unaltered “potentially” dangerous dog.

18. Prohibits owner of 1/2 acre or less of residential property from quartering more than 3 dogs outdoors on his property…

19. Impounded dog or cat shall not be released until microchip placed and unaltered dog MUST be altered BEFORE being released. [Meaning if someone let your show dog out accidentally, you just lost your show dog!]

20. Any animal which has scratched a person must be quarantined for 10 days. [Good way to get rid of cats, as HSUS does not advocate to save cats, saying they spread vermin and are predators to wildlife]

21. Anyone who sells or transfers ownership of animals MUST notify MAS w/in 10 days, EVEN if sold or transferred outside the jurisdiction.

22. One section appears to prohibit restraining a dog by tether or chain from 8am-6pm and during any 8hr period for more than 1 hour. [Recall Tammy Grimes stealing another's tethered dog and being found guilty, but many ARs have now passed anti-tethering laws with HSUS advocating for it?]

23. Ordinance prohibits mutilation of any animal, dead or alive/prohibits the dissection of animals in the educational setting at all levels.[No definition for term mutilate]

24. Ordinance provides that all pet shops must clean/disinfect all cages every day and prescribes a SPECIFIC feeding schedule applicable to ALL animals. [Surprisingly HSUS did not attempt to outlaw commercial kennel dogs]

These are just some of the ridiculous provisions. Yet the MAS and council insist that the ordinance is worthy. And that’s because the HSUS is telling them to keep the ordinance. All of these provisions are purposely devised and drafted in the manner shown, so that owners will be fearful at every turn that they might be accused of something. The rules are either extra broad, covering far too much, or frightfully overly specific, and amounting to either privacy concerns, or outright illegality.

The question is this: WHY should pet owners anywhere have to be facing “laws” like this,

JUST BECAUSE HSUS can afford to keep doing it?

Anyone in their right mind can see this ordinance is an outrage.

Yet that is what HSUS is doing behind the scenes. Outwardly HSUS keeps saying it wants to save animals. NOT. HSUS’ only interest is its OWN interest–animal extremist.

Not until people and dog owners that are outspoken and not afraid to tell everyone they can, gets the word out—can this be stopped!
i

The *PERCEIVED* credibility of HSUS needs to be destroyed. Prior to becoming a huge AR conglomerate, HSUS did very little. ONLY after merging or swallowing up other groups, did HSUS take the $$$ and start enacting more legislation, more TV media, more and more marketing to young people and children, and now churches……..

If the ordinance provisions do not get you mad, then you have bought into the HSUS method of misleading the public.

http://www.asabirds.org/docs/ARvsAW.pdf

is an excellent summary of animal rights vs animal welfare. HSUS is NOT animal welfare, but they say they are. All one has to do is look at the above lawsuit concerns. That alone is enough to prove the real agenda of HSUS. Actions speak louder than words?

We can’t argue with anyone who believes this junk that HSUS pushes, is either worthy or realistic. It’s downright anti-pet, animal extremist agenda cloaked in the whitewash of misleading media propaganda. And we ain’t buying into it!

From http://petdefense.wordpress.com/