Dogfight Slush Funds for "Humane" Vigilantes:

HSUS, Best Friends and the ASPCA set to cash in on court ordered forfeitures

The latest scheme in creative funding for humane societies -- which are private corporations controlled and directed by their own boards of directors, not open to public scrutiny -- will take funds from the public sector and put it into the pockets of non-governmental agencies with no specifics on how it is to be used.

Once again, that's public funds. Private sector. No strings attached.

Spoils of war: everyone at the table gets a piece of the pie

Senator Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) introduced California SB 1775 earlier this year. His bill would have allowed authorities to seize and dispose of property used in dogfighting-related crimes. In addition to any other penalties imposed by the courts, "promoting dogfighting" could lead to the forfeiture of a home under the proposal.

Under the bill, proceeds from the forfeitures were to be shared with "local nonprofit organizations exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code whose primary activities include ongoing rescue, foster, or other care of animals that are the victims of dogfighting."

In other words, humane societies and societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, the agencies that typically investigate dogfighting allegations, would now have a financial incentive to act.

Opposition from the left-wing liberals! Democrats, take note!

The ACLU, the California Public Defenders Union, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and others drew their line in the sand.

In fact, SB 1775 was strongly opposed by many civil liberties-minded groups. Concerns were voiced because, for example, "promoting dogfighting" wasn't sufficiently well-defined.

The ACLU also argued that the California legislature approaches asset forfeiture with great caution, and does not allow it in cases of murder, mayhem and kidnap -- all crimes against humans.

So why propose asset seizure for dogfighting crimes? Huh?

But here's a better question: Who stands to benefit?

Going for the honking BIG BUCK$: The Usual Suspects

Predictably, the Humane Society of the United States loved SB 1775, calling it "another important tool for law enforcement to crack down on organized crime which thrives on the profits that dogfighting generates." The ASPCA liked it, too, formally listing itself as a supporter.

SB 1775 was generously greased with plenty of anti-dogfighting rhetoric. As if anyone, anywhere, was arguing that dogfighting is a good thing.

Senator Calderon added:

What makes this measure different from past forfeiture measures this committee has seen is that the proceeds go to animal welfare organizations who rescue and rehabilitate fighting dogs."

Exactly.

Profits from asset seizure with no muss, no fuss. No oversight.

Why make things complicated, right? Senator Calderon didn't see a need to attach strings. The proceeds were to be handed over to private corporations to do whatever the hell they want with them.

Call it a humaniac slushie.

First, create an emergency. Then milk the solution for all its worth.

Some things never change.

HSUS & Co. have been stuffing their pockets for decades by marketing the dogfighting "crisis" and their various remedies -- most involving the surgical removal of pit bull reproductive organs.

Decades.

And, surprise, surprise, the problem just gets worse! The dogfighting crisis was old news back in 1991 when Vicki Hearne challenged HSUS on their self-serving promotion of the "emergency" when she published Bandit: Dossier of a Dangerous Dog.

Nathan Winograd calls it "Stoking the Fires of Hate: How the Animal Protection Movement is Failing Pit Bulls." Remember when HSUS demanded the deaths of Michael Vick's dogs ?

The fate of "pit bulls" is a mere detail. HSUS isn't interested in ending dogfighting. HSUS is interested in ending dogs. And raising funds, of course.

The good news is that Calderon's SB 1775 failed in committee in April, 2008.

The bad news is that SB 1775 was just the beginning.

Best Friends Animal Society and Seizing Assets for Fun and Profit

In September, 2007, Russ Mead -- Best Friends' general counsel and chief papa bear of that wildly incoherent animal extremist group -- participated in a conference on "dangerous dogs" and breed specific legislation at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon.

Mead's portion of the event, captured in this podcast (which also includes a staggering amount of misinformation on dogs, dog bites and dangerous dogs, and begins with a presentation by Karen Breslin -- but that's another blog) includes a list of what Best Friends Animal Society advocates.

Forfeiture laws. I love this!

You're a dogfighter? We go to your house. We take your house.

They've been doing that for drug dealers for a long time, right?

[in response to a question from the audience asking if the forfeiture laws for drug-related crimes deters drug crimes]

I'm not saying [forfeiture laws for drug crimes] reduce drugs as a crime, but it certainly puts money in the coffers for enforcement.

Its no wonder that Mr. Mead stumbled a bit. The "war on drugs" -- kinda like the war on dogfighting -- doesn't look like its going to be over any time soon. And the role asset forfeiture plays in the drug war is increasingly problematic.

Some say that because of the resulting windfall, state and local law enforcement has become as addicted to forfeiture as an addict is to drugs--making property seizure no longer a means to an end, but an end in itself.

Following Mead's logic, it doesn't matter if the proposed forfeiture law for dogfighting crimes deters dogfighting. He wants the cash.

Follow the money -- always

The push for forfeiture laws isn't about stopping dogfighting. It isn't about saving pit bulls.

Its about money and its about positioning.

Proposals like SB 1775 will take public funds to fill the coffers of private corporations, like the Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA and Best Friends Animal Society.

And they are going to execute on their privately-developed strategic plans. Saving pit bulls from dogfighters is for the cameras. And the generous donors, naturally.

Armed Volunteers :
Weapons, Mace
and Body Armor

Upstate New York? Or the O. K. Corral?

Private lawmen just itchin to get physical

Unable to keep the glee out of his comments, the 34 -year-old Chief of Schenectady's brand new SPCA, Mathew Tully, can't wait to start laying down the law in Schenectady County, New York. His crew of gun-packing volunteer peace officers will have full police powers of arrest while investigating animal cruelty allegations.

"There are a lot of legal hurdles to clear because the SPCA is one of the only law enforcement entities not controlled by the government."

Armed volunteers operating in the public sector. No checks, no balances.

"Law enforcement entity not controlled by the government" you say? I got a problem with that. So does the Schenectady Daily Gazette's Carl Strock.

'[A New York State] "peace officer” needs state-approved training, but having gotten that training, he or she then operates independently, not beholden to any city council, county legislature, mayor, or public safety commissioner, much less to the voters.'

New York State law--CPL Art. 2, Sec. 2.10--specifies 80+ jobs to be filled by peace officers. For example, town and village constables are peace officers. So are certain employees of the Department of Taxation. Park rangers may be peace officers, with certain limitations. Some employees of the New York City Department of Health. Some uniformed court officers, parole officers, bridge and tunnel officers . . .

All of the above are at least employed by public agencies.

Now, which one doesn't belong ?

Then there are the agents of New York's private societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals.

They answer to no one, other than the privately-employed individual that signs their paycheck.

Misuse of public funds

Schenectady County Sheriff Harry Buffardi already pledged the support of the county sheriff's department to Tully's little band of volunteers. Buffardi plans to give the newly formed private corporation access to the county sheriff's department's radio system.

The sheriff's department will also expend public funding to answer the phone for a non-governmental entity.

Is that even legal? Somehow, I doubt it.

Sheltering animals? Not on the Schenectady SPCA radar.

Running a shelter is too expensive for the SCSPCA, apparently. Their interest is in raising funds to acquire and then use all that mace and body armor. All those guns.

And all that territory. The Schenectady County SPCA already staked out neighboring Schoharie and Saratoga counties for their agents, too. Who's next?

Boyz with their toyz

'"I guarantee you, there is no point in having an SPCA unless you increase the volume of arrests,” Tully said.'

So regardless of what is actually going on, arrests MUST go up.

All those well-meaning people who thought their donations were going to feed kittens and shelter puppies are in for a shock. They funded a vigilante posse on a mission.

Arrests must increase.

Marketing NYS Peace Officers

The icing on the cake, and yours for just $12.50 --

the "Peace Officer" patch offered for sale by the Schenectady County SPCA.

Now you can fantasize about enforcing the law without bothering with governmental controls, too.

Private agenda. Public sector.

The public has virtually no ability to influence the operations of private corporations like the Schenectady County SPCA. It's a private company. Yet the Schenectady County SPCA's armed patrols will be operating in the public sector.

In 2002, now SCSPCA Chief Tully was a volunteer peace officer for the Columbia-Greene Humane Society Inc. Court documents detail his zealous pursuit of a particular case:

According to plaintiffs, Tully returned to their home on
October 31, 2002 and told them that, unless they immediately signed a document surrendering the 15 puppies on their premises to the Society, he would arrest them upon a misdemeanor charge of violating Agriculture and Markets Law § 357. They allege in their verified complaint that Tully, who is also an attorney, told them that it would be one or two days before they were arraigned, that he would ask for high bail and that he would "demand that [their five] children be placed by the Department of Social Services until plaintiffs made bail."

Plaintiffs signed the surrender document and were issued an appearance ticket.

The 15 puppies (allegedly with a retail value of about $9,000) were sold by the Society, which kept the proceeds. . . .

There are thus factual allegations supporting plaintiffs' contention that Tully had no basis for charging them with willfully selling a dog with an infectious disease . . .and for using the threat of immediate incarceration on that charge as a ground to gain possession of plaintiffs' 15 dogs.

How are issues of corruption and abuse of authority resolved when the alleged perpetrator is a volunteer working for a private corporation?

This ain't no disco, this ain't no party, this ain't no FOOLING around
The passed, vetoed, glitched, and finally veto- overridden 2008 Farm Bill includes all kinds of striking language.

Including the following:

Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, any animal control agency, humane society, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals may commence a civil suit to enjoin any private party who is alleged to be in violation of any provision of this section concerning animal fighting.

"Humane society, or society for the prevention of cruelty." Meaning that private corporations are called out in a federal law for the purpose of law enforcement.

If you breathed a sigh of relief because you don't live in New York, it looks like it was sadly premature.

Private corporations, like humane societies and societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, have no business receiving special privileges or abilities under federal law.

Are we clear now ?

Humane Society: Cats Make You Crazy

Pit bull owners are drug dealers, but cat owners are demented

Who's next in the extremist war against animal owners ?

Brace yourselves, cat lovers. Your 15 minutes of fame, or infamy, is coming soon.

Living with "too many" cats threatens your mental stability, according to the Washington (D. C.) Humane Society.

After trashing the reputations of millions
of loving dog owners and arranging the forced sterilizations and deaths of uncounted innocent dogs and other pets, Wayne Pacelle's HSUS and their accolytes move relentlessly forward.

Like sharks.

Whisper campaign against cat owners

Like a dead fly hidden in the rice pudding raisins, Humane Society employee Scott Giacoppo slipped the mention of how the ammonia in cat urine causes dementia in humans. He did it almost casually as he was interviewed by an adoring newspaper columnist.

His fellow "team mate", Best Friends rep Sherry Woodard, agreed whole-heartedly with the startling new information:

The team explained the ammonia odor released from too many cats together is harmful to cats and humans. (Giacoppo said that on a long-term basis, the ammonia can cause dementia in humans. . . .)

New Jersey Star-Ledger columnist Joan Lowell Smith swallowed it in one tidy gulp and duly reported it back to the public. No questions asked.
Smith must have a master's degree in science, too.

Feeding the internet rumor machine: humane societies just make shit up

So, let's take inventory. Junk science and myth sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States and other "humane societies" :

1. Pit bull owners are drug dealing gang-bangers

2. Tethering causes "aggression" in dogs

3. Michael Vick's dogs needed to die because they were the hopeless products of dog-fighting.

4. Mandatory castration of pets is a good thing

5. Pet overpopulation is a fact, and is caused by greedy tax-cheat breeders

Now we add. . .

6. Too many cats make you crazy

Inventing a mental illness: Humane societies expoit "animal hoarding"

Houston? We have a chicken-and-egg problem.

Are "hoarders" already mentally ill, as Giacoppo suggested?

Or are healthy cat lovers suddenly over-whelmed while changing the kitty litter and tragically slip into madness?

Do "scientists" like Giacoppo and Wayne Pacelle worry about such details?

I imagine that when animal extremists present the findings of their well-documented and peer-reviewed documentation of their new mental disease to the American Psychiatric Association, questions like these will be cleared up.

Not.

Making mental illness a crime

In Democrat-rich New York, where busy state legislators never put down their pencils, they are way beyond the chicken-and-egg issue.

They have moved on to discriminating against the mentally ill.

In the race to be the first on the block with an animal extremist law to boast about, no less that three New York legislators have moved to characterize "animal hoarding" as a mental illness, and make it punishable under New York's cruelty to animals statutes.

The bills' sponsors, like Assemblymember Kevin Cahill (Democrat-Kingston) write that, despite the fact that the new law would be part of New York's animal cruelty
statutes, the concept is to strip owners of their animals, and punish address the medical needs of the criminal animal hoarder, before any animals are actually treated cruelly.

So Cahill envisions prosecution of a pre-crime, criminal, mental illness.

He would take cats and other animals away from their owners, and convict them of cruelty to animals, before the well-known effects of exposure to cat pee manifest themselves.

Animal extremist crocodile tears: This is for your own good

It hurts us more than it hurts you.

Its all so sad.

Liar, liar. Pants on fire.

Don't believe it for a second. The purpose of Giacoppo's remarks and bills like the ones in New York, whether dupes like Assemblymember Kevin Cahill and Star-Ledger columnist Joan Lowell Smith ever realize it or not, has nothing to do with animal welfare.

The purpose is to steadily increase the power of animal extremist organizations. Junk science, civil rights violations, discrimination and scare-tactics are just the means to the end.

Its as simple as that.

**********************

Blogger's note: Earlier this blog erroneously identified Scott Giacoppo as an employee of the HSUS. Giacoppo is employeed by the Washington (D. C.) Humane Society, and previously worked for the Massachusetts SPCA. Many thanks to readers who caught the error.

What Is Love? Pit bull owners know. Nathan Winograd knows. Sadly, so sadly, animal rights extremists kill for "love" Nathan Winograd speaks from the heart for pit bulls Staunch no-kill advocate Nathan Winograd rocked the world of animal rights, no, make that animal welfare, ooops, animal protection agencies with his book Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation. Winograd isn't buying that sick I Love, So I Must Kill crap. Nope. Not at all. We [animal protectionists] have determined that [pit bulls] do not deserve to live. The more circumspect among us might not say so publicly. We may couch it in more benign terms, shifting the blame to others, claiming that no one will adopt them, convincing ourselves that only a ban will keep them out of harm’s way, but the end result is exactly the same. By our actions, by our words, by our policies, by our failure to speak out on their behalf, we stoke the fire that has at its core only one end for Pit Bulls: their mass killing. Boobs, freaks and liars fail the American Pit Bull Terrier First prize for killing innocent dogs and general hypocrisy goes to PETA. Ingrid Newkirk and her crew of dog killers openly, unabashedly and without apology advocate the violent, brutal--yet somehow ethical--irradication of "pit bulls" from the planet Earth. Its all so sad. Best Friends' Prez Michael Mountain: Whackjobs and weasel words Mountain couldn't take the heat when confirmed pit bull hater and creative statistician Clifton Merritt of Animal People challenged a mildly pro-pit bull blog comment. Mountain was no mountain. He caved. He ran for cover. He sucked up to Clifton Merritt, the guy whose "statistics" are favorites with pit bull exterminators everywhere. Makes me wonder what kind of "rehabilitation" those "Vick-tory" dogs are getting in their new prison perpetual sanctuary. National Geographic reports that Best Friends received $18,275 per dog, from the court-ordered funds supplied by Michael Vick. That's far more than other organizations received--despite Best Friends' hefty income--because Best Friends envisioned a prolonged stay at the "sanctuary" for their share of Michael Vick's dogs. What's up with that? And what happens to dogs that don't enjoy their prolonged stay at Best Friends' "sanctuary"? Dogs that "suffer emotionally" from sanctuary in specially built -- just for them ! -- facilities and the best care that Best Friends staff can offer? In the weasel words of Best Friends veterinarian Frank McMillan: . . .we're not going to continue to harbor them in a sanctuary just to make the claim that we don't put any animals to sleep. Right. As long as Vick's check clears first. Blame owners, keep killing dogs

To quote HSUS's Pam Rogers, "Pit bulls. . .are likely the most popular dog in the country, but unfortunately, they are also the dogs of choice for drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol."

Pam Rogers' solution? Sterilize all pit bulls. Pit bull owners know what love is. They aren't fooled by Ingrid Newkirk, and they know the difference between love and death. They know the difference between true friends and Best Friends. They know that the Humane Society of the United States is in the business of trashing owners in order to promote the seizure and destruction of their dogs. When pit bull owners say "Fight Breedism" . . .they mean it.

No Balls in La-La Land LA City Council takes a dive for HSUS, PeTA Pet owners sold down the river by their elected officials The L A City Council voted 10 to one to mandate pediatric gonadectomies for all pet dogs and cats in the City of L. A. yesterday. Pre-pubescent pups and kittens are slated to get the knife in the City of Angeles because public servants, on the public's payroll, turned a deaf ear to their own constituents. (The February 1 vote requires a second reading, scheduled for next week, to be binding.) Say what? Bob Barker calls the shots in Los Angeles? Looks like retired game show hosts, not voting pet owners, rule in L. A. Bob Barker, whose private foundation has donated millions of dollars for spay and neuter services [said] "Mandatory spay-neuter is a necessity. . . We need legislation." Who died and appointed a show biz millionaire the King of L. A.? Huh? Or was it Bob's bankroll that got the City Council's attention? City Councilmember Richard Alarcón: tissue-thin Democratic Party values Just as Democratic Louisville City Councilwoman Cheri Bryant-Hamilton sponsored Louisville's dirty war on dogs and enabled Metro Louisville Animal Control to target and discriminate against "poor people", LA proposal sponsor Richard Alarcon hasn't thought twice about who's going to get the knife first: residents of his own working-class district. Democrat Alarcón's "moral responsibility" doesn't extend to working class pet owners Richard Alarcón was brought up by working class parents who taught him the value of hard work, the importance of standing up for what is right and the moral responsibility to help those who are less fortunate. Gag me with a spoon. Since when is ignoring the vigorous protests of pet owners, and insisting on the drastic surgical removal of chunks of their pets "helpful"? No equal enforcement of the law in La-la Land LA officials are promising that enforcement of the L A ordinance is supposed to be "complaint driven." Anybody want to bet on who's going to drop a dime on who first? Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks and Co. will go after the lowest hanging fruit: the poor, blacks and hispanics, and the pit bull owners. And good luck to you, pilgrim, if you happen to be all three and you live in Los Angeles. There's already a dime with your name on it in Ed Bok's back pocket. Banging on doors, searching for testicles: Democratic Party SOP? What goes around, comes around. Do I have to vote for a Republican to avoid supporting patsies for PeTA, HSUS and the ASPCA? In this election year, things are looking grim for traditional Democratic voters like me. I was born to vote the Democratic ticket, but man, I'm not liking what I'm seeing. I support funded, voluntary spay-neuter programs. I support public policy based on fact, not fiction. I support civil rights. Which Democrat is going to protect me, and my dog, from the Bob Barkers and Gilles Meloches of the world? Huh? November is getting closer and closer. There will be some very tough choices made by hamburger-eating, dog-loving Dems like me.

HSUS Toadies Feelin' the Pain in Louisville Attorney Jon Fleischaker: this is about civil rights, not dogs You tell 'em, Lawyer Fleischaker! As one of the attorneys representing the Louisville Kennel Club, the League of Kentucky Sportsmen, Kentucky Houndsmen's Association, the Greater Louisville Training Club and eight other clubs, businesses and individuals in their struggle to rid Louisville of the worst, most anti-pet, anti-pet owner animal control ordinance in the country, Fleischaker commented: It's not a dog case, it is about people and individual rights and individual freedoms. . .The ordinance authorizes unconstitutional search and seizures, unconstitutional searches of people's homes. Louisville Animal Control director Gilles Meloche: clueless, tyrannical and caught in the headlights One of the prime defects of the Louisville anti-pet ordinance is the totalitarian power it places in the hands of a single, highly questionable, individual: Metro Animal Services Director Gilles Meloche. As the Motion for Summary Judgement recently filed by the Louisville Kennel Club et al. points out, due to the vague and even irrational language and provisions of the Louisville codes, Meloche personally has sole discretion over which dogs are declared "dangerous" in Louisville. . .regardless of their behavior or their history. The 4th Amendment? Not for Louisville dog owners. Meloche insists he can search private homes without a warrant Under the current Louisville codes, the Director of Animal Services, Gilles Meloche, is supposed to personally inspect the enclosures of every unaltered dog in Louisville. In other words: Louisville residents are second class citizens. Their homes are laid open to searches to be conducted without a warrant just because they own an unaltered dog. How did Meloche get his gig? With a little help from his friends Meloche's friends and fellow humaniacs at Kentucky Humane Society and the Shamrock Society supported his candidacy for the job in Louisville, even though Meloche's work history included some pretty large warts. Such as: --a guilty plea in his native Canada for unacceptable record keeping on anabolic steroid distribution [a controlled substance] --termination for cause [insubordination] after 10 months on the job at a shelter in Durham, NC --drama in a Tallahassee shelter that centered around his monomaniacal approach to shelter management Meloche's very Best Friend: the Humane Society of the United States Its nice to have a $125 MM private corporation in your back pocket. Pam Rogers, a Humane Society of the United States regional director--and the hypocrite that wrote to the Louisville City Council on behalf of HSUS urging a breed specific ordinance--doesn't have a problem with Meloche. When interviewed, Pam Rogers' opinion of Meloche was clear: "I like him. I find him easy to work with. . ." How sweet. That must have made the long hours Rogers and Meloche put in together concocting the Louisville ordinance so much more fun. Prejudice against low income dog owners: perfect in an animal rights advocate, fatal in a public servant Making it harder (and ever harder) for dog owners to continue to own their dogs is standard practice for HSUS and their proxies. HSUS targets the lowest hanging fruit. When the usual first choice -- pit bull owners -- didn't work out in Louisville, HSUS and its cronies simply switched to Plan B: take pets away from the poor. After all, the poor are practically defenseless, too. The Motion for Summary Judgement, which includes part of Meloche's deposition, shines a light on a public servant -- on the public's payroll -- with an unforgivable attitude towards "poor people." Negatively stereotyping and discriminating against Louisville's poor On "poor people" and dog license compliance, Meloche stated under oath: They just don't license, period. On "poor people" and access to veterinary care: First, we know one thing, they barely go to veterinary clinics. On "poor people" and cruelty to animals: Most of the cruelty that I've seen --that we see are from, of course, poor neighborhood, and it's dynamic. Cat got your tongue, Dr. Meloche? The deposition excerpt ends with this exchange: Q. Okay. Do you think it's prejudicial to impose financial requirements on people? ... A. I will not answer. Q. You're not going to answer that? A. No. Backdoor attack on civil rights and liberties Its too late for Gilles Meloche to shut up. He already said plenty.

The agenda is all too clear. The Louisville animal control ordinance is NOT about improving public safety, and its NOT about saving the lives of homeless animals.

The Louisville ordinance is about stripping away the civil rights and liberties of law-abiding Louisville residents, just because they own animals.

Let's hope the courts send the ordinance, and Gilles Meloche, back to where ever it was they came from.

Humane Corruption

ASPCA Unleashes Forensic Rent-a-cops

NY City's Agent Orange goes for broke, announcing their very own, cutting edge, state of the art, mobile, pet forensics laboratory.

Drum roll, please!

ASPCA's Agent Orange goes Hollywood

New York City's paid private contractor for animal cruelty law enforcement, the ASPCA, announced its latest bid for the public's love, admiration, cash and donations: a state-of-art, mobile, forensic laboratory dedicated to crimes against animals.

ASPCA Prez Ed Sayres: So excited, just can't hide it

Unveiled on NBC's Today Show--what? Oprah didn't return calls in time?--Ed can hardly contain himself when it comes to the mobile forensics lab.

Ed Sayres' letter to ASPCA supporters reads. . .

As I hope many of you saw this morning on NBC’s “Today” show, the ASPCA today unveiled a “forensics first”—the nation’s first-ever “Mobile Animal Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) Unit. . . .The vehicle will help us to significantly advance the prosecution of animal cruelty in this country. . .

Ed Sayres isn't concerned about the false hopes and unreasonable expectations the "CSI effect" may cause. His excitement knows no bounds.

Teensy little problem, Ed: Jurisdiction.

The world is not the ASPCA's oyster. Not yet, at least.

The only place the ASPCA has law enforcement authority of any sort is the City of New York. New York City purchased the services of the ASPCA for animal cruelty law enforcement within its five boroughs.

And that's it.

The ASPCA and its privately employed personnel are responsible to a private corporation governed by its own privately-appointed board of directors. While the ASPCA goes to great lengths to mimic public servants answerable to tax-payers and voters, Agent Orange and its employees are private contractors responsible to a privately-controlled corporation which is effectively shielded from public scrutiny.

Fake public servants on private missions

Despite the deceptive uniforms and dramatic posturing, the ASPCA "humane law enforcement" squad is a bunch of rent-a-cops with no jurisdiction outside of the City of New York and no civilian oversight within it.

So. Did Ed Sayres get it wrong? Or is Agent Orange poised to go national?

By what right, using what mechanism, could a private New York contractor employed by a single city seek to interfere in criminal investigations across the country?

Nostradamus lives in bright blue New York

Maybe Ed Sayres is not a detail guy. Maybe he's an over-excited delusional, and all that talk about a NYC private contractor
changing the face of animal law across the nation is a pipe dream.

Or maybe Ed Sayres is a prophet.

"We, the People" ? Or "We, the ASPCA's Lackeys" ?

The New York State legislature went back into session in early January, dragging with it all kinds of unfinished business from the prior year--including Assembly bill 1741 and its identical companion, Senate bill S865. These bills
sponsored -- in a well-orchestrated tandem of upstate Republican and downstate Democrat -- by Catskills-area Republican NYS Senator John J. Bonacic. . . .

[Note that Senator Bonacic is a lawyer. He was an Assistant District Attorney in Orange County, New York.]

. . . and Long Island Democrat Assemblymember Steve Englebright.

[Assemblymember Englebright is a geologist by training -- not that ignorance is a reasonable defense in a state assemblymember.]

Public funding. Private masters. Institutionalized corruption.

If enacted, A1741/S865 would authorize district attorneys -- elected public servants employed by the citizens of New York to represent the interests of "we, the people" -- to act in court on behalf of private humane societies like the privately funded, privately controlled ASPCA.

The proposal requires elected public servants to engage in the private practice of law while on the public's payroll.

For obvious reasons, that's illegal in the state of New York.

Illegally greasing the wheels of "justice"

There are a number of other problems with A1741/S865, but here's Blue Dog's question--

The New York State Constitution includes a Bill of Rights to protect its residents from unreasonable governance:

The legislature shall not pass a private or local bill . . .granting to any private corporation, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity or franchise whatever. [Section 17]

Has the stink of "humane" corruption reached you yet?

Has the reek of exclusive privileges, immunities and franchises granted to private animal rights, animal welfare, animal protection corporations and associations -- both in New York and around the country -- reached your nostrils?

Because the wave of anti animal owner, anti civil rights legislation -- sponsored and expertly lobbied by the Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA, and others -- will knock you right off your feet.

ASPCA Marches on Penn Dog Owners Agent Orange drives backdoor assault on civil rights Rude awakening in the City of Brotherly Love. Brotherly love? Uh. Not so much Philadelphia.

Not while civil rights-loving Philly residents must cope with Democratic Mayor-Elect Michael Nutter's promotion of controversial "stop, question and frisk" policing policies which allow police to detain and search individuals if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime may be committed. No warrant necessary. You just have to look wrong.

What's so bad about "stop and frisk"? Try "racial profiling" and "unreasonable search and seizure" on for size, Mayor-elect Nutter.

Up against the wall in Philadelphia: Do you live in one of Philly's "targeted enforcement zones? "

Because the police aren't stopping and frisking a whole lot of people in the 'burbs. Studies show that "stop and frisk" policies disproportionately impact black and hispanic citizens. Documentation from New York City on stop and frisk showed that a high percentage of stops did not meet the legal requirements for "reasonable suspicion".

The NAACP partnered up with the ACLU on a class action suit against Baltimore's stop and frisk policy.

Democratic Mayor-elect Nutter managed to line up himself up in favor of racial profiling and against civil rights. Weird spot for Democrat. . . or is it?

Are we a nation governed by the rule of law? Or we governed by the rule of fear?

ASPCA's very Orange campaign: selling panic, defending market share in turbulent times

Animal rights protection agencies are living through interesting times. As the US Sportsman's Association points out, the Humane Society of the United States is set to swallow up the little fish--and even honking big fish like the ASPCA with its $67 million annual income--in its quest for political power. As the the ASPCA resists being eaten alive by Wayne Pacelle it developed its own national strategy.

Philadelphia is the ASPCA's beachhead in an struggle for marketshare. So, what's ORANGE done for Pennsylvania lately?

Artificial standards allow stopping, frisking -- and now they'll seize your dog.

Just as "wrong-looking"people aren't able to linger in certain parts of Philadelphia without undergoing an unreasonable and unwarranted search of their persons, the ASPCA has a problem with low income Philadelphia residents and their pets.

The ASPCA ran some numbers for themselves:

Philadelphia County demographics (2005):

• 1,406,000 total human population
• $32,573 median household income
• 21 percent of adults live in poverty
• 669,000 total owned animal population
• 138,000 owned animals live in poverty

The ASPCA's obvious conclusion from the above exercise: poor people in Philadelphia own pets.

The ASPCA's "solution" is just as obvious: take pets away from the poor. The poor are not "people like us." Anti-tethering laws: excuses to seize dogs from poor people PA HB 1065, as introduced in April, 2007 by Rep. Mario Scavello and as fervently supported by the ASPCA, is designed to facilitate the confiscation of dogs from people who cannot afford to comply with its bizarre requirements. Under HB1065, they can seize your dog because you tied it outside--under optimum conditions, in perfect safety and health--for five minutes, if you happen to choose the "wrong" five minutes. You can lose your dog for using the wrong collar, the wrong tether, for failing to measure the length of the tether. . .and the list goes on. HB 1065 is a litmus test of artificial standards of care, in a state which already defines cruelty to animals clearly and completely: A person commits an offense if he wantonly or cruelly illtreats, overloads, beats, otherwise abuses any animal, or neglects any animal as to which he has a duty of care, whether belonging to himself or otherwise, or abandons any animal, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter or veterinary care, or access to clean and sanitary shelter which will protect the animal against inclement weather and preserve the animal's body heat and keep it dry. Agent Orange tells it like it is. NOT. In support of their anti-tethering bill, the ASPCA threw in every piece of internet rumor and junk science available. But what the ASPCA doesn't mention: People have tethered dogs from the beginning of the long, mutually beneficial relationship between dogs and humans. Done properly, tethering is a traditional and humane option of responsible restraint. Tethering, crating, fenced yards, kennel runs, etc., are each responsible options for humane restraint and each may potentially be abused. Dog owners need a full range of choices in order to choose what works best for their situation. Appropriately restraining a dog safeguards both dog and community. It is the hallmark of a good, caring owner.

Racism and dog politics: wheels fall off the Democratic Party wagon HB 1065, and its clones in other jurisdictions, are not based in fact. They do not cover any "gaps" in existing cruelty laws. They aren't even about "tethering". They are a backdoor route to the destruction of civil rights for the most vulnerable members of society. The first victims of the ASPCA's proposed anti-tethering bills--the first to be profiled, unreasonably searched, and suffer confiscation of their private property will be . . . Blacks and hispanics Inner city residents Rural people Elderly, and poor people These groups represent the lowest hanging fruit in the extremist campaign to end pet and animal ownership. Dems kiss off the little guy, stand up for racism Coincidentally, these groups are the traditional stalwarts of the Democratic Party. Or they used to be.

With an increasing politicized dog owning electorate, someone other than the ASPCA is going to run some numbers. Elected officials supporting sneak attacks on the civil rights of their own constituencies face short careers in the public sector. Really short careers. My Dog Votes. [post script: Please scroll through the comments to view a suggestion from Dogs Deserve Better to the effect that a $200 fence is adequate to safely and humanely contain a dog. Any dog.]