Then you need to know about the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA).

All of the aforementioned groups (and more) frequently suffer harassment, threats, trespass, property damage/loss and false allegations on a frequent basis.  The ability of the targeted to combat these actions is typically limited by one single factor, money.  Most of the affected groups put all their extra financial resources into their animals, it leaves little to throw into lawsuits that can drag on endlessly.  Its like the old joke, “How do you earn a small fortune with horses?  Start with a large one”

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) levels the playing field. It shifts the burden of the cost of the pursuit of a case from the individual to the federal government.  It also contains both a scalable penalty system and a means of ordering restitution to the affected parties when there is a course of conduct (pattern) of 2 or more acts violating the AETA which include bodily injury (serious or substantial) or economic damage.

The scalable penalty system is especially interesting as it allows a scope to deal with a range of events from the small scale to the large without the penalty necessarily exceeding the injury.

If you have been targeted in ways that appear to violate the AETA, please contact me.  I will be happy to put you in touch with people who are happy to provide more information and help guide you through the process.

The AETA, its not just for the protection of the ‘big guys’ but the ‘little guy’ too.

• The 2006 AETA: What is it?  How and where does it apply
• Why is the AETA important to all levels of Animal Enterprise?
• Opposition to the AETA and court challenge results

The 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) replaced the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992 and contains a number of key points.

Key point 1: “Inclusion of economic damage to animal enterprises and threats of death and serious bodily harm to associated persons”

Under this bill, the term economic damage is defined as :

• the replacement costs of lost or damaged property or records
• the costs of repeating an interrupted or invalidated experiment
• the loss of profits, or increased costs, including losses and increased costs resulting from:
  • threats
  • acts or vandalism
  • property damage
  • trespass
  • harassment
  • intimidation taken against a person or entity on account of that person’s or entity’s connection to, relationship with, or transactions with the animal enterprise

However, economic damage does not include any lawful economic disruption (including a lawful boycott) that results from lawful public, governmental, or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise.  (Author note: ‘disclosure of information’ would include demonstrably true information only.  You’d think that this would go without saying but … )  This clause strongly protects 1^st amendment rights of free speech which are similarly protected by the “Rules of Construction” also contained in the AETA.

Key Point 2:  Definition of animal enterprise within the AETA includes the following:

• commercial or academic enterprises that use or sell animals or animal products for profit, food or fiber production, agriculture, education, research, or testing;
• any zoo, aquarium, animal shelter, pet store, breeder, furrier, circus, or rodeo, or other lawful competitive animal event
• any fair or similar event intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences;

Bear with me and consider the previous two points in light of the definition of the offense of force, violence and threats involving animal enterprises.

“Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses or causes to be used the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce:

1. for the purpose of damaging or interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise; and
2. in connection with such purpose
   1. intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise;
   2. intentionally places a person in reasonable fear of the death of, or serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family (as defined in section 115) of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, or intimidation; or
   3. conspires or attempts to do so;

shall be punished as provided for in subsection (b).

I know, blah, blah, legal-ease, blah.  Here’s the meat of the AETA.  If you fall into any of the included animal enterprise categories of the AETA, and you are being subjected to behaviour that falls outside the realms of free speech then you also have the recourse of protection under this act as well.  Hobby dog and cat breeders, I’m looking at you too.

Next article, I’m going to look at the ideas of application of the AETA.  Stay tuned.

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.

The reaction of the Animal Rights community has been disturbing, if not unexpected.  Jerry Vlasak, of the Animal Liberation Press office and formerly of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), shrugged off Mr. San Diego’s alleged actions as “nothing more than a large firecracker”. What Mr. Vlask failed to acknowledge was that one of the explosives was wrapped in nails, the classic nail bomb technique of terrorists around the world.  But then again, the idea of animal researchers being killed does not particularly bother Mr. Vlasak  who was quoted to say, “If  (animal researchers) were routinely being killed, I think it would give other (animal researchers) pause in what they were doing in their work” at an Animal Rights conference in 2003.  The level of  violence being levied at researchers involved in animal related research has been escalating.  Homes have been firebombed while researchers sat at home with their children and loved ones.  Children have awoken to the family car in flames.  Bombs have been set off outside workplaces and homes. Cars have been attacked with sledgehammers with the occupants still inside.

This is not terrorism?  A simple way to look at terrorism, an individual or group conducting a campaign to inflict terror of the purpose of political effect.  When it comes to terrorism, killing the targets is just a fringe benefit.  Thank god this hasn’t happened yet.   If this behavior isn’t stopped, it will. 

John Stuart Mill once stated “A man’s right to swing his arm ends where his neighbour’s nose begins”.  This statement describes the very heart of the balance of rights and responsibility in free society.  Those who believe in Animal Rights philosophy have every freedom to do so, but not to force that philosophy on others.  Likewise for those who do not believe in Animal Rights philosophy.  Understanding this is the key difference between responsible activism and extremism, and even terrorism.

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