Juggling proper care of animals and the law.

[Bluey]

This is dog group, that is fighting the onslaught of animal rights proponents that want to end our use of animals.
This will affect our horses also, eventually:


---"Pivotal Florida ruling boosts pet owners' rights More Info



Almost a year and a half after NAIA Trust and two of its members sued Volusia County Florida over its new animal control ordinance, a federal judge has issued a key ruling permitting the case to go forward to trial.

The plaintiffs object to the licensing requirements of the county and assert that their rights to equal protection, due process and freedom from unreasonable searches are violated by the licensing requirements.

Plaintiffs have not made formal complete application for "hobby breeder" licenses because they allege they would be required to waive some of their federal and state constitutional rights in order to obtain such licenses, and they are not willing to do so.

The court found that, contrary to the county's arguments, because of the nature of the claims asserted by plaintiffs, plaintiffs have standing to pursue this case at this time. "... [A] denial of equal treatment is an actual injury even when the complainant is able to overcome the challenged barrier." Plaintiffs allege that they are being subjected to unequal treatment and that the county may not force them to waive their 4th Amendment rights as a condition of licensure. "...[T]he court finds that plaintiffs may pursue their claims even without having made a formal license application."

Patti Strand, National Director of NAIA Trust, said "This is what we've been waiting for and we feel very optimistic. Finally we can take the search and seizure issue, the mandatory spay/neuter issue, and all of our other concerns to trial.

Now the real fight begins. The goal is to stop the march of unconstitutional animal laws that empower the government and private groups to take our animals and sell them at a profit without just cause, or force us to perform life altering surgeries on our pets without due process. This is a battle that must be fought. The alternative is to allow our powerful opponents to prevail by outspending us and bleeding our resources while they usurp our constitutional rights.

Please join us in our fight and donate today. We can not do it without your support.


For further information contact us at NAIA Trust

If you received this link from a friend, click here to sign up for our alerts and articles.
NAIA Trust
Strengthening the human-animal bond and safeguarding the rights of responsible animal owners"---




While we are glad that those in charge can regulate and seize animals if not cared for properly, as animal control does in most places, when those regulations and seizures are conducted for other than to insure the animal's basic well being, that is impinging on our rights to own and use our animals.

One example is when government agencies gladly give animal control contracts to anyone that will take that off their hands.
The groups jumping in on that are many times heavily influenced by animal rights fanatics, if not directly run by animal rights groups.
That clearly is posing a conflict of interest, when those given the animal control contracts are following their agenda of eliminating animal use and the abuses that follow to those that own animals by those people.
We have heard of several cases lately, some in horses, where these questions came up.

I think that, what this group quoted above wants and every animal owner should demand is that, while everyone stands behind the rights we have as a society to see that animals not be abused, those that want to keep animals can do so without undue interference with the ones that want to eventually eliminate any use.

I hope some laws will come forth from these situations clearly determining that the lawful use of animals is a right in itself.
This is but one step in that process.

[philosoraptor]

While I understand your stance of animals-as-property, the law recognizes that animals can suffer. By leaving animals in an abusive situation until the slow wheels of justice come up with warrants, custody changes, arraignments, and convictions -- the animals are dying or dead. I have seen it firsthand. It's not pretty. There must be some legal way for Animal Control to investigate complaints without requiring a Search Warrant every single time.

It's the same logic that allows Child Protective Services to intervene in a situation that puts a child at high risk before any criminal charges are filed. You're not in favor with putting a beaten-up 2 yr old back into the home who broke his arms in the first place, right?

The horse (or dog or cat) didn't asked to be starved to brink-of-death or beaten until he cannot move. He doesn't deserve this. Why should the bleeding dog-fight dog not be rescued, just to protect what animal hoarders & abusers claim are their "rights"?

Bluey -- we can argue about the sanctity of property rights & privacy but there isn't such a thing in America. Your property can be inspected at any time without a Warrant, for example by the Tax Assessors, Code & Zoning Department, and Soil & Conservation department. Why take that power away from CPS and Animal Control?

[Beverley]

While I understand your stance of animals-as-property, the law recognizes that animals can suffer. By leaving animals in an abusive situation until the slow wheels of justice come up with warrants, custody changes, arraignments, and convictions -- the animals are dying or dead. I have seen it firsthand. It's not pretty. There must be some legal way for Animal Control to investigate complaints without requiring a Search Warrant every single time.

I don't disagree with you on the merits. The developing problem (seizure of the Murder Hollow bassets being one example) is 'deputized' groups, local animal rights organizations without sufficient knowledge or expertise of proper animal care, coming in and taking animals without due process.

Years ago I had a visit from animal control, they had received a 'concerned citizen' call about a 'starving horse.' Said starving horse was a 31 yo toothless mare, at the end of winter, in fact she ate more than the other four horses combined, but, well, she was 31, and always dropped off at the end of winter.

The AC officer was quite apologetic after my explanation which included inviting him to call the horses' vet for verification as to their care- and I wasn't offended, a passer-by wouldn't know the full story on the horse, BUT. If instead it had been some unqualified do-gooder, the way certain laws are structured now, that horse could have been seized and taken from me, to a place where she WOULD suffer- some strange holding facility where she would NOT have gotten the quality of care she was receiving from me, and I might never again have seen a beloved horse I owned for all but the first two years of her life.

And, sorry, but that is just flat wrong.

I absolutely agree that laws should protect the welfare of the animals. The problem lies in these creeping little movements where UNQUALIFIED people obtain seizure powers. It has already happened too often.

[Lori B]

What are these groups objecting to, specifically? I don't care about the precedent they are trying to set; what is the government requiring of them that they find problematic? The initial post doesn't state this. ?????

[Lori B]

I know this would probably make you blow a gasket, Bluey, but I suspect that these laws pertain to spaying and neutering being required, right?

If animal welfare laws are passed that make licensing sexually intact dogs and cats more expensive than altered ones, I think that is a good thing. It's the only way to make owners make better decisions, because really, most folks don't want or need to breed their pets, they are just too effing cheap and lazy to fix 'em. You know this. I know this. Otherwise, we are all made to bear the costs of unwanted animal care. How is that fair or just?

But if the law forbids keeping unaltered pets, that's not right, and I wouldn't support it.

Instead of outlawing it, though, I'd just make it more expensive. Just my $0.02.

[Arizona DQ]

I know this would probably make you blow a gasket, Bluey, but I suspect that these laws pertain to spaying and neutering being required, right?

If animal welfare laws are passed that make licensing sexually intact dogs and cats more expensive than altered ones, I think that is a good thing. It's the only way to make owners make better decisions, because really, most folks don't want or need to breed their pets, they are just too effing cheap and lazy to fix 'em. You know this. I know this. Otherwise, we are all made to bear the costs of unwanted animal care. How is that fair or just?

But if the law forbids keeping unaltered pets, that's not right, and I wouldn't support it.

Instead of outlawing it, though, I'd just make it more expensive. Just my $0.02.

Making it more expensive to keep intact dogs will cause more people to not license their dogs. What is fair to charge those of us who keep intact animals? $100 or $200 per dog? Why should I be charged more just because I show my dogs? Once a law is put into effect it is very easy for the government to increase the fees to make it impossible for small, responsible breeders to keep their hobby going. The people who indiscriminately breed their dogs are not the ones who even bother to license them in the first place, laws will not even affect them! Once again these laws will hurt those of us who follow the law, breed carefully and produce healthy puppies!

[carolprudm]

Making it more expensive to keep intact dogs will cause more people to not license their dogs. What is fair to charge those of us who keep intact animals? $100 or $200 per dog? Why should I be charged more just because I show my dogs? Once a law is put into effect it is very easy for the government to increase the fees to make it impossible for small, responsible breeders to keep their hobby going. The people who indiscriminately breed their dogs are not the ones who even bother to license them in the first place, laws will not even affect them! Once again these laws will hurt those of us who follow the law, breed carefully and produce healthy puppies!

A few years ago VA passed a law requiring vets to report the names and addresses of everyone who got their dog a rabies shot.

Evidently the number of dogs recieving rabies shots has declined.

And I just got a letter informing me that if I didn't get a license for Kismet I would be reported to AC.

UMMMMM, Kis is a CAT. and cats are not required to be licensed.

And FWIW, many people who do have intact dogs and bitches prevent unwanted puppies the old fashioned way....by not letting the animals run loose!

[Curiously]

Making it more expensive to keep intact dogs will cause more people to not license their dogs. What is fair to charge those of us who keep intact animals? $100 or $200 per dog? Why should I be charged more just because I show my dogs? Once a law is put into effect it is very easy for the government to increase the fees to make it impossible for small, responsible breeders to keep their hobby going. The people who indiscriminately breed their dogs are not the ones who even bother to license them in the first place, laws will not even affect them! Once again these laws will hurt those of us who follow the law, breed carefully and produce healthy puppies!

Arizona has it EXACTLY right!!! In the early years of these animal rights legislation (and make no mistake, this type of legislation that attacks GOOD owners is always supported by AR groups!!), one of these laws requiring increased fees for intact animals passed, with support from reputable dog breeders and exhibitors who felt as some of you do -- it's better to pay a bit more and have a law that will go after those who breed indiscriminately. Yep, well, it passed with a fee of around $15 bucks for spayed/neutered animals, and maybe $50 for intact animals. Okay, maybe the higher price might be worth it right?

Guess what? Once the law was in place, it was VERY easy for the AR groups to very quietly change it in committee or something, so that the general public including the dog owners who had been previously involved in the legislation had no idea it was up for alteration until it was a done deal. So, within a year, that fee for intact animals (whether you breed them or NOT), shot up to $1000 -- ONE THOUSAND BUCKS PER ANIMAL ANNUALLY. Just to be able to own a dog that you show, even if you never breed a litter.

It has also been shown that failure to license goes UP when this type of legislation passes.

Encourage enforcement of animal WELFARE laws already on the books, don't add obnoxious AR laws that don't help animals at all.

[cowgirljenn]

The AC officer was quite apologetic after my explanation which included inviting him to call the horses' vet for verification as to their care- and I wasn't offended, a passer-by wouldn't know the full story on the horse, BUT. If instead it had been some unqualified do-gooder, the way certain laws are structured now, that horse could have been seized and taken from me, to a place where she WOULD suffer- some strange holding facility where she would NOT have gotten the quality of care she was receiving from me, and I might never again have seen a beloved horse I owned for all but the first two years of her life.

And, sorry, but that is just flat wrong.

I absolutely agree that laws should protect the welfare of the animals. The problem lies in these creeping little movements where UNQUALIFIED people obtain seizure powers. It has already happened too often.

We need good laws defining animal neglect/abuse (and abuse is harder - what you call abuse, someone else may call training). Then we need good training for anyone investigating an animal abuse or neglect report. I think law enforcement should absolutely be involved whenever an owner is approached about a potential neglect or abuse case.

Last year, I was approached by a woman who runs a horse rescue here in Texas. She wanted me to join her in petitioning the state legislature to make it legal for us to seize horses. I cringed and politely declined. I don't want the power to seize animals in the hands of lay people. I'm fine with educated lay people (like myself and other qualified people) consulting with law enforcement and assisting in a seizure. But to give us power to go onto someone else's property and take their animal on our own, without working with law enforcement? It is far too open to abuse..

[Curiously]

A few years ago VA passed a law requiring vets to report the names and addresses of everyone who got their dog a rabies shot.

Evidently the number of dogs recieving rabies shots has declined.

And I just got a letter informing me that if I didn't get a license for Kismet I would be reported to AC.

That particular law also requires other personally identifying information including the race of the owner be reported. Nope, not a joke, the vet is to submit the owner's race/ethnicity as the vet determines it to be.

I know a lot of people who are/were involved in dog rescue -- a number of rescues had to shut down specifically due to that legislation and it's extremely confining, intrusive restrictions on dog owners and rescuers. And they were GOOD, reputable rescues who took excellent care of the animals. The AR groups *knew* that would happen, and essentially said, *we don't care*. No surprise there, they really DON'T care what happens to the animals at all.

[JSwan]

MayS - I think I understand what you are saying.

No one is arguing against intervening in an exigency. An emergency in which intervention is necessary to prevent death or injury. In such a case a search warrant is not necessary.

In routine complaints, a person has the right to demand a warrant, or to allow the police entry. That's what happened in the Murder Hollow case - and that poor woman was backed into a corner - scared out of her wits - and bullied into surrendering her animals without having any idea what the hell was going on. She asked them to produce a warrant - and they did and still abused her and violated her civil rights. To top it off, she was innocent and lost her animals anyway.

The argument is violation of due process. Some of these laws, while very well intentioned, are an abuse of our right of due process. The guarantee of due process is to protect everyone from abuse of authority.

There are many suits against some of these laws - for good reason. Because innocent people have been targeted, their animals taken from them, and the animals disposed of within hours. Dead, adopted out, or subjected to all sorts of unnecessary veterinary treatment.

The owner has no rights - cannot get the animal back, has no hearing - nothing. People are not advised of their rights. They are told to surrender their animals, not knowing what that means for them and the animals.

On the other end of the spectrum, are cases in which ACO doesn't or can't do anything until the animals are dead or near death. Clearly, that is completely unacceptable and that is not what these suits are about.

The suits either involve specific instances in which a person's civil rights were violated, or specific statutes that are unconstitutional (or may be)

These lawsuits are not about prosecuting animal abusers. These suits are being filed because politicians made some bad policy decisions, and/or some poorly drafted laws were written.

Some people want the same law enforcement authority as police officers, but do not want the training or accountability that goes with it. They want the badge so they can pursue an agenda. That's unacceptable - and personally I think it's bad for animal welfare. It means you've got a biased ACO who may target certain people - and completely miss neglect in other cases.

Authority without accountability, without much or any training, with sovereign immunity, and a grudge.

What we want are good, professional ACO's and good law.

The suits are about bad law. They're not anti-animal welfare.


In case anyone would like to read the pleadings - here ya go. (not up to date)

http://www.naiatrust.org/PDF/OrderdenyingVolusia.pdf


[quote=MayS;4935078] There must be some legal way for Animal Control to investigate complaints without requiring a Search Warrant every single time.
/quote]

[Lori B]

I think that non-official seizures are a terrible idea. I think that horrifically underfunded, moronic, crony-ridden and worthless governmental enforcement is to blame for the idea sounding anything but cuhraayzee. Which is caused by..... (sorry, but it's true) people being unwilling to pay enough TAXES to fund enforcement in a competent and adequate way.

I think that charging more for owning unaltered animals is totally fair. I own altered cats, which I keep indoors. Why should I personally (through my taxes) pay to care for and euthanize stray animals that are bred by those who own unaltered animals who let them run loose?

I get that those of you who show and never let animals out think this is a catastrophic abridgment of your rights, and I. Don't Buy It. It's a luxury to breed animals, not a necessity; the animals themselves don't 'need' to breed. If you want to breed cats or dogs (or horses), and it costs a little more to keep them unaltered, then maybe you'll think harder about which ones you keep intact. If it brought about one more gelding / neutering etc., it would be a good thing, on net.

[JSwan]

But that isn't entirely what the suit was about.

At issue was due process, and the requirement that a person waive their constitutional rights.

If the court held that the statute was lawful, then the next law could have been that in order for YOU to own a horse - YOU must waive your constitutional rights to privacy or due process.

Don't look at this so narrowly. It's not about taxes or fees or which dog keeps his dingaling.

The issue is whether or not the gov't can require a person to waive his constitutionally guaranteed rights in order to have a dog. And if gov't can create separate classes of citizens, who are all treated differently.

That's pretty dramatic if you think about it. We all love animals, want abusers punished, and we all want good ACO's and we all support efforts to catch the bad guys. But waive our rights? Really? And separate classes of citizens who have certain laws applied to them but not others?

If you think about it, it would be easier for the police to catch bad guys if they didn't have to worry about such pesky things as rights. They could just do whatever they wanted.

[pAin't_Misbehavin']

What are these groups objecting to, specifically? I don't care about the precedent they are trying to set; what is the government requiring of them that they find problematic? The initial post doesn't state this. ?????

I haven't read the pleadings in this case, only the Order JSwan linked to her post.

But in many places, anyone with more than a certain number of animals, or anyone with sexually entire animals, is required to apply for a license as a hobby breeder or kennel.

The license application requires the owner to agree to inspections of their premises at any time.

The plaintiffs in this case appear to be arguing that the license requires them to waive their 4th Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against warrantless searches. Warrants, you will remember, must be supported by probable cause and must state with particularity the places to be searched and the things to be seized. They don't allow the government to go on fishing expeditions any time they damn well please - which is exactly what the license application requires of license holders.

And neither the tax assessor nor zoning and code enforcement nor any other government agency gets a pass from abiding by the 4th Amendment, even though in some places they act as though they do.

[wendy]

I think that charging more for owning unaltered animals is totally fair. I own altered cats, which I keep indoors. Why should I personally (through my taxes) pay to care for and euthanize stray animals that are bred by those who own unaltered animals who let them run loose?

I get that those of you who show and never let animals out think this is a catastrophic abridgment of your rights, and I. Don't Buy It. It's a luxury to breed animals, not a necessity; the animals themselves don't 'need' to breed. If you want to breed cats or dogs (or horses), and it costs a little more to keep them unaltered, then maybe you'll think harder about which ones you keep intact. If it brought about one more gelding / neutering etc., it would be a good thing, on net.

big incorrect assumption here- just because someone owns an unaltered animal (or animals) and keeps the animal unaltered for show purposes or for health reasons (yes, there is lots of evidence suggesting that neutering animals, particularly before full maturity is reached, is very bad for their health and quality of life) DOES NOT MEAN that they breed. Ever. One can own a batch of unaltered animals and never produce a single pup, kitten, or foal to burden the system with. And one of the definitions of a responsible breeder is that their results ALSO do not burden the system.
I have trouble believing that increasing a license fee for unaltered animals will lead to the neutering of a single animal. The irresponsible won't even know about the licensing fee (cause they don't license) and thus it won't affect their decisions; the show people will still need to keep their animals intact or they can't show them; and none of this will prevent the birth of a single unwanted animal.
Why should you, who are responsible, have less of a responsibility to pay for the control of stray animals than another responsible person solely because you've had surgery performed on your animals? Neither of you are causing or contributing to the stray animal problem.

[Lori B]

thanks!

I think that the specifics do matter.

And being asked to waive the need for a warrant for a search? No, totally unconstitutional. You can't make people sign away constitutional rights in advance of the situation, I don't think.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND....

I still think that it should cost more to keep intact animals, and that the $$ collected from animal licensure generally should go straight back to real live professional non-private controlled animal welfare law enforcement, shelters, etc.

And I'll say it: if small time breeders of ALL KINDS of animals didn't include in many cases the most egregious offenders against basic animal care laws, laws like this wouldn't sound so good to folks.

I know, you are all about who's agenda is being advanced here, but it's dishonest to insist that the actual real world problems of overbreeding and neglect in small breeding facilities (animal abuse, irresponsible breeding, neglect, etc.) wasn't a serious factor.

Why shouldn't those folks pay more than the owners of altered animals? No one wants to answer that question.

[vacation1]

The issue is whether or not the gov't can require a person to waive his constitutionally guaranteed rights in order to have a dog. And if gov't can create separate classes of citizens, who are all treated differently.

Oh, brother. Dog ownership isn't exactly one of the four freedoms. It's a privilege, with restrictions on people who choose to become a dog owner, just as there are restrictions on people who choose to become car owners. Is it monstrous that people are required to carry accident insurance when they own a car?

And when it comes to the whole separate classes of citizens stuff? Cry me a river. From the AKC openly pursuing puppy mills as clients, to the pit bull people rehoming caninicidal dogs and whining that the media is their only problem, to the 'working dog' people who claim a shiny halo since their pit/hound cross was specially designed to kill feral hawgs, dog people are busy destroying any patience the ordinary person has with dog owners.

keeps the animal unaltered for show purposes or for health reasons (yes, there is lots of evidence suggesting that neutering animals, particularly before full maturity is reached, is very bad for their health and quality of life)

I've seen the stories about that, I think with Boxers? wrt cancer rates being lower in intact bitches, but I can't help noticing the people who are spreading the reports of that study - purebred breeders, who you might say have a dog in that fight.

[JSwan]

Why shouldn't those folks pay more than the owners of altered animals? No one wants to answer that question.

Or look at it another way.

I don't have kids. And yet the majority of my property taxes goes to fund the local school system.

I derive no benefit from these children. They run loose and annoy me. They're also sticky. (the small ones are, anyway. The older ones are just obnoxious)

And yet, the gov't does not care. Every citizen pays property taxes on real estate. No matter how the land is zoned - a tax is levied.

I am paying for the fact that others choose to procreate. My impact on the county is practically nonexistent. I am paying for other people's children to be educated.

It doesn't bother me, really. (except the sticky children). I want my taxes to be as low as possible, of course. But I don't mind that I'm paying for others - it's the way taxes work. It's for the general welfare.

My point is that the whole idea behind licensing, originally, was to prevent the spread of rabies. Back in the day, rabies was a huge problem and the danger it posed to humans was real.

The tag (paid for with an extremely nominal license fee) was merely intended to be evidence that the dog had been vaccinated.

This license was never intended to be used to generate revenue for God only knows what social program. It was strictly a public health measure.

In my state, it costs localities more to collect the revenue than it brings in. It's a loss to the county, and rabies vaccines are declining. Some vets refuse to participate in this law and no longer give rabies vaccines; driving up vet costs for people who have to find different vets to treat different species.

The answer is - raise the license fees!!! 100$ 200$ annually! Sounds great to some people.

Except the purpose of the license was to help stop the spread of rabies.

Taxes and onerous regulation of animal ownership are not really intended to fund animal control - and if you think about it animal control should be fully funded by general revenue - not rely on spotty license revenue of nickels and dimes.

The onerous regulations and taxation of animals is often used to ensure a certain type of person owns an animal - making it something for only the wealthy or well off.

I guess that sounds great except we all know that a person's bank balance is no guarantee an animal is cared for. Only, maybe that it's kept in a gilded cage.

[Curiously]

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND....

I still think that it should cost more to keep intact animals, and that the $$ collected from animal licensure generally should go straight back to real live professional non-private controlled animal welfare law enforcement, shelters, etc.

And I'll say it: if small time breeders of ALL KINDS of animals didn't include in many cases the most egregious offenders against basic animal care laws, laws like this wouldn't sound so good to folks.

I know, you are all about who's agenda is being advanced here, but it's dishonest to insist that the actual real world problems of overbreeding and neglect in small breeding facilities (animal abuse, irresponsible breeding, neglect, etc.) wasn't a serious factor.

Why shouldn't those folks pay more than the owners of altered animals? No one wants to answer that question.

Fine. Then ALL owners of mares should be required to have them spayed or pay high licensing fees. Regardless of whether you EVER plan to breed or not. Even if there isn't a stallion within three miles of your mare, ever. Even if you are totally responsible and would never, ever allow that mare to be bred by accident. Even if you *don't* want to show and, just for the sake of the example, spaying would mean that the mare could never compete (and what if your heart *is* set on competing with that mare?). Regardless of the cost to spay a mare, regardless if she happens to have a medical reason NOT to spay (just for instance, as it DOES happen frequently in dogs -- such as in breeds susceptible to VWD, a disease equivalent to hemophilia in humans, or sighthounds who are extremely sensitive to anesthesia and may never wake from that spay operation -- or with an elderly rescue, or a rescue with heartworm, ETC.)

Do you really want some PETA or HSUS supporters imposing their beliefs regarding owning mares on you and passing laws *requiring* you to have your mare spayed or pay an annual fee (which may well be hefty!)?

Get it now???

[Alagirl]

Are you serious?
Information of the dog owner passed on to god knows who about name, address and race?!!!!!

That is INSANE!
And serves no purpose AT ALL....

(can't blame Vets not participating anymore, but it RABIES, not painting claws pink....)

I think I am going to be sick now, this is beyond bad law, this is dangerous!