Projects & Politics > BBR Index >> Animal Rights Abuse

Christopher Cardozo, Esq. © TheDogPlace.org / Sept. 2009 - Therefore, Judi Mancuso, representing Animal Rights, broadcasts information that a key member of PetPAC was named in one of the many suits filed by the state.  Yet PetPAC was neither named nor is it involved in any legal suits. Rather, the lawsuit involves the alleged use of telemarketing by other groups that are named if you read the whole thing.  Most will only glance at it and be left thinking it is PetPAC so it is a clever smear by the Animal Rightists to diminish successful opposition to Animal Rights laws.

Animal Rights activists use the "shotgun" method of defense because they have little factual ammunition behind their lamentable bills.  California has (6) bills pending, all of which trigger other bills. At least 3 such bills are opposed by CA Department of Finance. One bill actually allows private animal groups like HSUS to earn the forfeiture proceeds by killing the animals. The law does not state they must save them.

Example: AB1122 allows a rescue to “sell” a dog but limits private breeders.  If a breeder displays a dog, they could be guilty of attempting to sell it.  If they are in a parking lot, when that dog jumps into another person's car, it becomes a prohibited action. There is much more on AB1122 at PetDefense, first story listed on the right.

Most of these bills are premised on "alleged abuse" but in most cases, there is no actual abuse. The Animal Rights groups draft these laws so the term "abuse" is written into the law itself. For example, murder would be inherently wrong, and that is termed ‘malum in se’ [a wrong in itself.]  But a law which makes something prohibited that is not necessarily wrong, is called ‘malum prohibitum’ [wrong because government prohibits it as wrong.]  That huge difference is exactly what the Animal Rights faction uses. Groups like HSUS say that tail docking, ear cropping, having more than X number of dogs, owning X breed, selling an animal, showing a dog in public = "ABUSE" and if the law is worded that way, people who engage in any of the enumerated activities are guilty of abuse.  That’s all it takes.

We may wonder how these things happen but it’s very simple, based on how words are used or written into the law. When HSUS and their cadre of supporters decided to end pet ownership, their number one reason is built on only one foundation - that animals are NOT property in the law.  The AR laws are all premised upon animals not being legal property, so they can insert the term "abuse" because they liken animals to the same status [in the law] as your children!

For example: Animal Law Cases and Materials, Third Edition (by Sonia Waisman, Pamela Frasch, and Bruce Wagman) queries If indeed the property status of animals were to be abolished, what would be the legal and practical effects on the commercial use of animals; What would happen to the animals themselves--should they be put in sanctuaries, sterilized, or permitted to move toward extinction?  

As you can see, if animals were no longer considered as property, then you can’t “own” them, just as you can’t own a child but you can certainly go to jail for abusing a child.

That explains why Animal Rights want the term guardian to be used.  You could be roasting in a car with no air conditioner, or bask in 100 degree sun at the beach, but an animal cannot; you can have extensive cosmetic surgery, but an animal cannot have an ear crop. Animal Rights purposely characterize animals in the law as ‘children’ rather than as “property” so they can enlarge the legal status of animals to that of humans.

They have ultra-humanized our property so they can trample the inherent rights that stem from property ownership by passing laws that denote perfectly legal acts as "abuse."  Animal Rights activists have no limits, and they are very clever; that is why the "trigger" bills pending in California will set precedent for other states.

When legal conduct is outlawed as "abuse" [malum prohibitum’] all animal owners have a problem.  When ordinary conduct [taking a dog out of a car and allowing it to jump into another person’s vehicle in a parking lot] is illegal, we have a problem.  When just offering a dog for sale is seen as some sort of abuse, or owning X number of intact (not surgically sterilized) animals triggers an "abuse" violation, dog breeders have a problem.  If someone is acquitted of an "abuse" charge but another law triggers forfeiture or seizure, it’s a ridiculous problem.  Why have any Civil Rights at all if a District Attorney who supports Animal “Rights” can circumvent the Court?  If the D.A. has been subverted by AR groups and fails to understand the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare, we have a problem.

If you live in California and own an animal, you should be very angry that Animal Rightist groups like HSUS, Mancuso’s Social Compassion, Peta, ASPCA and others are proposing laws that take away your rights while making you think it’s only about "pitbulls" or "puppy mill dogs" or "errant kennels" or some sort of “animal abuse.”

Animal Rightists are able to get away with this nonsense because many of us are selfish, caring only about the one or two animals in OUR living room, letting other people worry and do the work. It is not, contrary to public opinion, specific breeds or bad kennels or anything of the sort that brings "bad" law.  Animal Rights groups will use any angle they can, knowing that most owners will NOT CARE about any animals but their own!  When concerned breeders rally against Petland, Hunte, or commercial kennels, we are dooming our own rights by giving the AR groups more ammunition!!!

Speaking from a legal viewpoint, all animal owners must realize that innocent owners have been snared by Animal Rights Tactics.  No one will tolerate animal abuse but many breeds have bought into the Animal Rights propaganda by attacking commercial kennels, blaming pit bulls, “unethical" breeders, "backyard" breeders, etc. etc.  

What this means is that YOU were ensnared by the nonsense promoted by the Animal Rights faction. That’s right, nonsense. You don’t have to be brilliant to understand the Animal Rights Strategy. It’s called divide and conquer.

Animal Rights activists simply get pet owners, dog show fanciers, even business owners, to take opposing sides against themselves!!  Many of us have unknowingly fallen into this trap because we think we are all good, and others are bad. That is just what the AR groups want.  It is simply an advertising campaign by animal rights groups to make us think we are bad if we disagree with them because they know we all want to be "good."  They are good at what they do.  Animal Rights groups like HSUS and PETA can afford marketing specialists who trick us (and the public) into denigrating other kennels, breeders, or groups as “bad”.

There are only two sides to the legal right to own, breed, and keep animals.  One side stands up for ownership. The other side is Animal Rights Trickery, designed to take us apart via divisiveness.  Animal Rightists count on the fact that we will ignore “animal rights” and “animal abuse” laws because they don’t affect us.  Guess what?  They most certainly DO and WILL affect YOU:

* When they file forcible entry warrants allowing night time entry for barking

* When they seize your animals because you can’t afford an attorney

* When you lose your civil or property rights over “environmental issues”

* When you must remodel your home to qualify as a home breeder

* When you are charged with "abuse" for owning a cropped/docked breed

* When you are cited under an obscure "abuse" law in the local code?

STOP. STOP. STOP.  Stop thinking you are “good” and others are “guilty.”  We are all guilty of falling into the Animal Rights Trap–but you can save your right to own a pet of your choice by opposing every law proposed by HSUS or any Animal Rights group. 

There are laws that can be used against them, including the Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. There are more than 60 million animal owners and we should not be whining, we should be fighting for our animals!  If it ‘could affect’ your dog or cat down the line, then it affects YOU right now!

Get smart. Out-think Animal Rights for what it is - evil masquerading as animal welfare.  Support animal welfare and fight back against Animal Rights.  There’s a big difference.

http://www.thedogplace.org/PROJECTS/BBR/Animal-Rights-Abuse_CardozoEsq-09092.asp