Langley Kennel Club
Conformation Rally Obedience Agility
Dog Kennels, Dog Breeders – There’s a Bounty on Your Heads
That is probably what most dog breeders believe, that it won't happen because I'm
not a puppymiller, I'm not a bad person, I'm not in violation of the law, I have
not done anything wrong, etc etc AH—but that's what Animal Control does, when the
animal extremists stir them up!
They go LOOKING
for problems! They go LOOKING for people to “BUST”.
A reputable source recently stated that two incidents in Virginia indicate that
dog breeders in general had better be prepared. When a minor violation of a law is
encountered, all animals should not be seized. So maybe when the HSUS DOGBUST team
goes out, they claim they have serious, serious allegations, and kill all the dogs.
OMG!! Then why doesn't HSUS actually get people convicted?! [We're talking dofightin'
charges, a very difficult charge to prove unless someone
rolls on the other] Well
you probably know the answer.
They aren't busting people to get convictions!
They are there to either kill or seize the animals! If a commercial kennel has 300
dogs that sell for $200 each and 5 dogs warrant seizing ALL the dogs, what is the
math lesson for the day? $200 x 300= $60,000 for the humane group or shelter. At
one bust per month that's nearly 3/4 of a million bucks.
Sometimes nosey neighbors
turn people in, or battling neighbors, or even ex spouses, or ex friends, or anyone
who is vindictive enough to do something like this. Animal contol has even been known
to peruse the newspapers and online ads to garner numbers and emails in order to
pose as buyers, or to use a reverse directory to FIND an address!!
If you don't
believe it, you are way, way out of touch. Because people that "rescue" animals are
often one of the first in line to get "busted", thanks to the hoarding cases out
there. In most counties, rescuers use foster homes but will also keep more animals
than their own limit laws allow. This is common and usually standard procedure with
rescues.
However, once an animal control officer gets wind of any hearsay talk
concerning such a rescue, that rescue then becomes the target of animal control.
They can be just as mean to rescuers as they are to breeders. I knew a gal that had
animal control claim she was leaving dogs in the garage who were barking. They also
claimed she had too many dogs "inside" the house.
She appealed her ticket/fine
and sure enough, at trial, no animal control officer showed up to testify. This is
common in bogus tickets and alleged incidents that did not happen. I know, because
they tried to do it to me and I showed up to court and the animal control officer
refused to testify.
These days, there are only TWO–repeat—TWO—-
You
do not have the luxury of saying you are a better breeder, or more ethical, or more
whatever. You no longer should claim "they" are puppymillers but we aren't. You should
avoid even USING the word "puppymill" because it's an AR term–at best.
ARs have
used the media to resurrect the term "puppymill"—and they aren't just aiming at millers.
NOPE, they are using the shotgun approach and ALL breeders of any animals are now
targets. When WP of HSUS claimed he was making HSUS the powerhouse of the ARs, he
wasn't kidding. Now that they passed Prop 2 in CA, they are moving forward to other
states.
Like I have continued to say, the goal to stop the breeding of dogs
has been ON for years, but the past 5 years have shown a marked increase in such
attempts. If HSUS starts advocating for bringing in stray dogs from 3rd world countries,
it wouldn't surpise me. If they advocated for bringing them in from China, same story.
It is just a matter of time, because HSUS has managed to convince people that buying
a dog means you are BUYING from a puppymill. OOPS. I said the word.
The above article was submitted by club member Trudy McLain. It was written by an AKC Parent Club (breed unknown) headquartered in Oregon. Permission has been received to crosspost.
This is a Federal ruling so it sets a precedent for the
entire country against draconian animal legislation.
The Bill of Rights lives!
This ruling by a federal judge (an esteemed Constitutional scholar) is a profound victory.
This precedent has far-
anywhere similar ordinances have been enacted, and Constitutional rights of pet owners have been violated ...
Highlights of the FEDERAL ruling:
1. Pets are personal property, under the Constitution.
Due process, search and seizure, etc.. (all protections provided by Constitution) apply to pets. You are the OWNER of your pets (not the "guardian.")
2. Requirements for housing, treatment, etc.. cannot be mandated by legislation to be different for intact dogs (vs. altered dogs.).
3. Seizure bond is FLAT-
This practice constitutes unlawful taking of personal property. If, after search warrant is obtained, a person is arrested and their dogs are seized, their dogs must be held AS IS (cannot be sterilized while held, cannot be sold, "transferred" or euthanized) unless the owner is found guilty after trial. Meantime, owner DOES NOT have to pay a dime for their care, until/unless they are found guilty of the charges.
The following synopsis of the Federal ruling is from the Louisville Kennel Club:
Judge Simpson found that there is no difference between altered and unaltered dogs, and therefore the requirement to inspect enclosures for unaltered dogs is unconstitutional. He affirmed that dogs are personal property and taking them for any reason demands the use of a seizure warrant. He further states that should your animals be seized lawfully, any requirement that you post a bond for their care and maintenance prior to finding you guilty is unconstitutional.
Judge Simpson’s opinion on both the seizure bond issue and the Fourth Amendment issues pave the way for action under Section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act which is important for several reasons:
• There is no statute of limitations
• It provides for you to sue not only the governmental body that denied you due process, but also—as individuals—any and all who participated in any way. You are also able to sue both collectively and, individually, the members of any “group” who in any way assisted or participated in denying your due process. Read that one again!
• Should you prevail in your case, any finding related to Section 1983 requires that the defendant/s pay your attorney’s fees.
With respect to the seizure bond issue, there is a case pending in Federal Court
in Northern Kentucky under where the plaintiff alleges her due process rights were
violated when her beagle pack was seized on an allegation of cruelty. Because she
could not post the large seizure bond demanded, her animals became the property of
the county. The dogs were promptly killed and, a few days later, all charges against
her were dropped. The plaintiff has sued county and also—as individuals-
When she prevails, the individuals sued will be personally liable—the government cannot defend them or pay their portion of fines. Hopefully, this will give ACO’s and SPCA’s pause to think.
With respect to the Fourth Amendment issues, it was dismissed because the city agreed with us and, at the time, we were unaware of any violations. However, the Court spent a lot of time discussing the Fourth Amendment and stated that despite the ordinance allowing for seizure without a warrant for various things, that no ordinance provision ever nullifies a warrant requirement. And not just a search warrant, but a seizure warrant.
This will have far-
There are many wonderful things that can come out of this opinion—building on the statement that no difference exists between altered and unaltered dogs, for instance.
And, while this decision is immediately applicable in the Western District of the US District Court, it addresses such egregious Constitutional violations that one should have little trouble in making excellent use of it in any federal jurisdiction.
It is our sincere wish that communities everywhere protect their populations with the best possible animal control practices, and that no citizen has their pet used as the excuse to strip them of their civil liberties.
For the complete Ruling: Federal Ruling
DID YOU KNOW?
Did you know that the AKC has a full time legislative department, designed to work with local clubs and individuals to fight canine legislation through out the United States?
Legislative success is achieved using strategies and tactics that can vary with each
community and situation. In many cases, the hardest and most effective advocacy takes
place behind the scenes, in direct contacts with legislators, or supporting club
members and federations with sample legislative language or one-
The AKC Government Relations Department is
also tracking over 70 local proposals that will affect your rights as dog owners.
If you hear of an issue in your community, contact us at (919) 816-
The AKC Government Relations department is proud of its successful legislative partnerships this year with a myriad of AKC clubs and state federations For the AKC, success is defined as positive legislative outcomes that ultimately reflect our mission – "to protect the rights of responsible dog owners and the sport of purebred dogs and to positively impact legislation affecting all dog owners, responsible breeders and exhibitors."
AKC Government Relations -
Click Here To View Bills AKC is Tracking by State
Updated Daily