Since the legislative session has started, so have the bills that put animal ownership, agriculture and non-agriculture alike, at risk.
BUT, there are some PRO ownership bills, too. Finally.
A few on the naughty list.
HF 378, Public Safety committee, private citizens making arrests, allowing use of force while assisting and directed by a peace officer to the same degree
officer could use? Read it here: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=89&ba=HF378
Now, why ever would that be?
Could be good. Could be equally bad. The good could be helping a law officer or private citizen being attacked. The bad, well, ask any dog breeder, broker, an animal producer that has ever been targeted. A tread lightly bill. Better take a long hard, look at future unintended consequences.
Could it be………
in view of recent incidences this past year, that law officers need assistance? Or a person having the right to defend their selves, family, property? Or could it be used to attack those of a different ideology, or animal producers such as dog breeders or CAFOs when they and/or their property is under attack? In their opinion, claiming standards of care have been violated and attempt to seize animals.
The owner tries to defend. Physical encounters happen. Or when seizing animals, the owner forced, under threat, to remain in a vehicle, house or wherever so observation cannot be done in the case of staging and planting. Yes, really.
Then there is the doozy of veterinary immunity. This time around regarding animal seizures. HSB 170, State Government. Read it here: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=89&ba=HSB170
Now, why ever would that be? Why would a veterinarian NOT want to be held responsible and accountable? HSUS and ilk, Animal Rescue League (ARL), along with the IA Veterinary Medical Association (IVMA) luuuuuve this bill.
Here’s an instance where a potential breeding animal was rendered worthless after a mistaken dog ID. Granted a non-seizure incident. But a definite huge error.
Research reveals a very long list where animals were seized, sterilized, dispersed long before final adjudication. The owner is found innocent. But, alas, their breeding animals now worthless or scattered to the wind.
So exactly why the exemption in an animal seizure case? Research? Studies? Where are they? Not the emotion-inducing crap so many try to pawn off as facts.
Could it be……
the first thing most receivers of an animal raid does is to sterilize the animals if intact, almost immediately. Now, totally worthless as breeding stock when the owner was found not guilty. Property rights tossed out the window. No accountability the owner still owned those animals, procedures were performed without their permission. There is a very long list of incidences where animals were seized, sterilized, dispersed long before final adjudication.
Might want to think twice, or a third time about supporting this bill as it could be YOU and your property next.
A couple on the nice animal pro ownership list.
SF 85, declaring rabbits as agriculture. Read it here: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=89&ba=SF85
Now, why ever would this be? Because they are used in meat, fur, and clothing production? Just like other agricultural animals?
Could it be……
there is dismay about rabbits being labeled as agriculture as ARL is against this bill. That it might be harder to get a cruelty case due to agricultural standards of production? Your guess.
And finally…
SF 302 Judiciary. Read it here: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=89&ba=SF302 In the event of an animal seizure, animals remain in place under supervised care. Agriculture and non-agriculture, pets, rehomers alike. All equal under this bill.
Why ever would that be?
In short, it is about protecting the animals themselves, along with YOUR animal ownership rights in the case of a raid/seizure. All procedures MUST be done in accordance with the constitutional guarantee of protecting YOUR inalienable rights of property ownership and follow JUDICIAL due process.
Does IA follow the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of due process? Read for yourself here: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/162.pdf . Then here for an administrative procedure, Chapter 17A: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/17A.pdf
THEN research “Is Administrative Law Illegal” by Philip Hamburger. One hundred five (105) references to Constitutional scholars. One hundred thirty-six (136) case references.
Holding veterinarians accountable for unauthorized procedures on YOUR animals. YOUR property REMAINS YOUR property until FINAL judicial adjudication, including any and all appeals. Why do you think the IVMA, HSUS, ARL, lobbyists registered against this bill?
Could it be……
It is a well-established fact that when animals are seized, it stresses them further, making them easier victims to disease and injury. The receiver can then charge even more outrageous vet and care charges. When the owner cannot afford to pay those exorbitant extortion fees, the receiver automatically gains ownership.
The court routinely orders the owner, if found guilty, (usually the norm) to pay those charges regardless. Don’t forget the receiver can also be reimbursed by the state and/or county, conduct fundraisers (the coveted pot o’ gold), and then top it off with the sale of the animals.
Why do you think the Animal Rescue League, HSUS-Iowa(Humane Society of the United States -Iowa), and HSUS cohorts’ lobbyists are registered as against this bill? See above and below.
Could it be…….. the fear of losing ka-ching, ka-ching?
I.E. this bill PREVENTS CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE. Of being convicted before being tried, by the theft of your property under color of law. Let that sink in. It’s a ka-ching for the seizor and receiver of YOUR property.
With that said, one cannot deny the truth that there are some truly bad situations that do need intervention. BUT, don’t forget those little things also called staging, selective photo editing, emotional appeals. IT DOES happen.
Do you not agree there needs to be accountability, responsibility, punishment for lying, destroying someone’s livelihood, even lives, through mental, physical, emotional stress induced by a surprise raid in very early morning hours? Like a surprise SWAT raid. No? Why?
Ask the whys and the specifics. Do not accept the standard emotional rhetorical answers. Isn’t that what their proclamations are about? “It’s for the animals”. How about, finally, “It’s for owner’s rights”?
Time to protect what is yours.
Prove me wrong. FONA (facts only need apply)
