Who says there is justice for all?  It doesn’t appear to be the Indiana Attorney General’s Office

Tune In
AR-HR.com Indiana Dog Raid Update on Blog Talk Radio
Date / Time: 8/15/2009 6:00 PM ET
Call-in Number: (347) 838-9842

Listen to Ar-hr on Blog Talk Radio

Welcome to the first “Animal Rights or Human Responsibility” podcast.

Anyone who’s been following the website would be aware that I’ve been running a series for a while now, looking at the circumstances surrounding a tax evasion case in Indiana. Back on June 3 (correction June 2), there was the seizure of 241 dogs from a farm in Maukport, Indiana belonging to a family called the Garwoods, otherwise known as Breezy Valley Dairy Farm. Well now, there were media reports all over this, over the fact the dogs were seized, over the fact that we were dealing with or at least we were being told as an audience that the key issue with this case was that the dogs were being seized under a jeopardy tax warrant.

What made this case a little bit odd was that that as we often see the Humane Society of the United States was involved in the raid and the seizure of the dogs. Then it was noticed that Indiana House Representative Linda Lawson was volunteering as part the raid. Within 24 hours of the seizure, the dogs were dispersed out to a variety of shelters and rescues, .some of which were outside the Indiana state borders. Now, there were some citizens who were little bit concerned about this and they were e-mailing the Indiana Atty. Gen.’s office with a series of questions:

Since the property been garnished for taxes owed, why has property been given to an organization such as the Humane Society of the United States? (although it’s had a history of being animal welfare organization, these days it really is predominantly involved in political lobbying. This is something that came out a few months ago in a presentation during sweeps week by WSB TV.) So, why was the political lobbying organization being involved in the dog raid? It seems a little strange.

If the property was being get garnished for taxes owed, and this was the only property seized in this case, why was the property been given away? (Since property that’s taken on the premises of a jeopardy tax warrant is really being seized as collateral and is often sold to get the tax money, in the basics.)

When citizens were e-mailing the Indiana Atty. Gen.’s office, they were not getting satisfactory responses and some complaints started circulating in the dog community.

Despite pointed questions asking about the conduct of the officials, the responses being sent out by the Indiana Atty. Gen.’s office boiled down to a very short form letter that said, “Thank you for your inquiry, but our office cannot comment on an ongoing investigation.” There is a problem with this response, and it is a twofold problem:

The Atty. Gen.’s office was already commenting on the investigation at length in the media. So, why wouldn’t they talk to constituents?

The other problem is that inquiries that were being sent weren’t asking for them for the Indiana Atty. Gen.’s office to address details of that investigation case but in fact to address the conduct of the Atty. Gen.’s office

So, these were being ignored, and this is really where Animal Rights or Human Responsibility as an organization stepped in and started looking a little bit harder and we started writing about it. I do the primary writing but I certainly have some assistance from other dedicated animal people who have similar kinds of concerns. And the questions went out in the first article, which got released back in June, on June 11.

Now I’m just running through history on this because if you haven’t been reading website you probably want to know where this was coming from. As the court case started swirling through, there started to be more issues that came up; such as the fact that the judge in the case was asking the Atty. Gen.’s office, “What happened to Due Process?” For those not familiar with the term Due Process, this means that the judge had concerns that the constitutional rights of the Garwoods had been violated in this raid. Also, the judge (Judge Tad Whitis) was concerned about why the dogs had been dispersed and what happened to the money and where were these dogs anyway?

What came out in the filing of court documents was that when the dogs were originally seized, they were seized under the terms of a “seize and hold” order. What this meant was that in the court order it says (the actual documents which can be found on the Animal Rights or Human Responsibility website) that the dogs were to be seized and to be held onto until further instruction from the court. That hasn’t happened, there’s been no further instruction from the court to authorize those dogs being dispersed. Yet, the dogs were dispersed within 24 hours. Not only that there was documentation filed that demonstrated that the dogs were not given into the care of the main societies United States for safekeeping, they were sold to the Humane Society of the United States, at which point the HSUS (as they are called in short) was free to disperse them however they wished. They were, as the legal owners free to give them away, free to sell them, free to even have them euthanized if they had have wished. We don’t know of any cases of that happening, but at this point what we do know is that the dogs were dispersed to a number of shelters and a number of these dogs started being adopted out. Somewhere along the line around (the end of) June, word went out from the Indiana Atty. Gen.’s office to some of the shelters to stop dispersing the dogs. The dogs were no longer being put up for adoption, instead they were being put into what are called foster homes. So, they were being held onto in private homes for an indefinite period of time.

Fair enough. While these dogs were being held, it really has raised questions in the eyes of the judge who’s been seeing this case, why were these dogs sold for the amount of $300 (which is the amount that’s on the sale contract, also available on the Animal Rights or Human Responsibility website) when the outstanding tax that was claimed by the Indiana Atty. Gen.’s office was in excess of $132,000?

So what has happened is that, in summary, the dogs that were seized as collateral on $132,000 were sold for $300; which is the only collateral that the State of Indiana had in this case. The spin on this story’s been unusual as well, because the “rescued animals now being cared for by the Humane Society of United States” (as termed in the Indiana Atty. Gen. offices press release) weren’t rescued animals, they were sold animals. And as I said, as sold property according to the sale contract, the HSUS could do whatever they want with them. The problem is these dogs were not free to be disbursed by court order. They were not free to be sold by the terms of the search warrant. This is key, because within this week at least one of the shelters involved that was holding these dogs (specifically the New Albany/Floyd County Animal Shelter) put out an advertisement through FOX41 indicating that they would be adopting these dogs out. There were 20 dogs left in their possession from this original raid. These dogs were now free to be adopted out, with the permission of the Indiana Atty. Gen.’s office, even though there has been no change in the court’s instruction. The seize and hold order remains in place. There’s been no court order releasing the hold on the dogs. Yet, the Indiana Atty. Gen.’s office has yet again issued instructions to have those dogs released to the public for adoption.

Its even weirder if you look at the fact that, as sold property, only the HSUS or the shelter are the ones who have the authority to decide whether or not the dogs are offered up for adoption because, as sold property, the Indiana Atty. Gen.’s office shouldn’t have any say one way or the other on where those dogs go.

This does raise some significant questions, (a) why have the dogs been released for adoption without there being further court order (b) why are these individuals from the Indiana Atty. Gen.’s office specifically assuring the shelters that it’s okay for them to be adopting these dogs out and (c) why they think they have the right to do so, if they have no legal entitlement to these dogs anymore.

So they’re odd questions and they’re somewhat confusing. There doesn’t seem to much in the way of answers coming. It’s unfortunate because at this point it makes it very difficult to determine whether the Garwoods’ will be able to get their dogs back. These are dogs that were not in ill condition. If anybody cares to look at the Humane Society of the United States’ own photos and own video, all dogs but one were clean, one dog had mud in its coat. (which does prevent people from saying that the dogs were always on wire) So it’s its a little strange, with clean dogs seized as collateral and they’re being dispersed for essentially $1.25 a piece, at the expense of the State of Indiana taxpayers. So, we’re still looking into this and will be continuing to look into this and hopefully we will be able to get more in the way of answers.

Although it might surprise you to hear, I struggle with my own ideas on animal care legislation.  I struggle especially when it comes to the matters of companion animal legislation.  It wounds me to the core to find myself unable to stand shoulder to shoulder with many good people.  Warm-hearted, well-intentioned people who work so hard to provide a safety net for people, from the unfortunate to the financially strapped to the irresponsible, and their animals.  That’s when it struck me that we have been manipulated into a civil war of sorts, and I resent it greatly.  When I say ‘we’,  I mean breeder, rescue, shelter & owner, all of us, especially when it comes to dogs. 

A person I know through my love of dogs put it to me so well yesterday, “There is no other animal on earth with which we have such a unique, almost symbiotic relationship as we do the dog.”  I agree with her completely.   So would the overwhelming majority of  ‘dog people’.  This love, this bond, this tie to the days when our species had only begun to come to awareness of the difference between ourselves and the rest of the animal world, is a precious one.  As we elevate our perception of ourselves and our place in the world, we likewise try to elevate our perception of dogs.  We try and make them closer to us, bestowing them with a complexity of thought, motive and perception that we need for ourselves.   They exist in the Now, something that we find so hard to with that special consciousness that humans developed.  Yet, practically every dog person knows the peace of those moments with their dog where they can just ‘be’.  In many ways, we need dog even more than dog needs us. 

This love, this bond is so easy to use against us.  With love comes the urge to protect; an emotion that overwhelms our critical thinking.  In our emotion we become more animal, we become less human.   We become a mob, a herd, a pack.  In our blind urge to protect that which is precious to us, we can easily destroy the very things that allow us to protect our beloved companions from those who would interfere.  The majority of people on both sides of the ‘Dog Wars’ are in the fight for the same reasons, to protect & preserve that which they believe to be precious. 

How to codify these kinds of perspectives into law without shackling all dog breeders and still meet the human demand for dogs?  Its the line between the philosophical/moral and the legal position that I struggle with.  Where should my beliefs on the what/where/when/how of dog breeding and dog care, or of any animal, affect the rights of another to do so beyond basic humane definitions?  Should my experiences &  limitations restrict another person with different limitations and different experience? 

I ask, for the love of dog, why are those who similarly love dogs following the lead of individuals without such a bond of affection?  In the dividing of the ranks of those who love dogs by those who are not informed by such perspective, the casualties are both the dogs and ourselves.  Choose what makes you human(e), mind & heart.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

• Why has property seized by the state of Indiana been handed over to an organization predominantly involved in political lobbying such as the HSUS ?
• Does the state of Indiana or the Indiana Attorney General’s office have a formal arrangement with the HSUS allowing its people to act as law enforcement officers in the State of Indiana?  If so, why is an organization predominantly involved in political lobbying being permitted to act in law enforcement capacity?  If not, why was the HSUS involved in this proceeding with the tacit approval of Indiana Attorney General Zoeller, who has not disavowed the HSUS involvement? 
• Why has property seized by the state of Indiana been been given away, preventing the state selling the seized property to offset the outstanding tax debt and prior to the laying of criminal charges or any legal conviction?
• Why was member of the Indiana House of Representatives Linda Lawson permitted to participate in the seizure of property on behalf of the HSUS in a law enforcement operation? Rep. Lawson can be seen in the images below in HSUS t-shirt participating in the raid.

Inquiries to the Office of the Indiana Attorney General (Constituent@atg.in.gov ) have been met with the following response:

From: Constituent@atg.in.gov

To: ***********

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:20 AM

Subject: RE: Mauckport, IN dog breeder raid

Thank you for your inquiry but our office cannot comment on an ongoing  investigation.

The problem with this response is two-fold (1) the Attorney General’s office has already commented on this investigation at length in the media and (2) the inquiries sent to the Attorney General’s office do not address the details of the investigation but address the conduct of the Attorney General’s office.   Why are these questions being ignored?

Rep Linda Lawson, in HSUS garb participating in tax-related dog seizure 305 miles from her home district

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

Its a phrase frequently tossed around in media, communications and especially in advertising.  Its also a concept that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has previously managed to leverage at an unprecedented level.  The overall public perception of the Humane Society of the United States often different dramatically from the actual activities of the HSUS.  Although the cracks in the HSUS shell have been around for a long time, but they seem to be growing more noticeable as the disparities between perception and reality grow.

A recent example can be seen in the title of a recent blog article by the HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, “Our Very Own SWAT Team” discussing “investigative work by HSUS staff”.  One of the prime examples cited in this article pertains to a May 27 raid on a location breeding pure white American Eskimo dogs with conditions reported as “rusty pens caked with feces” and “of the dogs suffered from malnutrition, urine burns and overgrown claws”   Now, if you read these articles, you’ve probably stepped in dog poop at least once in your life and are familiar with (a) the odor and (b) the difficulty of removal from clothing/shoes and the staining.  So, ask yourself while looking at the slide-shows here and here, “What color are the dogs’ feet & fur?“  Its a little question but important, especially in light of a news article declaring, “All of the dogs will need  some medical care but some will need extensive treatment, Taylor said. All also need extensive cleaning.  Officials said some of the dogs suffered from malnutrition, urine burns and overgrown claws.”  I’ve looked at the photos myself.  Although the kennels are certainly not fancy (to say the least), the white dogs are all WHITE.   How do you have white dogs with white feet coming out of feces & urine soaked kennels? It’s simple, you don’t.   How often do you see people handling feces and urine-soaked dogs with shirts that remain clean and dry?  You don’t

Another example comes from HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle’s blog, where the iron fist under the velvet glove becomes clearly visible when talking about ”The HSUS, which is the object of sustained attacks, caricatures, and mis-characterizations by people who inhabit the domains of cockfighting, puppy mills, horse slaughter, trophy hunting, trapping, fur fashion, animal agribusiness, commercial whaling, and other animal exploitation industries.”   Its a disturbing statement when you look at the fact that the CEO of the HSUS refers to animal agribusiness in the same category as other industries whose eradication has been made a part of the HSUS mission.  Do you equate egg & chicken farmers with cock-fighting?  Now examine the inclusion of “puppy mills” in the light of the 2007 HSUS statement regarding “puppy mill” numbers in Virginia, “Commercial dog breeders in Virginia number nearly 1,000″ yet the actual number of commercial kennels was in the range of 22 according to USDA records. 

And what about the HSUS comments on the activities of HSUS State Directors, “Our state directors give us a leg up in learning of crisis situations and then allowing us to coordinate with local law enforcement agencies and local and national animal welfare groups,”  a statement substantially contradicted by interview and investigative information involving the HSUS GA State director in the WSB-TV report that HSUS is strongly suspected to have had forced off the air, by copies of email from the HSUS Illinois State Director and by written report from a NY HSUS meeting involving the NY State Director.  These are just three examples of the overt involvement of HSUS State directors in political and legislative activity, not in animal assistance.  There are significantly more.

Public perception is not the HSUS reality.  In the next article, I will look at further ways the HSUS tries to manipulate public perception and prevent evidence of its tactics from rising to greater awareness in the general public.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

This is why I found it so fascinating that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was within my first dozen followers on Twitter.  It was as a direct result of the attention of the HSUS on Twitter that I followed them back, my first experience with the fact that if you talk about the HSUS then they will monitor you.   The HSUS Twitter presence shows patterns, like any individual or organization, and it is these patterns that I find as interesting as what HSUS does or says.

Last night on Twitter, the HSUS tried to go back in time, to the days before the WSB-TV investigation into how HSUS raises funds and how the funds are really used.   The HSUS tried to go back to the days where they could try to claim their most vocal critics all had an industry-funded agenda while the mysterious efforts to eliminate all traces of the WSB-TV report continue unabated. (See here for the latest group affected)

In this flashback, Wayne Pacelle takes the position that “our political adversaries”  fear the HSUS ”more than any other animal protection group because of our blend of political power, investigative and public relations capabilities, strategic thinking, and mainstream appeal.”  Even in December 2008, when this article was written, there were massive problems with this position.  The problems with this position have only increased since then.

• Problem 1: The HSUS has political adversaries?  Doesn’t this go straight to the heart of the questions raised regarding the validity the HSUS’ tax-exempt status?
• Problem 2: The adversaries of the HSUS INCLUDE members of animal protection groups.  Some of the strongest advocates of the No-Kill movement have been extremely vocal and public in their disapproval of HSUS policies and methods. Animal protection groups that work with ‘pit bulls’ have been in despair over repeated HSUS recommendations that increase the number of animals killed, including weeks-old puppies  (See here, here and here for examples) 
• Problem 3:  The HSUS continues to attack reputations of its opponents instead of demonstrating inaccuracy with facts.  This blog is a direct example of this.  I openly add corrections if I find or am notified of a demonstrable inaccuracy in my information.  I am extremely careful, but still human.  HSUS monitors the articles here regularly yet they have never once come forward to indicate that any information is demonstrably incorrect.  If it was, I would happily correct it and publicly note the correction. 

As a devoted animal person, rescue volunteer and an unswerving supporter of responsible animal management, I would love to be in a position where I could side with the HSUS.  I would love to be able to say that the Humane Society of the United States is still dedicated to the welfare of animals, but I can’t.  I can’t support an organization that:

•  Throws its weight behind mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) legislation in the face of statistical evidence that MSN increases killing of healthy animals instead of decreasing it.  In fact, I don’t know of a single location that has implemented MSN legislation where killing has gone down.  In addition, there can be serious health risks associated with spay/neuter that are completely disregarded.
• Throws its weight behind Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) in the face of evidence that BSL increases killing of healthy animals instead of decreasing it, even after the HSUS participation in the Las Vegas No-Kill Conference where there was an agreement to revise HSUS policies with respect to breeds associated with BSL. (See here)
• Throws its weight behind changes to agricultural legislation that has resulted in increased disease, injury and accidental death to chickens (See here) while  demonizing family-run farms with terms like ‘factory farms’
• Throwing their weight behind ‘puppy mill’ legislation while refusing to acknowledge that their data is based on including EVERY dog breeder as a ‘puppy mill’ as demonstrated the HSUS campaign in Virginia in 2007. 

Despite Wayne’s love of positioning the HSUS as the embattled underdog, it simply isn’t the case.  The embattled underdog is the one the HSUS has a history of having silenced: through legal pressure and character assassination if human, through lethal injection if dog.   There is an old saying, “Power corrupts”.  The more power the HSUS has gained, the more they seem to have lost their way. 

 Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

In the eras of both McCarthyism and the Salem Witch Trials, government officials had been swayed by pressure exerted stemming from a philosophical/religious agenda resulting in the violation of due process and suspension of legal rights of a targeted human community.  Ms Bernardini is correct there is a growing body of outrage at individuals supporting Animal Rights to the future detriment of the communities in which they participate.  However, these individuals are not the ones being subjected to theft of property under color of law, interference in their lawful commerce, selective law enforcement to the detriment of property owners and even death threats.   These are all symptoms of the McCarthyist/Witch Trial attitude, but the communities suffering this treatment are animal breeders, farmers, scientific researcher and other groups currently targeted by PETA and HSUS

These groups are well-aware that they need only apply the label ‘puppy mill’ to a dog breeder, ’irresponsible’ or ‘hoarder’ to an owner to they wish to target for even Law Enforcement to look the other way.  Consider the following examples, all of which have occurred within the past 2 months and most are on-going, representing a miniscule portion of the affected.

• The rescue group “Saving Pets One at a Time” (SPOT) is currently holding a group of dogs hostage, in violation of a court order to return the dogs due to illegal seizure. Law enforcement refuses to intervene and enforce the court order, despite the fact they were willing to seize the dogs in the first place.  Their stated goal? To run the rightful and legal owner out of money in court so that they can keep the dogs and sell them. (otherwise phrased as ‘put them up for adoption’)
• The breeder of Vice President Biden’s German Shepherd pup has been subjected to harassment and death threats, while law enforcement has done little to protect her. 
• Pet owners across the country are now labeled irresponsible owners for making surgical decisions in consultation with their veterinarian with the right to determine their choice removed by mandatory spay/neuter laws (MSN)
• Pit Bull Terriers and dogs vaguely fitting the physical description are seized and destroyed for nothing more than their appearance or parentage, with their owners powerless to resist
• Animals seized and owners charged with cruelty despite animals being in ‘good condition’
• Scientific researchers having their cars set on fire, their children threatened due to their chosing to dedicate their lives to research for the good of human-kind (jeopardizing the current and future health of us all)
• Farmers having increasing requirements laid upon them that drive them ever closer to the brink of financial collapse with little to no benefit in food safety and often with less benefit to animal or crop health.
• Law enforcement and media referring to people with groups of animals numbering 5 as ‘animal hoarders’, which they like to refer to as a recognized mental illness. (which it is not)

There is most definitely an active witch-hunt and campaign of fear, no doubt about that.  Unfortunately, the groups depicted by as victims by Ms. Bernardini are not the subject of the McCarthyism and Witch-Hunt tactics.  They are the source of the McCarthyism and Witch-Hunt tactics, and they have a massive budget with which to do so.  For their followers to claim otherwise is disingenuous, at best.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

PAWS Chicago and other rescuers are already messaging on Twitter to anyone that will pay attention ”there are 4 (Portuguese Water Dogs) on PetFinder today and a whole litter of PWD on adoptapet. Just had to look!”  Except that this is an outright lie.  The dogs currently available on these sites are all mixes, with the exception of 1 ‘possibly’ purebred senior female with issues likely making her unsuitable for the White House environment. 

The Obamas have been very clear that they needed to get a non-shedding dog due to allergies in one child from the beginning.  They indicated a preference for 2 types, the Portuguese Water Dog and the similar looking Labrador-Poodle mix often referred to as a Labradoodle.  They would have quickly found out that the chances of a Labrador-Poodle mix shedding were 50-50, and so this mix dropped off the radar.  This resulted in the Obamas opting for a 6 month old PWD pup, a known quantity of established temperament that suited the required criteria for the health of one of their children.

What have we come to when a family, even the First Family, is slammed for putting the health and wishes of their child above petty politics?  These Animal Rights and Rescue groups are angry over a lost public relations opportunity in their crusade against all pet breeders, not over the sake of a single dog adoption.  As a person who supports and participates in rescue, I find this incredibly embarrassing.  These are the same groups that preach making a careful, informed and responsible choice.  Now they are ready to string up the First Family for doing exactly that and it is shameful.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

However, the near future for Bo’s breeder does not bode well.  Vice-President Biden got a German Shepard pup from dog breeder, Linda Brown, back in December.  Since that time, Ms. Brown, has been the subject of :

• A series of rapid-fire inspections of her kennel based on anonymous complaints
• Libelous and unsubstantiated accusations by PETA, which have been subsequently picked up and run as news in mainstream media
• Ridiculous citations, including citation for a single piece of kibble on the ground and 5 strands of dog hair. (with photographs of such entered into evidence)
• Death threats to herself and to VP Biden

On March 31, after having to spend $4000 in legal fees, Linda Brown was cleared of all citations by a judge but the harassment continues and damage to her reputation lingers on.  All of this in the 4 months since VP Biden was announced to be getting a pup from her.  President Obama and VP Biden have the Secret Service at their disposal to deal with death threats, the dog breeders do not.  Will the breeder of the First Pup be subjected to this kind of ongoing horror story for simply fulfilling a family’s wish to add a dog to a high-profile household?  Will the breeder of the First Pup also find herself harassed by individuals, activist groups and by law enforcement?  Will the death threats, god forbid, eventually result in the death of a dog or a person? 

Given Linda Brown’s experiences since the sale of a pup to VP Biden, I commend the breeder of the First Pup on her courage in stepping into the spotlight on this and wish her the best of luck.  She’s going to need it.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

Mr. Pacelle claims, as he always does, that commercial breeding facilities are the target of these bills.  The problem is that commercial kennels are regulated at the federal level, by the USDA.  The target of these bills remains and always has been all breeders, therefore the bills target all the breeders they can at the state level.  The goal of these HSUS written bills, as publicly stated by HSUS representatives like NY State Director Patrick Kwan,  is a foot in the door.  As Patrick Kwan announced in a February 2009 New York HSUS meeting, “We know we can’t achieve our goal all at once, so we first limit breeders to 50, then 40, 30 and eventually to our goal.”  ***

In an organization where the vision is so clearly pushed from the top down, it is highly unlikely that this is the vision of one rogue director.  The consistency of the legislation being presented across the US makes this an impossibility. Patrick Kwan has bragged to supporters in New York that HSUS has written the legislation being presented across the nation and boasted of the goals.  Are we supposed to believe that this is not occurring in the other states with similar legislation from those state reps?

This somewhat hysterical rant from Mr Pacelle is reminiscent of the old scene from the Wizard of Oz, “PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN”  Unfortunately for the HSUS, the curtain is being pulled away and the real messages are finally being viewed in  the light of day.  

Oh, and by the way, my previous article Legislation and the Unethical Breeder. A short and long term solution  IS a positive proposition, it is just incompatible with the end goal of a pet-free society.  I came up with it without a single donation.  Why can’t HSUS come up with something similarly positive with $152 MILLION to play with? 

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders   http://AR-HR.com
All rights reserved

*** Please note, I have received reports of this quote as published, however have not been able to verify the original material.  I do have very similar original source material and first person witnessed material from another meeting, occuring Feb 24, 2009 in Rochester NY.  As stated by Patrick Kwan on that occasion, ”The initial HSUS bill will set a cap of 50 intact animals per location, but once this cap is in place, HSUS will strengthen this in the future by lowering the cap each year”  Original report attached below.

report_on_february_24