UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- UKC Coonhounds (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- You probably KNOW this, BUT (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=319404)

You probably KNOW this, BUT

Reminder to monitor legislators & legislation

Sent: Thu, Dec 17, 2009 5:27 pm
Subject: Re: [petlaw] You probably all KNOW this,but...

Just look to the UK for an example. They can already charge you there if your pet is "fat" by their standards.

The designation of animals as "companions" is another ploy, as you note. So is the usual companion to that designation - caretaker.

A "caretaker" is not an owner. It is someone "taking care" of a thing for the real owner. Think of someone keeping up a property while the owner is away or an estate is being settled. If the animal is a companion and you are just a caretaker, another caretaker could be assigned and you "fired."

It also divides animal ownership into "companion" and "livestock." Divide and conquer.

The sad thing is that this is so appealing to animal people that they giggle and rush to embrace it when it comes up, never realizing that legal definitions MEAN something.

You can't tell your neighbor how to keep his car. Neither can the cops if it's not a danger. It's HIS/HER property, not yours. But what happens when there are NO rights to property? It can be controlled, taken away, things can be ordered done to/with it.

There have already been states where specific species were granted constitutional rights as an experiment by AR groups. What happens when dogs, cats, horses, etc. are declared to have rights like people? The state then gets to decide what can be done with them and "caretaker" suddenly becomes a state-regulated job.

Beware that slope.

----- Original Message -----
From: Cindy
To: pet-law@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 5:27 PM
Subject: [petlaw] You probably all KNOW this,but...

The Humane Society of the United States is a radical organization that opposes ANY hunting,and I suspect from things that their leaders have said that they have a large percentage of RADICALS in there who are opposed not only to animal abuse, but to OWNERSHIP of them. That is why in some states they have successfully had laws passed designating PETS as "COMPANION ANIMALS",the idea being that you don't OWN your animal, he's just a "COMPANION",and they are trying to get "animal RIGHTS" laws passed that will give the STATE LOTS of control over what YOU do with YOUR animal,I would suspect,right down to what and how much you feed it,how many times a day you scoop the box or walk the pet,and so on. I think their ULTIMATE goal is to make keeping pets SO expensive and SO inconvenient,with SO many petty regulations,taxes and fees to pay,that people will give up HAVING them. THEY don't want YOU to HAVE animals,that's what it all comes down to.They don't CARE that you WANT animals.
TELL YOUR FRIENDS!!!!

__________________
SKY
___________________
Author of the novel "Follow Jennifer"

If they pick up your dog in Pa(not sure about the whole state) they will charge you if its fat.

Well

its pretty simple for them to get these things into law when the pet owner wont get up off of it and attend a county meeting,on ordinances being push to take their rights away from them,it like their to lazy or comfortable with things or maybe they just don't like confrontation.We wore ourselves out this year fighting legislation here in NC,and I know its not going to end until each states pet owners comes up with a group to lobby at the state and local levels in their stead,most wont even call on their own behalf about it,we have been asleep for so long now,I don't no if we will ever get our way of life back.I get mad some times thinking about the busybodies want to take my liberties,and happiness away just because they have the money,and backing to try,because they don't have a life.They need to turn their efforts to the hungry and homeless people in the world and help them,of course our government should do this to,but hope you get my meaning.