Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom

---

Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) is defined as a law or statute that equates the qualities of a dangerous dog with a certain breed, and bans or restricts certain breeds based on identity, not behavior of a specific animal. This type of legislation does not make concessions for those members of the breed who are valuable assets to their communities, such as therapy dogs, assistance dogs, or advanced trained dogs such as drug dogs and search and rescue dogs. BSL identifies a dog as "dangerous" based upon its breed alone and not based on any action or offense that the individual dog has ever committed. As of July, 2000, thirty-eight states had enacted BSL on a statewide level or in certain municipalities, or were considering BSL on one of those levels. Some examples of currently active breed-specific municipal ordinances:

(1) Denver, Colorado has prohibited "any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull." The ordinance defines "pit bull" as "any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds."

(2) Waterford Charter Township, Michigan has prohibited any prospective "possession, maintenance, and harboring" of any "pit bull terriers," and justifies the prohibition by stating that "the township has further concluded that it is in the interest of public health, safety and welfare that the presence of pit bull terriers be limited in this community to only those existing licensed pit bull terrier dogs in order that the threat of this breed will eventually be removed from this community."

(3) Des Moines, Iowa defines "vicious dog" to include the American Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the Pit Bull Terrier, and imposes stringent confinement, licensure, and control requirements (including provisions for animal seizure and disposal) upon any animals deemed "vicious" under the ordinance.

(4) North Little Rock, Arkansas has restricted ownership of Rottweilers, Pit Bulls, or Bull Terriers or mixes thereof by implementing a breed-specific licensure fee of $500.00 - far more than license fees for other breeds.

The general purpose of these laws is to either discourage, restrict, or prohibit certain breeds of dogs which are defined as "dangerous" within certain jurisdictions. Nearly all the laws, when implemented, included a "grandfather clause" which allowed current owners of the specified breeds to keep their dogs, but prohibited any prospective acquisitions or breeding. Because current owners were not stripped of their rights to keep their "banned breed" dogs, merely due to their breed identity, the enactment of the BSL did not amount to a taking of their property.

At the state level, statutes rarely prohibit or restrict specific breeds. Instead, the statutes tend to focus more on the dogs' and owners' conduct, and on dangerous behavior regardless of breed. For example, Michigan's state statutes define a "dangerous animal" as:

[A] dog or other animal that bites or attacks a person, or a dog that bites or attacks and causes serious injury or death to another dog while the other dog is on the property or under the control of its owner. However, a dangerous animal does not include any of the following: (i) An animal that bites or attacks a person who is knowingly trespassing on the property of the animal's owner. (ii) An animal that bites or attacks a person who provokes or torments the animal. (iii) An animal that is responding in a manner that an ordinary and reasonable person would conclude was designed to protect a person if that person is engaged in a lawful activity or is the subject of an assault.

Nowhere in the Michigan statute governing "dangerous animals" will the reader find specific breeds listed. The statute regulates dog behavior, rather than the identified breed of dog. In contrast, enforcement of BSL is not dependent on a dog's behavior; instead a specific dog can be deemed "dangerous" as a result of the breed an animal control officer believes it to be, even if the dog has displayed no vicious or aggressive tendencies.

Florida state law contains a similar section, which again does not specify particular breeds of dogs, but instead proscribes types of behavior by dogs which are subject to penalty. "Dangerous dogs" are defined, in part, as those which have "aggressively bitten, attacked, or endangered or has inflicted severe injury on a human being on public or private property," as well as those which have "when unprovoked, chased or approached a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack."

Ohio, on the other hand, has specifically pointed to "pit bulls" as vicious dogs per se. In Section 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii), the Ohio Legislature has stated that a vicious dog includes one which "belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog. The ownership, keeping, or harboring of such a breed of dog shall be prima-facie evidence of the ownership, keeping, or harboring of a vicious dog."

Interestingly, two states have actually prohibited local governments from adopting ordinances that regulate dangerous dogs based solely on the breed of the dog."

Our Organization thru our National Yahoo Group are working to "stop" this most unreasonable and "evil" law of BSL, in every state.

Thank you for your support!

Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom.org

Have you ever noticed that PETA is always there to throw blood on people wearing fur coats or protesting rodeo riders wearing leather, but that they never protest in front of kill shelters?

A friend of mine who used to be a shelter worker explained it to me. "PETA would never show up at a kill shelter," she explained, "because if they did, the workers there would bring out all the dogs and cats, turn over the leashes and say, 'Here, they're all yours now.'"

It's an amusing picture, but it's not quite true. You see, PETA does not protest at kill shelters because it supports the killing of pets and does almost nothing to try to get dogs and cats adopted out.

In fact, in 2005, PETA killed 90 percent of the animals turned over to it.

---

HSUS and SPCA Shelters - 
"Humane Society" shelters kill 50-80 percent of pets 

If that shocks you, then consider this: most "Humane Society" shelters kill 50-80 percent of all the dogs and cats turned over to them. So too do most SPCA shelters contracted by local municipalities.

In fact, shelter killing is the leading cause of death for healthy dogs and cats in the United States. All in all, some five million dogs and cats are killed in our nation shelters every year by the "humane" industry. To put it another way, the "humane" industry which opposes hunting of deer for meat, actually kills more dogs and cats than hunters shoot deer.

How could this be occurring, even as Americans are shelling out large sums of money for animals that serve no higher purpose that kitchen patrol and couch potatoes?

How could this be occurring at a time when more dogs and cats than ever before are being spayed and neutered? Just how is it that the so-called "Humane" animal shelter industry is doing all the killing?

Go Figure! $$$$ for dead pets sold to rendering plants by the ton...

---

The Truth about PETA; a Terrorist Funding Organization and Killer of Pets.

Once you have read this article, you should start referring to PETA as People Exterminating Terrified Animals, as the PETA organization are perverts in every sense of the word, perverting the truth about freedom of beloved pet ownership and care, on private property, known as your home or premises. These perverted people of PETA are against the fur and leather trade, hunting, circuses, rodeos, zoos, purchasing animals from pet shops, racing, and the use of animals in experimentation in medical science. Yet PETA as (People Exterminating Terrified Animals), are the PETA organization of perverts in every sense of the word by claiming to be supportive of adopting animals from animal rights shelters and promoting only vegetarianism.

A PETA perverted pamphlet on it's second page makes repeat references to the readers greedy, mean, terrible and nasty mommy while describing horrible deaths of wild animals caught for the use of their fur. It personalizes these animals to the children by relating them to their own dogs or cats by making the perverted statement - But how would you feel if someone took away your kitty or puppy, stomped on their head, and ripped their skin off their bodies? Not exactly the most child friendly phrase ever spoken, to say the least. Now, two years later, PETA (People Exterminating Terrified Animals) has released a partner to this previous perverted pamphlet, in the form of anti-fishing perverted propaganda, entitled Your Daddy Kills Animals.

PETA SUPPORTS TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS
Millions of people around the globe and in the United States, claim to be for PETA and Animal Rights, yet these same everyday, run of the mill folks, are in fact, supporting terrorist organizations and activities that lead to the death of people, as well as pets and animals. What in fact, is possibly more questionable is some of their terrorist affiliations.

 FACT: PETA supports and has funded groups such as ALF the Animal Liberation Front and ELF the Earth Liberation Front giving them collectively more than $70,000. Both ALF and ELF are considered by the FBI to be domestic terrorist organizations for frequently doing such drastic demonstrations as placing explosives in vehicles and restaurants, and, in the 1990’s, one ALF activist was convicted for burning down a laboratory belonging to the Michigan State University. Of course, perhaps these affiliations are not so surprising given some of the comments from one of PETA campaign coordinators, Bruce Friedrich, at the 2001 Animal Rights convention, including that he would think it great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow, and that, of course we’re going to be, as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows. I think it’s perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows, and everything else along the line. Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it. Friedrich is not the only PETA official to make public statements which reveal the true nature of the organization, though. In 1989, co-founder and current president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, said during an interview with Vogue magazine that Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, [PETA would] be against it. They openly protest against the use of animals in any sort of medical research, and the usage of drugs and cures that have resulted from this, with claims none of the testing on animals is necessary while ignoring how many medical breakthroughs there have been due to it. PETA in fact, will and wants to kill all pets and animals, whether or not humans get hurt or killed in the process as follows: "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Just Like Us? Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August 1988, pg. 50. "The cat, like the dog, must disappear.....we should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, D.C.: People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) 1982, pg.15.)

One of their largest, most notable moments of PETA perverted hypocrisy was in relation to this rigid stance on animal testing and medicines resulting from it, when diabetic PETA vice-president Mary Beth Sweet land said during an interview with Glamour magazine that she takes synthetically manufactured insulin twice a day which still contains some animal products, and yet she says she has no qualms about it and will not stop taking it and put her own life in danger. However, she claims this justifiable because she uses her life to fight for the rights of animals. PETA (People Exterminating Terrified Animals), allegedly people friendly, animal friendly, PETA (People Exterminating Terrified Animals), which has worked so hard to allegedly save the lives of so many pet animals, has dirtier things yet beneath it’s name, than the NAZIS themselves in propaganda campaigns vs. truth of reality. Numerous reports have arisen over the years of people having their family pets stolen by members of PETA, many of which in this perverted organization later claim they saved and these stolen pets were adopted out. The stolen pets were allegedly killed by PETA, not adopted, at all, after the theft of the pets took place. A criminal act on many aspects of the law, no doubt, yet PETA (People Exterminating Terrified Animals), get a slap on the wrist each and every time, supported by equally perverted Animal Rights legislators, mayors, congressmen, judges, law enforcement, animals shelters, etc. the list just keeps growing with more perverted thinking Animal Rights people in powerful positions, allowing criminal acts of PETA to go by, unscathed without justifiable redress from the victims of their criminal complaints or criminal animal acts of cruelty and violations of the law by these perverted PETA people. It gets much worse than that though. It’s now in question how many animals PETA really does adopt out, especially now, when two of its members, Andrew Cook and Adria Hinkle, are have stand trial. Both charged with one count of trespassing, eight misdemeanor counts of illegal disposal of dead animals, and 31 felony counts of animal cruelty. Hinkle and Cook were discovered as they dumped the bodies of dead animals in the dumpster of a supermarket over a period of four weeks. More than 80 carcasses were found. Was justice of the most horrific and extraordinary criminal acts against innocent pet animals upheld by our courts of justice in this land? I think Not!

In truth, between 1998 and 2004, PETA, who holds animal life equal to, if not above, that of humans, has euthanized for than 12,000 domestic pets. This PETA (People Exterminating Terrified Animals) organization which boasts their triumphs for animal rights, and allegedly saving so many non-human creatures in the past, now kills anywhere from 70% to 87% of the domestic pets and animals they allegedly save every year. In fact, when questioned in 2000 as to why PETA euthanizes so many animals ever year, President Ingrid Newkirk said that it’s much less expensive to have the animals killed, rather than to care for them. It seems they’d much rather spend your American hard earned donation money on funding terrorist organizations and extremist demonstrations, rather than save the life of your pets. Not so surprising, as Newkirk stated herself to USA Today, Everything we do is a publicity stunt. We’re not here to be popular; we’re here to hold the radical line Maybe the whole saving animals thing was just a happy coincidence.

 Animals C.L.U.B.- Freedom