[sunridge1]

Well looky here. Leo played you all with news that is at least a year old. tsk tsk ladies and gents.

[Coanteen]

Well looky here. Leo played you all with news that is at least a year old. tsk tsk ladies and gents.

Errrm...as hyperbolically cray as I find the OP, nobody was "played" (unless they failed to read). The OP does clearly state that both laws have already passed, so not sure what you're getting at.

[sunridge1]

Pot stirring at it's finest.
Notice he hasn't posted?

[Coanteen]

No, he's posted a bunch of times, page 6 being the last.

[sunridge1]

mea culpa then. Carry on.

[michaleenflynn]

Michaleenflynn, re: the trials and tribulations of the NYC Carriage horses, yes I know, I've bee reading and commenting in support of the NYC Carriage horses since I learned of it right here on COTH.
*********
Can you define 'RARA's as you used it above where I bolded, cause I think I may be confused who exactly you are referring to there.
Maybe for clarity's sake, instead of using the term RARA we could be specific?

Yes, I know you have been following and supporting, which is why I said that - if you remember, we have even had a few PMs

The RARAs are the same cast of characters we still have: The Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages (Forel's group), PETA, HSUS, Win Animal Rights (WAR), and NYCLASS (Nislick's group). (At least two dozen lesser and not necessarily local RARA groups were exhorted to sign on, mainly by Forel, and did, but they were/are of little consequence)

Like I said, the ASPCA had to stand down somewhat for the reasons I gave. But that didn't stop their $$$ and political arm, NYCLASS, from moving ahead against us.

[Fairfax]

Pot stirring at it's finest.
Notice he hasn't posted?

Guess you are still bitter over the exposure of your conflicting posts.

You would do well, Mary, to read. There is a lot of interesting information coming out from interpretation to application.

I am learning a lot and I did not think I had any points of value to make.

I have noticed, a poster or two is doing the same to others here, that they have done to me on other threads. Demand sources,,,,then not bother to read them.

[D_BaldStockings]

So per Baldstockings reading of the bill, the first sentence of the OP is not accurate?

"AB 1117 gives full authority to humane and peace officers to seize and destroy animals without a warrant."

Sorry, I tried to quote and lost the OP statement...

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/597.1.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...ntroduced.html

Where an animal is perceived to be abandoned, no warrant is needed; agent may seize and decide whether to euth or not.

The seizing agent is required to deliver /conspicuously post a NOTICE within 48 hrs excluding weekends or holidays that contains...

(C) The authority and purpose for the seizure, or impoundment,
including the time, place, and circumstances under which the animal
was seized. (this is not a warrant, no judge involved)

...
(g) Where the need for immediate seizure is not present and prior
to the commencement of any criminal proceedings authorized by this
section, the agency shall provide the owner or keeper of the animal,
if known or ascertainable after reasonable investigation, with the
opportunity for a hearing prior to any seizure or impoundment

Warrants are for arrests of humans. No warrant is needed to seize an animal if the agent perceives emergency need.


The amendments to the law REQUIRE owners to foot bills for all sezures where hearing by the agency finds in the agency's favor.
Where there is finding in the agency's favor, animals are forfeited.

On subsequent CONVICTION or GUILTY on related criminal charges, it is MANDATORY that a 5yr for misdemeanor, 10 yr for felony separation from all animals is part of the sentence - can't visit people with animals, either.

Except at judge's discretion in the case of a livestock business that is one's livelihood.

[Airfern]

Horses, llamas, birds and lizards are not dogs and cats. Only dogs and cats are subject to the vet transport need.

An officer may decide without even a phone consult with a vet to euthanize a 'sick' non-canine /non-feline animal on the spot. No owner recourse.


So, if you walk your dog on leash and decide to step into a no dogs grocery to buy a bottle of water for him, leaving him tied to a bike rack...
Have you abandoned the dog? -it is in a public area.
Failed to provide shelter and water? - wasn't in the shade (day is cool, mind you)and obviously no water if you are going to buy it.
Created a hazard to the public? Doggie is tied to a bike rack and unattended; someone could be frightened, trip on the leash, dog could block pedestrians...

Right there is a possible seizure case depending on the sanity of the agent involved.
Note that seizure and finding the owner does not mean your animal is released to you then and there.
Nope.

Goes to the vet for eval and med treatment (you think doggie won't be a bit stressed out?), then to the shelter where, if you can prove to the people who seized doggie in the first place you are not abusive or neglectful you may be able to pay up ($500+ for time, vet and board I'm thinking, plus the fine for abandonment ($ ??) and retrieve your dog.
With no recourse.

Have a nice day.

Right there is a possible seizure case depending on the sanity of the agent involved.?
Good lord what kind of animal control officer would impound based on that scenario, Homer Simpson? Barney Fife?
I realize that common sense is lacking these days but it's a stretch to think a trained officer would impound a dog in your scenario.

[stolen virtue]

Lets call a spade Jill Burnell has NOTHING to do with reality.

Only when you are living in a delusional world. I cannot believe the tin foil hat brigade think that animal regulations are all out to remove your pets and horses. Now that is delusional.

[Lynnwood]

Only when you are living in a delusional world. I cannot believe the tin foil hat brigade think that animal regulations are all out to remove your pets and horses. Now that is delusional.

Its funny you say that talking to you is VERY similar to talking with Jill.

[Alagirl]

Right there is a possible seizure case depending on the sanity of the agent involved.?
Good lord what kind of animal control officer would impound based on that scenario, Homer Simpson? Barney Fife?
I realize that common sense is lacking these days but it's a stretch to think a trained officer would impound a dog in your scenario.

trained being the key word....but you left out agenda driven.....

[stolen virtue]

Its funny you say that talking to you is VERY similar to talking with Jill.

Where did I ever say "that talking to me is VERY similar to talking with Jill"? I think you might want to educate yourself before babbling incoherently on this board.

Jill Burnell had several horses seized from her run down facility. One is at UC Davis being treated. Time to function in the real world and accept that government agencies need to deal with abuse and neglect and that the real world needs to find solutions and not just babble about conspiracy theories.

[Fairfax]

I am sure you read the thread where UC Davis was attemtping to make their minimal standards law without going through the legislature.

As for AC training. Please refer to the case in New Jersey where the horse owner printed an article where AC and Police were trained to lie about their evaulations with the statement that it could always be corrected later. The aim was to seize the animal/s.

Most AC have minimal training and also most vets only have the introduction to equines which is a 3 month course. And, HSUS sponsors many vets by paying for their education.

[Lynnwood]

Where did I ever say "that talking to me is VERY similar to talking with Jill"? I think you might want to educate yourself before babbling incoherently on this board.

Jill Burnell had several horses seized from her run down facility. One is at UC Davis being treated. Time to function in the real world and accept that government agencies need to deal with abuse and neglect and that the real world needs to find solutions and not just babble about conspiracy theories.

SMH

[CatPS]

I've been looking at the title of this thread for days, thinking that it said "Tin Foil HATERS"... and I couldn't figure out why anyone would hate tin foil so much. It's useful around the kitchen, recyclable, and relatively inexpensive. Plus, WTH does it have to do with animal rights?

[Bluey]

I've been looking at the title of this thread for days, thinking that it said "Tin Foil HATERS"... and I couldn't figure out why anyone would hate tin foil so much. It's useful around the kitchen, recyclable, and relatively inexpensive. Plus, WTH does it have to do with animal rights?

Do you really want to know, or are you being sarcastic?

[Dispatcher]

Ok. I have to ask. What is the reference to "tin foil hats" mean. So many threads using this, and frankly I cannot figure it out.

I remember back in the '50's there was a cartoon called Tom Terrific and he wore what looked like an upside down funnell on his head. Is it some sort of off shoot of that?

I seem to be the only one that doesn't get it. But I'm serious--what does it mean???

[oliverreed]

oooh, I know the a nswer to this one! Sometimes crazy people think that they have to wear hats made out of tinfoil to keep the government/aliens/what have you from controlling their thoughts.

[Alagirl]

Ok. I have to ask. What is the reference to "tin foil hats" mean. So many threads using this, and frankly I cannot figure it out.

I remember back in the '50's there was a cartoon called Tom Terrific and he wore what looked like an upside down funnell on his head. Is it some sort of off shoot of that?

I seem to be the only one that doesn't get it. But I'm serious--what does it mean???

it is a reference to those who believe the government/space aliens or whomever are spying on them and to keep themselves safe they fashion a head covering from tinfoil to block the brainwave transmission.

It has become a popular term among those who try to point out where certain groups are digging and chipping away at our lifestyle.