Funny that in 2011, PIJAC joined the HSUS to also publicly support California's SB 917, a measure that prohibits sales of animals in public places. If "rescue" is an industry like any other, why is PIJAC supporting "rescue" sales in the park, when they previously supported a law to prohibit sales in public places? Why is PIJAC colluding with the HSUS on measures that prevent pet sales, yet at the same time promoting sales in the park?
Has PIJAC been hijacked by the schizophrenic insanity of the animal rights movement?
So, here in California we have many cities which allow no pets for sale in pet stores, unless they are from unlicensed, unregulated "rescues." No public sales, unless they are from unlicensed, unregulated "rescues."
A very successful rescue in my area, "Priceless Pets" has been obtaining pets from the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA (IVHS) in Pomona, California, and selling them at retail. In fact, they are following the suggested business model here in California cities. They are selling these pets in a retail outlet pet store in Chino Hills, CA.
That's good, right? We are passing laws to outlaw public sales, to outlaw pets in pet stores unless they come from a "rescue." So, our local rescue is going with the trend, rescuing dogs and selling them in a retail pet store outlet.
Hold it right there! The IVHS now is prohibiting Priceless Pets from pulling animals from the shelter. They want to examine PP's "business model." They are afraid that Priceless Pets is operating as......hold on to your hat.....a PET STORE!!
OH NO!
But wait, we all thought that's what the public wants? Pet stores selling rescued animals for adoption? Our legislators are passing laws giving rescues monopolies on sales. And now, they don't want the rescues to operate as "pet stores?" It's a bit late to change your mind about that, now, isn't it?
Maybe the plain truth of the metter is that they simply don't want ANYONE to sell pets. Not pet stores, not breeders, not rescues, not anyone!
We want you to sell rescued pets in public places and pet stores....yes, we do....no, we don't.....yes, we do.....no, we don't.......yes, we do.....no, we don't....
In fact, this very same rescue group, Priceless Pets, has been persecuted unmercifully by the Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA. In 2011, the owners of Priceless Pets WENT TO JAIL FOR FIVE DAYS, at the insistence of the IVHS, for zoning violations!
Yes, they really want to find homes for the animals, don't they? NOT! They'd much rather kill them. The animal rights faction really does live up to the motto:
"Animal Rights Means No Animals Left."
This entire "pet store vs rescue" fiasco coming to the forefront this week reminded me that I had never posted the article to this blog about California's SB 917. It went to "The Dog Press," but not here. So, here it is now, three years later. Thanks, PIJAC, for helping the HSUS push this one through!
California
approves ban on public sales of animals – SB 917
Sale
of an animal in public will now be a criminal offense
Geneva
Coats, R.N.
Secretary,California
Federation of Dog Clubs
July
27, 2011
SB
917 was signed into law yesterday by Governor Jerry “Moonbeam”
Brown. The criminal animal cruelty statute now will include public
sales of animals, making sales a misdemeanor offense right up
there in the same league with beating, torturing and cruelly killing
an animal. The law will go into effect in 2012.
The
notorious CA SB 917 has been promoted by supporters as a ban on
"roadside sales" of animals. In actuality, this bill
prohibits any public animal sales activities unless specifically
exempted….roadside or not. No animal sales may transpire in
any public place. Offenders would face a fine on a first
offense, and misdemeanor criminal charges thereafter. SB 917 adds to
the current criminal animal cruelty statue. Current law describes
animal cruelty offenses (such as torturing, tormenting, cruelly
beating, mutilating, or cruelly killing an animal) and specifies that
such activities can be charged as either misdemeanors or felonies,
with possible jail time. SB 917 doubles the maximum allowed penalties
for these offenses.
Equating
heinous, abusive actions with animal sales sets the bar for
animal cruelty at a very low threshold. Under the language of this
bill, selling puppies will become as unfavorably regarded by the
public as selling such contraband items as illegal drugs or stolen
merchandise. This bill also establishes a worrisome precedent by
criminalizing the very act of sales itself. The act of selling is not
inherently abusive by any stretch of the imagination. Where will this
lead in the future? It is frightening to contemplate.
Dog
club meeting at a coffee shop? Transferring ownership of animals in
the parking lot is now a criminal offense. Do you live 200 miles
from your buyer? Be careful! Meeting midway to sell a puppy in
any public place could now earn you a rap sheet. Giving
kittens away at the local supermarket could be considered a
misdemeanor offense under the provisions of this bill, as that could
be construed by overzealous officers as “giving away as part of a
commercial transaction”. Hey, the kid has change in his
pocket? He must have been selling those kittens!
In
a practical sense, what does this mean for animals? Sadly, it means
that many people will be afraid to place animals at all, and instead
of animals finding good homes, more dogs and cats will
become homeless, to starve or be hit by a car; or, they
might end up in the local shelter where they will add to the
death toll. The Good Samaritan who attempts to find homes for the
litter of kittens under his porch would end up with a
criminal record.
SB
917 was crafted with some specific exemptions. Shelters, nonprofit
rescues, SPCAs, and pet stores are exempt, as are events held by 4-H
Clubs, and Junior or Future Farmers Clubs. Agricultural/county
fairs are exempt. Stockyards, public livestock sales, and live animal
markets are exempt. Dog shows, cat shows and bird shows are exempt.
The
fact that certain groups can be exempt from the “crime” of
selling, or that the “crime” is OK in some locations but not
others, demonstrates that the act of selling itself is not inherently
undesirable or criminal.
But
beyond that, what does the exemption for "dog shows" mean
for us as dog hobbyists?
Not
much. In order to comply with this law, the dog sale must occur
on the confines of the showground. As we all are aware, AKC has
a strict policy of no dog sales at dog shows. Further, in order
for the sale to occur legally, the show must ensure that all
exhibitors comply with all applicable federal, state, and local
animal laws. This requirement would be a practical
impossibility. Exhibitors travel from different cities, counties
and even different states to the showgrounds. Different areas have
different animal control regulations. In addition, the exhibitors
must carry proof of their paid entry fee. This last
requirement seems to indicate that animal control personnel intend to
police showgrounds.
And
there is good reason to believe that animal control personnel intend
to police this new law, determining administration of violations
and penalties. The bill states: "A notice describing the charge
and the penalty for a violation of this section may be issued by any
peace officer, animal control officer......or humane officer".
Many animal control officers have an adversarial
attitude toward dog breeders, and will now have the power
to serve them with criminal charges and penalties simply for
conducting an honest and honorable business transaction. Criminal
records adversely affects an individual's employment
eligibility and credibility in general and should not be imposed
lightly by an animal control officer with an ax to grind and little
education in constitutional law.
If
the dog show exemption is completely meaningless for dog hobbyists
(and it is), what venue for sales is left to California dog breeders?
Sales in public is prohibited, and AKC dog shows do not permit on
site sales. The only alternative is to conduct dog sales from private
residences. The dangers of an individual selling anything from his
home are well-known. Home invasion robberies, assaults and even
murders have occurred during private party sales gone awry. There
have been documented incidents where puppies were stolen at
gunpoint from individuals conducting sales at their residences.
Putting
aside the danger involved, dog breeding and selling is already laden
with multiple onerous regulations and is rapidly becoming cost
prohibitive in California. Many localities including Los Angeles City
and County limit breeders to one litter per year, and an expensive
breeding permit is required. In the city of Los Angeles, it costs
$335 per year to license ONE intact dog; and this only IF you meet
the requirements to qualify for the intact exemption! The very
survival of dog breeding in California is tenuous at best.
The
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the sponsor of SB 917.
That fact alone should tell you that the bill is part of a larger
agenda to stifle animal ownership. This same legislation was brought
forward in previous sessions in 2009 and 2010, and did not pass.
In 2009, then-governor Schwarzenegger returned the bill, AB 1122,
writing:
"I
am returning Assembly Bill 1122 without my signature. I am concerned
with the scope and unintended consequences of this bill and that it
does not assure the humane and ethical treatment and welfare of
animals. This bill has unknown costs associated with the enforcement
and implementation of prohibiting the sale of live animals in
specified venues and could drive the selling of animals underground
or to private sites. For this reason I am unable to sign this bill."
"House
Bill 1768 would encroach upon the rights of private enterprise and
property owners while fundamentally altering and expanding the role
of county government....... As a state, we should not raise barriers
of entry into the marketplace, stifle competition or hinder the
entrepreneurial spirit."
Those
involved in breeding and raising animals heartily concur!
The
HSUS, the sponsor of SB 917, has an admitted agenda to make animal
breeding incrementally more expensive and inconvenient. This
bill is another weapon in the anti-dog breeder arsenal. Couple
the ban on public sales with other bills presented this session that
require sellers to report buyers information to animal control (AB
1121), that require microchipping of any dog that is impounded (SB
702), and that prohibit anyone convicted of an animal offense from
residing with animals for a period of 5 to 10 years (AB 1117), and we
can see the pieces of the puzzle fitting together. With HSUS
sponsoring the bill, the intent is clear. Criminalize dog owners by
any means possible, and then prohibit them from future animal
ownership for a good long time.
The
Animal Council and California Federation of Dog Clubs opposed SB 917
early on, and other groups in the state soon joined in the effort as
well.
But
sadly, the AKC chose to remain silent on this bill, citing lack of an
official policy on public sales. Dwindling numbers of AKC
registrations and declining sales by private parties does not seem to
be sufficient motivation to spur AKC into active opposition of all
anti-dog ownership proposals.
The
Farm Bureau also naively did not oppose SB 917, pointing to
exemptions in the bill for public sales of livestock. Don’t farmers
use herding, hunting and guard dogs? Do farmers realize that under SB
917, they could now be arrested for selling a puppy at a fair or
livestock show? Creeping incrementalism in these animal
rights-sponsored bills will hasten the day that working dogs
cannot be obtained at any price.
PIJAC
(Pet Industry Joint advisory Council) actively supported SB 917. It
seems that PIJAC was delighted at the thought of eliminating any
competition for pet stores and heavily-regulated commercial breeders.
Unfortunately, the animal rights groups in California are also
lobbying intensely to ban sales of purpose-bred pets in pet
stores and replace them with unregulated “rescues”. Combine a pet
store sales ban with a ban on public sales, and consumers in
California will have limited options for obtaining the pet of their
dreams.
On
August 2, 1776, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence,
Benjamin Franklin said "We must all hang together, or assuredly
we shall all hang separately” – meaning that if they did not band
together in the fight against the British, they would all be hanged
separately. These words still ring true today, 235 years later. We
need all the animal interest groups to work together to oppose
anti-dog ownership legislation.
So be warned, Californians. Soon you can be a criminal just for selling a dog.
So be warned, Californians. Soon you can be a criminal just for selling a dog.
New
crimes created by CA SB 917
SEC.
2. Section 597.4 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
597.4. (a) It shall be unlawful for
any person to willfully do
either
of the following:
(1)
Sell or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live
animal
on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot,
carnival,
or boardwalk.
(2)
Display or offer for sale, or display or offer to give away as
part
of a commercial transaction, a live animal, if the act of
selling
or giving away the live animal is to occur on any street,
highway,
public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk.
If "rescue" is an industry like any other, why is PIJAC supporting "rescue" sales in the park, when they previously supported a law to prohibit sales in public places?
ReplyDelete