CA SB917, Why It is Wrong+ Doesn't Stop "Abuse"; Law Passed 2 Years Later

Did you know it is illegal to show, display, transfer, offer for sale or rehoming, an animal outside at a public place, parking area, common area, including a park, or any public area for most part?
First violation is $250 and subsequent can rise to misdemeanors. The code is chaptered under the same section as animal abuse (malicious mischief) but is not a direct PC 597.1 violation, as they codified it under PC 597.4 purposely.  https://www.animallaw.info/statute/ca-cruelty-%C2%A7-5974-selling-or-giving-away-live-animals-any-street-highway-public-right-way

Certain exceptions apply such as 4H, certain dog shows, AND (not surprisingly)-- non profits that are based on animal intake for rehoming  [A public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group regulated under Division 14 (commencing with Section 30501) of the Food and Agricultural Code.]

This law is largely the work of groups like HSUS and ASPCA and those animal rights groups that would push a law outlawing rehoming, selling, transferring or even giving away an animal or pet, illegal. As written, it made the selling of crabs on Fisherman's Wharf illegal, and then was later to stop the transfer/sale of animals at Farmer's Markets, despite there being an "exception" for swap meets and flea markets. Some cities locally do not allow any animals or pets to be offered for sale, period, regardless of the law, and do not allow any animals inside the swap meet or flea market either.  It also made showing or having dogs outside illegal at dog show or cat shows or bird or rabbit show.

Most people do not understand the basis for this law and believed that it is an innocent law which creates no harm. What the public does not understand is that a member of the public can be punished for alleged animal abuse, BUT the "non profit" group or person cannot or is not punished simply because the "non profit" is exempted from such charge under the law. So if the "non profit" was guilty by actually engaging in animal abuse, he/she would be exempted, yet if the member of the public was NOT guilty, he/she would be guilty under this even if he/she did not do any animal abuse at all. In other words, the actual behavior of committing "abuse" is not the action of actual abuse--- but simply the selling, transfer or giving away of the animal outside. This is the most asinine law we have ever seen and should be struck down.

http://petdefense.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/legal-look-at-sb917-under-ca-penal-code/

Dogs, Breeds and Fatal Attacks

[PDF] 

CAROLYN CHAN - American Canine Foundation

www.americancaninefoundation.com/.../ACF_LETTER_K_KKK_NE...

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Aug 22, 2006 – CAROLYN CHAN. ATTORNEY AT LAW

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you think almost no attorney in animal law has ever stood up for the most maligned

dog breed type in the United States, see this post above.  When Kory Nelson was

going full speed, prior to the time "dog bite" Washington blogger, Colleen Lynn

appeared, Nelson was working  behind the scenes via his  "Yahoo Group" which

was set up for government people, so they could learn how to make regulations

and use Home Rule, to establish what is essentially BSL (breed specific legislation.)

On that Yahoo Group, Nelson, who was the owner of the online group, posted that

the ACF was acting as a "strawman for dogfighters."  This is outright defamation, and

Nelson also attempted to ridicule the Aurora, CO case by sending emails from his

government based computer, directly to counsel. Kory Nelson and the blogger of

the bite site (Colleen Lynn) focus on NEWS REPORTS or what is commonly

known as STORIES.

While we all realize that each individual canine has its own genetic and behavioral

makeup, the most outspoken CRITICS of any dog breeds (especially pitbull types)

are those that know little and nothing of breeds of dogs, canine genetics, and 

otherwise.  Merritt Clifton of Animal People, Lynn of dog bite blog, and the attorney

who holds himself out as the dogbite attorney are ALL NOT EXPERTS ON CANINES,

PERIOD. They can talk about canines all they want, BUT they are not experts on 

canines, they do not work with canines, they usually have never owned a medium or

large dog, and they likely won't. 

IF there actually was some scientific EVIDENCE as to the allegations that it was the

genetics of every dog in the group they propose to malign that in fact, CAUSES the

harm they claim, that would be one fact.  However, not only can these proponents

not prove that fact, they take stories in the news and USE the STORY as the fact

which does not exist.

As for FATAL dog attacks, that subject has been rehashed for so long, it should be

obvious by now---- it is rare.   However, when such "attacks" purportedly occur, it does 

of  course, make front page news.  Because news "stories" are not necessarily based

on exact facts, the public never really KNOWS what facts caused or contributed to the

demise of the person.  We say this because the victim in some cases, has created or

caused situations that should have been or could avoided, although the story tellers

like to say otherwise. When people create situations that may cause them harm, and

they do not know canines, canine behavior, or dangerous dog propensities, they can

get hurt. When dangerous dogs (not by breed, but by behavior) do not display such

behavior openly, or when the behavior is not recognized, people can get hurt from any

number of behaviors, by increasing the risk.

There is ALWAYS a risk when dealing with canines, especially for novice owners, those

who ignore common sense, and those who are out to cause mischief by purposely

engaging in actions that increase risk. Leaving ANY child with a dog of any size is a risk.

Leaving any adult who knows nothing about canines, and just adopted an unknown dog

is a risk.  Adopting ANY dog from ANY source is a risk. NOT KNOWING the physical

demeanor of the dog or the dogs' parents is a risk. Adopting a large breed dog you 

know nothing about is a risk. 

Unprovoked attacks upon people by dogs running at large [creating fatalities] is uncommon, unless one lives in an area where this is happening all the time. IF this is happening all the time

then animal control is not doing their job. 

Dogs involved in fatal attacks usually involve

dogs NEW TO THE HOME (as in recently adopted, recently rehomed dog, recent

acquisition from Craigslist or rescue) and this is shown by more than 52% or more--of 

such attacks, involving dogs that are acquired from rescue, rehoming and shelter.

Only possibly 2-3 (if that) of all fatal attacks tracked involve a dog that was raised from

a puppy in the home. Thus raising a puppy from birth with no rehomings involved is the

safest method of knowing a dog, and the least risk.  IF one is actually afraid of dogs, but

wants one anyway, it would be best to get a dog less than 10lb. The dog can take out a

child's eye, but it won't likely kill a 10yr old or adult. Avoid leaving any dog with any baby

or children where the kids are not supervised, because children can provoke dogs.  

NOTE:  The ABA (American Bar Assn) through their House of Delegates, announced in 2012

that they would encourage ALL jurisdictions to NOT use breed specific legislation, but to

craft non discriminatory legislation/ordinances based upon behavior of canines, NOT by

breed. 

HSUS Lawsuit Thrown Out of Court in Florida

December 05, 2012 
 Purebred Breeders Seeks Legal Fees From HSUS To Donate

Humane Society of the United States Exposed Again MIAMI--(BUSINESS WIRE)

--Purebred Breeders is seeking an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs from plaintiffs and the Humane Society of the United States in Case Number: 11-38180 CA02 after a Circuit Court judge in Miami-Dade County last month dismissed the activist sponsored lawsuit against Purebred Breeders, a family-owned Florida business that connects well-raised puppies with loving families hoping to find a new addition to their home.

Purebred Breeders is committed to donating a portion of any attorney’s fees awarded by the court to local shelters around the country. This is in an effort to help replace a portion of the millions of dollars lost by these organizations from HSUS’s fundraising activities as referenced by members of Congress described below.

“HSUS is well-known for coordinating purported legal claims for publicity against responsible organizations and individuals. The Humane Society of the United States raises funds for its lawsuits and lobbying activities while leading the public to believe that the donations are supporting local shelters.” The court determined last month that the plaintiffs and the Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”), which sponsored the lawsuit against Purebred Breeders, completely failed to justify their allegations. This motion for attorney’s fees and costs has been filed by Purebred Breeders as a result of the efforts of the Humane Society of the United States in bringing the lawsuit in an effort to influence the public against purchasing pets.

  Purebred Breeders’ advisor, Brent Gattis, former Deputy Chief of Staff for the House Committee on Agriculture, states that “HSUS is well-known for coordinating purported legal claims for publicity against responsible organizations and individuals. 

The Humane Society of the United States raises funds for its lawsuits and lobbying activities while leading the public to believe that the donations are supporting local shelters." Currently, the HSUS is being investigated by the IRS for tax fraud [Case File Number 29-92012] and six members of Congress joined the call for the IRS to act when they filed a letter with the Office of Inspector General Eric Thorson last year. 

In this letter the members of Congress wrote "HSUS continually seeks donations through advertisements that claim the money will be used to help neglected or abused animals. The commercials deliberately lead the public to believe direct aid to animals is the main activity of the organization, as does the misleading similarity between the name of HSUS and the hundreds of local hands-on animal sheltering humane societies across America, which are wholly unaffiliated with HSUS and receive zero funding from it.” 

Mr. Gattis added “Purebred Breeders experience in defending itself against legal claims is typical of the attacks other animal organizations and individuals have endured at the hands of HSUS’s large stable of attorneys. HSUS’s strategy against legitimate entities is this: force them to defend themselves in protracted legal battles over meritless claims, while also creating a false public perception of the group being attacked.” 

According to its own 2011 tax return, HSUS received donations of $122 million for the year and used $38 million or 31% on salaries, compensation, and employee benefits with 19 individuals listed as receiving compensation between $100,000 and $300,000. Additionally, $50 million or 41% of donations received were spent on marketing and advertising, fundraising, and educational materials while only $6.7 million was actually reported as being given or granted to animal organizations. 

However, a further look by Humanewatch.org into these organizational grants made by HSUS found that little more than $300,000 of the $6.7 million found its way to “hands on pet shelters” where the organization was involved with the “daily care, adoption, and/or rehabilitation of dogs, cats, rabbits and horses.” The $300,000 granted by HSUS during 2011 represented less than ½ of 1 percent (.5%) of the $122 million in donations received by HSUS during the year. 

Purebred Breeders has joined other animal professionals in pushing back against HSUS’s agenda. A ten-year legal battle on a lawsuit brought by the HSUS activist group against Feld Entertainment, owners of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, was ultimately dismissed. Feld has brought a Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations claim against the activist group [Case Number: 07-1532 (EGS)] based on information uncovered during the HSUS lawsuit. 

Feld Entertainment has alleged that HSUS engaged in an elaborate racketeering and conspiracy scheme involving at least one paid witness, obstruction of justice, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and malicious prosecution. HSUS in-house senior attorney, Kimberly Ockene, who filed the legal complaint against Purebred Breeders, and HSUS SVP of Animal Protection Litigation, Jonathan Lovvorn, have both been named individually in the Feld RICO case. 

HSUS, Lovvorn and Ockene filed motions to dismiss the claims. These motions have been largely denied by the court and the case is moving forward against them. 

Contacts:  Purebred Breeders Keryn Rod, 954-320-4565 keryn@purebredbreeders.com Recent Stories Claim against Purebred Breeders LLC Dismissed October 08, 2012 MIAMI--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lawsuit sponsored by HSUS against Purebred Breeders Dismissed in Court. HSUS, Kimberly Ockene and Leopold Law PA fail to prove accusations against Purebred Breeders LLC.

Improper Proposed changes to APHIS

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 USC Sect.2131 - §2159, requires that minimum standards of care and treatment be provided for certain animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. The Act provides guidelines for housing, enclosures, exercise, feeding, watering, sanitation and handling, but it does not regulate the type of experiments that can be performed on animals. The Act is enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).

Violators may be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties or may have their licenses revoked. The Act limits the types of animals it protects. It defines “Animal” as a “warm-blooded animal, which is being used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet.” Animals excluded from the Act: birds, rats, mice, reptiles and farmed animals.

Remarkably, in a town in Montana, the city passed an ordinance which prohibits the sale of mice,rodents, and LIMITS the number of fish owned to THREE. The ordinance affects mammals with a vertebrae and most fish that we know of, have vertabrae. (98% of animals are non vertabrae)

Facilities covered by the Act include: research laboratories, dealers (breeders and brokers), exhibitors (zoos and circuses) and transporters.
Facilities that are exempt include: retail pet stores, direct sellers, hobby breeders, public pounds, private shelters, private collections, livestock shows, pet shows, rodeos and any facility using nonregulated species.

UPDATE: UNFORTUNATELY the APHIS regs were upheld recently. This means small hobby breeders are subject to same rules as commercial kennels for some issues, and may have to actually change their kennel or housing just to comply. This can be very extensive and expensive.

 We will post more on the issue of APHIS and how animal rights are trying to change the policy of the APHIS regs to essentially end up regulating hobby breeders in direct contradiction from the case law in the early 2000s which exempted hobby breeders. These proposed changes would drastically create severe issues and impact interstate commerce.