ZOO WARS~UPDATE-S. 1463 -Captive Primate Safety Act~Taking Action for Animals

•August 1, 2014 • Leave a Comment

It has passed thru committee so consider this a warning there is another law from the Federal Government in the making that will be harmful if passed. Maybe you don’t have a monkey or even know someone with a pet monkey it’s still up to you to help stop this action against pet monkeys. Imagine, of you will, your vet being in another state and not being able to take your pet across state lines to the vet…This does nothing to helping a single monkey.

This not new for reference 2012: http://topcatsroar.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/oppose-the-primate-safety-act-animal-rights-activists-are-back-doing-their-monkey-business/

Not much has changed since with one exception-hey have snuck in ALL wildlife -not just primates!! This is very serious and the HSUS plan to end your rights as animal lovers, animal owners and ALL relations with wildlife-Unless an owner you may never have the opportunity to touch or get close with one of these animals if this law passes. Wildlife today -WHAT’S NEXT?!? YOUR DOG, YOUR CAT?!? Soon will be pushed to the point where you loose your rights to own any domestic animal ALL accomplished by the Animal Rights Extremists Nazi Gestopos!!!

TAKE ACTION NOW!!!

Maybe one of the biggest misconception of all times is the Primate Safety Act!!!

“Oppression is the subjugation of one group by another, carried out under conditions of unequal power, and often enforced by threats of or by actual violence. According to Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1993), oppression is the “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power esp. by the imposition of burdens; esp. the unlawful, excessive or corrupt exercise of power other than by extortion by any public officer so as to harm anyone in his rights, person, or property while purporting to act under color of governmental authority”

from Joe:

NOTICE—- It is called the Primate Safety act but they snuck in all wildlife not just primates. And if you allow public contact you are not exempt even if you are USDA licensed.

Summary: S.1463 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

There is one summary for this bill. Bill summaries are authored by CRS
Introduced in Senate (08/01/2013)

Captive Primate Safety Act – Amends the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to add nonhuman primates to the definition of “prohibited wildlife species” for purposes of the prohibition against the sale or purchase of such species in interstate or foreign commerce.

Makes it unlawful for a person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase a live animal of any prohibited wildlife species in interstate or foreign commerce (i.e., for pet trade purposes). Modifies exceptions to such prohibition, including by making it inapplicable to a person who is: (1) a licensed and inspected person who does not allow direct contact between the public and prohibited wildlife species, and (2) transporting a single primate of the genus Cebus that was obtained from and trained by a charitable organization to assist a permanently disabled individual with a severe mobility impairment.

Sets forth civil and criminal penalties for violations of the requirements of this Act.

TAKING ACTION: When calling or writing letters here are some talking points on what to say from UAAPEAL

Memorandum in Opposition of HR2856/S1463 – Captive Primate Safety Act

Uniting a Politically Proactive Exotic Animal League (UAPPEAL)

Summary of Proposed Legislation: The Captive Primate Safety Act proposes to amend the lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to prohibit the importation, exportation, transportation, and sale, receipt, acquisition, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce of nonhuman primates as pets. The proponents argue that federal legislation is needed to curb the pet trade of nonhuman primates, which they argue pose health risks to the public, and to protect nonhuman primates from improper care.

The Captive Primate Safety Act was opposed by the Department of the Interior in the last Congress because of the costs and hardships associated to enforcement it. Following is a list of reasons why UAPPEAL opposes the Captive Primate Safety act.

There is no public health risk: According to the statistics cited by the proponents of this bill, there have been 80 recorded injuries from pet monkeys in the U.S. from 1995 to 2005. An American therefore has a 1 in 38 million chance in being bitten by a monkey. Although nonhuman primates can carry zoonotic diseases (which are scientifically possible to transmit to a human and vice versa), there have been NO instances in the United States in which a human has contracted a disease or died from a bite from a pet monkey. There is an absence of an appreciable health risk which is backed up by statistics from the CDC verifying the lack of disease transmission or death from pet nonhuman primates.

Costs $4 million a year to enforce:

The estimated costs associated with enforcing this bill are $4 million per year. In addition, the implementation costs have been estimated at $17 million. On a per bite incident basis, the cost that will be spent to prevent each bite is a half a million dollars. This is especially alarming given the present economic conditions of this country and the difficulties in enforcement anticipated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Duplicates existing law: Most, if not all, states have laws prohibiting animal cruelty or neglect.

Approximately 40 states have some sort of regulation for the ownership of nonhuman primates. In addition, countless municipalities and local governments have ordinances or city codes addressing issues associated with the ownership of nonhuman primates. These local laws represent the balance appropriate for the respective communities and those communities are charged with the responsibility and expense associated with enforcement. For nonhuman primate species determined to have a high need for protection, the Endangered Species Act already prohibits their sale and international trade as pets. Every state already requires a health certificate for entry into the state and it should be left to the states to make these decisions, not the federal government.

Would have negative consequences:

This bill does not exempt interstate travel with nonhuman primate in the case of an emergency such as an evacuation due to a tornado or hurricane. Owners would not be able to visit family members in another state and take their pets with them or attend educational opportunities such as seminars and conventions given by nonhuman primate organizations. These educational opportunities are very important for owners to stay current on animal care techniques and enrichment strategies for their pets. Nonhuman primate owners are very serious about the care of their pets that are a part of their family just the same as domestic animals are a part of many American families. This bill would do nothing but create a needless and unfair hardship for the existing owners of these animals.

 Overreach by Federal Government:

The importation and regulation of primates should be handled by the state and not the Federal Government.

Where and how to send your message -DO IT NOW!!! For email address/contact forms go: http://www.senate.gov/…/contact…/senators_cfm.cfm

Just C/P the talking points and get the message out to stop this BAD BILL!!! TY!!!

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned  -B

Thank you to Janet, Joe and Chris for the alert!!!

 

Cyber Lynch Mobs Ignore Real Suffering

•August 1, 2014 • 2 Comments

One of the most well written blog posts I have read in a long time!!! If you are someone wrongly accused and a victim of hatred or your helping someone wrongly accused then you know what’s going on -If not you might be questioning the issue or maybe you are part of it. And it doesn’t even have to be about cruelty-it can entail destroying a person’s credibility when it too is not called for. The extreme ugly side of Animal Rights Extremists has not gone by without notice…I guess they will need to move on to a new hate and purpose for their urge to bully others. It has not gone by without suffering and even death. With no sorrow or remorse they continue on.

I recently received a comment about an extreme hater from one of the Alpha Tex trolls~Daisy is still on FB stiring it and going after others!!! She’s moved on alright, according to the commenter, now in Oklahoma, or so she believes. For all I know, ~Daisy could be in NY, who knows-her hatred exists on the Internet so she could be anywhere she chooses she claims to be…She could even be a HE…

http://arrogantafghan.blog.com/2014/02/10/real-versus-imagined-abuses-cyber-lynch-mobs-ignore-real-suffering/

Real versus Imagined Abuse Cyber Lynch Mobs Ignore Real Suffering

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, many anti-breeder zealots and rabid, radical animal rights terrorists claim abuses where there is none. They claim that anyone who takes care of their animals differently than they do is inherently cruel and should have their animals taken away. They make NO distinction for variances in totally acceptable, legal husbandry.

They form cyber lynch mobs to harass and cruelly berate the owners of the animals they perceive as neglected or abused. As I’ve discussed before, it seems to be more about the opportunity to harass people than anything for the benefit of the animals. They urge each other to steal the animals, destroy private property, wish death and pain on the owners, even going so far as to describe how they want to torture the owner or that the world would be a better place if that person committed suicide.

I will never, ever condone or support this kind of behavior. These bullies (for that is what they really are) have been known to post pictures taken while trespassing, put the owner’s name and personal home address on public Facebook pages and radical hate groups in the hopes someone will vandalize the property or steal the animals– or worse, hurt the owners.

This is not acceptable behavior, and I am disappointed with Facebook. I personally have reported several comments and hate pages on Facebook, including posts from people discussing how close they live to the pet owners and how they are going to go steal their pets; not once has Facebook removed the posts based on reports I’ve made. Likewise, they never removed the comments I’ve flagged where people threaten to beat, torture, rape, or murder people. I sincerely hope that the Facebook moderators can sleep at night knowing that someone may get hurt or KILLED because of this dangerous mob-mentality that they did NOTHING to curb!!!!!!

I’m just so sad and frustrated by it all.

This blog was inspired by two news articles that I was made aware of, as well as some Facebook hate pages.

The first article is about a German Shepherd who lives outside. The animal rights zealots and cyber lynch mobs are up in arms that Ruger, the German Shepherd, lives outside, tethered to a dog house. They claim that leaving a dog outside in winter is by definition “abuse.”

It bears mentioning that Ruger is on a very long chain, allowing a lot of mobility, and he has an electrically heated water bowl. His dog house, which is raised off the ground to keep him dry and has a flap in front of the door to help hold heat in, is equipped with straw and a heating pad.

That’s right, a healthy and happy dog who has a heated water bowl AND a raised, heated dog house is being “abused” in their minds.

Delusional.

And yet, there’s a huge outcry from people wanting to have Ruger taken away from his family, just because he lives outside. The usual cyber lynch mob is screaming for the dog to be taken away. They are also urging each other to steal the dog. The local police where Ruger and his family are have been inundated with calls, and have visited Ruger and his owners no less than three times from phoned-in reports of abuse and neglect. Now that the police have declared that Ruger is just fine, the owners are compliant with the law, the lynch mob is throwing a fit about the police “not doing their job” by not taking Ruger away. These people have even flooded the owners with requests to outright buy the dog, to “save” him and “give him the love he deserves.” Plus there’s people who’ve contacted the owners directly to berate them for how they care for their dog.

While rolling my eyes at the stupidity of these people, I was linked to another article, about Joe the cat, who was shot seventeen times in the head. Yes, you read that right. Poor Joe was shot SEVENTEEN TIMES. IN THE HEAD. It’s a miracle he’s still alive, poor dear soul!

What people–HORRIBLE, soulless “people”–did to Joe the kitty is abominable. It is indescribably cruel, heartless, and horrifying. How anyone could willingly inflict such intentional pain and suffering on a living being purely for cruel “entertainment” is and forever will be far beyond my comprehension.

I also fail to comprehend why there is no outcry from the zealots. After all, they claim that animal welfare is their purpose and that they want to protect animals from abusers. So why is there no “FIND JOE’S SHOOTER” page, no lynch mob calling police to focus more squarely on it, no zealots discussing how closely they live to Sarnia and how they should go do some legwork to try and find witnesses who could help bring Joe’s torturers to justice?

Oh, that’s right, they’re too busy harassing and threatening to steal a well-loved dog with a heated doghouse.

These people have the luxury of First World Problems. They have so little actual experience with real abuse that they have forgotten what it looks like. They want any excuse to bully and harass innocent pet owners, and they’ve lost sight of helping animals who are truly in need.

Of course the elephant in the room is that these assholes who refuse to give up when the authorities have cleared pet owners (such as Ruger’s family) of alleged abuses, who continue to rattle their sabers and flood the police with call after call demanding action, are taking time and resources away from real abuse cases and real crime.

But since it’s about bullying people and trying to destroy people for the zealots and lynch mobs instead of actually helping or saving animals, little wonder that they don’t care about animals that are REALLY in need.

_____________________

Much thanks to Arrogant Afghan Hound for this thoughtful and thought provoking post!!! I will be following this blog.

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned  -B

TY Michelle!!!

Celebrities That Don’t Support PETA

•August 1, 2014 • Leave a Comment

Cruella DevilleHow funny is this-14 Celebrities that made PETA angry as if these Celebrities really give a SHIT!!! Maybe for the moment but they don’t waste their time on small minded people. If anything PETA is worried they have either lost their support or never had it, never will have it-My God why does anyone support any Animal Rights Extremists Agenda?!? Matter of fact, those that support their agenda, I don’t waste my time on…PETA-97% kill rate HSUS 25+million in the Caribbean -I think it’s PETA that’s got a lot to worry about!!! Support these Celebrities…They stand up for what they believe in-Love it!!!

http://www.crushable.com/2013/10/03/entertainment/celebrities-peta-hates-wear-fur/

14 Celebrities Who Made PETA Angry (And You Won’t Like Them When They’re Angry)
It’s kind of become a cliche that if a celebrity wears a fur coat or eats a cheeseburger or acts with a lion in a movie or looks at a photograph of a dog the wrong way, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) will attack them for it. The organization loves some celebrities who are willing to take their clothes off and show their hot bods to protest fur, but they also despise others. PETA’s a controversial organization even among a lot of animal rights activists because their methods are often questionable. But you have to give them credit for how closely their magnifying glass looks at Hollywood. If you’re a vegan celebrity who sneaks a popcorn shrimp at a party, I’m pretty sure a PETA SWAT team will break down the door and revoke your vegan license. Do those exist? I’m not vegan, so I don’t know.

Let’s take a look at fourteen celebrities who have felt the wrath of PETA. You might think it’s mostly because of fur — because rich people love fur — but a lot of these feuds originated with other animal-related issues. The organization’s attacks range from gentle wrist-slapping to name-calling.

1.Honey Boo Boo

“As I’m sure you are learning from your chicken, chickens are smart, interesting animals with personalities of their own,” our letter reads. “Changing Nugget’s name to ‘Not a Nugget’ will let your fans know that they should be nice to chickens by not eating them.”

Even Honey Boo Boo isn’t immune from PETA’s complaints. Last year the organization wrote her a letter asking her to change her pet chicken’s name from Nugget to Not a Nugget. Hey PETA, maybe the chicken’s already named Not a Nugget and they just call it Nugget for short! You don’t know.

2.Kim Kardashian

“Children of greedy, self-absorbed parents could follow their lead or they could break away and be alienated from and disgusted by them. Kim is a commodity, she is paid to wear things like fur, a particular makeup, or to shake hands with questionable people, so she is not a good example to a child or anyone else of how to show a social conscience…”

Kim Kardashian has been flour-bombed by PETA activists for wearing fur, and earlier this year while she was pregnant the organization claimed that her fashion choices would affect what kind of mother she would be. Let’s hope they don’t see that leather dress North got from Paris Fashion Week.

3. Kanye West

“What’s draggin’ on the floor is Kanye’s reputation as a man with no empathy for animals or human beings. He’s a great musician but doesn’t seem to have the fashion sense to design anything more than caveman costumes.”

Kim and her man Kanye can bond over the fact that PETA despises both of them. In response to Kanye’s song lyric “Tell PETA my mink is draggin’ on the floor,” PETA issued an angry statement to E! News. Oh shut up and get him his damn croissants!

4. Jennifer Lawrence

“When people kill animals, it is the animals who are ‘screwed,’ not PETA, and one day I hope she will try to make up for any pain she might cause any animal who did nothing but try to eke out a humble existence in nature.”

Not even universal girl crush J.Law has been able to avoid PETA’s wrath. When explaining whether the squirrel she skinned in Winter’s Bone was real, she said, “I should say it wasn’t real, for PETA. But screw PETA.” Because PETA seems to have a radar for every time their name is mentioned, they scolded J.Law, and as with Kanye, they turned her word choices against her.

5. Jennifer Lopez

“Maybe the real story behind their breakup is that Marc Anthony left because he couldn’t stand looking into her morgue of a closet.”

Uh oh, now it’s getting personal. J.Lo is a frequent target of PETA’s anger for using fur in her clothing line. They’ve protested her appearances and even have an interactive game on their website called “Fur Bully From the Block.” Ouch.

6. Kelis

“I would eat pterodactyl if you found some and you told me it was meaty and delicious.”

The quote above is actually not from PETA but from Kelis in response to PETA. After the group criticized her for wearing fur, Kelis took to Myspace to declare that she’s a-okay with eating a dinosaur… as long as it’s tasty… and probably only if it comes with a milkshake.

7. Beyoncé

“We would take a bet that if Beyoncé watched our video exposés … she’d probably not want to be seen again in anything made of snakes, lizards, rabbits, or other animals who died painfully. Today’s fashions are trending toward humane vegan options, and Beyoncé’s Super Bowl outfit missed the mark on that score.”

Beyonce came under fire for wearing a mink coat to the inauguration earlier this year, and then later she was criticized for wearing animal skins as part of her Super Bowl costume. In this case they didn’t even get the skins totally right, since she apparently wore cow, python and iguana.

8. Lady Gaga

“[W]hat’s next: the family cat made into a hat? Meat is the decomposing flesh of a tormented animal who didn’t want to die, and after a few hours under the TV lights, it would smell like the rotting flesh it is and likely be crawling in maggots—not too attractive, really.”

In addition to fur, Gaga has worn a dress made entirely out of raw meat, which clearly got PETA pissed. It looked particularly hypocritical since she’d told Ellen DeGeneres that she would never wear fur. Who lies to Ellen?!

9. Katy Perry

“What you may not know — as most people do not — is that animals used for entertainment in film and television endure horrific cruelty and suffer from extreme confinement and violent training methods.”

Katy Perry’s “Roar” video was criticized for using wild animals for entertainment purposes. Katy responded with a letter from the American Human Association, explaining that the AHA was on set and no animals were harmed. So there.

10.Maggie Gyllenhaal

“Maggot has gone from being lost in her brother’s shadow to being lost inside some really ugly fur coats. Where is her fashion sense? Maybe Christian Bale dropped her on her head during an action sequence in The Dark Knight.”

Whoa, now that’s some snark if I’ve ever seen it. This is what PETA said about Maggie in their 2009 worst-dressed list. I want to meet whoever wrote it just to gape at them.

11-12. Olsen Twins

“Because fur adds 20 years and 20 pounds, maybe Mary-Kate and Ashley think their matronly wardrobe will deflect the gossip about bulimia. Somewhere, someone is missing a matching pair of Bigfoot bobblehead dolls.”

PETA loves to make fun of Mary-Kate and Ashley and their oversized furs. Bringing eatings disorder speculation into it might be a tad in poor taste, however. Still, that is quite the metaphor at the end there.

13. Jonathan Rhys Meyers

“Chickens and cows may not be as cute and cuddly as puppies, but when it comes to their ability to feel pain and suffer, they are no different from animals people call pets.”

Guys, I don’t know if you know this, but when Jonathan Rhys-Meyers was in China, he ate a dog. So yeah, that happened.

14. Paris Hilton

“Celebrities like Paris Hilton, who portray ‘purse pups’ as accessories instead of living beings who require a lifetime of care, are largely to blame, as are movies like Beverly Hills Chihuahua, which also cause a rush on the “dog of the moment.”

Everyone knows Paris Hilton’s favorite accessory is a dog. And sometimes a pig. Or a kinkajou. She spends a lot of money on them and she cycles through them at a frightening rate. PETA does not like this. And I’m willing to bet those dogs don’t like wearing those outfits. Just saying.

__________________________

Pictures at the link

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things sad are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned  -B

 

 

ZOO WARS~ACTION ALERT~Primate Safety Act

•July 31, 2014 • Leave a Comment

Maybe one of the biggest misconception of all times is the Primate Safety Act!!!

“Oppression is the subjugation of one group by another, carried out under conditions of unequal power, and often enforced by threats of or by actual violence. According to Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1993), oppression is the “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power esp. by the imposition of burdens; esp. the unlawful, excessive or corrupt exercise of power other than by extortion by any public officer so as to harm anyone in his rights, person, or property while purporting to act under color of governmental authority”

Emily Rose

“FIVE Pound monkeys are not the same animal as a Chimpanzee

as a housecat is not a Lion,

as a parakeet is not an eagle.”

Watch for an Update on what you can do to STOP this action!!!

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned  -B

 

 

Veterinarians “Get it” About HSUS

•July 30, 2014 • 1 Comment

“Oppression is the subjugation of one group by another, carried out under conditions of unequal power, and often enforced by threats of or by actual violence. According to Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1993), oppression is the “unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power esp. by the imposition of burdens; esp. the unlawful, excessive or corrupt exercise of power other than by extortion by any public officer so as to harm anyone in his rights, person, or property while purporting to act under color of governmental authority”

____________________________________________________

from: Humane Watch Team
Veterinarians “Get it” About HSUS

Booths

Just as the Humane Society of the United States cloaks itself with cats and
dogs in fundraising material-even though only 1% of HSUS’s money goes to pet
shelters-we’ve seen the animal liberation group use veterinarians as cover
for its radical agenda. With that in mind, last weekend we attended the
American Veterinary Medical Association
<http://www.humanewatch.org/feed/www.avma.org> (AVMA) convention in Denver.
We’re glad to say that many vets are already in the know.

The response from veterinarians to our booth was generally very positive.
Vets whose work involves laboratory animals have long been targeted by
animal-rights radicals, so they didn’t need an introduction to HSUS. Same
with livestock vets. But many vets are younger, from urban or suburban
areas, and want to have a small-animal practice. They are prime pickings for
misinformation from HSUS.

And that’s exactly what HSUS had in mind. HSUS’s veterinary arm, the Humane
Society Veterinary Medical Association, had a booth to try to recruit
veterinary professional members. HSVMA is simply the new face of an
organization called Association of Veterinarians for Animals Rights (AVAR),
which merged with HSUS in 2008 to create HSVMA.

AVAR burned bridges in the veterinary community. The group teamed up with
PETA for a full-page ad in 2004 claiming that AVMA, an organization
representing thousands of veterinarians, had “betrayed” animals. A member of
HSVMA’s Leadership Council has reportedly compared slaughterhouses to Nazi
concentration camps at a recent animal rights conference and has written
that “Laboratory destruction and vandalism.is not terrorism.”

Right-tell that to someone who has had his car firebombed
<http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/22/animal.activists.ucla/> or endured
harassing phone calls
<http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/judge-orders-extremists-to-stop-45534> .

HSUS didn’t help itself with the veterinary community by pushing-and then
dropping-a planned ballot initiative in Colorado
<http://www.humanewatch.org/this-group-has-been-rescuing-animals-from-flooding-wheres-hsus/>
this year that would have allowed individuals to bring legal action against
veterinarians. The idea, apparently, was to target livestock veterinarians
who use standard practices that HSUS doesn’t like. The initiative may make a
return in 2016 and would certainly be an extreme weapon for HSUS to use in
its broader war against agriculture (keep in mind that HSUS is against all
animal agriculture)
<http://www.humanewatch.org/hsus_plays_chicken_with_whole_foods/> ).

An important distinction for veterinarians to understand is that HSUS/HSVMA
is about animal rights and not animal welfare. Animal welfare is
science-based and involves treating animals humanely. Animal rights is about
stopping the human use of most animals-which, ironically, would reduce the
need for veterinarians and put many out of business.

HSUS was more cordial this year-in 2012, HSUS tried and failed to get us
thrown out of the convention. But HSUS surely didn’t like the fact that our
booth was right near theirs, something many attendees found amusing. Maybe
next year we’ll be neighbors.

If these URL links are dead, view the entire article with hot links at…
<http://www.humanewatch.org/veterinarians-get-it-about-hsus/>

____________________

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned  -B

 

First Offense Against Probation for Non-Violent Crime Could Destroy a Family

•July 27, 2014 • 2 Comments

Sometimes you see an animal cruelty case and you just can’t help but wonder why they are wasting so much time and money prosecuting people for unintentional non-violent passive animal cruelty issues-It’s actually an unintentional non-violent ALLEGED animal cruelty issue yet prosecuted to the fullest and in some states a felony-huh?!?-I know…right!?! Murders are even assumed innocent until proven guilty, but not when someone is charged with animal cruelty-Just why is it assumed instant GUILTY?!? But wait-Guilty of WHAT actually!?! A felony in some states the same as for the murder or a bank robber?!? Same as Intentional Violent Animal Cruelty?!?-huh?!? -WTF?!?

Well, you’re not going to like the answer anymore than I do…More times than not, Animal Rights Extremists make it their personal task to see that a person accused is found guilty no matter what…A pretty powerful position they give themselves and there is nothing the accused can do to prove differently when the issues are not allowed to be brought up no matter the importance…Extremists are usually couch potatoes and judgment passed by news articles that are sensationalized in the press…They get busy and work fast -from posting comments on every article, forming FB groups to attract others to join in, to start petitions and call district attorneys to force them to prosecute to the letter of the law -This is actually considered a passive crime; has now a following with a full blown league of hatred…There’s even been issues over rats…that’s right, RATS!!! Then theirs Kaboodles Ranch…Maybe one of the greatest rescue centers of all times; targeted and taken down by PETA!?! PETA-97% KILL rate!!! “They are better of dead than owned by a human”-that PETA!!!-PETA KILLS!!!

Recently a friend of mine was jailed for such allegations when no intentional cruelty existed…CPS was brought in and a second charge had to be fought-Their reasoning, what-their basement was flooded!?! OMG!!! Of course everything was upside down in the home including the living/sleeping arrangements…Imagine that!!!-Charged with cruelty because of a natural disaster in the home so the animal rescuer went down-oh, did I mention this was a rescuer!?! Mostly house cats and personal pets including their dog…Yeah…jailed-Chewed up and spit out…They are unable to get a fair appeal of the case even though time was already served and now on probation…

Charging animal rescues by bigger rescues is BIG business -They’re hoarders don’t ya’ know!?!-NOT!!! Just like all breeders are now labeled as a ‘puppy mill’…’cat mill’…’horse mill’-makes no difference it’s a ‘mill’ -‘rat mill’ -as if some crime was committed that an animal was bred -Holy Smokes…As one person puts it -“They don’t grow on trees”…

When we create a nation of law breakers what good are laws, regulations, and statutes?!?

In 2012, Anne Marie and Shane Duhon were raided for animal cruelty-Was in true-NO!!! Was it a case of a rescuers being accused of a non violent unintentional passive animal cruelty-You bet it was and the animals were healthy however she was set up to take a fall whether it be because another rescue felt threatened-Maybe; that the articles she wrote against Animal Rights Extremists threatened the Animal Rights Agenda-Maybe; was it prejudice against their way of life-Quite possible; or maybe, it’s ALL the above. No matter, a full, all out investigation began; even the taking of things not listed on the warrant…and they called in CPS for the children as if child abuse had also occurred when it had not…However, the Duhons decided because they weren’t wealthy people that they could not afford a damn good attorney for representation; it was best to tough it up and take a plea bargain. They agree to 5 years of probation to not be involved with animals or animal ownership, rescue or otherwise rather than drag their family thru anymore Animal Rights Extremists dirt.

What was not known to the general public but was known to the prosecution and likely the judge, is that Shane was working in a poultry plant at the time and that was apparently OK-huh?!? -WTF?!? No I’m not kidding, he helped process animals for food. Isn’t that working with animals?!? You bet it is so just how serious would it be if they raised some animals to fed and support the family, almost 2 years later after Shane lost his job and they couldn’t make ends meet!?! After all, isn’t it our God given right as Americans to support our family and provide food on the table anyway that we can?!? Pay our bills to keep the  the wolves at bay…after all they did have the skills to care for animals and experienced to slaughter the animals for food-Like I said, these are not wealthy people and maybe not the best decision after all, they were still on probation thru a plea agreement.

But wait a minute here-How is it that Shane can work at a poultry plant even thou their probation orders said you can’t work with animals?!? How is that OK yet ,not OK to own chickens and rabbits that will fed and support the family?!?

Whether we like it or not, we are all capable of raising our own food and feeding our family when we can’t afford groceries-It’s called sustainable living. Anne Marie has a vegetable garden as well and between the two of them the family was still provided for, most of the bills paid and some very important and necessary repairs were made to their home. They had gone from being accused of cruelty to raising food when it became necessary but the problem is…their probation wasn’t completed and had fallen behind on the payments for their probation. Was this a poor decision?!? Maybe depending on how far the district attorney pans on going for blood…But can he get a judge to agree to such a harsh punishment considering the facts and the need?!?

Once again we see it sensationalized by the press-Media hounds right there when they were released form jail…Calling it a case of “de-ja-vu” by the fucking media; they are somehow guilty of a crime of cruelty and making headlines for a probation violation for a non violent crime of unintentional passive animal cruelty. -WTF?!? Is this a boring little town with no news, good or bad to report; no real crime to report so they have to fabricate it and become a probation board and a judge…Does any place in the US without any crime to report that they actually made their news story something is never was?!? Once again, the media is feeding the Animal Rights Extremists with what they want to read and starting a frenzy of haters -The district attorney just night push for jail time…seems like the media is controlling this case; don’t they have something better to do?!? It was far from unbiased and maybe the Duhons will pursue a slander case.

All these cases of non violent passive animal cruelty all across the country at TAXPAYER EXPENSE!!! -It’s comparable to scratching your ass in public and this is not even an animal cruelty case-it’s a first probation offense. Is this what you want-the waste-less spending of tax money…Destroying a family-Jailing them for what?!?

How about the husband keeps that new good job he has now to continue supporting the family and if something goes wrong inform the court. How about Anne Marie does some community service of some sort…But NOT jail time!!! Where and when exactly do we draw the line…How is it that our society can be so un forgiving of such a passive crime…fabricated at that but remember, they settled with a plea agreement, and on probation.

How much time did Michael Vick serve?! That was INTENTIONAL with numerous counts of sever animal cruelty!!! It was both a state and federal crime. That too was a plea agreement…Facts of the case:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Vick

[Short version:]

In April 2007, Vick was implicated in an illegal interstate dog fighting ring that had operated for five years. In August 2007, he pleaded guilty to federal felony charges and served 21 months in prison, followed by two months in home confinement.[1][2][3] Hurt financially by the loss of his NFL salary and product endorsement deals, combined with previous financial mismanagement, Vick filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July 2008.[4]

[Long Version:]

A search warrant executed on April 25, 2007 as part of a drug investigation of Vick’s cousin Davon Boddie led to discovery of evidence of unlawful dog fighting activities at a property owned by Vick in rural Surry County in southeastern Virginia, with extensive facilities for the activity.[71] Media attention quickly grew as state officials investigated, soon joined by federal authorities. As separate state and federal investigations progressed, more details emerged about an interstate dog-fighting ring that involved drugs and gambling. Gruesome details of abuse, torture and execution of under-performing dogs galvanized animal rights activists and expressions of public outrage. Vick and several others were indicted on federal and Virginia state felony charges related to the operation.[83]

Federal prosecution and conviction

In July 2007, Vick and three other men were charged by federal authorities with felony charges of operating an unlawful interstate dog fighting venture known as “Bad Newz Kennels“. Vick was accused of financing the operation, directly participating in dog fights and executions, and personally handling thousands of dollars in related gambling activities.[84] Federal prosecutors indicated they intended to proceed under the provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.[85]

By August 20, Vick and the other three co-defendants agreed to separate plea bargains for the federal charges.[86][87] They were expected to each receive federal prison sentences of between 12 months and five years. Four days later, Vick filed plea documents with the federal court. He pleaded guilty to “Conspiracy to Travel in Interstate Commerce in Aid of Unlawful Activities and to Sponsor a Dog in an Animal Fighting Venture”. He admitted to providing most of the financing for the operation and to participating directly in several dog fights in Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina. He admitted to sharing in the proceeds from these dog fights. He further admitted that he knew his colleagues killed several dogs who did not perform well. He admitted to being involved in the destruction of 6–8 dogs, by hanging or drowning. The “victimization and killing of pit bulls” was considered an aggravating circumstance, allowing prosecutors to exceed the federal sentencing guidelines for the charge.  On August 27, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson accepted Vick’s guilty plea, but reminded Vick that he (Hudson) was under no obligation to accept the prosecution’s recommendation of a reduced sentence.[89]

While free on bail, Vick tested positive for marijuana in a random drug test.[90][91] This was a violation of the conditions of his release while awaiting sentencing in federal court.[90][91] As a result, Hudson ordered Vick confined to his Hampton, Virginia home between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. with electronic monitoring until his court hearing date in December.[92] He was ordered to submit to random drug testing.[90][91]

On December 10, Vick appeared in U.S. District Court in Richmond for sentencing. Judge Hudson said he was “convinced that it was not a momentary lack of judgment” on Vick’s part, and that Vick was a “full partner” in the dog fighting ring, and he was sentenced to serve 23 months in federal prison.[94] Vick was assigned to United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, a federal prison facility in Leavenworth, Kansas, to serve his sentence.[96]

State prosecution and sentencing

Separate Virginia charges against all four defendants in the dog-fighting case were brought following indictments by the Surry County grand jury when it met on September 25, 2007. The principal evidence considered was sworn statements of the defendants during their plea agreement process before the federal court. Vick was charged with two class-6 felonies, which each carried a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.[100]

Vick was transported to Virginia in November 2008 to face the state charges.[104] He appeared before the Surry County Circuit Court on November 25 at a session held in neighboring Sussex County because the Surry court building was undergoing renovation. He submitted a guilty plea to a single Virginia felony charge for dog fighting, receiving a 3-year prison sentence suspended on condition of good behavior, and a $2,500 fine. In return for the plea agreement, the other charge was dropped.[105] Michael Dwayne Vick, Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) ID# 33765-183, was released on July 20, 2009.[1

_____________________________________

Seems to me Vick got special treatment from both courts for his INTENTIONAL VIOLENT ANIMAL CRUELTY!!! -You can read the full Michael Vick report at the above link…

Point of this is, that Vick received far better treatment for INTENTIONAL VIOLENT ANIMAL CRUELTY -both on the federal and state level than the Duhons did from the start for an UNINTENTIONAL NON-VIOLENT PASSIVE ANIMAL CRUELTY charge…And to top it off, Wayne Pacelle~CEO HSUS recommends that Vick be allowed a dog for his children sake before his probation was finished-WTF?!?

Lastly, I want to know what the Attorney General of Oklahoma thinks about the fairness of all this…Certainly times have changed in a BIG way since the Duhons made a plea agree: http://topcatsroar.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/updateoklahoma-investigation-of-hsus/

and due to financial ruin, they made a decision that sent them to jail and now up on parole violations…Possible jail time-Shane looses that new good job…the children struggle to survive and you the TAX PAYER flipping the bill on all of this BULLSHIT!!!

How absurd that they suffer a longer sentence or jail time and unfortunate that their actual talents to work with animals be wasted and now facing who knows what…

This is not to be believed- but PETA once again is making it’s mark to harm people unjustly by reporting the Duhons yet they go by with no charges for their crimes against animals and their support of the Animal Liberation Front-Well it’s 2014 -Should we expect the court to be fair or should we expect the worse  -ALL done at TAXPAYER EXPENSE!?!

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinion of others…Stay tuned  -B

 

 

 

 

ZOO WARS~SHARE WILDLY!!! This is the Most Shocking Reveal Yet!!! Big Cat Rescue vs Truth, Justice and the American Way!!

•July 26, 2014 • 1 Comment

We know the WHY!!! But what we don’t know is how they have gone by for so long without anyone noticing including those of us investigating. What this blogger has learned just a few hours ago is CRIMINAL!!! It’s FRAUD!!! And comes with a warning that what you are about to read is sickening. It’s the proof we need for the IRS and every legislature across this country that demonstrates they have been lied to by an accredited GFAS/HSUS Animal Rights Extremists supported facility…There is every reason that criminal RICO violations should be sought on Carole and Howard Baskin.

What if I told you that Big Cat Rescue was PAYING for positive comments and articles…What if I told you they were likely paying for letter writing as well and signing petitions…and What if I told you I can prove it!?!

Just how DESPERATE do you have to be to pay for positive comments?!? “You are pretty desperate when you have to pay for good comments huh?
Now this is something everyone should keep in a safe place when fighting laws.

If you responded and got paid then you are actually guilty as well-Comparable, in my opinion and the opinions of others to accepting a bribe!!!

Everything that you are about to read comes from the following link that after this post, jus might come down but in a google cache’ as well as screen shot…ALL of it!!! Sure does give reason to question ANY and ALL GFAS/HSUS Accredited and Verified Accredited (PSEUDO SANCTUARIES) sanctuaries-“F” is for FAKE sanctuary!!!

http://bigcatrescue.org/ad-copy-help-wanted/

All the following screen shots can be enlarged for easier reading…All the following comments are from real people voicing their real opinion!!! Nothing is censored!!! -That’s how we roll!!!

BCR BRIBE

“Fucking ridiculous I say…sorry for my language but what have we humans come down to…this level ??…where you have to pay for comments…omg nodding head”

I had to take 5 screen shots to cover the whole thing… but I have it all. Will send when legislation comes up. If they offer this on the net…. wonder what they offer the politicians?”

“What a scam artist learned really well from Wayne and HSUS”

Pitiful thing when that is the ONLY way to get good comments about your place is to pay for it. Every dope head, alcoholic, etc., that needs a dollar will be posting.

One comment was a link to this blog (YAY!!! -You know I love that) http://topcatsroar.wordpress.com/…/ohio-testimony…/

But wait…there’s more-A lot more…

“Great way to spend those donated dollars huh? Smh”

“She picked the perfect industry to get free help so she can pocket the profit huh? In her own words. and we are exploiting the cats, lol”

Here’s her reasoning why this is OK…

Baskin reasoning

Baskin reasoning 2

So that’s where all the money donated for Tony’s new cage is going to!!!!! Hot dam. But I can’t even say nothing nice about the toilet paper.”

Baskin reasoning3

For that kind of money, Carole Baskin was willing to actually do some work.

“Fucking Bitch is spending peoples hard earned money she receives as donations for animal care and caging-PISSES me off to no end!!!”

Look at all the damn laws and regulations to take animals and stop ownership!!! She and Howie at the core of it!!! All Fish and Wildlife offices, All USDA admins, ALL senators and reps in every state and FEDERAL should see this SHIT AND THE IRS!!!”

Baskin reasoning4

“Make that money exploiting animals and than bash everyone else”

How many times have we all read how Baskin and the other Pseudo sanctuaries hope to put themselves out of business?!? Well folks, that’s a total lie and by her own post and words says it!!! “OPPS!!!”

Baskin reasoning5jpg

ALL owners of any animal hopes to have their animals with them until the day they die-Most Responsible Exotic Animal Owners that I know have a plan in place for the animals when and if that happens -Husband-Wife-Friend-G.W. Exotics or other responsible facility!!! Baskin wants those animals and/or for you to be denied what she wishes for herself.

“Don’t be afraid of the truth. Go visit animal circuses, ask questions to the people with real answers, and decide for yourself if what we do is humane. Because what activists are doing these days is slander and illegal.”

Baskin reasoning6jpg

 “Bet she calls it program expenses, and is not paying tax on it”

“I personally do not enjoy the unpleasantness of having to respond to HSUS, PETA or Big Cat Rescue’s bullying tactics. My primary concern is that the very future of species such as tigers is imperiled by organizations that engage in such activity rather than further efforts at endangered species conservation. There cyber-bullying tactics do not even help true Conservation.” 

So…what does the law have to say about this kind of thing?!?

Actually, this is considered a very serious offense…

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/02/26/companies-could-face-suits-for-paying-for-positive

Companies could face suits for paying for positive online reviews

Glowing online consumer reviews are music to any company’s ears. But some companies will go farther than others to procure such positive comments.

For instance, in March 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that Legacy Learning Systems Inc., the maker of a popular series of guitar-lesson DVDs, would pay $250,000 to settle charges that it deceptively advertised its products by paying online marketers to pose as ordinary consumers and write positive reviews of its products.

Experts say such settlements are a precursor to more FTC action in the future. Gartner Inc. analysts predict that in the next two years, the agency will pursue litigation against at least two unnamed Fortune 500 companies for paying for false reviews.

Peer Pressure

According to a recent Gartner study, tainted consumer reviews of businesses and products will account for between 10 percent and 15 percent of all online critiques by next year.

The trend is disheartening to consumers, but it’s also concerning to in-house lawyers. “This is something that could seriously hurt your company’s reputation,” says Jenny Sussin, senior research analyst at Gartner.

Still, some companies are pressured to buy online critiques because consumers heavily rely upon peer reviews to make their purchasing decisions.

“Sixty-three percent of consumers are more likely to make a purchase from a site where there are user reviews,” says Sussin. She adds that “50 or more reviews on a product can mean a 4.6 percent increase in conversion rates,” which are the proportion of site visitors who take action beyond just viewing a site’s content.

“Businesses have substantial financial interest in making sure that they have a robust portfolio of consumer reviews, given that so many people are checking them,” says Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School. “There needs to be a critical mass of reviews so that consumers believe they have credibility, and the reviews need to be favorable so that it looks like the business is a good provider.”

Goldman says businesses also like the idea of having their offerings “go viral.” “They want there to be an organic groundswell of consumers excited about their offerings and evangelizing them to their peers,” he says. “Some businesses think they can jump-start that process by having it look like ordinary consumers are raving about a product and hoping that that catches fire among other consumers and then snowballs from there.”

Facing pressure to establish a strong consumer following, businesses will post ads on sites such as Craigslist, Amazon Inc.’s Mechanical Turk, Freelancer and Fiverr seeking people who will write short, positive endorsements, for which they will fork over anywhere between $1 and $200, Sussin says.

The Government’s Take

In 2009, the FTC published a guide governing endorsements and testimonials in which it clarified that paying for positive reviews without disclosing that reviewers had been compensated is deceptive advertising, and it will prosecute such practices in the same way.

“The FTC has made its position entirely clear,” Goldman says. “Consumer reviews need to represent the authentic view of the people providing them. The FTC has decided that it’s going to fight the battle of trying to maintain content authenticity online. As a result, they are looking for opportunities to punish folks who are not playing by those rules.” 

Aside from FTC action, Cooley Partner Janet Cullum says companies could face consumer backlash. “The FTC may go after a company for fake reviews, and then right away, consumer class actions could be filed on top of it,” she says. 

Companies also could face suits from competitors claiming they’re hyping themselves online or paying reviewers to write negative critiques of competitors’ products or services.

[BLOGGERS NOTE:  And what about all the people who lost ownership because Baskin pushed for regulations and laws based on FALSE information?!? What about the animals seized in a raid?!?]

Varied Liability

Goldman says that in the U.S., review sites can’t be held liable for any fake, paid-for reviews posted to them. That’s because 47 U.S.C. 230, a statute Congress passed in 1996, essentially says websites aren’t liable for third-party content.

U.K. agencies, however, have penalized sites for containing false reviews. In February 2012, after a four-month investigation, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that TripAdvisor’s lack of user-verification steps allowed reviewers to post nongenuine content to the site. The agency ruled that TripAdvisor’s U.K. site could no longer claim that its reviews were honest or from real people. The ASA took similar action in November 2012 against the U.K.-based airline review site Skytrax, finding that the site couldn’t assert that its reviews were “checked” and “trusted” as it had claimed because it didn’t take “all reasonable steps to ensure that reviews were checked, trusted and made by ‘real’ people with ‘real’ opinions.”

“If review sites are advertising that they’re credible, but they’re not actually policing reviews, that could be a problem overseas,” Goldman says. “Here in the U.S., that’s probably still protected by Section 230.”

 Analysts say FTC will pursue cases against those who compensate for false critiques

The Government’s Take

In 2009, the FTC published a guide governing endorsements and testimonials in which it clarified that paying for positive reviews without disclosing that reviewers had been compensated is deceptive advertising, and it will prosecute such practices in the same way.

“The FTC has made its position entirely clear,” Goldman says. “Consumer reviews need to represent the authentic view of the people providing them. The FTC has decided that it’s going to fight the battle of trying to maintain content authenticity online. As a result, they are looking for opportunities to punish folks who are not playing by those rules.”

Aside from FTC action, Cooley Partner Janet Cullum says companies could face consumer backlash. “The FTC may go after a company for fake reviews, and then right away, consumer class actions could be filed on top of it,” she says.

Companies also could face suits from competitors claiming they’re hyping themselves online or paying reviewers to write negative critiques of competitors’ products or services.

Varied Liability

Goldman says that in the U.S., review sites can’t be held liable for any fake, paid-for reviews posted to them. That’s because 47 U.S.C. 230, a statute Congress passed in 1996, essentially says websites aren’t liable for third-party content.

U.K. agencies, however, have penalized sites for containing false reviews. In February 2012, after a four-month investigation, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) found that TripAdvisor’s lack of user-verification steps allowed reviewers to post nongenuine content to the site. The agency ruled that TripAdvisor’s U.K. site could no longer claim that its reviews were honest or from real people. The ASA took similar action in November 2012 against the U.K.-based airline review site Skytrax, finding that the site couldn’t assert that its reviews were “checked” and “trusted” as it had claimed because it didn’t take “all reasonable steps to ensure that reviews were checked, trusted and made by ‘real’ people with ‘real’ opinions.”

“If review sites are advertising that they’re credible, but they’re not actually policing reviews, that could be a problem overseas,” Goldman says. “Here in the U.S., that’s probably still protected by Section 230.”

 

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 112 other followers