Goodbye to Animal Ownership, Goodbye to Animals? Love Won’t Allow It

File:US soldiers with cows in Kunar Povince of Afghanistan.jpg
Photo of US soldiers in Afghanistan

By Taylor Whitney
Food Freedom News

As astounding as it may seem, laws and regulations have been or are now being put into place to remove the right  for Americans to own animals.   This is being done under many pretexts, all of them bogus, all camouflaged  as beneficial for either the animals or public.

ANIMAL ABUSE:

In California,  as reported at http://www.homegrown.org/group/backyardlivestock/forum/topics/goat-share

“They just passed SB917 & AB1117 is on the Governor’s desk.  AB1117- will allow for animals to be seized & destroyed prior to getting a warrant.  LEO, ACO or Humane Officers are given the powers to be judge, jury, & Executioner. The person charged will not be able to be near any animals for 5-10 years. Fines & liens are placed on the animal owner, or who ever is standing near by.

“Now that SB917 / has passed[, p]retty much anything to do with animals is a risk of being charged with animal cruelty. For example it will be a act of animal cruelty to meet & greet a buyer on the roadside.

“These laws are a direct assault to the farming industry. They were passed as puppy & kitten laws by lawmakers.  The problem is they are not exempting livestock. ….

“Please pay attention to what is on the books in each state.  For there is a movement to end all animal ownership by special interest groups.

From SB917:

“This bill would provide, in addition and with specified exceptions, that it shall be a crime, punishable as specified, for any person to willfully sell or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk, or to display or offer for sale, or display or offer to give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal if the act of selling or giving away the live animal is to occur on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk. The bill would provide that a notice describing the charge and the penalty for a violation of this bill may be issued by a peace officer, animal control officer, or humane officer. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”

The comments on the bill cut to the reality of the bill’s threat.

“Last November I had the great privilege of transporting 5 of the rarest rabbit breeds in the world to knowledgeable breeders working to save these precious, dying breeds from extinction (some of which only 300 animals are believed to exist in the WORLD). SB 917 makes switch off at meeting points during transport relays for critically endangered animals a felony. OPPOSE California SB 917.”

“I believe this also makes it illegal to sell rabbits at sanctioned ARBA shows? Which is where most rabbit sale transactions occur? Opposing animal cruelty is one thing, but the generalities do not account for private, legitimate sales between breeders and the general public? Only at pet stores? Which is where we are told NOT to buy???”

“This is another attack on small farmers and is totally unconstitional as to our rights to persue our freedoms as given to us by our founding fathers so any atempt by the state to take away more rights must be stopped immedistly and those tryng this need to be struck down and never allowed to hold a public office ever again. They need to remember where thier food and fiber comes from diffently not from a plastic raped pack in some store.”

If they charge a farmer with abuse, he or she wouldn’t be allowed any animals for 5-10 years and could go to prison.  Same with animal rescue people or pet owners.

How many of these terms have not been defined?

“Existing law provides, subject to exceptions, that every person who overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, drink, or shelter, cruelly beats, mutilates, or cruelly kills any animal, or causes or procures any animal to be so overdriven, overloaded, driven when overloaded, overworked, tortured, tormented, deprived of necessary sustenance, drink, shelter, or to be cruelly beaten, mutilated, or cruelly killed; and whoever, having the charge or custody of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, subjects any animal to needless suffering, or inflicts unnecessary cruelty upon the animal, or in any manner abuses any animal, or fails to provide the animal with proper food, drink, or shelter or protection from the weather, or who drives, rides, or otherwise uses the animal when unfit for labor, is guilty of a crime punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony, or alternatively as a misdemeanor or a felony and a fine of not more than $20,000.”

“…. or fails to provide the animal with proper food, drink, or shelter or protection from the weather, …. ”  Who defines “proper”?  It does not say “with food” or “with conditions normal and suitable to that species.” Could a farmer who pastures their cattle, goat, sheep, llamas, chickens, geese, peacocks, pigs, etc. now be charged with animals abuse and imprisoned and kept from animals for 5-10 years?

The law could easily turn sustainable ag into a felony and be used to imprison farmers and ranchers, and the second bill would allow for all of their animals – healthy, unabused, living good lives – to be destroyed without a warrant.

Here is what a normal animal abuse law looks like.  http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stuscost18_9_201.htmThere are crucial words in the definition which are left out of the California law.

“A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence overdrives, overloads, overworks, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beats, allows to be housed in a manner that results in chronic or repeated serious physical harm, carries or confines in or upon any vehicles in a cruel or reckless manner, engages in a sexual act with an animal, or otherwise mistreats or neglects any animal, or causes or procures it to be done, or, having the charge or custody of any animal, fails to provide it with proper food, drink, or protection from the weather consistent with the species, breed, and type of animal involved, or abandons an animal.”

Abuse must be outside of normal standards of care for each species and there needs to be proof of harm.

The California law, burying the wording between words about beating and torture, defines normal activities with animals as abuse.  And it refers to no standard of what is normal in raising animals, and requires no proof that any animals has been harmed.  They have criminalized normal animal agriculture without anyone noticing.

The government has attempted to treat hay as a pollutant and to define spilled milk as an oil spill and the California law is of the same mold – the redefinition of normal (or even necessary) as harmful, the application of law with no evidence required  (in this case, of harm) and with huge penalties for committing these new non-crimes crimes, but without such laws being applied to the large scale violators who are typically behind the laws themselves and control the agencies.

With the California law, they’ve figured out a way to turn raising animals outside on grass – the ideal life for those animals and their then producing the healthiest food – into a felony.  And they’ve done it under the aegis of protecting the animals.

HOARDING:

In Vermont, they have been considering house bill 371 on animal hoarding which defines an “Animal hoarder” means a person who: (A) possesses five or more animals …. ” This does not exclude livestock, so would, in an instant criminalize farmers raising animals.  It also does not include harm to animals as the basis of determination.  Simple ownership of a small number of animals is the crime.

The comments on this bill are also instructive.  http://www.catchannel.com/news/ViewComment.aspx?id=591002

“if you can take care of them it should’nt matter how many animals you have.What’s next,limits on children?,relatives?.lawn decorations?,birds at your feeders????”

“Assigning an arbitrary number as a definition of hoarding subverts the intent of the legislation to protect animals.”

“…. People, this is not about prevention of animal cruelty, it is about controlling their citizens.YOU! Will they build more prisons to incarcerate pet owners with five or more pets?? ….”

The bill is inconsistent with the actual definition of hoarding:

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ddushoarding.htm

Defining Animal Hoarding:
“Each case of hoarding is unique, involving different species of animals, different conditions, and different hoarders.   Nonetheless, the Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium (HARC) identifies the following characteristics as common in all hoarders:
•    Accumulat[ion] of a large number of animals, which has overwhelmed that person’s ability to provide even minimal standards of nutrition, sanitation, and veterinary care;
•    Fail[ure] to acknowledge the deteriorating condition of the animals (including disease, starvation, and even death) and the household environment (severe overcrowding, very unsanitary conditions); and
•    Fail[ure] to recognize the negative effect of the collection  his or her own health and well-being, and on that of other household members. [3]

The number of animals involved is not a determinative factor in identifying hoarding. There is no threshold number used to distinguish between an owner of several pets and an animal hoarder. [4]   Instead, the determinative factors are the owner’s inability to provide care for the animals and the owner’s refusal to acknowledge that both the animals and the household are deteriorating. [5]   Many animal rescuers and many farmers keep hundreds of animals on their land but are not hoarders because they provide proper care and sustenance for their animals. [6]  For example, a Canadian woman who died leaving one hundred properly fed, spayed, neutered, vaccinated, and groomed cats was not considered an animal hoarder because her animals were properly cared for, while a Utah woman who severely neglected six cats was considered an animal hoarder.” [7]
[Emphasis added to focus on the threat to farming, but the impact a false hoarding law would have on animal rescue and preservation of species is equally serious.]

In Colorado, based on a raid on a rabbit farm, legislators are writing animal hoarding laws, with rabbits listed as livestock by the USDA.

The questions in both the animal abuse law in California and the hoarding bills are many and basic.  Why is there this sudden legislative interest in “pets”?  Why do the bills not being distinguish pets from livestock?  Why do the bills not require proof of harm?  Why are the bills  written in a way that would prevent normal functions involving animals, whether raising them as livestock or protecting their species?

The hoarding bill sets an absurd number of allowable animals to own, and one suspects this is in order for people to focus on the number and argue around it, while setting any number is itself an outrage against people’s right to determine for themselves how many animals they desire to live around and raise and are capable of caring for.

INVASIVE SPECIES:

In Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources has put together a list of physical characteristics (that fit heritage pigs, including rare breeds) and declared those pigs “feral” even though they are farmers’ livestock and fenced in. The DNR describes these feral pigs as those “raised on pasture.” Farmers hiding or refusing to destroy their non-feral “feral” pigs are deemed felons.  The Pork Industry lobbied for this regulation.

Whereas, not under attack are:

“The vast majority of the nearly 66 million pigs raised for food in the United States [that] are born and raised in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),1 where they are subject to extreme mental and physical anguish, not to mention subject to incredibly unhealthy practices, like the administration of unnecessary low-dose antibiotics and living in their own waste.”  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/21/heritage-breed-pigs-small-farmers.aspx

Interestingly, CAFO conditions fit both the definition of animal abuse and of animal hoarding and yet there are exemptions from the California animal abuse law, and it does not appear the proposed hoarding laws would apply to CAFOs though come contain as many as 900,000 animals.  Does this  suggest that the industrial ag system is behind these unconstitutional laws to end ownership of animals, by sustainable farmers, caring breed protectors, and loving pet owners?

ANIMAL DISEASES:

Obama’s massive food “safety” law designed by Monsanto’s VP Michael Taylor and overseen by him as well, militarizes food.  It arranges for DOD and DHS to mass slaughter food animals based on a “declaration” of non-threatening or even non-existent animal diseases.  As the links show, this slaughter has already been occurring, to the great benefit of genetic engineering and the industrial food system, but to the destruction of small farmers’ rights to own animals that are in fact better cared for and healthier than those in CAFOs, and to the extinction of biodiversity of breeds.

Like “animal abuse” and “animal hoarding,” animal “diseases” have been concocted to criminalize human ownership of animals and in all cases, to arrange for slaughter of animals.  All are promoted, though, as beneficial to the animals or to humans.  The “concocting” is occurring at an international level.

Watch the number of words that are only “potential” yet are bolstered repeatedly by the word “real.”  The only thing certain is the last clause:

“In a BBC interview in October 2005 on the danger of Avian Flu, Osterhaus declared, “…if the virus manages indeed to, to mutate itself in such a way that it can transmit from human to human, then we have a completely different situation, we might be at the start of the pandemic.” He added, “there is a real chance that this virus could be trafficked by the birds all the way to Europe. There is a real risk, but nobody can estimate the risk at this moment, because we haven’t done the experiments.”7

“At a May 2006 Congress of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), Osterhaus and his Erasmus colleagues were forced to admit that in testing 100,000 samples of their assiduously saved bird feces, they had discovered not one single case of H5N1 virus. 10

Osterhaus, who then went on to be driving force behind inflaming the idea of a swine flu pandemic in 2009, works for a group that is:

“entirely financed by the same pharma mafia companies that make billions on the pandemic emergency as governments around the world are compelled to buy and stockpile vaccines on declaration of a WHO Pandemic. The funders of ESWI include H1N1 vaccine maker Novartis, Tamiflu distributor, Hofmann-La Roche, Baxter Vaccines, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi Pasteur and others.”

“…. what happened with the bird flu, which was supposed to kill us all? Nothing. But that doesn’t stop these people from always making their predictions. Sometimes you get the feeling that there is a whole industry almost waiting for a pandemic to occur.

“SPIEGEL: Who do you mean? The World Health Organization (WHO)?
“Jefferson: The WHO and public health officials, virologists and the pharmaceutical companies. They’ve built this machine around the impending pandemic. And there’s a lot of money involved, and influence, and careers, and entire institutions!”
What is not noticed or mentioned is that food animals and thus food sovereignty are in the direct line of fire from these bogus “pandemics”and the companies involved in vaccines are involved in the genetic engineering of animals.  Novartis  and Glaxo Smith Kline   and Baxter

At the core of all this is the intended creation of fear, used to create belief in false diseases.   Those beliefs not only threaten people who face martial pandemic laws that include vaccine mandates with dangerous to deadly vaccines but those beliefs allow for the wholesale slaughter of normal animals which so many people in this country and the world depend upon to survive.  Fear of these exaggerated or non-existent animal diseases is a threat to true and healthy agriculture and to everyone’s future.

It is essential in seeing this broad assault on animals and people’s rights around owning them, to recognize the pattern that occurred with the introduction of GMO seeds.  Before Monsanto had begun to strongly push GMO seeds, they had already been buying up seed companies worldwide ensuring that the supply of normal organic seeds were drying up for farmers.  The Supply of normal animals must also dry up to achieve full scale introduction of GMO animals.  The mass slaughter of animals based on “declarations” of bogus diseases would be a step in this direction.  Obama’s executive order in March, 2012 is consistent with ending the existence of normal farm animals in the US as it includes military seizing all farm animals based on another “declaration” of national defense, completely undefined.

The involvement with DHS is a tip off as to who is driving all this for DHS has listed not toxic GMOs, but organics, as a biosecurity threat.

There are already serious concerns about a number of laws and actions in place that remove food control from the hands of people, risking famine, perhaps even an arranged famine.  The recent rash of animal abuse and hoarding laws are in this same direction for owning animals – such as chickens – in enough numbers to ensure survival to families and communities in a time of crisis.

And for the multinational chemical companies that sell chemical fertilizers, animals are true competition of the worse sort for the soil fertility they provide to those who own them is ideal.  It is local, non-toxic, sustainable, and free.  Dung is magic.

“Cow dung is worshipped because it is the source of renewal of soil fertility and hence the sustainability of human society. The cow has been made sacred in India because it is a keystone species for agro-ecosystems — it is key to the sustainability of agriculture.”

Dervaes:

“The integration of livestock with farming has been the secret of sustainable agriculture. Livestock perform a critical function in the food chain by converting organic matter into a form that can be easily used by plants. According to K.M. Munshi, India’s first agriculture minister after independence, “The mother cow and the Nandi are not worshipped in vain. They are the primeval agents who enrich the soil – nature’s great land transformers – who supply organic matter which, after treatment, becomes nutrient matter of the greatest importance. In India, tradition, religious sentiment and economic needs have tried to maintain a cattle population large enough to maintain the cycle, only if we know it.”

This is a country of animal lovers.  The threat to animal ownership is clear, well planned and immense.  It cannot be hidden any longer under false claims of animal protection or invasive species or food safety or disease.  The intensity of American’s love of animals may be one of the strongest forces that stand between corporate plans to control all food and end farming in the US.   For that plan depends on military and our military also love animals.  This is what they would be asked to do, dressed in absurd, fear producing hazmat garb, while a gigantic proportion of the animals will be healthy, there will be no proof any animal is sick, or that the disease threatens anyone or that it is even real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBorSmU_-xw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYB4sDKh3FI

And FEMA, the agency that contributed misery to New Orleans and was slated by Bush to be central (bypassing the Constitution and Congress) in running the country if martial law is declared, is now speaking of the possibility of a Foot and Mouth Disease “emergency.”  This would be for a disease that has zero threat to people and is non-lethal in animals.

Hand, foot, and mouth disease is often confused with foot-and-mouth disease, a disease of cattle, sheep, and swine. However, the two diseases are caused by different viruses and are not related. Humans do not get the animal disease, and animals do not get the human disease.

One might alert as many family and friends, websites and social media possible.  One might alert legislators, religious leaders, all friends in the military, national guard, law enforcement, and DHS.  The animals need to be saved.  They face annihilation by a flood of biblical proportions – this one not of water but of world scale lies (about disease), political corruption, and greed.

And for animal lovers who care about owning animals. it is important to to track every state law and local ordinance that would attempt to limit animal ownership whether through false hoarding laws or in any way, or that would define “animal abuse” without evidence of abuse and with no regard to normal treatment of animals or natural needs of each species.

This is a crucial moment for animal lovers, pet owners, biodiversity groups, animal rescue groups, ranchers, farmers, etc. to stand up for all of them.  For not only are corporations putting into place laws that threaten their existence and people’s rights to own them or even be near them, but with the country facing a potential financial collapse, animals would be a means to survive by providing food, and from there, to create jobs and rebuild the country afterwards.  The country may not realize it, but our animals are the safety net for everyone and the hope to rebuild the economy.

Our military will be asked to destroy that safety net and hope for their own country.  
Below is sample of the common law we stand upon.  In looking over these maxims, it is apparent how each of the new animal and animal disease laws grossly violate our common law heritage and the Constitution.

Common law maxim:  “Actori incumbit onus probandi [The burden of proof is on him who makes the claim].”

Administrative Law requires proof of claim, 5 U.S.C & 556(d)  Hearings; presiding employees; powers and duties; burden of proof; evidence’ record of basis of decision.  “Except as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.”

Common Law maxim:  “Consuetudo ex communis assuetudo vincit legum non scriptam, si sit specialis; et interpretatur legem scriptam.  [A custom, grounded on a certain and reasonable cause, supersedes the common law.]”

Common law maxim:  “Consuetudo loci observanda est. [The custom of a place is to be observed.]”

Common law maxim:  “Consuetudo manerii et loci observanda est. [A custom of a manor and place is to be observed.]”

Common law maxim:  “Consuetudo neque injuria oriri neque tolli protest.  [Custom can neither arise from nor be taken away by injury.]”

Common law maxim of “Consuetudo praescripta et legitima vincit legem. [A prescriptive and lawful custom overcomes the law.]”

Common law maxim: “Optima est legis interpres consuetude. [Custom is the best interpreter of the Law.]”