There's more to life than dog shows!

GO PACK GO!

Where does HSUS Money Go?

H$U$ (Humane Society of the United States) porports to be an animal welfare organization. It has over $150 MILLION in assets. In 2008 alone it collected over $82 MILLION ($82,000,000) in donations. So, where does it spend it's money?

Campaigns, litigation and legislation against hunters, dog breeders, chicken farmers, etc. cost $20M. $24M (28 cents of every dollar) went into fund raising. $31M went to salaries...H$U$ has 41 employees making over $100,000.

Out of the $82,000,000 raised, only $4,700,000 was spent in grants. And, over half of that went to “Californians for Humane Farms,” the main lobbying organization responsible for California’s “Proposition 2” ballot initiative.

So, how much $$ did the animals actually get? H$US gave only a little more than $450,000—that’s just half of one percent (.005) of its total budget—in grants to organizations providing hands-on care to dogs and cats.

If you truly care for animals, don't give your money to H$U$. Give to your local shelter!

Another Example Of HSUS Idea of "Rescue"

A Baltimore Sun investigation reveals that 19 HEALTHY horses HSUS & Baltimore city officials confiscated last month from street peddlers who sell produce in urban neighborhoods have been penned up under a rat infested tent & forgotten about.

Bob Wood, a Baltimore veteran of training horses for polo, grew suspicious while viewing photos of these horses. After looking into it further, Wood couldn’t disguise his disgust when talking to the Sun:

At the time the horses were seized, the Humane Society of the United States said "many of the horses were suffering from medical ailments including parasite infestation, malnutrition & extremely overgrown hooves."

Mr. Wood says that's an exaggeration, and that the words "parasite" & "malnutrition" appear nowhere on the citations against horse owners, Mr. Savoy & the Chases. After reviewing the documents, Mr. Wood concluded that only two animals had serious problems. Most of the violations were innocuous, he says, or the kind of things common to stables.


HSUS is trying to raise $1 MILLION by 12/31/2009 for it's "Animal Survivor Fund." Yet it couldn't use any of the $162 MILLION it already has to care for the animals it had seized! WHERE IS YOUR MONEY GOING TO? Salaries, travel & lobbying officials - NOT to the animals!

MSN - Compensation for Diminished Value

Dogs & cats are personal property, like your house, for example. If I rezone where you live and that rezoning diminishes the value, you have a claim forcompensation. If the government takes part of your land to widen the road, you have a claim for compensation for value lost.

Adhering to msn laws devalue your property as well. You lose the potential stud fees and/or puppy sales. You are thus entitled to compensation from the entity that passed these laws. The affected dog and cat fancy need to make claims for this lost income and, if not paid, need to begin filing class action lawsuits on this issue.

Apparently They Never Learn! - Phoenix, AZ

Item 33 on the agenda of the October 21st Phoenix City Council meeting includes a proposal to: An increase in the bond requirement - $500 per animal to defray some of the cost and care of the animal during the time the animal is under Arizona Humane society care. Any unused bond amount is to be returned to the owner.

And, A separate disposition process - A law enforcement officer may request a hearing if there is probable cause to believe that an animal has been cruelly mistreated or cruelly neglected. At the hearing, the court may determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether an animal has been cruelly mistreated or cruelly neglected. If the court makes such a finding, the court may order the animal: (1) forfeited to the officer or agent to be made available for adoption or for transfer to a legally incorporated humane society or approved rescue agency, or (2) humanely destroyed.

***

Has the Phoenix legal counsel reviewed this in view of the recent decision in the U.S. District Court (Louisville Kennel Club, Inc Et AL vs Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government)? This Court found that dogs are personal property [under the 14th Amendment to the US Constititution], and the requirement of a seizure bond is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt - not merely probable cause - must occur before a court can take your property. The Court furthered reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement and a warrant must be obtained prior to seizure.

Item 33 appears counter to this US District Court ruling and if implemented Phoenix Is likely to face expensive litigation on this matter.

Are owners due restitution for monetary losses

I now have a copy of the judgement rendered by US District Court Judge Charles Simpson III in the Louisville Kennel Club, Inc ET AL. X Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government. One of the most important parts of his ruling is the affirmation that dogs are personal property. As such, I am the OWNER of my dogs and not their guardian. And, as an OWNER, I am due restitution for any devaluation or "taking" of my property.

The question now becomes: Does mandatory spay/neuter constitute a devaluation of property? It does deprive the owner of puppies from that dog and from the income that could be derived from those puppies. While this could be an issue with mixed breed puppies, it becomes an even larger issue with purebred puppies that are often sold for hundreds of dollars each.

Does a government that enacts mandatory spay/neuter laws have to reimburse dog owners for their loss of potential stud fees and puppy sales? I urge owners living under such a rule to file a class action demanding just compensation for this mandate.

Louisville Kennel Club Lawsuit Decided!

This past Friday the federal judge finally issued his decision in the case of Louisville Kennel Club, et al vs. Metro Government. The final ruling ran to over 20 pages and will have sweeping impact on a national level as well as in Louisville.

Judge Simpson found that the determination between altered and unaltered dogs is without merit and therefore the requirement of inspection of enclosures for unaltered dogs by Animal Control is unconstitutional.

He additionally found that dogs are personal property [under the 14th Amendment to the US Constititution], and the requirement of a seizure bond (where you must post a bond upon a showing of probable cause and if you cannot post the bond your animals become the property of the state, city etc.)is unconstitutional and a finding of guilt must occur before a court can take your property.

the Court reasoned that no ordinance provision nullifies a warrant requirement and a warrant must be obtained prior to seizure.