On April 27, 2010 the HSUS filed a ‘color of Law’ suit against Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, in conjunction with Michigan lawyer Beatrice M Friedlander.  The basis for the  alleging Ms. Friedlander’s rights are being violated because the Ohio state Constitution requires that signatures on ballot initiatives must be collected by Ohio residents.

Suddenly the HSUS is concerned with preservation of an individual’s Constitutional Rights? Did I miss a memo, or a press release?

What about the property rights of individuals who are having animals seized and dispersed by HSUS teams led by Scotlund Haisley, who has openly declared, “I want the scum to think we are law enforcement”. (Endorsed by HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, “I like his (Scotlund’s) cowboy ways”)

• What about the rights of Norman Pang in Hawaii? (currently suing the HSUS for action “under color of law” citing violations of Mr Pang’s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth & Fourteenth amendments)
• What about the rights of Dan Christiansen in South Dakota? (172 dogs seized by the HSUS “in conjunction with Second Chance Rescue and the Turner County Sheriff’s Department” on September 2, 2009 and ordered returned by the judge on May 4, 2010 because the dog’s were deemed taken illegally)
• What about the rights of Virginia Garwood in Indiana? (241 dogs seized with HSUS assistance on the premise of tax issues with a warrant ordering ‘seize such property, or any part thereof, found during such search and hold said property pending further order of this Court”  Yet the dogs were sold to the HSUS within 24 hours and subsequently dispersed.  This case is still before the courts)
• What about the rights of Louisville, Kentucky residents who were subjected to seizure of animals and loss of them if they couldn’t post the mandated seizure ‘bond’? (Struck down as illegal) The Louisville ordinances were used as a springboard for similar legislation that has been passed or is pending across the US.  This has lead to significant speculation that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was heavily involved in the drafting of this legislation; especially since the HSUS regularly announces its involvement in the drafting in legislation across the US and dedicates significant resources to legislation and legal action.

All of these examples are cases involving (alleged) violations of FEDERAL constitutional rights with significant HSUS involvement.

So … is the HSUS only concerned about constitutional rights at the state level?  Or do they only look to overturn constitutional law when their goals are affected? Are they going to change their actions to ensure that they respect the constitutional rights of individuals in their own actions? Are they going to assist the individuals above in defending their constitutional rights?

Anyone care to volunteer their thoughts on these questions and propose their own?

We lost John Yates, founder of the American Sporting Dog Alliance, on September 15. Though he fought his battles for pet owners with pen & paper, with script & screen, John was no less a warrior than a man on the battlefield.

With his research and writings on legislative issues, he fired his shot across the bow of fleets of Animal Rights misinformation.

With his love of dogs and pride in the dogs he has raised, he waved the banner high for those who choose to raise animals.

With fearless determination, he stood guard against the weakening of property rights legislation in the face of sentimental attacks on emotion.

John understood that in battle individual differences must be put aside for the sake of the goal, without wavering until the Hill is taken. He understood that though the battle can be won, the war can still be lost if the troops fall into disarray.

He truly understood that evil happens when good people stand aside and do nothing. He put aside his own distaste for thrusting himself into the spotlight to found an organization fighting for pet owners everywhere, even those who will not fight for themselves and those who certainly wouldn’t fight for him

John’s writing has touched me personally. His loss breaks my heart and it costs us all deeply.

Good hunting John. May your old dogs be waiting for you and the hills full of game.

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.

On August 4th, the following article was released on the HSUS website, “Indiana Legislator Gives Second Chance to Puppy Mill Dog”.  In this article, Andy MacAlpine of the HSUS  details:

• Linda Lawson’s involvement in the raid
  • “Rep. Linda Lawson helped move dogs from their cages onto trucks that would take them to a a nearby emergency shelter.”
• Linda Lawson’s request that a specific dog (Pomeranian) be diverted to her local shelter,
  • “Lawson held the dog a second time later that day while her picture was taken, and she kept track of her the rest of the time she was there. Before she left, she told Sterling that she would like to see the Pomeranian go to her local shelter, the Humane Society Calumet Area in Munster”
• Linda Lawson’s taking her granddaughter to the Humane Society Calumet Area in Munster to adopt ‘a dog’,  ’stumbling across’ the Pomeranian and the subsequent adoption of the dog by her granddaughter.
  • “Later that month, Lawson took her 7-year-old granddaughter, Genavive, to the shelter to adopt a dog. It wasn’t long before Genavive spotted the Pomeranian. The two met in a nearby room, and the dog immediately started licking the little girl’s face. Soon memories of the Pomeranian imprisoned at the puppy mill came rushing back to Lawson. “Genavive said, ‘Grandma, I think this is the one!’” she says. “And I’m like, ‘Thank you, Lord. It is the one!’”

Puff piece that this article appears, it does no favors to Rep. Linda Lawson.  The picture of the Pomeranian in the picture with HSUS Indiana State Director (Lobbyist) Anne Sterling and the picture of the Pomeranian with Linda Lawson’s granddaughter certainly look like the same dog.  The statements and framing of the information in the HSUS article, at minimum, put forward the perception that Rep. Lawson exerted her influence in order to obtain her pick of dog from the raid.

This information is damning enough that both this HSUS article and the HSUS video of the raid of the Garwood farm have both been entered into evidence by the Garwood, to the outrage of Judge Whitis.  Given the questions already raised by Judge Whitis regarding due process, and therefore a perception by the judge that the constitutional rights of the Garwoods may have been violated, this information gives the appearance of abuse of power as well. 

The HSUS knows about the previous article examining Linda Lawson’s conduct with respect to the raid of the Garwood Farm (Breezy Valley Dairy).  I observed their activity on the article and their monitoring of the subsequent commentary by readers.

The HSUS knows about the articles examining the conduct of the Attorney General’s office with respect to the raid of the Garwood Farm (Breezy Valley Dairy).  I have observed their activity on the article and their monitoring of the subsequent commentary by readers.

This is an organization of very savvy people, highly skilled at media and message.  Yet they have volunteered additional damaging information regarding one of their political allies? In the midst of a rising furor over the questions posed by the August 2nd AR-HR.com article? (HSUS was also monitoring the proliferation of links to this article to other blogs and websites)  I find it very difficult to believe that this was accidental or not considered.  So, I have to ask if this is payback for what the HSUS perceived as failure regarding HB1468 with the removal of the overwhelming majority of the HSUS-backed additions from the bill?

With friends like this, do Linda Lawson and other legislators need enemies?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

There are a number of serious problems with this situation:

• These dogs were seized using a warrant that included an order to seize and hold the dogs pending further instruction from the court.  The warrant was executed on June 2, 2009 and the dogs were sold on June 3.  The dispersal of the dogs is currently being questioned by Judge H. Lloyd (Tad) Whitis, therefore there was no instruction from the court permitting the release of the dogs. (Search Warrant Pages 1, 2 and 3)
• The premise of the warrant was for jeopardy tax assessment, with the dogs being seize as collateral for a tax debt claimed by the Indiana Attorney General’s office as being in excess of $132,000.  
• In the press release by the Indiana AG’s office on June 3, 2009, the seized dogs were stated to be “rescued animals now are being cared for by the Humane Society of the United States“, when in fact they had already been sold to the HSUS under the claim that the Indiana Attorney General’s office had ”full power to sell the property” & ”the Property’s title is free and clear from liens and encumbrances”.(clause 2)  I would have thought that the seize and hold order on the warrant executed approximately 24 hours earlier would be counted as an ‘encumberance’

I am not certain what I find to be more disturbing:

• The ignoring of Due Process by the Indiana Attorney General’s office as noted by Judge H. Lloyd (Tad) Whitis
• The fact that the HSUS is buying dogs for re-distribution to shelters and rescues and resale, at least in this instance.  I now question how many of the other dogs that they have ‘rescued’ have actually been purchased.  Considering the HSUS claims that the dogs were sick and neglected, wouldn’t this make the HSUS guilty of buying sick dogs for redistribution similar to the those targeted in their ‘puppy mill’ campaigns?  Wouldn’t the Indiana AG’soffice similarly be guilty selling sick dogs?  Or were the dogs simply neither sick nor neglected, and the Garwoods maligned?
• The sale of the only collateral property possessed by the Indiana Attorney General’s office for $300  on a claimed outstanding debt of over $132,000

The combination of all these factors in a single case is incredible.

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

Though it might surprise you from my writing, I don’t own an American Pit Bull Terrier or a Staffordshire Terrier or any breed typically targeted by breed-specific legislation. Part of the reason is that these breeds are banned where I live.  Only those owned previous to legislation enactment are permitted under law and those are subject to muzzle law.  If animal control sees your dog and thinks it has similar characteristics, the dog runs the risk of being seized and killed unless you can prove non-violating breed parentage.  Good luck if your dog is a mixed breed.  So I purposely picked a breed that is almost impossible to mistake and has documentation to back up the fact, my choice that I have never regretted for a second.

But the plight of the bully breeds weighs on me;  beautiful, loyal, sweet and devoted to their people. Though not the breed for every dog owner, they are remarkable and resiliant.  I was reminded of all these qualities by this video, shown by every bully breed dog i have ever met.

I hope and pray the dogs of these recent raids are given the chance of the Vick dogs, and not slaughtered outright from infant pup to parent like those of Wilkes County this past February.  Every dog deserves to be evaluated as an individual.  Every dog deserves a chance.

Please … let them have a chance. 

• 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.

Upon obtaining a copy of the search warrant indicating the terms of the property seizure, the questions of the terms of the sale or gifting of the dogs seized by the Indiana AG’s office to any organization becomes especially troubling.  According to the terms of the search warrant, issued to the “Officers of the Indiana State Police, the Indiana Attorney General and his Agents, and any Law Enforcement Officer of the State of Indiana”, the items that authorities were allowed to seize related to the jeopardy tax assessment included:

h)  Any and all cash, canines, or other inventory or business proceeds found.

The troubling part is the section directly after this portion of the warrant, which reads as follows word for word:  YOU ARE FURTHER ORDERED to seize such property, or any part thereof, found during such search and hold said property pending further order of this Court. 

The warrant gave the authorities the authority to SEIZE the dogs but not to DISPERSE the dogs.  The court order set down immediately after the raid barred the Garwoods’ from giving permission to disperse the dogs.

So if the authorities had no legal authority to disperse the dogs and the Garwoods’ were legally barred from consenting to the dispersal of the dogs, why was Indiana Attorney issuing press releases (see here and here) related to the dispersal of the dogs to rescues around the state of Indiana (and beyond Indiana borders) for adoption?

Copyright 2009 by Erica Saunders
All rights reserved

The coordination and execution of the raid is such an admirable feat, it makes me wonder why HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle feels it is necessary to inflate the numbers on raid?  According to Wayne Pacelle’s blog, A Humane Nation, the raids seized at least 450 dogs and spanned 8 states. (Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas)  However, according to the FBI/Department of Justice press release, approximately 350 dogs were siezed and the raids spanned 5 states. (Missouri, Texas, Illinois, Iowa, and Oklahoma)  Where did the other 3 states and 100 dogs reported by the HSUS come from?  The HSUS article and the FBI/DOJ press release were released on the same day, so it cannot be explained by subsequent changes in the case.

Sadly & predictably, Wayne Pacelle has already begun making pessimistic comments regarding the future of these seized dogs to the media.  As quoted in St. Louis Today, “It’s just unclear what will happen,” said Wayne Pacelle, head of the Humane Society of the United States. “I think it’s pretty certain that a lot of those dogs will not pass a behavioral test”  Yet, Wayne Pacelle has made such comments before. 

In 2007, he made the following statements to the NY Times regarding Michael Vick’s dogs, “Officials from our organization have examined some of these dogs and, generally speaking, they are some of the most aggressively trained pit bullsin the country,” Wayne Pacelle, the president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a telephone interview Tuesday. “Hundreds of thousands of less-violent pit bulls, who are better candidates to be rehabilitated, are being put down. The fate of these dogs will be up to the government, but we have recommended to them, and believe, they will be eventually put down.”  Pacelle said the Humane Society normally advocated that fighting dogs be put down shortly after being seized.”  Yet the reality was that only 1 of the Michael Vick dogs was euthanized due to aggressive temperament. (Ah yes, and HSUS was not the agency involved in the dogs assessments)

In 2008, Amanda Arrington HSUS North Carolina Lobbyist (sorry, State Director) and Chris Schindler HSUS Deputy Manager, Animal Fighting Law Enforcement (who isn’t a law enforcement officer) testified in court to ensure the euthanizing of the Wildside Kennel pit bulls including 60 puppies, some only weeks old with statements like “You know, people speak about the Michael Vick dogs. Those dogs have not even been rehabilitated.” (Those would be the “most aggressively trained pit bulls in the country” where only 1 required euthanasia for aggressive temperament)

Now we have dogs that don’t exist, in states that weren’t raided, that Wayne Pacelle is hinting will/should be euthanized for behavioral issues?  I am confused, very very confused.

Update 1,  I received the following comment this morning on AR-HR.com from Sarah Barnett of the HSUS:

Hi, I am an HSUS Employee and this is the statement from the HSUS; With so many different organizations and local, state and federal agencies coming together for last week’s historic rescues there is understandably varying information on the details of the rescued. Raids began as early as 5 Am last Wednesday, and carried on into the early morning hours – therefore stories were updated into the next day. Stories on the Humane Society of Missouri and ASPCA websites reflect that seven or eight states were involved (HSMO has not included NE in their story, although dogs were rescued there as well) and approximately 450 dogs were rescued. These facts are also reflected on many news stories published throughout the country. There was absolutely no inflation of last week’s momentous rescues – unfortunately the cruel animal fighting industry is widespread enough to keep us all busy fighting it for some time to come.

Update 2, My email reponse to Sarah Barnett of the HSUS:

Hello Sarah,

Thank you for the HSUS position statement with respect to the AR-HR.com article on the recent Dog Fighting raids.

Could you please clarify your position and department within the Humane Society of the United States? I would also request that you clarify the source of your authority to speak on behalf of HSUS.

Please confirm that it is the official HSUS position that the data within FBI/DOJ releases on the dogfighting related raids, which were published on the same date as the HSUS release (July 9), are not accurate

Thank you for taking the time to contact AR-HR.com

Regards,

Erica Saunders

AR-HR.com Founder

Update 3, Response from Sarah Barnett of the HSUS:

Hi Erica,

Thanks for your response – I work as the emerging media manager for the online communications department for the HSUS, and what we were stating in the comment I posted was that with new information coming in every minute during these amazing rescues, the numbers were increasing as more raids occurred.

Sarah Barnett

Emerging Media Manager, Online Communications

 Update 4, Summary of HSUS response

I must point out 2 problems with the final HSUS response on this matter. 

1. Both articles were released on the same day (July 9) on approximately the same timeline.  Therefore it seems unlikely that the HSUS would be in possession of more up-to-date data than the FBI.
2. Ms. Barnett did NOT make any attempt to confirm that the official HSUS position is that the FBI data is incorrect.

My personal opinion is ’shenanigans’ but I leave this up to you as the reader to decide for yourself.

“Why are so many people convinced that pet ‘adoption’ differs from pet purchase?”

The question struck me after reading the following comment on Twitter and the HSUS response. (click here)  The original comment was, “So discraceful.(sic) I would never buy a pet-Adoption is my first/only option!”  The HSUS response?  “AMEN”  

In the legal sense, every pet acquired by paying a purchase pricean adoption fee or minimum donation is purchased.  Yet, ‘adoption’ is held up as morally superior.

A significant difference between the idea of conventional purchase and ‘adoption’?  Typically that one is not obtaining the pet from the person responsible for the breeding, though even this is not a hard and fast criterion if including USDA commercial breeders in the calculation. 

Another significant difference between the conventional purchase and adoption? Conventional purchases typically involve intentional breedings, whereas adoptions often as not involve unintentional breedings. 

Conventional purchases involve a majority of pups and a minority of adults, most ‘adoptions’ involve a majority of adults or seniors and a minority of pups.  This is the single most differentiating factor between conventional purchases of pets and ‘adoption’.  

These factors sum the most critical criteria for a prospective pet owner to consider.  Are they better suited to handle a young pet or an older one?  A known temperment or an unknown temperament?  Can they handle training young pet? Can they handle one with longer term behavioural problems or training deficits?  Are they willing to deal with the uncertainty of an unknown health history or does known health history of pet and parents make for greater peace of mind?  

 Every pet is the result of a breeding, intentional or unintentional and people typically don’t attach much value to that which comes cheaply or free.  Shouldn’t we be willing to commit resources to obtain a pet, which is ideally a lifetime commitment?   I own the full spectrum of pets.  I have a cat I purchased from a city shelter, another cat from a friend who couldn’t keep him and a dog purchased from a breeder.  I will have them all with me for the length of their lives.

Owning a pet is a choice.  Choosing the pet you can commit to for a lifetime, whatever the source is the ‘right’ choice, the ethical choice, the humane choice.  Choose what makes you human(e)

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

On this day, of all days of the year, Americans take time to celebrate these principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.  Living in a society that is founded on the concept that such human rights are ‘unalienable’ is a precious thing that many places in the world cannot claim.  Yet, these rights are not absolute or unbalanced by other considerations.  A person’s right to Life does not come at the expense of another’s Life.  A person’s Liberty extends to the point that it impinges on the Liberty of another person.  A person’s right to the pursuit of Happiness is not a guarantee of Happiness nor is it the right to pursue Happiness at the expense of another’s Happiness.  This freedom, this vision of Independence, is no easy thing to manage at the personal or the societal level.  It precludes the use of the quick fix or the easy answer.   Independence and these unalienable rights are messy and at their most precious when one’s actions are ‘unpopular’. 

In honor of Independance Day and of the Declaration of Independance, I would like to remind everyone of some rights that are not wrong, though they are popular targets.

• It is the right of the individual to breed dogs as much as it is the right of the individual who wishes to participate in rescue to do so. 
• It is the right of an individual to sell animals as much as it is the right of a rescue or shelter to sell animals.
• It is the right of the farmer to run their business based on a non-organic business model or on an organic one. 
• It is the right of the individual to choose to include meat in their diet, or not.
• It is the right of the individual to choose how they care for animals they own, so long as the care does not violate legal standards of care. 
• It is the right of the hunter to hunt animals within the bounds of the law, while it is the right of the non-hunter to not participate in hunting.
• It is the right of an individual to choose to obtain their pet from the source they select
• It is right of one individual to say they don’t agree with the actions of another.

 By protecting the liberties of others, even those we don’t agree with, we protect our own liberty.  By protecting the ability of others to pursue happiness, we protect our own ability to pursue happiness.By protecting the rights of others to choose, we protect our own right to choice.  Choose what makes you human(e).

Happy July 4th to you all.

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