Animal Rights Archives

Three%20Cheers%20for%20Louisville.html
The lawsuit against the Louisville Anti-Pet Law begins!

Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:06:25 -0800
From: Lynda Farley <jlfarley@SCRTC.COM>
Subject: HERE IT IS - more than a DOZEN GROUPS are SUING LOUISVILLE
over their stupid anti-pet law! This was filed just yesterday.
I took time out from taxes, printed this out, and READ the whole thing.
It's WAY WORTH it - HIGHLY recommended reading!

http://www.naiatrust.org/resources/Three%20Cheers%20for%20Louisville.html

I hope we win this one, please everyone pray. For those who still don't
quite 'get' what folks are so upset about, this tells it like it is, and in PLAIN
LANGUAGE. For all those threatened with these awful anti-pet laws, there are many
citations to unconstitutionality according to the United States Constitution, so if we
win, it should be applicable EVERYWHERE in the USA.

If we don't stop the Animal Radicals, one day your only source for a new pet
will be from a commercial breeder (AKA puppy mill). And, when they manage
to get rid of all home breeders, they will go after commercial breeders as
well, because their real goal is: "In fact, I don't want to see another dog or cat born."
Wayne Pacelle, CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, quoted in Bloodties:
Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.)

Here's that educational flyer - you are welcome to print and share:
http://www.aalf.ws/free-graphics/SAVEourPETS/posterBadPetLawsStomponConstitution.gif

Also, HERE is what's wrong with mandatory spay/neuter from a HEALTH (the
ANIMAL's) standpoint, as well as why early spay/neuter (such as Louisville &
other laws would mandate) is almost ALWAYS NOT in the best interest of the
health of the animal:
http://escregistry.kattare.com/healthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
Since there is permission to share this, I am printing it to add to my puppy
packets, as the explanation of why early spaying or neutering a Hosanna
Afghan Hound voids my written 3 year orthopedic & genetic health guarantee.

Permission to forward, crosspost, and share granted.
Lynda Farley ~ Edmonton, KY ~ Hosanna Afghan Hounds
My DOGS are PRIVATE PROPERTY - PAWS OFF!
FREEDOM..... PRICELESS www.hosanna1.com/aaaweblog/
An American who Loves Freedom www.aalf.ws/
'The Most Beautiful Pages and Dogs On The WWW'
http://www.hosanna1.com/

Please take action NOW SB 0014 Florida needs you!
Link for lobby tool. http://dpca.lobbynow.com/issues?SB14

Last year many of you participated in using the tool to submit letters to
oppose a breeder licensing bill that was introduced in Florida by Senator
Larcenia Bullard. After approximately 6,000 personalized letters were
generated and sent to the Agriculture Committee, within 48 hours, she
decided to pull the bill.

Shortly after that Bullard introduced another bad bill attempting to make
some amendments to Florida's existing Pet Lemon Law. That did not make it
out of committee in 2006 but she is again trying to pass amendments to the
Pet Lemon Law. If this bill is able to make it through the Committees to the
floor, who knows how much worse it might become by then? Knowing what else
Bullard tried to pass last year, it should not surprise anyone if this bill
were to "snowball".

SB 14 is a bill that has been introduced in the 2007 Florida State
Legislature that amends Florida's already restrictive Pet Lemon Law. SB 14
will overly burden small, home-based breeders as well as "pet dealers". "The
term "pet dealer" means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other
association that, in the ordinary course of business, engages in the sale of
more than two litters, or 20 dogs or cats, per year, whichever is greater,
to the public. This definition includes breeders of animals who sell such
animals directly to a consumer."

Under revisions to the existing Florida law:

1. Breeders/"pet dealers" will be prohibited from administering any vaccines
or anthelmintics unless a veterinarian is on the premises.

2. A pet dealer may not possess a dog or cat that is less than 8 weeks old
if the dealer is not the breeder of the animal. This provision will affect
any rescues who take in a pregnant bitch. While there is an "exemption" for
county-operated or city-operated animal control agencies and registered
nonprofit humane organizations, if a breed rescue is not a 501(c)(3)
organization and still operates as a "committee" of their parent club, this
could be a problem.

3. A breeder/pet dealer may not refuse to reimburse veterinary costs because
the consumer did not use a veterinarian designated by the breeder/pet
dealer.

4. If a dog or cat is returned to a breeder/pet dealer due to illness,
disease, or a congenital or hereditary condition requiring veterinary care,
you will be required to provide the animal with "proper veterinary care"
that may include humanely euthanizing the animal.

5. Reimbursement for veterinary costs has been increased to 150% of the
purchase price of the animal.

6. The amendment eliminates the existing section of the law that currently
allows a consumer to sign a waiver relinquishing his or her right to return
the dog or cat for congenital or hereditary diseases.

7. The bill dictates that any agreement or contract by a consumer to waive
any right under this section is void and unenforceable.

8. The bill requires reimbursement, refund or exchange within ten business
days after notification.

9. A new section authorizing civil penalties for violations of any provision
of this statute has been added. Civil penalties can range anywhere from
$1,000 up to $10,000 with restrictions on the dealer which will prohibit
them from selling any animals in the state. Time restrictions can range
anywhere from 30 days up to a year.

The Doberman Pinscher Club of America has activated the Lobby Now tool.
Concerned breeders and rescuers are urged to go to the following link to let
legislators know that you oppose this ill-conceived bill as it puts no
burden on the pet-buyer. Under this bill a pet owner could do everything
wrong, even causing exposure to an infectious disease, and under this bill
it would be the breeder that would need to pay for the pet owner's mistake.

Go to this link to send your letters to legislators NOW!

PETA's successes with a North Carolina jury haven't translated well into the court of public opinion.
As we wrote in yesterday's Norfolk (VA) Virginian-Pilot, the fact that PETA unapologetically kills healthy cats and dogs
has done irrevocable damage to the group's reputation.

[R]easonable people can agree that if the whole trial was a sham, and if the jury made the right decision (and that's a big "if"),
it's hard to see the group as anything but hopelessly hypocritical in light of the testimony from PETA's employees...

[K]illing of animals, whatever the circumstances, is not something we've come to expect from PETA.
Yet in front of a judge and jury this month, PETA's defense lawyer argued that animals Hinkle injected with a lethal drug were
"PETA's property, and she had the absolute legal authority" to do it.

Remember that the next time PETA argues that ranchers, restaurants or clothiers don't have that same legal authority.

The Virginian-Pilot also ran a response piece from Daphna Nachminovitch, who leads PETA's ironically named "Rescue Department."
("Rescuing" pets from what? Oxygen over-consumption?) Nachminovitch basically argued that PETA staffers were doing the animals they
killed a favor because the conditions in North Carolina shelters are so bad.

You would expect an animal "rights" group to at least make a good faith effort to find "rescued" pets homes before killing them.
But in North Carolina, PETA's workers didn't even wait to get out of the parking lot before they "put down" dozens of perfectly healthy
and adoptable animals. And very little of PETA's $25 million dollar budget goes towards pet adoption programs.
So while PETA may be helping animals by taking them out of substandard shelters, what it does to them clearly violates the principle
of animal "rights" as it is commonly understood.

That message has gotten through to at least one long-time PETA donor. Yesterday, animal activist Brennan Browne --
a PETA "supporter and defender since 1980" -- announced on an animal rights mailing list that he's removing PETA as the beneficiary
of his $3 million life insurance policy because, in his words...

It turns my stomach to think I've been giving 26 years of support to an organization that has been
unceremoniously killing and trashing innocents by the thousands.

The Center For Copyright © 2007 Center for Consumer Freedom. All Rights Reserved.
P.O. Box 27414 | Washington, DC 20038 | Tel: 202-463-7112 | info@consumerfreedom.com

As many as 340,000 cows and steers have been left stranded by southeastern Colorado's most recent snowstorm,
and National Guard units are helping ranchers in a frantic bid to save the freezing animals. Faced with 15-foot
snowdrifts, rescuers are airlifting bales of hay and hoping for the best. But as Coloradans are learning, the
wealthy People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA) isn't about to lift a finger. Not for those animals --
the ones destined to be flame-broiled, grilled, or roasted. Appearing on Denver radio station KRFX yesterday
morning, Colorado Governor Bill Owens spoke for all of us. PETA, he declared, are "a bunch of losers" & frauds.

The dustup started when KRFX morning hosts Rick Lewis & Michael Floorwax (yes, that's his real name) called
PETA to ask if the group would help feed and rescue the snowbound herds. PETA spokeswoman Reannon Peterson
took the call, and bluntly replied: "You're going to save them, and then in 6 months they're going to be killed
and end up on someone's plate. So I don't know that it's really the most noble cause."

Peterson added that wild animals caught in the blizzard's wake -- the same animals that PETA routinely criticizes
hunters for bagging -- also weren't worth spending PETA's money to save. "It's an act of God," she said, "There's
really nothing to be done."

Enter Governor Owens. In addition to labeling PETA "losers" and "frauds," he expressed amazement that "PETA
doesn't want us to feed freezing cattle" and stated that "it's symbolic of what PETA stands for." Finally, Owens declared
that PETA is "a strange group of people. Don't send money to PETA." Asked a few hours later by KRFX sister-station
KOA-AM to reiterate his position on PETA, he put it plainly: "What a bunch of losers. Don't give your money to PETA."

Quote from www.consumerfreedom.com -- We couldn't agree more. As we're telling the media today, the Colorado snowstorm is
exactly the kind of emergency that should send PETA into action. But PETA -- whose president publicly wished for a foot-and-mouth
epidemic in 2001 -- has a stubborn anti-meat bias. To this group of tofu-devouring loonies, seeing the livelihood of cattle ranchers evaporate
is a cheap thrill. This may also be the reason why the vegetarian-oriented Humane Society of the United States isn't
spending any of the $145 million it raised last year on Colorado helicopter rentals and hay bales.

Quote from www.consumerfreedom.com -- We couldn't agree more. As we're telling the media today, the Colorado snowstorm is
exactly the kind of emergency that should send PETA into action. But PETA -- whose president publicly wished for a foot-and-mouth
epidemic in 2001 -- has a stubborn anti-meat bias. To this group of tofu-devouring loonies, seeing the livelihood of cattle ranchers evaporate
is a cheap thrill. This may also be the reason why the vegetarian-oriented Humane Society of the United States isn't
spending any of the $145 million it raised last year on Colorado helicopter rentals and hay bales.

Louisville Mayor, Jerry Abramson, has signed an anti-pet ordinance into law despite overwhelming opposition!

This law affects ALL of us! Louisville Kentucky is home to one of the largest dog show clusters in our country!
Your intact show dog COULD be CONFISCATED in Louisville, Kentucky!
For more information, please visit:

The time is NOW to fight legislation like this all around our country AND the world!!
It CAN and HAS happened all over our country!
Do not spend your hard earned dollars in Louisville, Kentucky!
Send Louisville representatives and mayor Letters and emails to express your views!
VOTE legislators with an animal rights agenda OUT of office!

JoAnn Jones, who heads a homeless pet adoption group, had this choice quote about the trial in today’s News and Observer (Raleigh):

While PETA has been quick to denounce the way Cook and Hinkle disposed of the dead animals, it has yet to condemn the two for killing them in the first place.
That’s strange since this is a group that equates dogs to boys, and won’t even approve of the necessary use of rats for the sake of life-saving medical research.

In fact, PETA’s lawyer -- Phil Hirschkop -- has publicly defended widespread euthanization, claiming that the conditions in shelters can be so bad and the prospects
of finding the animals homes can be so slim that they would be better of dead.

On the first point, for a member of PETA, saying an animal would be better off dead than living in a shelter is the same thing as saying it’s better for an orphan to be
dead than to have to live in an orphanage. A pronouncement like that doesn’t seem to square with the notion of animal or human rights.

Second, workers at shelters in and around where the crime took place have been quick to dispute the idea that they can’t find strays suitable caretakers.
Notably, JoAnn Jones also told the News and Observer, “We have a lot of dogs that are sleeping in beds, riding in cars and living the good life.”

If you picked up today’s New York Times you might have caught our subtly-worded ad for PetaKillsAnimals.com, where we’ll be posting updates on the trial all this week.