ABC News 20/20 Documentary "Cruelty to Owners", Part 1 - Page 3

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by Micky D on 04 February 2009 - 19:02

 "He needs a slap up side his head."

Not a physical slap, a legal slap.  Somehow, he needs to be brought up on charges of fraud and extortion.  This man is acting like a one-man judge and jury, and Texas, of all places, is supposed to be concerned about freedoms.  It makes no sense to deny an individual's right to appeal.


4pack

by 4pack on 04 February 2009 - 19:02

Non profit my ass, they are paying people to work and selling/adopting animals out for a profit. Who monitors what is done with their monies? Does 100% of that have to be spent on food, vet bills, kennels and supplies? They want to grow, build more kennels, hire more dipshits like Garcia, so they keep confinscating more dogs/cats/horses to profit from in order to expand. My own local SPCA will only take in animals it can adopt out/friendly. If you have a "problem child" wild cats, they don't want them, that would drain their profits. They will strait tell you to take them to the pound, where they will no doubt be put down. They are not interested in reabilitating or socializing animals, but the hand is open if they can turn it.

wuzzup

by wuzzup on 04 February 2009 - 19:02

When he goes into court and tells his lies he can to be prosecuted .He an be legally prosecuted for perjury filing false documents with the courts the list could go on and on.Slap his head with the paper work.

by HighDesertGSD on 04 February 2009 - 20:02

I will never move to Texas, and will never have more than six dogs, except for pups.

by Micky D on 04 February 2009 - 20:02

Even though people can't appeal, they should be able to counter-sue on charges of filing false documents, like you said. But, here's the thing. From the video, it looks like he picks on people who don't have a whole lot of money. In other words, people who can't afford the services of expensive attornies. The man's a piece of work, all right. I wonder if an organization like NAIA (National Animal Interest Alliance) might go after him for some of the people he's stolen animals from.

wuzzup

by wuzzup on 04 February 2009 - 20:02

We should get his address and send him our thoughts of him.He is picking on people he knows can not fight back.

Two Moons

by Two Moons on 04 February 2009 - 20:02

SPCA Police???
This is what happens when good people do nothing.

At least this story is being told and talked about now.


by Micky D on 04 February 2009 - 21:02

 And meanwhile, in Colorado:

http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=12566421&type=ST&show_alert=1

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it 
Colorado HB 1172 offers a "solution" for a nonexistent problem
 
February 2, 2009

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is now bulldozing its way through Colorado with anti-breeder legislation. Emboldened by their victories in winning constitutional rights for pigs in Florida and trashing the egg industry in California, HSUS continues its state to state march, pushing cookie cutter legislation that attempts to impose a one-size fits all "solution" to problems that don't exist in most states.

The Colorado version, HB 1172, sponsored by House Members Randy Fisher and Elizabeth McCann, undermines the ability to keep and breed dogs in Colorado. It limits all breeders to 25 dogs and requires annual veterinarian care and certification of “suitability” before each breeding.
In addition, HB 1172 proposes that “At any TIME, the commissioner shall have free and unimpeded access upon consent or upon obtaining an administrative search warrant” to any part of the facility connected with the animals or their records. The word “consent” seems to imply permission requirements and control by the animal owner, but according to the Colorado Dept. of Agriculture, newly enacted Pet Animal Care Facilities Act rules state that denial of access may result in a failed inspection report, and a failed inspection report could then be grounds for issuance of an administrative search warrant.
NAIA supports animal welfare laws that are thoughtfully designed to solve real animal welfare problems, and Colorado has had such laws in place since 1994. Colorado’s Department of Agriculture has submitted a negative analysis of this proposal, raising questions about problems that would arise if enacted and finding th

by Micky D on 04 February 2009 - 21:02

http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=12533456&type=ST&show_alert=1

Action Alert

 
AddThis
Reckless Anti-Breeder Bill Hits Illinois 
Speak out against HB 198 early and often!
 
January 30, 2009
Illinois State Representative John Fritchey has recently introduced HB 198, entitled the Dog Breeder License Act, which threatens to seriously undermine the ability to responsibly breed dogs in the state of Illinois.

by Micky D on 04 February 2009 - 21:02

Reckless Anti-Breeder Bill Hits Illinois 
Speak out against HB 198 early and often!
 
January 30, 2009
Illinois State Representative John Fritchey has recently introduced HB 198, entitled the Dog Breeder License Act, which threatens to seriously undermine the ability to responsibly breed dogs in the state of Illinois.

NAIA supports laws that improve animal welfare, but HB 198 appears to be nothing more than an attempt to single out and punish breeders with onerous and unnecessary restrictions and requirements.

The bill, which has been referred to the House Rules Committee, would:
  • Require a license for anyone who owns 3 or more intact female dogs for breeding purposes, with fee unspecified.
  • Limit to 20 the number of unaltered dogs over a year old a breeder may maintain.
  • Set the age a dog may be bred to between 18 months and 8 years.
  • Impose sweeping and unreasonable requirements for breeding facilities that would make illegal most hunting kennels and anyone who raises dogs in their homes.
  • Mandate criminal background checks and fingerprinting at applicant’s expense.
  • Require annual, unannounced inspections at breeder’s expense, with costs unspecified.
  • Require certain disclosures to consumer at time of sale. Some are reasonable consumer protection measures; others may make compliance impossible for some.
  • Give breeder in violation 7 days to comply or request a hearing before being ordered to dispose of unaltered dogs or face a fine of up to $5000.
  • Put regulation, enforcement and other discretionary powers in the hands of the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, which lacks the institutional knowledge to properly deal with animal issues.





 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top