Animal Laws and Rights - Page 6

Think we have read enough old posts by Sitasmom and the proof is there for all to read. Now we can drop it and stick to the topic of this thread please.

Mrdarcy I am going to answer Susie's post and anyone else that thinks killing the animals is the only way and then drop it.

Put traps on front porch with food laced with sedative, watch from house where safe and see that traps not stolen. Remove to AC department.

Wild animals such as bears and mountain lions are handled in a similar manner all the time when they go where they are not wanted.

As far as I understood SitasMom made use of life traps, but they "vanished" ( guess, they stood outside of the property ).
Wild animals like bears and mountain lions don´t tend to have crazy owners ( that much about the "safe" house, the dogs won´t come in, but I don´t want to deal with a junkie trying to get back his dog ).

Once again, I really don´t like the idea, but in case the story is true, there are almost no options.

Birds of a feather...

I don't think anyone is "clean" or "innocent" in this nasty case. If you are so concerned about the conditions, then HELP the dogs; don't just scramble to get your name off of them so you're not connected. ONLY THE DOGS ARE INNOCENT.

After reading the posts from the owner of the dogs, what concerns me is the lack of rights the owner has when cruelty accusations are laid. Whether the cruelty is real or the accusations are false, doesn't the accused have the right to prove innocence BEFORE his animals are seized? Since animals cannot complain themselves, we have advocates for them but this advocacy can be manipulated by people with bad intentions.

I cannot comment on the actual state of the dogs, but the erosion of rights is one of the core issues here. Are we so willing to give up our rights to the "authorities" for a supposed greater sense of security?

Yup, that right there troubled me too, Koots.

I guess the line should be drawn at whether animals are in some 'imminent danger' and have to be removed ? If it is just an argument about perceptions of general neglect, and nothing seems actually likely to die in the interim, then, yes, surely there should be a chance to contest ?

Good points Koots & Hundmutter.

I asked one of my lawyer friends about this and he says seizures like this without due process and before conviction when the animals are in reasonable condition and no danger would not hold up in higher courts if you go high enough. He also says eventually someone will get so pissed off that they will take a case like this all the way to the top. And that the publicity with a case like this will be the kiss of death for a lot of the so-called rescue groups and humane societies because it will publicize the fact that they just want to rake in more cash by grabbing onto high-profile seizures and don't give a sh*t about the animals.

In this thread Randy says

"The State has determined through their inspection and the testimony of their veterinarian, all animals are in satisfactory condition with a question about one. This being a 13 year old dog with with a mass."

My lawyer friend says if this is true (and we do not know whether it is) and there really were too many poops in the rooms (Randy says there were not, and we do not know if there were), the legal and appropriate response would have been to issue a citation requiring a cleanup and an affidavit from a vet treating the dog with the mass stating that the dog was receiving appropriate vet care.

He also says that if Randy was set up there will be absolute hell to pay down the road for the people who set him up. Randy can sue the government, individuals working for the gvernment, and any individuals who set him up or helped others set him up. There is a lot of economic and other damage that someone could end up paying for.

And then there is the animal control that upon receiving a complaint by a repairman called to a 'puppy mill/factory'( who saw filth the five litters of puppies and adult dogs are living in) gives the puppy miller a heads up and a week to get the place clean before they come out to 'inspect'. Place was so filthy, the breeder had to hire people to come scrape the crap off the floors in his house. To top it off, AC gave all his dogs rabies shots at clinic price because he didn't even have any rabies shots on any of his dogs.

How many people actually have the financial resources to pursue cases in court, nevermind appeals to a higher court if necessary? The agencies and government know and count on this, therefore seizing animals before due process is even more heinous if the animals are not in danger or unhealthy conditions.

So true, Joan. I knew of a woman who had SPCA call on her constantly and her dogs were a MESS (saw them myself) and they wouldn't do anything. They gave her 30-90 days every time to clean things up. She was mad that she found out her dog had died 2 weeks earlier, in his kennel. She hadn't checked on him in all that time...blamed her husband who was "supposed to be feeding him." This was not in USA. So upsetting.

From what I read on Randy's case, the dead, half-eaten dog on the balcony seemed to play a powerful role in getting the others seized. If that was a set-up, those are some seriously, SERIOUSLY deranged people.