Over 75 Dogs Seized for Neglect in Obion TN
Seems like Tennessee’s laws need a bit of an overhaul when a breeder does not need to be licensed or registered and can own any number dogs. Under these conditions it’s very difficult to impose any kind of regulations on the welfare of animals.
More than 75 dogs were removed from a Northwest Tennessee home Sunday because of allegations of neglect. The Obion County Sheriff’s Department and The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals took the dogs away after several complaints of animal neglect. It’s up to a veterinarian to decide what happens next.
The home owners told the sheriff’s department they have a vet that comes to check on the dogs and that there is no problem, but the SPCA says that’s not the case. Seventy five to one hundred puppies and dogs, all small breeds were living outside in covered kennels behind the Obion County home. The animals were taken away after calls to authorities said living conditions were terrible. Obion County Sheriff Jerry Vastbinder says the dogs’ owners maintain they have done nothing wrong.
“I spoke with their vet who says he’s been treating animals out here and he doesn’t think there are any problems here,” says Vastbinder. But Deborah Lorence with the Gibson-Obion County SPCA says she saw clear signs of animal neglect-dirty dogs, puppies missing hair and living in urine. “We found diarrhea, massive diarrhea, dogs with eye infections or what appeared to be eye infections and infestation of fleas and ticks,” says Lorence.
SPCA took the dogs to be checked out by a veterinarian. Now its up to the independent veterinarian’s diagnosis to decide if animal cruelty charges are necessary. The SPCA says the dogs owners are not licensed or registered dog breeders, but that’s not required under Tennessee State Law. State law also does not regulate the number of dogs a person can have. Because the dogs’ owners have not been charged, names have not been released so it’s unclear if the dogs owners have ever had prior run-ins with the law or if they have ever faced charges for animal cruelty.
It will be up to a judge to decide whether the dogs will go home or be put up for adoption. In the meantime, the dogs need foster homes. If you’d like to help, call the SPCA at (731) 749-5010. (WPSDTV)
More than a hundred animals made their way to a Mid-South shelter Monday after authorities busted a puppy mill over the weekend.
Animal cruelty investigators say the puppies came from a puppy mill that bred some very expensive dogs.
They say the owners put ads in newspapers that could have been answered by anyone in any Shelby County neighborhood.
Almost 140 puppies and adult dogs sit in enclosures at the Dyersburg Fairgrounds.
All of the puppies were confiscated in nearby Obion County at what cruelty investigators are calling a puppy mill.
An investigation was started after the Gibson County Humane Society got anonymous complaints.
“About the care of the dogs and the puppies. Basically what it all boils down to the housing and condition of them physically,” said Lowrance Gibson with the Obion County Humane Society.
Most of the puppies have some of the classic signs of abuse. One even had scald marks from sitting in urine for hours at a time.
Some of the dogs sell for thousands of dollars; french bulldogs, King Charles Spaniels, poodles, and cocker spaniels.
“The dogs basically show they’ve been in a wire pen environment. They have cuts on their feet, and signs of unsocialization,” said Dr. Jon Martin.
Investigators said the dogs were so used to lying and standing in wire cages they got scared when a soft pad was put down for them.
This isn’t the first time the people who own the dogs have faced charges.
“Took them to court and unfortunately we got pretrial diversion so it was just a misdemeanor,” added Carol Feather with Dyersburg Humane Soceity.
Investigators are hoping tougher animal cruelty laws in Tennessee will make the criminal case they are building lead to a felony conviction this time.
The couple who own the dogs had not yet been charged.
The Gibson Obion County Humane Society needs money and cages for the medium sized dogs. They also need foster homes.
If you would like to foster a dog you can go to the Fairgrounds in Dyersburg on Wednesday beginning at noon and apply. They will ask you for references.
For more information on how you can become a foster parent for one of the puppies click here. (WMCTV)
Related Posts
Please share this so everyone knows!!
Email This Post
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
(i) a retail pet store except such store which sells any animals to a research facility, an exhibitor, or a dealer; or
(ii) any person who does not sell, or negotiate the purchase or sale or any wild animal, dog, or cat and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of other animals during any calendar year;
(g) The term “animal” means any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes or as a pet; but such term excludes horses not used for research purposes and other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog the term means all dogs including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes;
(h) The term “exhibitor” means any person (public or private) exhibiting any animals, which were purchased in commerce or the intended distribution of which affects commerce, or will affect commerce, to the public for compensation, as determined by the Secretary, and such term includes carnivals, circuses, and zoos exhibiting such animals whether operated for profit or not; but such term excludes retail pet stores, organizations sponsoring and all persons participating in State and country fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, purebred dog and cat shows, and any other fairs or exhibitions intended to advance agricultural arts and sciences, as may be determined by the Secretary;
(i) The term “intermediate handler” means any person including a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or of any State or local government (other than a dealer, research facility, exhibitor, any person excluded from the definition of a dealer, research facility, or exhibitor, an operator of an auction sale, or a carrier) who is engaged in any business in which he receives custody of animals in connection with their transportation in commerce; and
(j) The term “carrier” means the operator of any airline, railroad, motor carrier, shipping line, or other enterprise, which is engaged in the business or transporting any animals for hire.
(k) The term “Federal agency” means an Executive agency as such term is defined in section 105 of Title 5, United States Code, and with respect to any research facility means the agency from which the research facility means the agency from which the research facility receives a Federal award for the conduct of research, experimentation, or testing, involving the use of animals;
(l) The term “Federal award for the conduct of research, experimentation, or testing, involving the use of animals” means any mechanism (including a grant, award, loan, contract, or cooperative agreement) under which Federal funds are provided to support the conduct of such research;
(m) The term “quorum” means a majority of the Committee members;
(n) The term “Committee” means the Institutional Animal Committee established under section 13(b); and
(o) The term “Federal research facility” means each department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States which uses live animals for research of experimentation.
(7 U.S.C. § 2132) (P.L. 89-544, § 2, Aug. 24. 1966, 80 Stat. 350; P.L. 91-579, § 3, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1560; P.L. 94-279 §§ 3, 4, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 417, 418; P.L. 99-198, Title XVII, § 1756(a), Dec. 23, 1985,, 99 Stat. 1650)
Section 3. The Secretary shall issue licenses to dealers and exhibitors upon application therefor in such form and manner as he may prescribe and upon payment of such fee established pursuant to section 23 of this Act: Provided, That no such license shall be issued until the dealer or exhibitor shall have demonstrated that his facilities comply with the standards promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 13 of this Act: Provided, however, That any retail pet store or other person who derives less than a substantial portion of his income (as determined by the Secretary) from the breeding and raising of dogs or cats on his own premises and sells any such dog or cat to a dealer or research facility shall not be required to obtain a license as a dealer or exhibitor under this Act. The Secretary is further authorized to license, as dealers or exhibitors persons who do not qualify as dealers or exhibitors within the meaning of this Act upon such persons complying with the requirements specified above and agreeing, in writing, to comply with all the requirements of this Act and the regulations promulgated by the Secretary hereunder.
(7 U.S.C. § 2133) (P.L. 89-544, § 3, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; P.L. 91-579, § 4, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1561)
Section 4. No dealer or exhibitor shall sell or offer to sell or transport or offer for transportation, in commerce, to any research facility or for exhibition or for use as a pet any animal, or buy, sell, offer to buy or sell, transport or offer for transportation, in commerce, to or from another dealer or exhibitor under this Act any animal, unless and until such dealer or exhibitor shall have obtained a license from the Secretary and such license shall not have been amended or revoked.
(7 U.S.C. § 2134) (P.L. 89-544, § 4, Aug. 24. 1966, 80 Stat. 351; P.L. 91-579, § 5, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1561; P.L. 94-279, § 5, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 418)
Section 5. No dealer or exhibitor shall sell or dispose of any dog or cat within a period of 5 business days after the acquisition of such animal or within such other period as way be specified by the Secretary: Provided, that operators of auction sales subject to section 12 of this Act shall not be required to comply with the provisions of this section.
(7 U.S.C. § 2135) (P.L. 89-544, § 5, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; P.L. 91-579. § 6, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1561)
Section 6. Every research facility, every intermediate handler, every carrier, and every exhibitor not licensed under section 3 of this Act shall register with the Secretary in accordance with such rules and regulations as he may prescribe.
(7 U.S.C. § 2136) (P.L. 89-544, § 6, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; P.L. 91-579, § 7, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1561; P.L. 94-279, § 6, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 418)
Section 7. It shall be unlawful for any research facility to purchase any dog or cat from any person except an operator of an auction sale subject to section 12 of this Act or a person holding a valid license as a dealer or exhibitor issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act unless such person is exempted from obtaining such license under section 3 of this Act.
(7 U.S.C. § 2137) (P.L. 89-544, § 7, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; P.L. 91-579. § 8, Dec. 24, 1970. 84 Stat. 1561)
Section 8. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States which uses animals for research or experimentation or exhibition shall purchase or otherwise acquire any dog or cat for such purposes from any person except an operator of an auction sale subject to section 12 of this Act or a person holding a valid license as a dealer or exhibitor issued by the Secretary pursuant to this Act unless such person is exempted from obtaining such license under section 3 of this Act.
(7 U.S.C. § 2138) (P.L. 89-544, § 8, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; P.L. 91-579, § 9, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1562)
Section 9. When construing or enforcing the provisions of this Act, the act, omission, or failure of any person acting for or employed by a research facility, a dealer, or an exhibitor or a person licensed as a dealer or an exhibitor pursuant to the second sentence of section 3, or an operator of an auction sale subject to section 12 of this Act, or an intermediate handler or a carrier, within the scope of his employment or office, shall be deemed the act, omission, or failure of such research facility, dealer, exhibitor, licensee, operator of an auction sale, intermediate handler, or carrier, as well of such person.
(7 U.S.C. § 2139) (P.L. 89-544, § 9, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; P.L. 91-579, § 10, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1562; P.L. 94-279, § 7, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 418)
Section 10. Dealers and exhibitors shall make and retain for such reasonable period of time as the Secretary may prescribe, such records with respect to the purchase, sale, transportation, identification, and previous ownership of animals as the Secretary may prescribe. Research facilities shall make and retain such records only with respect to the purchase, sale, transportation, identification, and previous ownership of live dogs and cats. At the request of the Secretary, any regulatory agency of the Federal Government which requires records to be maintained by intermediate handlers and carriers with respect to the transportation, receiving, handling, and delivery of animals on forms prescribed by the agency, shall require there to be included in such forms, and intermediate handlers and carriers shall include in such forms, such information as the Secretary may require for the effective administration of this Act. Such information shall be retained for such reasonable period of time as the Secretary may prescribe. If regulatory agencies of the Federal Government do not prescribe requirements for any such forms, intermediate handlers and carriers shall make and retain for such reasonable period as the Secretary may prescribe such records with respect to the transportation, receiving, handling, and delivery of animals as the Secretary may prescribe. Such records shall be made available at all reasonable times for inspection and copying by the Secretary.
(7 U.S.C. § 2140) (P.L. 89-544, § 10, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; P.L. 91-579, § 11, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1562; P.L. 94-279, § 8, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 418)
Section 11. All animals delivered for transportation, transported, purchased, or sold, in commerce, by a dealer or exhibitor shall be marked or identified at such time and in such humane manner as the Secretary may prescribe: Provided, That only live dogs and cats need be so marked or identified by a research facility.
(7 U.S.C. § 2141) (P.L. 89-544, § 11, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; P.L. 91-579, § 12, Dec. 24. 1970, 84 Stat. 1562; P.L. 94-279, § 5. Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 418)
Section 12. The Secretary is authorized to promulgate humane standards and recordkeeping requirements governing the purchase, handling, or sale of animals, in commerce, by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors at auction sales and by the operators of such auction sales. The Secretary is also authorized to require the licensing of operators of auction sales where any dogs or cats are sold, in commerce, trader such conditions as he may prescribe, and upon payment of such fee as prescribed by the Secretary under section 23 of this Act.
(7 U.S.C. § 2142) (P.L. 89-544, § 12, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 351; P.L. 91-579, § 13, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1562; P.L. 94-279, § 5, Apr. 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 418.)
Section 13. (a)(1) The Secretary shall promulgate standards to govern the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals by dealers, research facilities, and exhibitors.
(2) The standards described in paragraph (1) shall include minimum requirements–
(A) for handling, housing, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, shelter from extremes of weather and temperatures, adequate veterinary care, and separation by species where the Secretary finds necessary for humane handling, care, or treatment of animals; and
(B) for exercise of dogs, as determined by an attending veterinarian in accordance with the general standards promulgated by the Secretary, and for a physical environment adequate to promote the psychological well-being of primates.
(3) In addition to the requirements under paragraph (2), the standards described in paragraph (1) shall, with respect ot animals in research facilities, include requirements–
(A) for animal care, treatment, and practices in experimental procedures to ensure that animal pain and distress are minimized, including adequate veterinary care with the appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic or tranquilizing drugs, or euthanasia;
(B) that the principal investigator considers alternatives to any procedure likely to produce pain or distress in an experimental animal;
(C) in any practice which could cause pain to animals- (i) that a doctor of veterinary medicine is consulted in the planning of such procedures;
(ii) for the use of tranquilizers, analgesics, and anesthetics;
(iii) for presurgical and postsurgical care by laboratory workers in accordance with established veterinary medical and nursing procedures;
(iv) against the use of paralytics without anesthesia; and
(v) that the withholding of tranquilizers, anesthesia, analgesia, or euthanasia when scientifically necessary shall continue for only the necessary period of time;
(D) that no animal is used in more than one major operative experimenta from which it is allowed to recover except in cases of–
(i) scientific necessity; or
(ii) other special circumstances as determined by the Secretary; and
(E) that exceptions to such standards may be made only when specified by research protocol and that any such exception shall be detailed and explained in a report outlined under paragraph (7) and filed with the Institutional Animal Committee.
(4) The Secretary shall also promulgate standards to govern the transportation in commerce to govern the transportation in commerce, and the handling, care, and treatment in connection therewith, by intermediate handlers, air carriers, or other carriers, of animals consigned by a dealer, research facility, exhibitor, operator of an auction sale, or other person, or any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or of any State or local government, for transportation in commerce. The Secretary shall have authority to promulgate such rules and regulations as he determines necessary to assure humane treatment of animals in the course of their transportation in commerce including requirements such as those with respect to containers, feed, water, rest, ventilation, temperature, and handling.
(5) In promulgating and enforcing standards established pursuant to this section, the Secretary is authorized and directed to consult experts, including outside consultants where indicated.
(6)(A) Nothing in this Act–
(i) except as provided in paragraph (7) of this subsection, shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary to promulgate rules, regulations, or orders with regard to design, outlines, guidelines or performance of actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility;
(ii) except as provided in subparagraphs (A) and (C)(ii) through (v) of paragraph (3) and paragraph (7) of this subsection, shall be construed as authorizing the Secretary to promulgate rules, regulations, or orders with regard to the performance of actual research or experimentation by a research facility as determined by such research facility; and
(iii) shall authorize the Secretary, during inspection, to interrupt the conduct of actual research or experimentation.
(B) No rule, regulation, order, or part of this Act shall be construed to require a research facility to disclose publicly or to the Institutional Animal Committee during its inspection, trade secrets or commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential.
(7)(A) The Secretary shall require each research research facility to show upon inspection, and to report at least annually, that the provisions of this Act are being followed and that professionally acceptable standards governing the care, treatment, and use of animals are being followed by the research facility during actual research or experimentation.
(B) In complying with subparagraph (A), such research facilities shall provide–
(i) information on procedures likely to produce pain or distress in any animal and assurances demonstrating that the principal investigator considered alternatives to those procedures;
(ii) assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that such facility is adhering to the standards described in this section; and
(iii) an explanation for any deviation from the standards promulgated under this section.
(8) Paragraph (1) shall not prohibit any State (or a political subdivision of such State) from promulgating standards in addition to those standards promulgated by the Secretary under paragraph (1).
(b)(1) The Secretary shall require that each research facility establish at least one Committee. Each Committee shall be appointed by the chief executive officer of each such research facility and shall be composed of not fewer than three members. Such members shall possess sufficient ability to assess animal care, treatment, and practices in experimental research as determined by the needs of the research facility and shall represent society’s concerns regarding the welfare of animal subjects used at such facility. Of the members of the Committee–
(A) at least one member shall be a doctor of veterinary medicine;
(B) at least one member–
(i) shall not be affiliated in any way with such facility other than as a member of the Committee–
(ii) shall not be a member of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with such facility; and
(iii) is intended to provide representation for generaly community interests in the proper care and treatment of animals; and
(C) in those cases where the Committee consists of more than three members, not more than three members shall be from the same administrative unit of such facility.
(2) A quorum shall be required for all formal actions of the Committee, including inspections under paragraph (3).
(3) The Committee shall inspect at least semiannually all animal study areas and animal facilities of such research facility and review as part of the inspection–
(A) practices involving pain to animals, and
(B) the condition of animals, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Act to minimize pain and distress to animals. Exceptions to the requirement of inspection of such study areas may be made by the Secretary if animals are studied in their natural environment and the study area is prohibitive to easy access.
(4)(A) The Committee shall file an inspection certification report of each inspection at the research facility. Such report shall–
(i) be signed by a majority of the Committee members involved in the inspection;
(ii) include reports of any violation of the standards promulgated, or assurances required, by the Secretary, including any deficient conditions of animal care or treatment, any deviations of research practices from originally approved proposals that adversely affect animal welfare, any notification to the facility regarding such conditions and any corrections made thereafter;
(iii) include any minority views of the Committee; and
(iv) include any other information pertinent to the activities of the Committee.
(B) Such report shall remain on file for at least 3 years at the research facility and shall be available for inspection by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and any funding Federal agency.
(C) In order to give the research facility an opportunity to correct any deficiencies or deviations discovered by reason of paragraph (3), the Committee shall notify the administrative representative of the research facility of any deficiencies or deviations from the provisions of this Act. If, after notification and an opportunity for correction, such deficiencies or deviations remain uncorrected, the Committee shall notify (in writing) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the funding Federal Agency of such deficiencies or deviations.
(5) The inspection results shall be available to Department of Agriculture inspectors for review during inspections. Department of Agriculture inspectors shall forward any Committee inspection records which include reports of uncorrected deficiencies or deviations to the Animal and Plant Health inspection Service and any funding Federal agency of the project with respect to which such uncorrected deficiencies and deviations occurred.
(c) In the case of Federal research facilities, a Federal Committee shall be established and shall have the same composition and responsibilities provided in subsection (b) of this section, except that the Federal Committee shall report deficiencies or deviations to the head of the Federal agency conducting the research rather than to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The head of the Federal agency conducting the research shall be responsible for–
(1) all corrective action to be taken at the facility; and
(2) the granting of all exceptions to inspection protocol.
(d) Each research facility shall provide for the training of scientists, animal technicians, and other personnel involved with animal care and treatment in such facility as required by the Secretary. Such training shall include instruction on–
(1) the humane practice of animal maintenance and experimentation;
(2) research or testing methods that minimize or eliminate the use of animals or limit animal pain or distress;
(3) utilization of the information service at the National Agricultural Library, established under subsection (e) of this section; and
(4) methods whereby deficiencies in animal care and treatment should be reported.
(e) The Secretary shall establish an information service at the National Agricultural Library. Such service shall, in cooperation with the National Library of Medicine, provide information–
(1) pertinent to employee training;
(2) which could prevent unintended duplication of animal experimentation as determined by the needs of the research facility; and
(3) on improved methods of animal experimentation, including methods which could–
(A) reduce or replace animal use; and
(B) minimize pain and distress to animals, such as anesthetic and analgesic procedures.
(f)1(See footnote on last page) In any case in which a Federal agency funding a research project determines that conditions of animal care, treatment, or practice in a particular project have not been in compliance with standards promulgated under this Act, despite notification by the Secretary or such Federal agency to the research facility and an opportunity for correction, such agency shall suspend or revoke Federal support of the project. Any research facility losing Federal support as a result of actions taken under the preceding sentence shall have the right of appeal as provided in sections 701 through 706 of Title 5, United States Code.
(f)2 No dogs or cats, or additional kinds or classes of animals designated by regulation of the Secretary, shall be delivered by any dealer, research facility, exhibitor, operator of an auction sale, or department, agency, or instrumentality of tile United States or of any State or local government, to any intermediate handler or carrier for transportation in commerce or received by any such handler or carrier for such transportation from any such person, department, agency, or instrumentality, unless the animal is accompanied by a certificate issued by a veterinarian licensed to practice veterinary medicine, certifying that he inspected the animal on a specified date, which shall not be more than 10 days before such delivery, and, when so inspected, the animal appeared free of any infectious disease or physical abnormality which would endanger the animal or animals or other animals or endanger public health: Provided, however, That the Secretary may by regulation provide exceptions to this certification requirement, under such conditions as he may prescribe in the regulations, for animals shipped to research facilities for purposes of research, testing or experimentation requiring animals not eligible for such certification. Such certificates received by the intermediate handlers and the carriers shall be retained by them, as provided by regulations of the Secretary, in accordance with section 10 of this Act.
(g) No dogs or cats, or additional kinds or classes of animals designated by regulation of the Secretary, shall be delivered by any person to any intermediate handler or carrier for transportation in commerce except to registered research facilities if they are less than such age as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe. The Secretary shall designate additional kinds and classes of animals and may prescribe different ages for particular kinds or classes of dogs, cats, or designated animals, for the purposes of this section, when he determines that such action is necessary or adequate to assure their humane treatment in connection with their transportation in commerce.
(h) No intermediate handler or carrier involved in the transportation of any animal in commerce shall participate in any arrangement or engage in any practice under which the cost of such animal or the cost of the transportation of such animal is to be paid and collected upon delivery of the animal to the consignee, unless the consignor guarantees in writing the payment of transportation charges for any animal not claimed within a period of 48 hours after notice to the consignee of arrival of the animal, including, where necessary, both the return transportation charges and an amount sufficient to reimburse the carrier for all out-of-pocket expenses incurred for the care, feeding, and storage of such animals.
(7 U.S.C. 2143) (P.L. 89-544, §13, Aug.24, 1966, 80 STAT. 352; P.L. 91-579, §14, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat- 1562; P-L94-279, §§ 9, 10, April 22, 1976, 90 Stat- 418; P.L. 99-198, Title XVII, § 1752, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat- 1645)
Section 14. Any department, agency or instrumentality of the United States having laboratory animal facilities shall comply with the standards and other requirements promulgated by the Secretary for a research facility under section 13 (a), (f), (g), and (h). Any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States exhibiting animals shall comply with the standards promulgated by the Secretary under section 13 (a), (f), (g), and (h).
(7 U.S.C. 2144) (P.L. 89-544, §14, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 352; P.L- 91-579, § 15, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1563; P-L 94-279, § 19, April 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 423; P.L. 99-198, Title XVII, § 1758, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1650)
Section 15. (a) The Secretary shall consult and cooperate with other Federal departments, agencies, or instrumentalities concerned with the welfare of animals used for research, experimentation or exhibition, or administration of statutes regulating the transportation in commerce or handling in connection therewith of any animals when establishing standards pursuant to section 13 and in carrying out the purposes of this Act. The Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Health and Human Services prior to issuance of regulations. Before promulgating any standard governing the air transportation and handling in connection therewith, of animals, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Transportation who shall have the authority to disapprove any such standard if he notifies the Secretary, within 30 days after such consultation, that changes in its provisions are necessary in the interest of flight safety. The Interstate Commerce Commission, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Federal Maritime Commission, to the extent of their respective lawful authorities, shall take such action as is appropriate to implement any standard established by the Secretary with respect to a person subject to regulation by it.
(b) The Secretary is authorized to cooperate with the officials of the various States or political subdivisions thereof in carrying out the purposes of this Act and of any State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance on the same subject.
(7 U.S.C. 2145) (P.L. 89-544, § 15, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 352; P.L. 91-579, § 16, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1563; P.L. 94-279, § 11, April 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 419; P.L. 98-443 § 9(i) Oct. 4, 1984, 98 Stat. 1708; P.L- 99-198, Title XVII, § 1757, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1650).
Section 16. (a) The Secretary shall make such investigations or inspections as he deems necessary to determine whether any dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, carrier, research facility, or operator of an auction sale subject to section 12 of this Act, has violated or is violating any provision of this Act or any regulation or standard issued thereunder, and for such purposes, the Secretary shall, at all reasonable times, have access to the places of business and the facilities, animals, and those records required to kept pursuant to section 10 of any such dealer, exhibitor, intermediate handler, carrier, research facility, operator of an auction sale. The Secretary shall inspect each research facility at least once each year and, in the case of deficiencies or deviations from the standards promulgated under this Act, shall conduct such follow-up inspections as may be necessary until all deficiencies or deviations from such standards are corrected. The Secretary shall promulgate such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to permit inspectors to confiscate or destroy in a humane manner any animal found to be suffering as a result of a failure to comply with any provision of this Act or any regulation or standard issued thereunder if (1) such animal is held by a dealer, (2) such animal is held by an exhibitor, (3) such animal is held by a research facility and is no longer required by such research facility to carry out the research, test or experiment for which such animal has been utilized, (4) such animal is held by an operator of an auction sale, or (5) such animal is held by an intermediate handler or a carrier.
(b) Any person who forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person while engaged in or on account of the performance of his official duties under this Act shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. Whoever, in the commission of such acts, uses a deadly or dangerous weapon shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. Whoever kills any person while engaged in or on account of the performance of his official duties under this Act shall be punished as provided under sections 1111 and 1114 of Title 18, United States Code.
(c) For the efficient administration and enforcement of this Act and the regulations and standards promulgated under this Act, the provisions (including penalties) of sections 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the Act entitled “An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes,” (15 U.S.C. 46, and 48-50; 38 Stat. 721-723, as amended) (except paragraph (c) through (h) of section 6 and the last paragraph of section 9, and the provisions of Title II of the “Organized Crime Control Act of 1970″ (18 U.S.C. 60001 et. seq., 62 Stat, 856), are made applicable to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the Secretary in administering and enforcing the provisions of this Act and to any person, firm, or corporation with respect to whom such authority is exercised. The Secretary may prosecute any inquiry necessary to his duties under this Act in any part of the United States, including any territory, or possession thereof, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The powers conferred by said sections 9 and 10 of the Act of September 26, 1914, as amended, on the district courts of the United States may be exercised for the purposes of this Act by any district court of the United States. The United States district courts, the District Court of Guam, the District Court to the Virgin Islands, the highest court of American Samoa, and the United States courts of the other territories, are vested with jurisdiction specifically to enforce, and to prevent and restrain violations of this Act, and shall have jurisdiction in all other kinds of cases arising under this Act, except as provided in section 19(c) of this Act.
(7 U.S.C. 2146) (P.L. 89-544, § 16, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 352; P.L- 91-579, § 17, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1563; P.L94-279, § 12, April 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 420; P.L. 99-198, Title XVII, § 1753, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1649)
Section 17. The Secretary shall promulgate rules and regulations requiring dealers, exhibitors, research facilities, and operators of auction sales subject to section 12 of this Act to permit inspection of their animals and records at reasonable hours upon request by legally constituted law enforcement agencies in search of lost animals.
(7 U.S.C. 2147) (P.L. 89-544, § 17, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 352; P.L. 91-579, § 18, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1564)
Section 18. Repealed. Pub. L. 91579. Similar provisions incorporated in section 13 by P.L. 91-579, SS 19, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat.
(7 U.S.C. 2148)
Section 19. (a) If the Secretary has reason to believe that any person licensed as a dealer, exhibitor, or operator of an auction sale subject to section 12 of this Act, has violated or is violating any provision of this Act, or any of the rules or regulations or standards promulgated by the Secretary hereunder, he may suspend such person’s license temporarily, but not to exceed 21 days, and after notice and opportunity for hearing, may suspend for such additional period as he may specify, or revoke such license, if such violation is determined to have occurred.
(b) Any dealer, exhibitor, research facility, intermediate handler, carrier, or operator of an auction sale subject to section 12 of this Act, that violates any provision of this Act, or any rule, regulation, or standard promulgated by the Secretary thereunder, may be assessed a civil penalty by the Secretary of not more than $2,500 for each such violation, and the Secretary may also make an order that such person shall cease and desist from continuing such violation. Each violation and each day during which a violation continues shall be a separate offense. No penalty shall be assessed or cease and desist order issued unless such person is given notice and opportunity for a hearing with respect to the alleged violation, and the order of the Secretary assessing a penalty and making a cease and desist order shall be final and conclusive unless the affected person files an appeal from the Secretary’s order with the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. The Secretary shall give due consideration to the appropriateness of the penalty with respect to the size of the business of the person involved, the gravity of the violation, the person’s good faith, and the history of previous violations. Any such civil penalty may be compromised by the Secretary. Upon any failure to pay the penalty assessed by a final order under this section, the Secretary shall request the Attorney General to institute a civil action in a district court of the United States or other United States court for any district in which such person is found or resides or transacts business, to collect the penalty, and such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide any such action. Any person who knowingly fails to obey a cease and desist order made by the Secretary under this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $1,500 for each offense, and each day during which such failure continues shall be deemed a separate offense.
(c) Any dealer, exhibitor, research facility, intermediate handler, carrier, or operator of an auction sale subject to section 12 of this Act, aggrieved by a final order of the Secretary issued pursuant to this section may, within 60 days after entry of such an order, seek review of such order in the appropriate United States Court of Appeals in accordance with the provisions of section 2341, 2343 through 2350 of Title 28, United States Code, and such court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to enjoin, set aside, suspend (in whole or in part), or to determine the validity of the Secretary’s order.
(d) Any dealer, exhibitor, or operator of an auction sale subject to section 12 of this Act, who knowingly violates any provision of this Act shall, on conviction thereof, be subject to imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $2,500, or both. Prosecution of such violations shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be brought initially before United States magistrates as provided in section 636 of Title 28, United States Code, and sections 3401 and 3402 of Title 18, United States Code, and, with the consent of the Attorney General, may be conducted, at both trial and upon appeal to district court, by attorneys of the United States Department of Agriculture.
Section 20. Repealed. Similar provisions incorporated in section 19 by P.L. 94-279, § 14, April 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 421.
(7 U.S.C. § 2150)
Section 21. The Secretary is authorized to promulgate such rules, regulations, and orders as he may deem necessary in order to effectuate the purposes of this Act.
(7 U.S.C. 2151)(P.L. 89-544, § 21, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 353)
Section 22. If any provision of this Act or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application of any such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
(7 U.S.C. 2152) (P.L. 89-544, § 22, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 353)
Section 23. The Secretary shall charge, assess, and cause to be collected reasonable fees for licenses issued. Such fees shall be adjusted on an equitable basis taking into consideration the type and nature of the operations to be licensed and shall be deposited and covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such funds as Congress may from time to time provide: Provided, That there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture for enforcement by the Department of Agriculture of the provisions of section 26 of this Act an amount not to exceed $100,000 for the transition quarter ending September 30, 1976, and not to exceed $400,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
(7 U.S.C. 2153) (P.L- 89-544, § 23, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 353; P.L. 94-279, § 18, April 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 423)
Section 24. The regulations referred to in section 10 and section 13 shall be prescribed by the Secretary as soon as reasonable but not later than 6 months,from the date of enactment of this Act. Additions and amendments thereto may be prescribed from time to time as may be necessary or advisable. Compliance by dealers with the provisions of this Act and such regulations shall commence 90 days after the promulgation of such regulations. Compliance by research facilities with the provisions of this Act and such regulations shall commence ,6 months after the promulgation of such regulations (August 24, 1966), except that the Secretary may grant extensions of time to research facilities which do not comply with the standards prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to section 13 of this Act provided that the Secretary determines that there is evidence that the research facilities will meet such standards within a reasonable time. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, compliance by intermediate handlers, and carriers, and other persons with those provisions of this Act, as amended by the Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976, and those regulations promulgated thereunder, which relate to actions of intermediate handlers and carriers, shall commence 90 days after promulgation of regulations under section 13 of this Act, as amended, with respect to intermediate handlers and carriers, and such regulations shall be promulgated no later than 9 months after April 22, 1976; and compliance by dealers, exhibitors, operators of auction sales and research facilities with other provisions of this Act, as so amended, and the regulations thereunder, shall commence upon the expiration of 90 days after April 22, 1976: Provided, however, That compliance by all persons with paragraphs (f), (g), and (h) of section 13 and with section 26 of this Act, as so amended, shall commence upon the expiration of said 90-day period. In all other respects, said amendments shall become effective upon April 22, 1976.
(7 U.S.C. 2154) (P.L. 89-544, § 24, Aug. 24, 1966, 80 Stat. 353; P.L. 94-279, § 15, April 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 421)
Section 25. Not later than March of each year the Secretary shall submit to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives a comprehensive and detailed written report with respect to–
(1) the identification of all research facilities, exhibitors, and other persons and establishments licensed by the Secretary under section 3 and section 12 of this Act;
(2) the nature and place of all investigations and inspections conducted by the Secretary under section 16 of this Act, and all reports received by the Secretary under section 13 of this Act;
(3) recommendations for legislation to improve the administration of this Act or any provision thereof; and
(4) recommendations and conclusions concerning the aircraft environment as it relates to the carriage of live animals in air transportation.
This report as well as any supporting documents, data, or findings shall not be released to any other persons, non-Federal agencies, or organizations unless and until it has been made public by an appropriate committee of the Senate or the House of Representatives.
(7 U.S.C. 2155) (P.L. 89-544, § 25, as added by P.L. 91-579, § 22, Dec. 24, 1970, 84 Stat. 1565; P.L. 94-279, § 16, April 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 421)
Section 26. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sponsor or exhibit an animal in any animal fighting venture to which any animal was moved in interstate or foreign commerce.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, buy, transport, or deliver to another person or receive from another person for purposes of transportation, in interstate or foreign commerce, any dog or other animal for purposes of having the dog or other animal participate in an animal fighting venture.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly use the mail service of the United States Postal Service or any interstate instrumentality for purposes of promoting or in any other manner furthering an animal fighting venture except as performed outside the limits of the States of the United States.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section, the activities prohibited by such subsections shall be unlawful with respect to fighting ventures involving live birds only if the fight is to take place in a State where it would be in violation of the laws thereof.
(e) Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both, for each such violation.
(f) The Secretary or any other person authorized by him shall make such investigations as the Secretary deems necessary to determine whether any person has violated or is violating any provision of this section, and the Secretary may obtain the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of the Treasury, or other law enforcement agencies of the United States, and State and local governmental agencies, in the conduct of such investigations, under cooperative agreements with such agencies. A warrant to search for and seize any animal which there is probable cause to believe was involved in any violation of this section may be issued by any judge of the United States or of a State court of record or by a United States magistrate within the district wherein the animal sought is located. Any United States marshal or any person authorized under this section to conduct investigations may apply for and execute any such warrant, and any animal seized under such a warrant shall be held by the United States marshal or other authorized person pending disposition thereof by the court in accordance with this subsection. Necessary care including veterinary treatment shall be provided while the animals are so held in custody. Any animal involved in any violation of this section shall be liable to be proceeded against and forfeited to the United States at any time on complaint filed in any United States district court or other court of the United States for any jurisdiction in which the animal is found and upon a judgment of forfeiture shall be disposed of by sale for lawful purposes or by other humane means, as the court may direct. Costs incurred by the United States for care of animals seized and forfeited under this section shall be recoverable from the owner of the animals if he appears in such forfeiture proceeding or in a separate civil action brought in the jurisdiction in which the owner is found, resides, or transacts business.
(g) for purposes of this section-
(1) the term “animal fighting venture” means any event which involves a fight between at least two animals and is conducted for purposes of sport, wagering, or entertainment except that the term “animal fighting venture” shall not be deemed to include any activity the primary purpose of which involves the use of one or more animals in hunting another animal or animals, such as waterfowl, bird, raccoon, or fox hunting;
(2) the term “interstate or foreign commerce” means–
(A) any movement between any place in a State to any place in another State or between places in the same State through another State; or (B) any movement from a foreign country into any State;
(3) the term “interstate instrumentality” means telegraph, telephone, radio, or television operating in interstate or foreign commerce;
(4) the term “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States;
(5) the term “animal” means any live bird, or any live dog or other mammal, except man; and
(6) the conduct by any person of any activity prohibited by this section shall not render such person subject to the other sections of this Act as a dealer, exhibitor, or otherwise.
(h)(1) The provisions of this section shall not supersede or otherwise invalidate any such State, local, or municipal legislation or ordinance relating to animal fighting ventures except in case of a direct and irreconcilable conflict between any requirements thereunder and this section or any rule, regulation, or standard hereunder.
(7 U.S.C. 2156)(P.L- 89-544, § 26(a)-(h)(1), as added by P.L- 94-279, § 17, April 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 421)
Note: P.L. 94-279 also amended 39 U.S.C. 3001(a) on material that may not be mailed.
Section 27. (a) It shall be unlawful for any member of an Institutional Animal Committee to release any confidential information of the research facility including any information that concerns or relates to–
(1) the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus; or
(2) the identity, confidential statistical data, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures, of the research facility.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any member of such Committee–
(1) to use or attempt to use to his advantages; or
(2) to reveal to any other person, any information which is entitled to protection as confidential information under subsection (a) of this section.
(c) A violation of subsection (a) or (b) of this section is punishable by–
(1) removal from such Committee; and
(2)(A) a fine of not more than $1,000 and imprisonment of not more
that I year; or
(B) if such violation is willful, a fine of not more than $10,000 and imprisonment of not more than 3 years.
(d) Any person, including any research facility, injured in its business or property by reason of a violation of this section may recover all actual and consequential damages sustained by such person and the cost of the suit including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any other rights of a person injured in its business or property by reason of a violation of this section. Subsection (d) shall not be construed to limit the exercise of any such rights arising out of or relating to a violation of subsections (a) and (b) of this section.
(7 U.S.C. 2157) (P.L. 89-544, § 27, as added by P.L. 99-198, Title XVII, § 1754, Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1649)
Section 28. Protection of Pets
(a) Holding Period. –
(1) Requirement.- In the case of each dog or cat acquired by an entity described in paragraph (2), such entity shall hold and care for such dog or cat for a period of not less than five days to enable such dog or cat to be recovered by its original owner or adopted by other individuals before such entity sells such dog or cat to a dealer.
(2) Entities Described.
An entity subject to paragraph (1) is-
(A) each State, county, or city owned and operated pound or shelter;
(B) each private entity established for the purpose of caring for animals, such as a humane society, or other organization that is under contract with a State, county, or city that operates as a pound or shelter and that releases animals on a voluntary basis; and
(C) each research facility licensed by the Department of Agriculture.
(b) Certification.–
(1) In General — A dealer may not sell, provide, or make available to any individual or entity a random source dog or cat unless such dealer provides the recipient with a valid certification that meets the requirements of paragraph (2) and indicates compliance with subsection (a).
(2) Requirements.– A valid certification shall contain
(A) the name, address, and Department of Agriculture license or registration number (if such number exists) of the dealer;
(B) the name, address, and Department of Agriculture license or registration number (if such number exists), and the signature of the recipient of the dog or cat,
(C) a description of the dog or cat being provided that shall include –
(i) the species and breed or type of such;
(ii) the sex of such;
(iii) the date of birth (if known) of such,
(iv) the color and any distinctive marking of such- and
(v) any other information that the Secretary by regulation shall determine to be appropriate;
(D) the name and address of the person, pound, or shelter from which the dog or cat was purchased or otherwise acquired by the dealer, and an assurance that such person, pound, or shelter was notified that such dog or cat may be used for research or educational purposes;
(E) the date of the purchase or acquisition referred to in subparagraph (D);
(F) a statement by the pound or shelter (if the dealer acquired the dog or cat from such) that it satisfied the requirements of subsection (a) and
(G) any other information that the Secretary of Agriculture by regulation shall determine appropriate.
(3) Records. — The original certification required under paragraph (1) shall accompany the shipment o[ a dog or cat to be sold, provided, or otherwise made available by the dealer, and shall be kept and maintained by the research facility for a period of at least one year for enforcement purposes. The dealer shall retain one copy of the certification provided under this paragraph for a period of at least one year for enforcement purposes.
(4) Transfers. — In instances where one research facility transfers animals to another research facility, a copy of the certificate must accompany such transfer.
(5) Modification. — Certification requirements may be modified to reflect technological advances in identification techniques, such as microchip technology, if the Secretary determines that adequate information such as described in this section, will be collected, transferred, and maintained through such technology.
(c) Enforcement. –
(1) In General — Dealers who fail to act according to the requirements of this section or who include false information in the certification required under subsection (b) shall be subject to the penalties provided for under section 19.
(2) Subsequent Violations Any dealer who violates this section more than one time shall be subject to a fine of $5,000 per dog or cat acquired or sold in violation of this section.
(3) Permanent Revocations.-Any dealer who violates this section three or more times shall have such dealer’s license permanently revoked.
(d) Regulation.– Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section.
Section 29. Authority to Apply for Injunctions. –
(a) Request. — Whenever the Secretary has reason to believe that any dealer, carrier, exhibitor, or intermediate handler is dealing in stolen animals, or is placing the health of any animal in serious danger in violation of this Act or the regulations or standards promulgated thereunder, the Secretary shall notify the Attorney General who may apply to the United States district court in which such dealer, carrier, exhibitor, or intermediate handler resides or conducts business for a temporary restraining order or injunction to prevent any such person from operating in violation of this Act or the regulations and standards prescribed under this Act.
(b) Issuance. The court shall, upon a proper showing, issue a temporary restraining order or injunction under subsection (a) without bond. Such injunction or order shall remain in effect until a complaint pursuant to section 19 is issued and dismissed by the Secretary or until an order to cease and desist made thereon by the Secretary has become final and effective or is set aside on appellate review. Attorneys of the Department of Agriculture may, with the approval of the Attorney General, appear in the United States district court representing the Secretary in any action brought under this section.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
P.L. 89-544:
H. Rept. 89-1418, House Committee
S. Rept. 89-1281, Senate Committee on Commerce
Passed House Apr. 28, 1966
Passed Senate June 22, 1966
H. Rept- 89-1848, Conference Committee
House agreed to conference report Aug. 16, 1966
Senate agreed to conference report Aug 17, 1966
Approved Aug. 24, 1966
P.L. 91-579
H. Rept. 91-1651, House Committee on Agriculture
Passed House Dec. 7, 1970
Passed Senate Dec. 8, 1970
Approved Dec. 24, 1970
P.L. 94-279
H. Rept. 94-801, House Committee on Agriculture
S. Rept. 94-580, Senate Committee on Commerce
H. Rept. 94-976, Conference Committee
S. Rept. 94-727, Conference Committee
Passed Senate Dec. 18, 1975
Passed House Feb. 9, 1976
House agreed to conference report Apr. 6, 1976
Senate agreed to conference report Apr. 7, 1976
Approved Apr. 22, 1976
P. L. 99-198
H. Rept. 99-271, Part 1 Committee on Agriculture
S. Rept. 99-145 Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Passed House Oct. 8, 1985
Passed Senate Nov. 23, 1985
H. Rept. 99-447 Conference Committee
House and Senate agreed to Conference Report, Dec. 18, 1985
Approved Dec. 23, 1985
P.L- 101-624
Legislative History -
S. 2830 (H.R. 3581)(H.R. 3950) (H.R. 4077):
House Reports: No. 101-413 accompanying H.R. 4071 and No. 101-415 accompanying H.R. 3581 (both from Comm. on Agriculture); No. 101-569, Pt. 1 (Comm. on Agriculture), Pt. 2 (Comm. on Foreign Affairs), Pt 3 (Comm. on Agriculture), Pt. 4 (Comm. on Education and Labor) and Pt. 5 (Comm. on Ways and Means), all accompanying H.R. 3950. Senate Reports: No. 101-357 (Comm. on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry)
Congressional Record – Vol. 136 (1990): Mar. 6, H.R. 4077 considered and passed House.
Mar. 14, 15, 22, H.R. 3581 considered and passed House.
July 19, 20, 23-27, S. 2830 considered and passed Senate. July 23-25, 27, Aug. 1, H.R. 3950 considered and passed House. Aug. 3, S. 2830 considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 3581, H.R. 3950, and H.R. 4077
Oct. 23, House agreed to conference report.
Oct. 25, Senate agreed to conference report.
Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Vol. 26 (1990): Nov. 18, Presidential remarks and statement.
NOTE: This copy of the Animal Welfare Act is provided for information only. Before relying on any portion of the Act as it appears here, reference should be made to the official report of the Act in the United States Code (7 U.S.C. § 2131 et. seq.).
Footnote:
1 P.L- 99-198, Title XVII § 1752,
Dec. 23, 1985, 99 Stat. 1645, made significant amendments to § 13 of the Act and inadvertently duplicated paragraph (f) of § 13. The new paragraph (f) in the 1985 amendments has been designated as paragraph
(f)1 and the old paragraph (f) has been designated as paragraph (f)2 for clarity.
*U.S. G.P.O.:1992-341-318:60321/APHIS
——————————————————————————–
Go to:
Animal Welfare Act and Regulations Top of Document
The Animal Welfare Information Center
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
National Agricultural Library
10301 Baltimore Ave.
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351
Phone: (301) 504-6212
FAX: (301) 504-7125
E-mail: awic@nal.usda.gov
There you have the whole animal protection act in black and white for your viewing plessure.
” A warrant to search for and seize any animal which there is probable cause to believe was involved in any violation of this section may be issued by any judge of the United States or of a State court of record or by a United States magistrate within the district wherein the animal sought is located.”
So how are you Claiming that it was an illegal seizure!!!!!
Animal Welfare Act sorry let me restate that ANIMAL WELFARE ACT I posted Protection act my mistyping.
JUST FOR EVERYBODYS INFORMATION THE OWNERS OF THE DOGS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN FORMALLY CHARGE TODAY WITH TEN COUNTS OF ANIMAL ABUSE IN OBION COUNTY. CHECK OUT CHANNEL FIVE NEWS FOR THE FULL STORY!!!
“There you have the whole animal protection act in black and white for your viewing plessure.
” A warrant to search for and seize any animal which there is probable cause to believe was involved in any violation of this section may be issued by any judge of the United States or of a State court of record or by a United States magistrate within the district wherein the animal sought is located.”"
Read what you just wrote. Especially the words PROBABLE CAUSE. So, are you saying that if I make an anonymous call to your local police department that you are beating your kids, they should have the right to come in and simply take them from you. Because that is exactly what you are advocating. Do you realize the level of absolute chaos this world would be in if police could be used as a vendetta device like that? In all other areas, even when some one threatens to kill you, you have rights. But for some reason people forgo those rights when it comes to dogs. The only answer to that is greed. Greed on the part of the AC who expects to get in those fat donations, Greed on the part of the public who expects to get their hands on a cheap pure bred.
There was no probable cause in this instance. The people who sought the warrants were HUMAN SOCIETY EMPLOYEES, they were not in positions of police power. They had no basis in which to go to a judge and get a warrant for search and seizure.
That is exactly why the search and seizure was illegal. The police or the AC cannot just come in and a Humane Society Employee sure as heck has no right to come onto private property. Probable cause is not an anonymous phone call. They need to have more than that. They need to have just cause.
Obviously the judge agreed since he took the dogs away from the human society and awarded them to their vet.
“JUST FOR EVERYBODYS INFORMATION THE OWNERS OF THE DOGS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN FORMALLY CHARGE TODAY WITH TEN COUNTS OF ANIMAL ABUSE IN OBION COUNTY. CHECK OUT CHANNEL FIVE NEWS FOR THE FULL STORY!!!”
Being charged still does not equal guilt. Any one can be charged with a crime.
You know, I don’t ever wish ill on any one, never, not even my worst enemy. But the only way I ever see you understanding how the law works or doesn’t work is for you to experience it. Hopefully it’s not something that will ruin your life. But one day, you’ll go through it. Then maybe, hopefully, you’ll come away with a new appreciation of things.
Lastly, “10 counts” out of what ever arbitrary number they have made up this week, speaks volumes. It says loud and clear “we’re just talking out of our ***”
If you don’t mind, please post a link to the update. The only things I can find on Channel five are several unrelated animal neglect cases.
This was all I could find that was in relation to charges…
“Obion County authorities believe they have enough evidence to file animal cruelty charges against a kennel owner in connection to the health of about 10 of 100 dogs seized last week, a Sheriff’s Department official said today.”
Adrienne,
” So, are you saying that if I make an anonymous call to your local police department that you are beating your kids, they should have the right to come in and simply take them from you.”
Unfortunitly that is the way it works in Tennessee or have you not seen anything about the state unjustly taking children from thier homes and investagating later. SO unlike you I know how Tennessee works like I said they see you as guilty until proven innoccent!!!! The only other way to put this is children are not animals and should not be compared to such. But if I was doing something wrong to my dog or children I would expect somebody to call in on me and I would expect to have to go though the misfortune if going to court and tring to prove myself innocent!!! It is a part of life here in this world and if and I am saying if they are guilty it is not for me to decide it is for the judge to decide I am just saying you don’t know all the facts niether do I and without that NOBODY CAN CLAIM THEY ARE INNOCCENT OR GUILTY give it a rest you are the only person on here taking this so personally and attacking anyone who gives thier opinion. That is just what they are opinions. Stuff happens for a reason maybe you need to lighten up.
“You know, I don’t ever wish ill on any one, never, not even my worst enemy. But the only way I ever see you understanding how the law works or doesn’t work is for you to experience it. Hopefully it’s not something that will ruin your life. But one day, you’ll go through it. Then maybe, hopefully, you’ll come away with a new appreciation of things.”
God forbid you ever have to endure the types of abuse I have had to deal with in my lifetime maybe that is why I am so sinical about this matter. You know nothing of me my past or my life ever chance to know that part of me let me open your eyes. Then maybe you can understand a bit about why I feel the way I do. Needless to say that comment was a personal one and needs to be address on a more personal level. For I apperciate everything in my life and around me because of my life being what it was and what it now is. So if you want to get there on a personal note my email address is Soon2bfancy@hotmail.com. I will be glad to enlighten you as to why I feel the way I do.
“
“Unfortunitly that is the way it works in Tennessee or have you not seen anything about the state unjustly taking children from thier homes and investagating later. SO unlike you I know how Tennessee works like I said they see you as guilty until proven innoccent!!!!”
But it doesn’t make it right! Can’t you understand that? Just because they do it it doesn’t mean that they should!
“God forbid you ever have to endure the types of abuse I have had to deal with in my lifetime maybe that is why I am so sinical about this matter. You know nothing of me my past or my life ever chance to know that part of me let me open your eyes. Then maybe you can understand a bit about why I feel the way I do. Needless to say that comment was a personal one and needs to be address on a more personal level. For I apperciate everything in my life and around me because of my life being what it was and what it now is. So if you want to get there on a personal note my email address is ”
Using your life tragedies as an excuse to stand by and allow some one else to be abused and have their constitutional rights torn from is pathetic.
You are not the only one in this world that has been done wrong. You are not the only one in this world that has suffered. I have worked with grotesquely abused human being for years and still, rarely, any of them want it to happen to another.
Maybe instead of standing aside and saying what is happening to these people is “okay” because you have suffered is what needs to be addressed in your life. If anything, you should be more vigilant and fierce when it comes to protecting the RIGHTS of others.
Those rights that protect you as a victim are the exact same rights that are being torn away from these people. I realize you don’t see it like that.
And believe it or not your life tragedies do not outweigh the life tragedies of others.
Since you are religious I will share an old story with you, I wish I could find the original, but I will have to go by memory.
A man prayed to God and asked him why so many tragedies had been sent on his life. Why was their sadness and why was their turmoil. God came down to the man and together they walked until they came to a tree.
This is the tree of life on it are all the other lives of every human being that is alive.
The man was in awe of the small shiny fruits that covered nearly every limb.
You may choose any other life you want. You will no longer have your pains and your tragedies.
So the man went to the tree and looked. But in every fruit he saw the lives of his fellow people and in the end he came back to God empty handed and decided that his pain and his suffering, while unique were no worse and no different than any other life.
You need to realize you are not going to get vindication for what was done wrong to you in your life, by standing by and cheering for the mistreatment and ruin of others…
As of today, I still have not seen anything where the people were charged. I have only seen that it was being considered. The evidence (the vet report) was being examined.
As I watched Channel five news yesterday at 6 o’clock they reported that the Fairs had been charged they will be in court today and where it goes from there who knows who cares anymore justise will be served one way or the other yes they did say there where ten counts and yes they have been charged sorry to inform you of this but hey why don’t you just call the television staition and ask questions of you doubt everything people post. I’ll even provide the phone number:
Main newsroom number (staffed at all times):
(901) 726-0416
I was told 10 cases were filed on the breeders. I however was also told those 10 cases were for WORMS and bad teeth.
I certainly hope DR. Martin has a very clean filing system as if he finds that to be “Animal Neglect/Abuse” then he should
of been reporting just about every Client that walks in his door and I can GUARANTEE you that after he sits on the witness
stand and states this is Animal Neglect/Abuse that he will be WATCHED and MONITORED for YEARS to come and he had
better be turning in EVERY one of those that walk through his door with such MINOR afflications.
This is TOTALLY RIDICULIOUS. These people CLEARLY were not abusing or neglecting their dogs.
WORMS are something that every dog has and has to be treated for on occassions. The extent of bad teeth was not
revealed but a set of bad teeth certainly doesn’t constitute abuse.
I hope the residents of Tennessee are paying attention because if this case is lost by the breeder then every dog owner in
Tennessee is a candidate for dog abuse.
Dogs have NOT evolved. They still walk on all 4, MOST still have protective coating, they still have fanged teeth and they still BARK instead of speak. If put back outside they would ADAPT and INSTINCTS would take back over within a few years for those that survived.
Yes – many would die as Humans NEVER did them a favor by domesticating them. Humans have caused a dulling of their instincts but instincts can be rehomed and the fittest would survive and reproduce and each subsequent WILD generation would grow stronger and stronger with sharper instincts.
YES – Humans have MANIPULATED their breeding and changing of conformation and outward appearance as to leg length,
nose type, ear set, color, temperament and body structure but dogs were put on this earth by God and while we’ve manipulated them they are still one of God’s creations and were put here for a system of checks and balances.
I think this breeder was done WRONG. No doubt in my mind and even if he gets a GUILTY verdict from some bleeding heart Animal Do-Gooders, it still isn’t going to change my mind.
I certainly hope however that your not on the front line with these breeders as you seem to have a knack for annoying everybody that you come in contact with. You also feel they are Innocent or at the very minimum were done unjustly but you also seem to think that only YOU have the answers and know what is what.
Where in the AWA does it state that a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL (Ms. Lowerence) has the right to cross a man’s PRIVATE property
and seize animals? Where does it state that Ms. Lowerence can break the law and Trespass?
Where in the AWA does it state that a CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES does not have the right to the name of his accuser? An anonymous phone call (*or 10,000 for that manner), violates this man of the name of his accuser. Funny how all of the Rescuers phone calls are always anonymous ones.
Where in the AWA does it state that a warrant can be issued on the basis of an anonymous phone call? IF this woman had evidence for a search & seizure warrant then we’re back to the Private Property and Trespassing issue.
Where in the AWA does it state that Ms. Lowerence can NOT abide by a court order? A LEGALLY issued one!
Where in the AWA does it state that WORMS are grounds for Abuse Charges?
We however do have a law that was just passed that PROTECTS the Breeder from unjust actions such as was just perpetrated upon these breeders. This is harassment based on a personal agenda of the highest kind.
Bad teeth are very common in small breeds, especially those with flat faces. It is not uncommon for them to start loosing them as early as 2 or having to have many pulled by the age of five.
Bad teeth, especially in toys, is not a sign of neglect.
Dogs owners face 10 counts of animal cruelty
By NICHOLAS BEADLE
nbeadle@jacksonsun.com
Authorities were serving warrants late Monday charging James “Bud” Fair and Mary Jo Fair of Obion County with 10 counts of animal cruelty, according to Deborah Lowrance, director of the Gibson and Obion County Humane Society.
Earlier in the day an Obion County Sheriff’s Department official said authorities had determined they had enough evidence to file charges against the couple regarding 10 of the more than 100 dogs that were seized from them last week. Sheriff’s Department Capt. Kent Treece said Monday afternoon that he did not know if charges would be filed or what specifically the charges might be. Sheriff Jerry Vastbinder could not be reached for comment.
Treece said Vastbinder and officials from the Obion and Weakley County District Attorney’s Office determined there was sufficient evidence after reviewing veterinarian examinations for 10 of the dogs.
According to Lowrance, the Fairs will be arraigned in Obion County General Sessions Court at 1 p.m. Thursday. She said there also will be a custody hearing at 1 p.m. Friday in Circuit Court to determine who will oversee the dogs.
Vastbinder and the Humane Society seized the dogs from the Fairs’ property July 15 after receiving an anonymous complaint that the animals were being mistreated. Calls to the Fairs’ home and the office of Mary Fair’s attorney, Jim Powell of Union City, were not returned Monday.
The Gibson-Obion County Humane Society housed the dogs at the Dyer County Fairgrounds last week, but the dogs were delivered to Dresden veterinarian Dr. Bob Page on Friday after a Circuit Court judge granted Mary Fair a temporary restraining order against the Humane Society.
Page was the dog’s veterinarian prior to the seizure. He said on Monday he could not comment on their health history because it would violate patient confidentiality.
But, Page said, “The dogs are under very competent veterinary care.”
Humane Society response
A Dyersburg attorney working for the Humane Society said he will file a response this morning to a lawsuit Mary Fair filed against the group on Friday.
Attorney Wes Shumate said he took the case after helping the group care for the dogs last week. Fair’s complaint accuses the group of violating a Tennessee law that allows certain animal advocacy groups to seize dogs when they suspect cruel treatment.
“Honestly, I don’t believe they did, and that’s what will be one of the major things we’re talking about,” Shumate said.
In addition to asking that the dogs be returned to her, Fair asks to be compensated for damages for taking her property and damaging her reputation. No dollar amount is specified in the suit.
Jackson Sun reporter Tajuana Cheshier contributed to this report.
Yeah, I finally found it later today. But thank you for posting it here.
Still doesn’t prove guilt, doesn’t even prove just cause. As far as I am concerned the fact that they waited and did not do this until they (the shelter) lost the dogs speaks volumes. They’re just having a hissy fit because their little scheme had a wrench thrown into it. I hope that the Fairs bankrupt them, won’t be the first time a shelter or HS has found themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit and lost. Maybe with some luck it will start happening more and more.
AND MRS. ADRIENNE as for you personal comment to be be a lady about it and send them by email as I have not degraded you or your beliefs in anyway therefor show the same respect. As I provided an email address for you to reply to. I won’t answer to anything you have to say aboutt me or anyone else personally on a message board that is just a childish ploy to try to start a problem this message board is to give your opinon on the case not personal opinons about the other posters. Facts are facts the paper and the news has not been givin what the charges are but They will be reporting at about 5 and 6 tonight on what they do have as some people who are interested in this story have enough balls to call the television station and ask for updates as to when the reports will be made and if anything new has developed that is thier JOB to report the news. As for the POST above it came from the JACKSON POST which is about 30 miles from DYERSBURG AND 40 MILES From OION COUNTY so They have easy access to those records and getting the story. However as you say the news is just more he said she said so it doesn’t matter to weather it is in black and white or reported over the news we will all have our own views on this matter and that is ok I have no ill feelings towards you for defending the Fair’sthat is your GOD givin right just as it is my GOD givin right to have my OWN OPINION.
“AND MRS. ADRIENNE as for you personal comment to be be a lady about it and send them by email as I have not degraded you or your beliefs in anyway therefor show the same respect.”
Sorry, you’ve got the wrong person. Never asked you or any one else to send anything by email.
“As I provided an email address for you to reply to. I won’t answer to anything you have to say aboutt me or anyone else personally on a message board that is just a childish ploy to try to start a problem this message board is to give your opinon on the case not personal opinons about the other posters.”
There you go again. Thinking this is about you. I don’t care to talk about you, only you have made this about you. I am here to discuss this case, the facts at hand, and the half-truths that the media is feeding the public. The facts of illegal search and seizure, the facts that this is not the first or last time for a humane society to be abusive of their “power”.
That is what I am here to discuss. Only you have brought yourself and your personal life into any of this. And my obvious unwillingness to take this to a private email with you ought to be loud and clear. I have no desire to know anything about you nor you know anything about me. “Us” is not the reason we are here…we are here because of this Obion county case.
“Facts are facts the paper and the news has not been givin what the charges are but They will be reporting at about 5 and 6 tonight on what they do have as some people who are interested in this story have enough balls to call the television station and ask for updates as to when the reports will be made and if anything new has developed that is thier JOB to report the news.”
Actually the paper and news has given what the charges were for. Hook worms, bad teeth, and trumped up bull pucky along those lines. Second. FACTS???? You’re kidding right? This whole thing has been slanted to the shelter’s side since the beginning. If these papers wanted facts then they would report both sides…let the media know the majority of those terrible conditions photographed were AT the shelter, how the head people are convicted FELONS…and more…but no…that won’t get the shelter the donations they need.
” However as you say the news is just more he said she said so it doesn’t matter to weather it is in black and white or reported over the news we will all have our own views on this matter and that is ok I have no ill feelings towards you for defending the Fair’sthat is your GOD givin right just as it is my GOD givin right to have my OWN OPINION.”
Yeah…but it would be nice if what was being reported was FAIR and HONEST, but it’s not. I think that the news media has become nothing more than a reality TV talk show—the more outrageous and ludicrous they can get it the better.
LOLA … I’m confused as to why you have NO problem slandering the Fairs and calling them names and talking about their personal issues on the internet but you don’t feel that YOURS should be there. If you were defending them then that would be a plus in their favor but your talking about this family and their dogs like they are the scum of the earth yet you don’t want YOUR life openly discussed here. Talk about a hypocrite!
No matter how this case comes out, the Fairs have been going through hel1 and NOBODY will be able to ever reverse the last week of their life.
“Adrienne~ When you act like a b*tch, you’re going to be treated like one. I tried to calm things down and tell you that I am willing to agree to disagree, yet you keep pushing. You’re wasting your energy, because I have yet to be insulted. Go attack someone else, like a Democrat.”
So far, we have done nothing but have a parry of words and lively discussion.
You are the one that has reduced yourself to barbaric insults. And as usual, derive only what you want from the entire bulk of information.
No one here has made this about you or any one else, but yourselves.
“As I watched Channel five news yesterday at 6 o’clock they reported that the Fairs had been charged they will be in court today and where it goes from there who knows who cares anymore justise will be served one way or the other yes they did say there where ten counts and yes they have been charged sorry to inform you of this but hey why don’t you just call the television staition and ask questions of you doubt everything people post. I’ll even provide the phone number:”
Yes, I already saw the article yesterday. Thank you though for the update.
Hopefully Justice will be served and the Shelter will find themselves on the ugly end of a lawsuit. Thanks to the new Animal Enterprise Terrorism act they should have more power behind them and be able to efficiently punish those who have slandered and damaged their character and business.
Interesting points though to point out.
*They had a warrant but did not arrest on the sight. Why? If you are suspected of any other crime and they come onto your property and see a crime you are arrested. This would be like the police coming onto a person’s property and taking all their cars and getting back with them to decide whether or not they are stolen.
*answer* This is a well known and common strong arm tactic with the human societies. They get a warrant, take the dogs, then trump up over inflated issues. Such as hook worm (in this case) or a hot spot (in other cases) Then they give their victims a choice. Either take a plea and give us the dogs or go to court and we’ll find you guilty on X amount of charges and put you in jail for 50 years.
*No photos or video tape was taken BEFORE the dogs were removed. The “crime scene” was not correctly processed.
*answer* Correctly processing a crime scene would mean that the humane group would have to bring in an outside set of eyes. That outside set of eyes might actually be honest, and document the scene correctly. Instead of taking 50 photos of a trash can full of trash, that has nothing to do with the “crime scene”.
*Humane society groups appoint themselves as experts, from care to mental state of an animal. Most people have to go through 8 years of veterinary college and then specialize in animal behavior to be an expert. Yet a job with a humane group gives you that expertise and ability to give a psychological evaluation over night.
So the HS people analyze the dogs, even though this would clearly be a conflict of interest, especially when they are the one’s often bringing the charges. This would be like a “victim” trying their own case and gathering their own evidence. They are going to be inclined to pick and choose what ever makes their side of the story look better.
Except for a few instances, a “victim” must file police charges.
*answer* If they were to have actual training, a set of rules, and a set of standards they had to account for, they would then be responsible for their mis-actions. Much like the police or any other official position. The employees and self appointed experts, rarely have any type of animal training outside what they have taught themselves in their career in the Shelter.
*The humane society waiting until *AFTER* the dogs were actually removed from their care to file charges.
*Answer* Punishment for defying them.
*If hookworm, heart worm (there was one dog positive and more than likely that will match the statistical failure of heart worm medicine) and fleas are enough for a person to be charged with animal cruelty, then why are they not going around and arresting 90% of the people in their town. More than likely they should even arrest themselves.
*answer* Because then they would make real enemies. As long as they pick and choose, much of the public won’t bother to examine their tactics.
*The complaints about the Fairs range from being up on wire, to not having enough socialization. Yet is is okay for the HS to cram dogs 3 to crate, leaving them standing in fecal matter and urine (because they lack the staff to walk the dogs), take puppies away at 4 weeks from their nursing mother (which has been shown to cause behavior issues plus many small breed puppies are still nursing well into 7-9 weeks old), and mix and cross contaminate, purposively sick dogs and healthy dogs, and that be not only okay, but socially acceptable because they are harming these animals under the guise of “helping” them.
*answer*
Trying to be positive, and not find them guilty by purposely trying to make the dogs look worse then they did when they took them….I can only say Ignorance and greed.
Are the stories that are coming from this HS Rescue true or are we being misinformed?
Below are the allegations and from what I’ve SEEN they appear to be true!
The HS removed underaged puppies from their mothers. The HS placed these dogs in CAGES to small for 1 of them MUCH LESS 3 of them.
The HS placed these dogs in CAGES with plastic bottoms that did not allow the Feces and Urine to drain and these dogs SAT or LAID in this mess.
THE HS disobeyed a direct court order to release these dogs to a man who had both the facilities, staff and medical experience to care for them. This is the one that makes it very apparent that the HS was in it for the DONATIONS that they felt would roll in by the thousands.
The HS placed these dogs in a STORAGE room with containers that released FUMES.
I’m sorry but so far the HS hasn’t shown one iota of concern for these dogs past the money they felt they would get off of rescuing them.
I’m sorry but BAD Rescues are nothing but self-indulged Cults who get a high and superior feeling from being able to attack those who don’t have the means to fight back.
When our laws are tougher on dog cases than they are for Murders, Sex Offenses and Child Abuse, you know where the MONEY lies.
A murderer is given 5 to 10 years and usually gets out in 2.5 years. NOBODY begs for donations for the family left behind.
A sex offender usually serves a year in prison. NOBODY begs for donations for the assaulted person who will be traumatized for the rest of their life.
A child abuser usually serves no prison time. NOBODY begs for donations for the care this child will need to overcome the abuse.
WONDER WHY there are so MANY dog laws going through Congress? IT’s a PROFITABLE business to Rescuers so they are pushing for MORE and MORE laws to use against breeders so that they can line their OWN pockets.
Sad but TRUE!
I want a law that makes it ILLEGAL for gas to be over $2.50 a gallon.
I want a law that makes it ILLEGAL for somebody to step foot on my property without permission – PERIOD.
I want a law that makes it ILLEGAL for somebody to say things about me on the Internet – Irregardless if they are true or not!
I want a law that makes it for ANYBODY involved in any form of Rescue or assistance to Rescue to have to be LICENSED
and MONITORED by the USDA, comply to ALL AWA and USDA rules and regulations.
I want a law that makes EVERYTHING FAIR and if you want to make something ILLEGAL then it is ILLEGAL for all.
California allows Drugs – other States throw you in jail for it. WHY is one STATE allowed to be different from others? Why
aren’t we the UNITED STATES?
I want so very many things – but I’m a realist – The world isn’t Fair nor is it ever likely to be – But that doesn’t mean I have to sit by when a grave injustice is being doing to a family that has done nothing wrong but to be on the RADAR of these cults because they dare to raise cute puppies and SELL them.
Golly bum … I forgot my number 1-800-PET-PEEVE … I want Congress to STOP giving away TAX dollars in Grants and in other ways.
Do you folks have ANY IDEA how much of your tax dollars is WASTED every DAY? CATRILLIONS if that is a word!
Check out some of the Grants that are given and you’ll be ready to Spit Fire. Volunteer Fire Departments getting $200,000.00 for a fire truck that hooks up to a hydrant when they don’t even have a hydrant to hook up to. Grant request that are FULL OF LIES but yet nobody does anything about it when the Grant Committee is informed that the money was gotten based on lies.
Grants that are NEVER followed up on to see if they were used as they were intended.
Grants to special groups with Agenda’s. What if you are totally against that Agenda and it affects YOUR life but yet YOUR tax dollars are helping sponsor this group?
I’m totally against Government Grants. If the city, county, community want or need something it is my firm belief that they will band together and come up with a way to get it. The REST of us should not be paying for it.
Are you aware that you can get a grant to build something or do research on something and get THOUSANDS of dollars and the only thing the Government request back is a REPORT of what your findings are? What do you think they do with those Reports? Do you think anybody actually reads them? If so then we are spending MORE money on Salaries for somebody to read those reports that probably have no basis or foundation to assist in ANYTHING else.
Sheep herders get SUPPLEMENTS for their wool. If Sheep farming isn’t PROFITABLE and Money is an Issue then they need to STOP raising Sheep. The Government justifies their SUPPLEMENTS because they say that when UMPTEEN years ago during the war the WOOL was needed for the Uniforms. GUESS WHAT FOLKS … We are no longer making Uniforms out of Wool and those Years are long gone. STOP PAYING out Tax Payers Money for totally ridiculous reasons.
And you want to go another step further. The Operation of Emergency Management is WASTING money left and right and everybody just keeps allowing it. THOUSANDS of trailers were bought with TAX PAYERS MONEY to go to New Orleans for housing for those misplaced. TRAILERS are NOT allowed in a flood plain such as New Orleans. The trailers are being GIVEN away to Non-Profit organizations or sold for Pennies on the dollar. YOUR DOLLARS have now become Pennies and by the time the administration fees and salaries are paid it is a TOTAL LOSS and COST to the Tax Payers.
You want to make somebody accountable for their actions – Start with the GOVERNMENT and CONGRESS.
Link to pics of Fair puppy mill bust in 2004.
http://s187.photobucket.com/albums/x29/puppymills_photo/
Working on link to pics to this current bust. And yes there are pics. And yes the scene was properly processed. And the reason the Fairs weren’t arrested on the spot……..if I told you, you wouldn’t believe anyway but not because they shouldn’t been arrested. Clean animals……No. Some of the puppies had been bathed getting them ready for sell. But all stunk with the order you only find at such a filthy place. Unsocialized……..absolutely. eight week old puppies cowering at the back of a rabbit coop afraid of human contact and adults begging for attention but afraid to accept it when offered. A couple of days with human contact and lots of loving attention from many people had the pups begging for more and readily accepting it. As for the adults a few were beginning to respond to the attention and handling and beginning to love it. Many other facts you haven’t a clue to and probably don’t want to know. So much you don’t know and would blow out of porportion anyway. So many opinions, some fact, some half truth and some made up or added to as in your case. But then puppy mill people stick together……..don’t they?
As if any sane person would believe anything about “best friends”
Truth is Stranger than Fiction,
�Best Friends� � Part Two …
by Ms. Jade, TheDogPress Legislative Reporter
Editor�s comment: We are breaking this into several parts�. small doses are easier to digest. Jade has set the table with a chronological, impeccably researched course for every person who might ever be tempted to donate to this group (as most of us did with PeTA before we learned the real agenda) or who is still uninformed or only partially knowledgeable about Best Friends. See it through and gag on the inescapable conclusions to be drawn from its inception right through to the impact it is having on BSL and general public perception of dogs, thanks to CBS and other media outlets. Remember the reports on butchered dogs, human and animal sacrifices? Read this and the dots all start connecting. Then warn your friends!
Click Here – Find Out More About The AuthorJuly, 1970. �California Highway Patrol picked up “two longhairs,” (see Serial Killers Central below) Stanley Baker and Harry Allen Stroup, on suspicion of a hit-and-run near Big Sur. Baker not only readily admitted fleeing the scene, but added �I have a problem. I’m a cannibal.� In the pockets of both men were found human finger bones, taken from a recent victim in Montana named James Schlosser, whose mutilated remains were also missing a heart. Baker confessed to having eaten it.�
Although Baker was a convicted murderer that howled at the moon, “Administrators still saw fit to let him travel through the prison system, teaching transactional analysis to other inmates” and proselytizing for a reputed splinter group of the Process called the 4 Pi, or the 4P that allegedly recruited him from a Wyoming college. Baker claimed to have participated in human sacrifices in the Santa Ana Mountains, and confessed to playing a part in the April 1970 murder of Robert Salem in San Francisco who was stabbed 27 times, nearly decapitated and discovered missing an ear. Harry Stroup was released in 1979 and Stanley Baker requested that his whereabouts remain confidential when he was paroled six years later�
William Bainbridge, future deputy director of Information and Intelligent Systems at the National Science Foundation, joined the Process in the early 1970s and studied it from the inside for 5 years. He chronicled the group using a pseudonym in a 1978 book called Satan’s Power: A Deviant Psychotherapy Cult. �While using the trappings of the occult, the group’s main goals were power, greed and terrorism. It is the embodiment of organized evil, and it still stains America on the eve of the millennium. It has thrived because its tentacles ensnared a number of jaded allies whose influential positions enabled it to extend far beyond New York.� Bainbridge claimed that as of the end of 1971, a conservative estimate of membership was around 10,000. This reference is from a Process pamplet called �Fax �n Figgers�.
It is more likely that the actual number of core members at the group’s peak was around 250, when factoring out the number of persons who contributed to street solicitations, or were otherwise engaged in some nominal way. Since Process membership involves an almost fascist hierarchy, it is inappropriate to equate casual contact with the inner workings.
By mid-1974, Chapters in the US and one in Toronto were in full swing, with headquarters located in Washington DC. In the communities where Chapters were located, Processeans took on a variety of projects and received grants from local and state government agencies. In some Chapters, prison ministries were set-up. The Church continued to expand, straining its limits. While the queen bee called the shots, the drones did all kinds of public service, smiled a lot, and burned through a lot of cash – as well as burning out some members along the way.
Instigated by Mary Ann, the D-I-V-O-R-C-E occurred in May of 1974. Officially, disputes between the ruling body of the Church and �The Teacher�, led to his dismissal. Unofficially, his affair with a woman he would later marry made him an unconvincing messiah. The Process was fractured and it soon became the Foundation – Church of the Millennium. The inner circle, loyal to Mary Ann stayed and kept their religious names but Church teachings shifted to suit �the Oracle� and her advocacy for the Jehova incarnation. Some of the glow was fading into the endless push for more money and more rigid doctrine. A little struggle and sacrifice can go a long way for some people and processeans began to drift away. Eventually, many gravitated to a ranch outside of Prescott, AZ. After �The Schism� Mary Ann virtually disappeared from public veiw.
Robert and a group of lower level members tried to recreate the original pantheism but were somewhat unsuccessful in recreating their former glory.
And just when you thought you didn�t have room for another slice of �Pi� When convicted killer David Berkowitz confessed to the �Son of Sam� murders in 1977, he also professed membership in the 4Pi. Although some of his statements are contradictory, he did appear to reveal unpublished knowledge of the California ritual homicide of Stanford, California student and Bismark, North Dakota native Arlis Perry. Perry was slain on the anniversary of Manson�s arrest. Her murder remains officially unsolved and supposedly, the morning of Perry’s funeral, a man in dressed in black was seen trying to break into the church. Two weeks later, her grave marker was stolen.
Maury Terry investigated Berkowitz’s allegations for his book The Ultimate Evil .(He also was later sued for statements contained therein, but this time the plaintiff was the OTO). Berkowitz professed the murder was a favor to their brethren in North Dakota, who had been irritated by the Christian woman’s attempt to evangelize some of their members. Witness accounts conveyed that a cult in Bismark had held midnight meetings in the woods behind Mary College. �A married couple who lived in a trailer home near the cult meeting site at Mary told me that they saw torches and heard chanting and that three of their pet dogs were abducted in the middle of the night and later found mutilated inside a circle of stones.�
According to Terry, The Process Church of the Final Judgment continues to operate secretly in six major U.S. cities. He claims that The Process has changed its name many times, along the way accumulating millions of dollars in real estate holdings, and operates from a �remote enclave� in New York. I don�t necessarily disbelieve him.
If I suddenly turn up missing after publishing this, feel free to jump to your own conclusions.
Bad publicity usually means it�s a good time for a name change. In 1979 The Process was again reorganized and renamed itself The Foundation Faith of God. Founders at the Arizona retreat began collecting stray animals and eventually the property became too small. It soon became evident that donations roll in faster when you operate an animal rescue than when you�re begging for the occult. Perhaps, they were on to something.
Once again, they were searching for their Eden. In 1982, founder Francis Battista was driving through southern Utah and happened to visit Kanab Canyon where several classic western movies had been filmed. Everyone agreed, this was the spot.
The Arizona ranch was sold, and in 1984, they used proceeds from the down payment on the purchase of 2,269 acres in what would come to be called Angel Canyon. The group would acquire additional land and lease 30,000 more acres from the government.
Founder Paul Eckhoff, an architect who had designed prisons, designed one of the first buildings.
In 1988, the Society of Processeans was formed and a big reunion was held.
In 1991 a crisis occurred: The buyer of the Arizona ranch went bankrupt and his monthly payments ceased, leaving The Foundation Faith in over their heads. A national S.O.S. went out to the family. Cyrus and Anne Mejia moved to Kanab from their home in Golden, Colorado. Faith Maloney had liquidated her Pennsylvania residence and she returned to the fold, as did other members.
�The group needed money, and getting it seemed to require a certain amount of begging, which the group called �tabling.� They would go to Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and Los Angeles, set up tables outside supermarkets and pass out brochures about the sanctuary.� And the money kept rolling in from every side.
In 1993, Best Friends Animals Sanctuary was incorporated as a nonprofit. The Archives were supposedly destroyed and the Church dissolved. I sure would like to poke around their compound though� and contrary to popular belief, Mark Owens says the Process is still around.
There are no more public references to Satan and doomsday. The millennium has come and gone without the apocalypse. The new focus is on fund raising, public relations, more fundraising and, oh yeah � animal rescue with a liberal dose of speuter. Brothers and Sisters let me hear you testify!
The animal sanctuary has become a huge cash cow with a herd numbering well over a quarter of a million calves. They have a multi million dollar surplus and all board members are paid a salary. In fact, Best Friends’ reach has extended so far that it has again renamed itself, this time as Best Friends Animal Society, reminding everyone that it is not just a sanctuary anymore.
The sprawling 33,000 acre compound in Angel Canyon is evidence. Tax records show Best Friends took in $1.17 million in contributions in 1993 and continued increasing to a whopping 32 million dollars in 2005, thanks to some cunning marketing over the dogs rescued from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Mountain told the Salt Lake Tribune �this money will help further Best Friends’ mission, and he now is planning on reconnecting the organization to its spiritual beginnings�. And I�ll bet all of that money looks cleaner than a fresh shirt from a Chinese laundry. But you know what they say about appearances.
The hurricane dollars have stopped flowing (enter �Every Dog Needs A Home� into your search engine�), and �Spencer� has been milked for all he�s worth. Is �Spencer� even at Best Friends? Has anyone seen him outside of the website p.r. photos? Because Best Friends put out a recent plea to private �pit bull� rescues asking them to please take those hurricane �pit bulls� off their hands. It appears the poor things have containment issues that Best Friends and their millions are not willing to accommodate. Duh!!!
How would it look to have to publicly admit that that some dogs really are safe and happy at the end of a proper chain set up because they don�t kennel well and can�t run in packs? Better I suppose to just curtail breeding them altogether! Especially since Best Friends is aiding the legal defense of alleged dog thief and trespasser Tammy Grimes. Grimes is refusing to turn over the previously tethered canine in order to clear the air. Maybe �Doogie�, like �Spencer� only seems to exist on the internet�
They even gave Tammy a question and answer blog on the Best Friends website and booked her to present at their �Dangerous Dogs Summit� in Colorado (I�m surprised the judge allowed her to leave the state while awaiting trial). While promoting their new poster child, they omitted the fact that Tammy Grimes is not just against responsible tethering, but against pens as well. This should concern every domestic animal owner.
What was the Best Friends Dangerous Dogs Summit? I�m glad you asked. Briefly summarized, their position was:
1) Because of breeding, some dogs have a higher percentage of bad than do most breeds.
2) Dog �attacks are by no means all from pit bulls, but by dogs of many breeds who by now have been inbred with aggressive tendencies.
3) �Beloved pets� will �suddenly and inexplicably turn on their people�.
4) The root cause of dangerous dogs is that �certain people� are deliberately breeding aggressive tendencies into dogs.
5) �the rest of us�are victims�
Don�t worry� Best Friends has a �three-point plan�. It includes:
1) Acknowledging �that there are dangerous breeds, and that aggressive tendencies have now been bred into their genes.�
2) �legislation making it ILLEGAL to breed aggression into dogs�
3) Going �after the people who are breeding aggressive dogs, rather than simply the dogs themselves.�
�This summit seeks to build momentum for a national movement�to protect innocent dogs from people� and they�re creating a solution based on their own interpretation of excerpts from radical European breeding restrictions.
Best Friends must have needed a new gimmick to whip up a little excitement before they unveiled their legislative master plan. Instead of using their millions to build a beautiful animal shelter for refugee pets in Lebanon, they hired former Howard Dean presidential campaign manager Joe Trippi to finagle them a media coup with CBS news/Katie Couric and they shipped the little flea bags to our country with the cameras rolling. Private rescue groups howled louder than wolves under a full moon because millions of dogs are dying in America without finding a �forever home�. Taking potential homes away from American dogs seems somehow very un-American. Way to set the example for the no-kill movement! (And check out comment #30 on Joe Trippi�s blog.)
Michael Mountain told the Rocky Mountain News that “The big old organizations with whom we work quite closely now (PeTA?, HSUS?, ASPCA?), in the early days said this can’t be done�We have taken on a job that the humane movement should have been doing years ago”. Best Friends, he boasts, has “become something of a flagship for this whole movement.”
All the same, he was not thrilled when the reporter inquired about a series of corporate records that directly link Best Friends to The Process Church. If he had it to do over again, Mountain said, he would have let The Process dissolve and incorporate Best Friends as a new nonprofit with no links to the church. (I�ll bet!) Within days of the news article, Michael Mountain & Co. had hastily posted a warm, fuzzy and politically correct series of web pages recounting their own version of the early days. Can you say damage control?
�we do not practice tolerance here.� Mary Ann DeGrimston married Founder Gabriel DePeyer and they made their home at Best Friends, along with several other former members. The Process mastermind died on November 14, 2005, leaving hardly a tangible trace of her dominant influence, which is rumored to persist post mortem. She was 74 years old.
The front man of the movement, Robert DeGrimston became a business consultant, possibly for AT&T and moved with his new wife in New York. Rumors still buzz.
Father Aaron, I mean Michael Mountain has a daughter in Denver, is divorced and lives close to the sanctuary with other Inner Processeans.
Mountain and the Founders are calculatingly dismissive of the Process Church as nothing more than some �wacky� counter-culture social exploration from the innocent youth of current Board members and that Satan was just a metaphor. Talk about making a �mole hill� out of a Mountain! Hey Hughey, you can hire Joe Trippi to sell it to the masses, but I�m not buying it.
“We’re not saying that the Process is the only way. It isn’t. Whatever works for you is valid. That’s how we know what validity is-it works.” – Sister Lyssandra
�Tabling� 32 million dollars last year under the �no kill� banner must be extremely valid. And they�re still begging for more. While occultists and conspiracy theorists may have widely divergent interpretations of Best Friends� history, take note – because this is what worked for them:
�So rise and prepare for the final battle. Stand proud in the monstrous presence of violent death, and sound the trumpets of WAR.
Invoke the cataclysm!
And on the signal, when the heavens burst and a burning, blinding, raging, all-enveloping fury sweeps the earth:
Release the Fiend!
And stride with SATAN’S army to the End.�
Taken from: http://www.abrupt.org/LOGOS/sow/sowtit.html
�Satan on War� by Robert DeGrimston
Serial Killers Central – “two longhairs,” Stanley Baker and Harry Allen Stroup
Best Friends Animal rescue in Beirut raises questions – Article in The Salt Lake Tribune By Holly Mullen
http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_4468809
Handy links: __________________________________
For More Best Friends Articles:
Best Friends Sanctuary? Or a high-speed political vehicle for a carefully driven wreck pointed at Dog Owners? Barbara Haywood explains for the most informed dog owners in the world! Read and think….
Best Friends History Exposed!- Part One a chronological, impeccably researched course for every person who might ever be tempted to donate to this group! Part One reveals sacrifice, the Manson connection, and more to chill you to the core. Connects the dots you would never have suspected were hidden behind rescue and religion.
Best Friends Part Two… Remember the reports on butchered dogs? Human and animal sacrifices? Read this and the dots all start connecting. Then warn your friends! by Ms. Jade, TheDogPress Reporter
Best Friend’s Summit on Dangerous Dogs, re BSL Legislation, Breeder/Breeding 10/06. Summary by Randi Bolton, in a word – scary!! Details of agenda will scare you too!
Click PAWS for in-depth serving of alphabet soup, i.e. HSUS, ASPCA, etc.
More Columns by Ms. Jade:
Backyard Breeder – May 2006
I Vote on Behalf of My Dog – June 2006
ACF Fights for Dog Owner�s Rights! July 2006
Media Bias – Pit Bull Sensationalism August 2006
“Chicken Soup” – Leaves a bad taste September 2006
Best Friends History Exposed!- Part One October 2006
Best Friends Part Two… November 2006
T’was the Night Before X-mas December 2006
Editor�s comment: We are breaking this into several parts�. small doses are easier to digest. Jade has set the table with a chronological, impeccably researched course for every person who might ever be tempted to donate to this group (as most of us did with PeTA before we learned the real agenda) or who is still uninformed or only partially knowledgeable about Best Friends. See it through and gag on the inescapable conclusions to be drawn from its inception right through to the impact it is having on BSL and general public perception of dogs, thanks to CBS and other media outlets. Remember the reports on butchered dogs, human and animal sacrifices? Read this and the dots all start connecting. Then warn your friends!
Click Here – Find Out More About The AuthorJuly, 1970. �California Highway Patrol picked up “two longhairs,” (see Serial Killers Central below) Stanley Baker and Harry Allen Stroup, on suspicion of a hit-and-run near Big Sur. Baker not only readily admitted fleeing the scene, but added �I have a problem. I’m a cannibal.� In the pockets of both men were found human finger bones, taken from a recent victim in Montana named James Schlosser, whose mutilated remains were also missing a heart. Baker confessed to having eaten it.�
Although Baker was a convicted murderer that howled at the moon, “Administrators still saw fit to let him travel through the prison system, teaching transactional analysis to other inmates” and proselytizing for a reputed splinter group of the Process called the 4 Pi, or the 4P that allegedly recruited him from a Wyoming college. Baker claimed to have participated in human sacrifices in the Santa Ana Mountains, and confessed to playing a part in the April 1970 murder of Robert Salem in San Francisco who was stabbed 27 times, nearly decapitated and discovered missing an ear. Harry Stroup was released in 1979 and Stanley Baker requested that his whereabouts remain confidential when he was paroled six years later�
William Bainbridge, future deputy director of Information and Intelligent Systems at the National Science Foundation, joined the Process in the early 1970s and studied it from the inside for 5 years. He chronicled the group using a pseudonym in a 1978 book called Satan’s Power: A Deviant Psychotherapy Cult. �While using the trappings of the occult, the group’s main goals were power, greed and terrorism. It is the embodiment of organized evil, and it still stains America on the eve of the millennium. It has thrived because its tentacles ensnared a number of jaded allies whose influential positions enabled it to extend far beyond New York.� Bainbridge claimed that as of the end of 1971, a conservative estimate of membership was around 10,000. This reference is from a Process pamplet called �Fax �n Figgers�.
It is more likely that the actual number of core members at the group’s peak was around 250, when factoring out the number of persons who contributed to street solicitations, or were otherwise engaged in some nominal way. Since Process membership involves an almost fascist hierarchy, it is inappropriate to equate casual contact with the inner workings.
By mid-1974, Chapters in the US and one in Toronto were in full swing, with headquarters located in Washington DC. In the communities where Chapters were located, Processeans took on a variety of projects and received grants from local and state government agencies. In some Chapters, prison ministries were set-up. The Church continued to expand, straining its limits. While the queen bee called the shots, the drones did all kinds of public service, smiled a lot, and burned through a lot of cash – as well as burning out some members along the way.
Instigated by Mary Ann, the D-I-V-O-R-C-E occurred in May of 1974. Officially, disputes between the ruling body of the Church and �The Teacher�, led to his dismissal. Unofficially, his affair with a woman he would later marry made him an unconvincing messiah. The Process was fractured and it soon became the Foundation – Church of the Millennium. The inner circle, loyal to Mary Ann stayed and kept their religious names but Church teachings shifted to suit �the Oracle� and her advocacy for the Jehova incarnation. Some of the glow was fading into the endless push for more money and more rigid doctrine. A little struggle and sacrifice can go a long way for some people and processeans began to drift away. Eventually, many gravitated to a ranch outside of Prescott, AZ. After �The Schism� Mary Ann virtually disappeared from public veiw.
Robert and a group of lower level members tried to recreate the original pantheism but were somewhat unsuccessful in recreating their former glory.
And just when you thought you didn�t have room for another slice of �Pi� When convicted killer David Berkowitz confessed to the �Son of Sam� murders in 1977, he also professed membership in the 4Pi. Although some of his statements are contradictory, he did appear to reveal unpublished knowledge of the California ritual homicide of Stanford, California student and Bismark, North Dakota native Arlis Perry. Perry was slain on the anniversary of Manson�s arrest. Her murder remains officially unsolved and supposedly, the morning of Perry’s funeral, a man in dressed in black was seen trying to break into the church. Two weeks later, her grave marker was stolen.
Maury Terry investigated Berkowitz’s allegations for his book The Ultimate Evil .(He also was later sued for statements contained therein, but this time the plaintiff was the OTO). Berkowitz professed the murder was a favor to their brethren in North Dakota, who had been irritated by the Christian woman’s attempt to evangelize some of their members. Witness accounts conveyed that a cult in Bismark had held midnight meetings in the woods behind Mary College. �A married couple who lived in a trailer home near the cult meeting site at Mary told me that they saw torches and heard chanting and that three of their pet dogs were abducted in the middle of the night and later found mutilated inside a circle of stones.�
According to Terry, The Process Church of the Final Judgment continues to operate secretly in six major U.S. cities. He claims that The Process has changed its name many times, along the way accumulating millions of dollars in real estate holdings, and operates from a �remote enclave� in New York. I don�t necessarily disbelieve him.
If I suddenly turn up missing after publishing this, feel free to jump to your own conclusions.
Bad publicity usually means it�s a good time for a name change. In 1979 The Process was again reorganized and renamed itself The Foundation Faith of God. Founders at the Arizona retreat began collecting stray animals and eventually the property became too small. It soon became evident that donations roll in faster when you operate an animal rescue than when you�re begging for the occult. Perhaps, they were on to something.
Once again, they were searching for their Eden. In 1982, founder Francis Battista was driving through southern Utah and happened to visit Kanab Canyon where several classic western movies had been filmed. Everyone agreed, this was the spot.
The Arizona ranch was sold, and in 1984, they used proceeds from the down payment on the purchase of 2,269 acres in what would come to be called Angel Canyon. The group would acquire additional land and lease 30,000 more acres from the government.
Founder Paul Eckhoff, an architect who had designed prisons, designed one of the first buildings.
In 1988, the Society of Processeans was formed and a big reunion was held.
In 1991 a crisis occurred: The buyer of the Arizona ranch went bankrupt and his monthly payments ceased, leaving The Foundation Faith in over their heads. A national S.O.S. went out to the family. Cyrus and Anne Mejia moved to Kanab from their home in Golden, Colorado. Faith Maloney had liquidated her Pennsylvania residence and she returned to the fold, as did other members.
�The group needed money, and getting it seemed to require a certain amount of begging, which the group called �tabling.� They would go to Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas and Los Angeles, set up tables outside supermarkets and pass out brochures about the sanctuary.� And the money kept rolling in from every side.
In 1993, Best Friends Animals Sanctuary was incorporated as a nonprofit. The Archives were supposedly destroyed and the Church dissolved. I sure would like to poke around their compound though� and contrary to popular belief, Mark Owens says the Process is still around.
There are no more public references to Satan and doomsday. The millennium has come and gone without the apocalypse. The new focus is on fund raising, public relations, more fundraising and, oh yeah � animal rescue with a liberal dose of speuter. Brothers and Sisters let me hear you testify!
The animal sanctuary has become a huge cash cow with a herd numbering well over a quarter of a million calves. They have a multi million dollar surplus and all board members are paid a salary. In fact, Best Friends’ reach has extended so far that it has again renamed itself, this time as Best Friends Animal Society, reminding everyone that it is not just a sanctuary anymore.
The sprawling 33,000 acre compound in Angel Canyon is evidence. Tax records show Best Friends took in $1.17 million in contributions in 1993 and continued increasing to a whopping 32 million dollars in 2005, thanks to some cunning marketing over the dogs rescued from hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Mountain told the Salt Lake Tribune �this money will help further Best Friends’ mission, and he now is planning on reconnecting the organization to its spiritual beginnings�. And I�ll bet all of that money looks cleaner than a fresh shirt from a Chinese laundry. But you know what they say about appearances.
The hurricane dollars have stopped flowing (enter �Every Dog Needs A Home� into your search engine�), and �Spencer� has been milked for all he�s worth. Is �Spencer� even at Best Friends? Has anyone seen him outside of the website p.r. photos? Because Best Friends put out a recent plea to private �pit bull� rescues asking them to please take those hurricane �pit bulls� off their hands. It appears the poor things have containment issues that Best Friends and their millions are not willing to accommodate. Duh!!!
How would it look to have to publicly admit that that some dogs really are safe and happy at the end of a proper chain set up because they don�t kennel well and can�t run in packs? Better I suppose to just curtail breeding them altogether! Especially since Best Friends is aiding the legal defense of alleged dog thief and trespasser Tammy Grimes. Grimes is refusing to turn over the previously tethered canine in order to clear the air. Maybe �Doogie�, like �Spencer� only seems to exist on the internet�
They even gave Tammy a question and answer blog on the Best Friends website and booked her to present at their �Dangerous Dogs Summit� in Colorado (I�m surprised the judge allowed her to leave the state while awaiting trial). While promoting their new poster child, they omitted the fact that Tammy Grimes is not just against responsible tethering, but against pens as well. This should concern every domestic animal owner.
What was the Best Friends Dangerous Dogs Summit? I�m glad you asked. Briefly summarized, their position was:
1) Because of breeding, some dogs have a higher percentage of bad than do most breeds.
2) Dog �attacks are by no means all from pit bulls, but by dogs of many breeds who by now have been inbred with aggressive tendencies.
3) �Beloved pets� will �suddenly and inexplicably turn on their people�.
4) The root cause of dangerous dogs is that �certain people� are deliberately breeding aggressive tendencies into dogs.
5) �the rest of us�are victims�
Don�t worry� Best Friends has a �three-point plan�. It includes:
1) Acknowledging �that there are dangerous breeds, and that aggressive tendencies have now been bred into their genes.�
2) �legislation making it ILLEGAL to breed aggression into dogs�
3) Going �after the people who are breeding aggressive dogs, rather than simply the dogs themselves.�
�This summit seeks to build momentum for a national movement�to protect innocent dogs from people� and they�re creating a solution based on their own interpretation of excerpts from radical European breeding restrictions.
Best Friends must have needed a new gimmick to whip up a little excitement before they unveiled their legislative master plan. Instead of using their millions to build a beautiful animal shelter for refugee pets in Lebanon, they hired former Howard Dean presidential campaign manager Joe Trippi to finagle them a media coup with CBS news/Katie Couric and they shipped the little flea bags to our country with the cameras rolling. Private rescue groups howled louder than wolves under a full moon because millions of dogs are dying in America without finding a �forever home�. Taking potential homes away from American dogs seems somehow very un-American. Way to set the example for the no-kill movement! (And check out comment #30 on Joe Trippi�s blog.)
Michael Mountain told the Rocky Mountain News that “The big old organizations with whom we work quite closely now (PeTA?, HSUS?, ASPCA?), in the early days said this can’t be done�We have taken on a job that the humane movement should have been doing years ago”. Best Friends, he boasts, has “become something of a flagship for this whole movement.”
All the same, he was not thrilled when the reporter inquired about a series of corporate records that directly link Best Friends to The Process Church. If he had it to do over again, Mountain said, he would have let The Process dissolve and incorporate Best Friends as a new nonprofit with no links to the church. (I�ll bet!) Within days of the news article, Michael Mountain & Co. had hastily posted a warm, fuzzy and politically correct series of web pages recounting their own version of the early days. Can you say damage control?
�we do not practice tolerance here.� Mary Ann DeGrimston married Founder Gabriel DePeyer and they made their home at Best Friends, along with several other former members. The Process mastermind died on November 14, 2005, leaving hardly a tangible trace of her dominant influence, which is rumored to persist post mortem. She was 74 years old.
The front man of the movement, Robert DeGrimston became a business consultant, possibly for AT&T and moved with his new wife in New York. Rumors still buzz.
Father Aaron, I mean Michael Mountain has a daughter in Denver, is divorced and lives close to the sanctuary with other Inner Processeans.
Mountain and the Founders are calculatingly dismissive of the Process Church as nothing more than some �wacky� counter-culture social exploration from the innocent youth of current Board members and that Satan was just a metaphor. Talk about making a �mole hill� out of a Mountain! Hey Hughey, you can hire Joe Trippi to sell it to the masses, but I�m not buying it.
“We’re not saying that the Process is the only way. It isn’t. Whatever works for you is valid. That’s how we know what validity is-it works.” – Sister Lyssandra
�Tabling� 32 million dollars last year under the �no kill� banner must be extremely valid. And they�re still begging for more. While occultists and conspiracy theorists may have widely divergent interpretations of Best Friends� history, take note – because this is what worked for them:
�So rise and prepare for the final battle. Stand proud in the monstrous presence of violent death, and sound the trumpets of WAR.
Invoke the cataclysm!
And on the signal, when the heavens burst and a burning, blinding, raging, all-enveloping fury sweeps the earth:
Release the Fiend!
And stride with SATAN’S army to the End.�
Taken from: http://www.abrupt.org/LOGOS/sow/sowtit.html
�Satan on War� by Robert DeGrimston
Serial Killers Central – “two longhairs,” Stanley Baker and Harry Allen Stroup
Best Friends Animal rescue in Beirut raises questions – Article in The Salt Lake Tribune By Holly Mullen
http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_4468809
Handy links: __________________________________
For More Best Friends Articles:
Best Friends Sanctuary? Or a high-speed political vehicle for a carefully driven wreck pointed at Dog Owners? Barbara Haywood explains for the most informed dog owners in the world! Read and think….
Best Friends History Exposed!- Part One a chronological, impeccably researched course for every person who might ever be tempted to donate to this group! Part One reveals sacrifice, the Manson connection, and more to chill you to the core. Connects the dots you would never have suspected were hidden behind rescue and religion.
Best Friends Part Two… Remember the reports on butchered dogs? Human and animal sacrifices? Read this and the dots all start connecting. Then warn your friends! by Ms. Jade, TheDogPress Reporter
Best Friend’s Summit on Dangerous Dogs, re BSL Legislation, Breeder/Breeding 10/06. Summary by Randi Bolton, in a word – scary!! Details of agenda will scare you too!
Click PAWS for in-depth serving of alphabet soup, i.e. HSUS, ASPCA, etc.
More Columns by Ms. Jade:
Backyard Breeder – May 2006
I Vote on Behalf of My Dog – June 2006
ACF Fights for Dog Owner�s Rights! July 2006
Media Bias – Pit Bull Sensationalism August 2006
“Chicken Soup” – Leaves a bad taste September 2006
Best Friends History Exposed!- Part One October 2006
Best Friends Part Two… November 2006
http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/skepticaltheurgist_The.Process.asp
skepticaltheurgist – BLOG
BEST FRIENDS and THE PROCESS
Most readers are following up on the fascinating “bomb” revealed by Jade in her series on the formation and background of “Best Friends” (see links below) Received this from one reader who said “…. sometimes you uncover a real gem in cyberspace. I felt like I had found the Hope Diamond when I ran across a blog, posted last year by a former member of the Process Church of the Final Judgment.” It’s a timely discovery as THE REVOLUTION begins this weekend. Enjoy!
In March 2004, the Rocky Mountain News outed the people running Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Kanab, Utah, as The Process in its latest incarnation. The Cone of Silence had been raised, and the Best Friends management felt the need to ‘fess up. A few days later, they added a section to its website, mostly written by Michael Mountain and giving their own version of the past. This is still (as of August 2005) available see LINK at end of article.
Reading it, I had a strange sense of deja vu, from around 1969. In that year, the Sunday Times in England picked up the story of how in the late 1940s L. Ron Hubbard, before starting Dianetics and Scientology, had been involved, magically and financially, with the rocket fuel scientist and noted Thelemite, Jack Parsons. The newspaper had learned how, after some ritual workings to create a magical Moonchild, Hubbard took off with Parsons’ girlfriend, a boat they’d all invested in, and a bunch of cash. It was classic Fleet Street muckraking at its salacious best.
Scientology’s response was a glorious farrago of a letter to the Sunday Times that began: “Hubbard broke up black magic in America…” Ron, it turned out (according to the Church of Scientology, and quoted in Russell Miller’s Bare Faced Messiah) had been sent in by the U.S. government to smash up this dangerous ring of occultists with which Parsons was involved. Naturally, he succeeded magnificently. A stolen girlfriend? No, not at all. “Hubbard rescued a girl they were using.”
In sum, the facts were all covered off. It was only the truth that was missing in action.
I recall Michael Mountain (Father Aaron as he was in the 1970s) as a charming man who was often irreverent, and fun to be around. The Best Friends account of the early days shows he still has the ability to charm, even if, as with the C of $ story about Hubbard, the truth and the facts have some distance between them.
It might be unfair to critique details almost 40 years after the events happened, but I feel otherwise. When someone publishes 8,000 words of well-spun baloney, a theurgically (and otherwise) skeptical person like myself can’t resist teasing it a little.
The primary fiction is that The Process consisted of a bunch of 1960’s counter-cultural seekers, consensually choosing a bohemian, back-to-nature lifestyle. No-one who left England for the Bahamas in 1966, then went on to the Yucatan and Xtul was arguing about it, but the cult-like nature of the group is carefully erased in Mountain’s description. Does anyone recall the alliterative headlines in the British press about “The mindbenders of Mayfair”? Only me, it seems. But then, back before I joined, I collected all this coverage religiously.
And while Robert De Grimston is airily dismissed as “the so-called ‘Teacher’ of The Process, who had written a number of books and was becoming well known in academic and theological circles,” his wife Mary-Ann (see Mary-Ann’s photo and Moon Unseen, from June 2005) remains “She Who Must Not Be Named”. The Goddess of The Process, its core, is unmentioned in its own published history.
And so it goes on. What, us spread Robert’s teachings all over Europe and North America? All of us wear the Cross and the Goat of Mendez on our chests or collars? Go out every day and sell those books by the “so-called Teacher”? Musta been some other guys, or some other so-called Teacher.
Even when I was in The Process (1970-72), the legend around Xtul, “The Place of Miracles” were being embroidered. An abandoned salt factory became a Mayan ruin, for example. Away from their civilized backgrounds, but living still in a soup of heightened consciousness, people had let their inner barriers drop and insights, synchronistic happenings and visions came in plenty. The primal presences or psychological realities called the Gods of The Process made themselves felt.
Beyond that blanket statement, or something like it, I doubt anyone today could give a fair account of the weeks and months spent at Xtul. The three ex-members whom I’ve interviewed all give varying stories.
Mountain’s account adds a fresh spin. As the group came to Xtul, he says, they encountered an old man who “just smiled and said, ‘Es para vosotros,’ (’It is for you.’) And he waved good-bye and continued on down the trail.”
Neat – except, as anyone who’s learned Spanish finds out, “vosotros” as a second-person plural form is today used nowhere in Latin America, only in Spain itself.
Later, the same man appeared, Mountain says, as The Process we’re all pulling out.
“‘You are leaving,’ he said. ‘But one day there will be another place for you. It is a beach without an ocean. And the sand is all red. And there are animals. Muchos animales.’ “For someone who had never seen red rock canyons and the pink sands that go with them, it was a fair enough description of Angel Canyon, the future home, 20 years later, of Best Friends Animal Society.”
Handy links: ___________________________________
For entire Article, go to: Skepticaltheurgist
Click here for Best Friends Sanctuary History
For More Articles on Best Friends:
With Best Friends, Who Needs Enemies? by Ms. Jade
Summary of Best Friend’s Summit & Dangerous Dogs by Randi Bolton
The Revolution is Upon Us – submitted by Legislative Liaison Lynn Mo
Sorry about the double post, the first one did not copy correctly.
With Best Friends, Who Needs Enemies?
by Ms. Jade, TheDogPress Legislative Reporter
Editor�s comment: We are breaking this into several parts�. small doses are easier to digest. Jade has set the table with a chronological, impeccably researched course for every person who might ever be tempted to donate to this group (as most of us did with PeTA before we learned the real agenda) or who is still uninformed or only partially knowledgeable about Best Friends. See it through and gag on the inescapable conclusions to be drawn from its inception right through to the impact it is having on BSL and general public perception of dogs, thanks to CBS and other media outlets. Remember the reports on butchered dogs, the connotation of animal sacrifices that were attached to the TV reports� Read this two-part series and the dots all start connecting. Then warn your friends!
Click Here – Find Out More About The AuthorBest Friends has Katie Couric and the CBS evening news to help solicit donations.
Best Friends wants laws to criminalize dog breeding.
Best Friends wants laws to grant citizen �rescuers� the power to steal your animals.
Best Friends is promoted on the Animal Liberation Front website.
Best Friends claims that some dog breeds are inherently dangerous.
Best Friends is no friend of mine.
Besides being the richest, and self-proclaimed “largest animal sanctuary in the United States”, what is Best Friends Animal Society? (aka: The Process, Church of the Final Judgment, aka: the Four-P Movement, aka: The Foundation Church of the Millennium, aka: The Foundation Faith of God, aka: Best Friends Animal Sanctuary.)
The book �Best Friends – The True Story of the World’s Most Beloved Animal Sanctuary� professes to be a complete history – but the religious incarnations are conspicuously missing. Why do you suppose that is? Best Friends President Michael Mountain (aka: Hugh Mountain, aka: Father Aaron) has been a Processean since the early days. He claims the omission was the author’s idea, and not a marketing decision. Yeah, right Huey.
Thank dog for the internet! Where buried treasure may be discovered by even the amateur archaeologist. Let�s start by unearthing the skeletons in their closet. The sordid past they would rather keep buried. A passport may be in order for this globe trotting expedition. Grab a shovel and let�s start digging.
Once upon a time, over a half century ago, three friends were avowed pseudo-Satanists*; Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (aka: L. Ron Hubbard) � the founder of Scientology, Aleister Crowley (aka: The Great Beast)** the head of the Ordo Templi Orientis �OTO� in England and John W. �Jack� Parsons (aka: Marvel Whitesides Parsons) � hand picked by Crowley to be the leader of the Pasadena California branch of the (OTO)***and a physicist who played a major role in founding the aero-space department at Cal Tech.
Not surprising, this tale doesn�t have a happy ending. Crowley, addicted to heroin for the latter part of his life and bankrupt from a lost libel suit, passed away in 1947 at age 71. L. Ron Hubbard absconded with roommate Parsons� woman and his money, bought a yacht and eventually landed in England. Parsons would later self-immolate in an explosion in his garage laboratory in 1952. Speculation was that he and Hubbard had been attempting to conjure/create an elemental being, and that his fiery demise was the direct outcome of that endeavor. His mother Ruth committed suicide the next day. Home movies would reveal sex with mom and the family dog.
Fast forward to 1963. Our first stop on the Best Friends magical mystery tour begins in London. While auditing at the L. Ron Hubbard Institute on Fitzroy Street, architect Robert DeGrimston Moore (aka �the Teacher�) met S&M prostitute/madame (and ex wife of boxer Sugar Ray Robinson) Mary Ann McClean (aka �The Oracle�). They eventually left Scientology, and twisting it with Adler�s post Freudian ideas created a self-help process called �Compulsions Analysis�. Mary Ann convinced Robert to drop the last name Moore (they only used the name to travel incognito) and adopt DeGrimston when they married in 1964.L. Ron Hubbard declared them “suppressive persons” by December 1965.
After initiates would undergo �the process�, they began initiating others � at a steep fee paid to the �Founders�, of course. This allowed them to rent an office on Wigmore Street where the group began to experience the mind effects of the collective. It was in 1965, that they officially became The Process Church of the Final Judgement. (”Process” meant “pro-cessation,” or “for the end” and, according to doctrine, the Final Judgment will bring “the purifying presence of fire in the world… “) Processeans did not know exactly when the end would come, but they expected it before the turn of the century. I hope they weren�t too disappointed.
When a member inherited, they leased a mansion on Balfour Place� owned at the time by actor Richard Harris, in London�s exclusive Mayfair district. There they first hung the official logo on the front door. The young followers were directed to leave home and turn over assets to the DeGrimstons. Soon after, Bob and Mary Ann each acquired a large Alsatian (German Shepherd) Dog. Acolytes followed suit. As one member of the Church explained, “Dogs are much more high-level beings than we are…They’re pure…. Animals don’t have conflicts of choice. They do as they’re supposed to. They’re not conflicted.” Apparently, Process members believed that the dogs could sense the coming apocalypse.
As members withdrew further, the rest of society was starting to feel like a bad trip. In June of 1966, the DeGrimstons, 6 Alsatian dogs, and about 30 other Processeans – including Best Friends founders Michael Mountain and Faith Maloney (aka: Mother Hathor) packed their bags and took the show on the road in search of a retreat. After 3 months in Nassau (Bahamas) they traveled to Mexico City where they were divinely inspired to follow the Yucatan coast to the Eden envisioned in group meditation. A place of �Mayan ruins� called Xtul; pronounced ‘Shtul’ the word meant ‘terminus’ or ‘end’ in Mayan.
They set up camp in an abandoned salt factory. Mountain claims that the property owner had dreamt they were coming the night before. “So if there was any time when we felt that there was probably something mystical there, that was probably it.” If Processeans had contemplated the end times, then the concept must have really hit home in September when Hurricane Inez pummeled the Yucatan for three days straight and the �shtul� hit the proverbial fan.
Members had sought shelter at one end of the building and the wall at the other end collapsed in the 200 mph winds. “The idea that we would abandon Xtul was out of the question,” said Mountain. �If the storm meant the end, so be it.� They must have felt a sense of empowerment having been chosen as survivors of a disaster that killed well over a thousand people. A huge spiritual transformation had taken place. The God forces had spoken. The therapy group had become a religion. (inset: The salt factory at Xtul, 1966)
In �Sympathy for the Devil�, former OTO member Gary Lachman wrote �They returned to London filled with a sense of purpose. Their return, however, wasn’t a total triumph. While at Xtul, the parents of some underaged Processeans sent a solicitor to retrieve their children. In paradise, the solicitor encountered a bikini-clad Mary Ann DeGrimston, fawned on by ragged and underfed Processeans; he made a note of her long, silver-polished fingernails, and talked to the press. The Sunday Telegraph ran a negative story on the “Mind Benders of Mayfair.” The ‘alternative’ press wasn’t too keen on them either; a highly critical article appeared in the counterculture gazette, Oz. But the DeGrimstons weren’t deterred. Back at Balfour Place they opened a 24-hour coffee bar called Satan’s Cave.
The group had made a sudden shift. They began to wear black capes and black turtle necks, and to sport shiny silver crosses. They also wore badges featuring the sinister Goat of Mendes�They set up a lecture hall and bookshop, and an Alpha Room, where they held their Sabbath Assemblies. (Novelist Robert Irwin, whose Satan Wants Me is set against the backdrop of occult 1960s London, recalls some deflowered virgins at Process gatherings, but doubts if there were any virgins in London then.) A movie theatre ran films dominated by destruction and violence. They gave classes in telepathy, self-expression and communication, and got on their soap-box in Hyde Park to preach the apocalypse trip.
Processeans hit the streets asking for donations. �cult members were told to say the money was going to �animal welfare�, although most of it landed in the DeGrimstons’ pocket.�
At conspiracyarchive.com, Mark Owens details how �Robert DeGrimston published several books on war (his favorite theme) and commanded his followers �THOU SHALT KILL!� Another Process publication urged readers to experience the pleasures of grave robbing and necrophilia.� Lachman wrote �the main organ of Process theology was their glossy magazine, The Process. Sporting blaring red, purple and black psychedelic graphics, the editorial policy favoured Hitler, Satan and gore�. It remained in publication until �the schism�. The final issue declares:
�The Unity of Christ and Satan is Good News for you. If that conflict can be resolved then yours can be too.�
While the Process publicly courted celebrities such as Paul McCartney, Mama Kass and John Phillips, Mick Jaggar, his girlfriend Marianne Faithfull, Salvador Dali and others, the DeGrimstons became more reclusive. As if fused into one psychic entity, senior Processeans, �the Teacher� and �The Oracle� became known as �The Omega�. Their secret rituals became a matter of speculation among the lower ranks.
Although strict sexual abstinence was enforced upon the acolytes, the same rules did not necessarily apply to the Omega. Robert instructed followers to “release the fiend that lies within you” and �he had several ideas about how to go about that, some of which may have included bestiality� according to Lachman. (Coincidentally, a practice casually tolerated by animal rights pioneers Newkirk and Singer.)
In late 1967, they found their way to The United States. Perhaps because they lost a lawsuit over zoning violations at �Satans Cave�, or perhaps the dogs did not return to London because of the lengthy quarantine. While in the New Orleans French Quarter, the group legally incorporated as a nonprofit with the help of a former lawyer from the Catholic Church. Supposedly, they requsted but were denied the name �Church of the Process of Unification of Christ and Satan�.Their mission? To conduct “spiritual and occult research.”
The incorporation paperwork declared: “The latter days are upon us for even now the Lord Christ is in the world and gods walk amongst men and there are signs and wonders foretold in prophecy in preparation for the final judgment of man.” But Mountain alledges the text was a product of the lawyer�s �somewhat crazy fantasy�. However, while in town, A 21 year old Michael Mountain preached about the coming apocalypse to a packed auditorium at Louisianna State University �dressed in white with a purple cape with a white dog in one hand and a black dog in the other – a German shepherd.”
Well pack your cape and goat head because now we�re off to San Francisco, to Haite Ashbury and Charlie Manson, (Yes, the same infamous Manson whose �family� was responsible for the gruesome Tate � Labianca murders.) as chronicled in the controversial first edition of Ed Sander�s �The Family�, chapter 5, �The Process��
Process �Superiors� � LOVE that goat head!
Robert “DeGrimston” Moore
The Processeans 2
Powered by Christ – Something Wicked
According to Sanders (a member of the musical group �the Fugs�), �the Process Church more or less taught Manson everything he knew.� Sanders detailed the similarities between Manson and the DeGrimstons, and here�s a few tasty tidbits.
� Both believed Revelations prophecy that a violent Armageddon was imminent and that it would destroy all but 144,000 of the “chosen people”, The Process calling it “The Final Judgement”; Manson calling it “Judgement Day” or “Helter Skelter”.
� Both courted biker gangs like the Hells Angels believing them to be the shock troops of this Armageddon.
� Both Manson and DeGrimston believed themselves to be Christ incarnate. Their followers also believed this.
� Both believed that they could recognize the “Seal of God” in the foreheads of their followers; Manson and his followers carved X’s into their foreheads, which were later altered into swastikas.
� Both preached of the unity of Christ and Satan.
� Both changed the names of their followers.
� Both referred to their followers as �the family�.
Manson often ended many of his lectures, both written and verbal, with “As It Is”, a Process phrase.
� Both had studied Scientology.
�In 1968 Charlie sent Family member Bruce Davis to visit Process headquarters in London; while there Davis, too, had a brief stint with Scientology. Two Processeans visited Manson in jail; Manson later contributed a stream-of-unconsciousness rant for the Process �Death� issue, calling death �total awareness, closing the circle, bringing the soul to now.� Death Issue Handy Link #1
�The Process was keen on the Nazis�, said Sanders. (Dr. Mengele was a member of the Illumnati and the OTO has its roots firmly planted in the land of Alsatian dogs). Mary Ann was reputed to believe she was Joseph Geobbels reincarnate. The Minister of Propaganda, how fitting! �All the Jews in Hitler’s Germany walked into the gas-ovens of their own free will� was one of her favored examples of owning your destiny.
The book was outrageous and sensational. A former Processian claims that �The Family� contained 80 factual errors and that Scientologists could have theoretically fed stories to Sanders, thereby diverting attention away from their own influence on Manson.
Hey, it was 1968 in California. Memories might be a little fuzzy and Best Friends Board Members probably won�t participate in a rousing game of six degrees of Satinism, but Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi did � and I will too. Indulge me and play along. It goes something like this�Manson did at one time live only two blocks away from Process member Victor Wild (aka: Brother Ely) on Cole Street in The Haight. Process meetings were open to the public and it�s likely that Manson�s curiosity drew him in. He would have had ample access to their literature. It’s also possible that Manson had met �The Teacher� during a visit that DeGrimston made to a Manson Family hangout in Topanga Canyon, CA. Process groupie, Marrianne Faithful had a relationship with underground film maker and Crowley/OTO devotee Kenneth Anger who may have also been involved with the Process Church and he made a 40 minute movie about Satanic ritual starring future Manson follower and convicted killer and future neo-Nazi Bobby Beausoleil. Whew! However, their may be yet another tenuous connection between Manson and the Process through �Orange Sunshine� LSD kingpin and CIA operative Ronald Hadley Stark.
Bugliosi was not entirely convinced by Process denial of any involvement with the Tate-LaBianca case, but lacking concrete evidence, he never brought any Process members into court during Manson’s trial.
By now you probably think I�ve been basking too long in the orange sunshine myself but Father Adam, head of the Boston, Massachusetts chapter of The Process told a reporter that, “Manson has obviously got hold of some of our ideas from somewhere and distorted them in a particular way. It is unfortunate.”
Take some Dramamine and brace yourself because from San Francisco this becomes a bad trip akin to fear and loathing in Los Angeles meets Pet Cemetery meets Faces of Death. Author Michael Newton wrote that the cult, �is also deeply involved in white slavery, child pornography and the international narcotics trade.� Sanders alluded to serial �weird ritual mutilations and animal sacrifices� apparently committed in the Santa Cruz Mountains by a Process incarnation called the Four Pi. (Remember, the Process symbol cleverly incorporates four of the stylized letter �P�) I�m envisioning a whole new definition of the term no-kill movement.
“Beginning in June 1968, authorities in San Jose, Santa Cruz, and Los Gatos began recording discovery of canines, skinned and drained of blood without apparent motive. As the director of the Santa Cruz animal shelter told Sanders, “Whoever is doing this is a real expert with a knife. The skin is cut away without even marking the flesh. The really strange thing is that these dogs have been drained of blood.”
Another �hotbed of activity appears to be New York, where 85 German shepherds and Dobermans were found skinned in the year between October 1976 and October 1977�. And it wasn�t just four legged animals�(see below- Dog Sacrifice Handy Link #2)
�According to reports from the self-styled members of the Four Pi cult, its victims were mainly hitchhikers, drifters and runaways, with an occasional volunteer from the ranks. One such, a young woman, reportedly went to her death with a smile in November 1968, near Boulder Creek, but even sacrifice of willing victims is a risky business, and the cult was said to mount patrols around its rural meeting places, using guards with automatic weapons and attack trained dogs to guarantee privacy. In early 1969, the cult reportedly moved southward, shifting operations to the O’Neil Park region of the Santa Ana Mountains, below Los Angeles. The move produced — or was occasioned by — a factional dispute within the group, one segment striving to de-emphasize Satanic ritual and concentrate wholeheartedly on kinky sex, while more traditional adherents clung to Lucifer and human sacrifice. The group apparently survived its schism and expanded nationwide�.
According to Mountain on the Best Friends website, �We stayed in America for six months until our tourist visas expired, moving on from New Orleans to San Francisco to Los Angeles and to New York, gathering a small following as we went, interacting with many of the movements and subcultures of the time�And in the summer of 1968, we headed back to Europe.� That�s a very interesting itinerary.
While in California, they also visited the offices of the underground newspaper the San Francisco Oracle. The Oracle must have been unconvinced that Satan would be a big seller so they allegedly tried to form an alliance with Anton LaVey, – head of the Church of Satan, but the Black Pope reportedly dismissed them as “kooks” and The Church of Scientology may have turned them in for expired visas. Perhaps that was their exit cue.
After establishing the chapter in New York, they opened chapters in several European cities; in Germany they apparently sent representatives to the neo-Nazi NPD. It was during this time that the Process suddenly published an anti-vivisectionist book entitled �The Ultimate Sin� but it didn�t stop the rumors and neither did the libel suit. Maybe Peter Singer and Ingrid Newkirk have read the tract.
Mountain and others were still recruiting in Europe when Ed Sanders book came out and their lawyer was blunt: “If you do not sue, you will be stuck with this for the rest of your lives.” They lodged a $1,500,000 suit against Sanders and his publishers, and a $1,250,000 suit against a similar series of magazine articles Sanders had written. Dutton, Sanders’ publisher, settled out of court. A thoroughly freaked out Sanders skipped the deposition altogether. Published copies were withdrawn, all reference to the Process deleted in subsequent editions, and a disclaimer written by the Process was added but you can find the expunged text at: Handy Link #3 Manson 1 and Handy Link Manson 2 – #4 It�s a must read. No wonder they wanted it erased!
�Interestingly, the Process Church’s attorney was member John Markham. Markham was later hired by U.S. Attorney William Weld (the Weld family made its fortune in the opium trade). Weld invested money in the counterculture tabloid Real Paper, which published a major article on the Process Church.�
With flourishing branches in New Orleans, New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, Mountain and other Inner Process members returned to the America in 1970 to set up shop in Boston and Chicago. They were working the main stream angle. They were in the phone book.
I hope I haven�t lost you somewhere on a grassy knoll. You might want to pop some lithium for this next episode � Next Edition – Part Two
#1 Death Issue Death Issue Handy Link
#2 Sacrifice Dog sacrifice Handy Link
#3 Manson_1 http://www.charliemanson.com/sanders-1.htm
#4 Manson_2 http://www.charliemanson.com/process-2.htm
Handy links:______________________
More Columns by Ms. Jade:
Backyard Breeder – May 2006
I Vote on Behalf of My Dog – June 2006
ACF Fights for Dog Owner�s Rights! July 2006
Media Bias – Pit Bull Sensationalism August 2006
“Chicken Soup” – Leaves a bad taste September 2006
Best Friends History Exposed!- Part One October 2006
Best Friends Part Two… November 2006
T’was the Night Before X-mas December 2006
For More Best Friends Articles:
Best Friends Sanctuary? Or a high-speed political vehicle for a carefully driven wreck pointed at Dog Owners? Barbara Haywood explains for the most informed dog owners in the world! Read and think….
Best Friends History Exposed!- Part One a chronological, impeccably researched course for every person who might ever be tempted to donate to this group! Part One reveals sacrifice, the Manson connection, and more to chill you to the core. Connects the dots you would never have suspected were hidden behind rescue and religion.
Best Friends Part Two… Remember the reports on butchered dogs? Human and animal sacrifices? Read this and the dots all start connecting. Then warn your friends! by Ms. Jade, TheDogPress Reporter
Best Friend’s Summit on Dangerous Dogs, re BSL Legislation, Breeder/Breeding 10/06. Summary by Randi Bolton, in a word – scary!!! Details of agenda will scare you too!
Click PAWS for in-depth serving of alphabet soup, i.e. HSUS, ASPCA, etc.
MailDog makes it easy! Just copy and paste this s Quick-Mail Link into a new email message, write a note to your friends re what the link goes to and your comment. Select as many recipients as you wish. This naughty pup makes life easy – and informative.
Copyright � 2006 TheDogPress.com – Reprint rights hereby granted upon the condition that a link to the reprinted page is furnished to Editor@TheDogPress.com upon publication.
http://www.thedogplace.org/Articles/Politics/0610.BestFriends.CBS.Threat.htm
Best Friends Sanctuary? Or Another Theft Of Dog Owner Rights?
My Dog Votes examines Best Friends SanctuaryCBS Coverage Of Best Friends Think PETA is the big threat? Think again!!! If you don’t know about Best Friends Sanctuary, wake up! See how they get flattering media coverage that PETA could never obtain – and why it is a threat to us.
As you may know – Best Friends Animal sanctuary is holding a BSL conference – an “Emergency Dangerous Dogs” conference later this month, which is nothing more than a a manufactured event designed to position them as national “experts”. This event was preceded by two other well-timed, well-orchestrated media events that also brought BF into national prominence – the “Spencer” rescue out of Mobile, AL and the “Doogie” rescue two weeks ago in PA.
The roster of speakers at the Best Friends conference is a roster of AR – with the exception of opening remarks by Colorado’s Rep. Debbie Stafford (R) -CO – there is not a single speaker on the agenda that is known within the BSL community.
Best Friends has decided there are “dangerous’ breeds” and that they must act immediately to “solve” the issue. They have a:
3 point plan acknowledges that there are “dangerous breeds” and they plan to “craft legislation” looking to “European” solutions to dangerous dogs – and we know that those “solutions” are.
Joe Trippi – the big time Democratic political media consultant (he ran Howard Dean’s presidential campaign) will be there to speak.
Joe Trippi and team will also help attendees roll out the Best Friends “Solution” on a national basis – meaning he has put together a suite of Internet-based political organizing and marketing tools to help them accomplish their goals.
Joe Trippi is also a media strategist & expert – placing ads & PR stories on behalf of his political clients.
Joe is already working his media contacts & posting about the conference on his blog – he’s got a story pitched to CBS and now he asked that people vote on it to promote the Best Friends story to air on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, Assignment America.
Unfortunately, the people voted to see this report on this event. Last week, October 6th, Steve Hartman welcomed 300 animal refugees to America — all from the recent conflict in Lebanon.
You can only send comments regarding a report within 72 hours, then it’s closed.
If you happen to be a Dem or Progressive – please be sure to give Joe an earful on his blog. http://www.joetrippi.com/ I wonder how much they are paying him???
http://www.thedogplace.org/Articles/Politics/0610.BestFriends.Summit.htm
Best Friend’s Animal Sanctuary
Dangerous Dog Summit
A First-Hand Summary by Randi Bolton
On October 27 – 29, 2006, I took the plunge and attended the “emergency” Dangerous Dog Summit, sponsored by Best Friend’s Animal Sanctuary (BFAS) held in Lakewood, CO which lies in the shadow of Denver, CO and its breed ban. Prior to attending the summit, I received numerous emails about BFAS but attended the summit with an open mind.
Here is my summary of the 2.5 day summit:
One word – scary. On the evaluation I turned in, I was very honest and let them know I could not support their efforts because of their thoughts on potential model-dog legislation and their 3-point national initiative. (*See Below) I feel that the AKC, UKC, national & local breed clubs, any person who loves their dogs and wants to have the right to keep them, need to band together to develop our own initiative for model-dog legislation to counter what BFAS will be proposing. BFAS has lots of backing, both from volunteers as well as funders, and is very well organized. They are approaching this like a political campaign and actually have two very experienced campaigners in their ranks (Joe Trippi and John Hinko).
The folks from BFAS talked about compromise but when we broke up into discussion groups and started talking about potential legislative points, the BFAS folks kept pushing their initiatives, especially breeder/breeding regulations. It was my impression that they have no intentions of compromising on any of their initiatives.
Debbie Stafford – from Denver – did an impromptu visit. I spoke with her after her speech and offered my assistance to her in fighting the breed ban in Denver, if she is re-elected. She had some great ideas:
1) focus on a single state where you know you have a good chance of winning
2) challenge home rule
3) change “dangerous dog” to “irresponsible owner” legislation
4) tougher consequences (fines, jail time) for people involved in illegal activities or have had a dog they own bite/attack, etc. (depending on the circumstances)
Key takeaways (I won’t go into my opinions on these as I believe all or most of us share the same opinions):
Offer up other type of legislation as an alternative to BSL (breed-specific legislation), such as breeder/breeding restrictions, anti-tethering laws (does the name Tammy Grimes ring a bell? Yes, Ms. Grimes attended as a guest speaker. Her motivation behind anti-tethering laws is that she was bitten by a tethered dog)
Formulate breeder/breeding restrictions – didn’t get into specifics – did mention mandatory registration of breeders and licensing. (called them “exploitive” breeders). Sounds good on the surface for curtailing BYB, puppy mills but this one really scared me
Consider dogs as part of the family and nothing more – the BFAS person went on to talk about the “cruelty” of dog events. No more dog shows – conformation or performance, folks!
Push guardian language in any type of animal ordinances, do away with dog “ownership”; elevating animals, specifically dogs, to the same level as humans
Craft public service announcements (no focal point at this time) – talked about educating the public about safety around dogs
Push mandatory temperament testing
Push mandatory spay/neuter – any dogs that were not registered breeding dogs would fall into this requirement. Gee, I guess those of us that show in conformation but don’t breed would either have to get a breeder’s license or stop showing and spay/neuter our dogs.
Push the Brandenburg Edict (** See Below) – this was coming from BFAS’s attorney – he evaded the issue of the breed specific language as well as the height/weight restrictions. If you haven’t read the Brandenburg Edict, you need to. Close to 20 breeds are automatically classified as dangerous dogs as are any dog over 15 inches or weighing more that 44 pounds.
It amazed me that the premise of this summit was for good, sane, well-written, enforceable breed-neutral dog ordinances and yet BFAS came up with all these points that support breed-specific dog legislation. Several points they want to propose are subjective (”exploitive” breeder, temperament testing, aggression) and may be hard to define.
Michael Mountain, president and founder of BFAS, talked about a recent poll they did. In one question, (can’t remember the phrasing) the result was that breeders are responsible and should be held accountable for the actions of dogs they have bred. Another question indicated by almost 70% that owners were responsible for dog bites and attacks; less than 20% felt the breeder was responsible for the dog’s actions. The questions seemed to contradict each other. The poll is the basis for many of the points BFAS wants to include in their national initiative for dog legislation. I searched BFAS’ website and was unable to find the poll.
Many of the guest speakers quoted CDC statistics in supporting their views. None of them acknowledged that the CDC does not support using their statistics for developing dog legislation and even admits to the inaccuracy of the data.
There was a tremendous focus on gang violence and dog fighting by gang members. I pointed out that in Colorado and many other states, that yes, dog fighting by gang members may be a factor, but they also had to look at the cultural issues – in certain cultures, dog fighting is a part of life. Dog fighting is legal in several states and, though I am against dog fighting, until it is banned, there is little that can be done legally. Several people pointed out that it’s not the dog-fighting dogs that are biting; it’s the family pets that have been improperly (or not) trained and socialized.
BFAS spent time commenting about Denver, its breed ban and the number of pitties murdered here. However, they spent no time calling out other cities that have breed bans and have murdered as many if not more pitties than Denver. A shelter worker from Ohio indicated that, so far this year, they have put down over 2,000 pitties in his city. And, this is WITH a state-wide law declaring Pit Bulls as dangerous dogs.
BFAS is planning to build this into a grassroots movement – they have over 300K members so the effort will be huge. They are supported by prominent attorneys, legislators, people who investigate dog bite fatalities (Jim Crosby), ACOs.
I believe most of the information from the summit will be posted to their website. BFAS has a network community (basically blogs) and they are encouraging people to join, comment, support their efforts at breed-specific dog legislation.
People warned me before going to this summit but I never thought it would be this frightening! BFAS picked the perfect weekend for this summit (Halloween weekend.)
(*) model-dog legislation and their 3-point national initiative
(**) Brandenburg Edict
Randi Bolton randigb@comcast.net
ARC (American Rottwieler Club)
AKC Legislative Liaison – Colorado, MHRC
Do dog need “best friends” as a “best friend?”…No…I don’t think so…..
And those “rescuers” that do STEAL dogs ARE getting busted.
http://www.thedogplace.org/Articles/Politics/SPCA_Steals_Dogs.20-20.05.htm
Its only a matter of time before these people get caught as well.
Trumped up evidence, outright lies, doctored photographs are nothing new in this game. It’s the way it’s been played for a very long time. Don’t be naive. YES, some breeders SHOULD be shut down…but way to many are just being targeted because they have marketable dogs to bring in big donations……
Oh look more on “best friends” or could it just be “saaaataaaaan???”
http://www.rickross.com/reference/process_church/process_church2.html
I really and truly hope that EVERYONE supporting BF and the Obion county HS will go to that site and look at those horrid photos.
Now…lets look at the facts as we know them.
*The Fairs are under fire because they kept their dogs on wire.
(yet 95% of the photos are dogs in the dirt)
*By the photos from the seizure we know the fairs bred SMALL FUZZY DOGS, usually shih tzu or Poms, any short haired dogs were frenchies or something similar
(THE DOGS IN THE PHOTOS ARE MOSTLY IN DISCRIMINANT BREEDS, Most look like mongrels and probably one JRT I think I saw some bostons but it was hard to tell)
*This seizure happened in the summer
(all the trees are bare of leaves)
So firstly we know IF these pictures are real they are NOT current nor or they even of the current property (glimpse of the house can tell you that). They are NOT of the CURRENT kennel. They are not of CURRENT situation and at this point I would be highly suspicious that they are even remotely accurate. It is obviously a blatant attempt to influence the public through misinformation.
But more than anything else. It shows WHAT extent these groups will go to to get their way, even fabrication of evidence. It shows that they are incapable of honesty. Incapable of being non partisan. In fact they are non capable of justice, since justice must be blind and deal with the facts.
If you would read all the comment you and anyone else could plainly see that this link is to the 2004 puppy mill bust on the Fairs property when they lived in Dyer. Co. It was early spring. The pics were taken by Dyer Co. Humane Society and Dyer Co. Sheriff’s dept. This following several complaints from citizens. Nothing has been doctored. They raise poodles, shih tzus, bichons, Dachshunds,bostons, french bulldogs, JRTs, + mix breeds. Yes some are long haired breeds and many are short haired. French bulldogs being the favored due to higher price they demanded from the sell of pups. The pics of this bust is almost the same as the one made recently. Believe or not. Ask the people that were there that do not belong to the HS. Ask the neighbors and some of the family members that have stated themselves that what they are doing is wrong and deplorable and how ashamed they are of them. But anyway you chose to believe, it’s evident that you are a big supporter of puppy mills and probably are one yourself. It’s sad how some people will do anything for a buck. How some people will try to made the wrong look right. There are those that know the truth and you are not one of them.
“It’s sad how some people will do anything for a buck. How some people will try to made the wrong look right. There are those that know the truth and you are not one of them.”
Just because you say it is their place doesn’t make it so. If it was it was terrible and they should have been punished but they were not, as the charges were dropped. It still does not mean that that represents the hear and now. Just because a person has done wrong in the past it does not mean that wrong should follow them through out their life.
Again. I find it very strange the inconsistencies of those photos and the idea that those photos are being used to incite a hate campaign speaks volumes.
I want to see justice done. This means being non biased. Which I realize is a very difficult concept for you and your kind to have. It still does not change the situation. These people’s constitutional rights were violated. At that point it would not matter if they were guilty of murder, those involved have lost credence…If you want people to believe you then you have to come by things honestly, not bending things the way you want them to be.
Which is what has happened in this case…
Once again the pics are of the place they lived before in Dyer CO. Not where they are now. They were charged but got a pre-trial deversion when they plea bargined with the attorneys. They were not allowed to own any dogs for a year and/or breed. This was their first offense and they got off with a fine and little else. Tennessee animal cruelty laws are very lax. Everyone involved just wanted this thing to go away. It was drug out for several months. The conditions this time are the same. They were forewarned 2 weeks ahead of time that they were going to be busted. They had ample time to clean and dispose of alot.
Complaints from people in the neighborhood,(one being a church), were coming in almost every week. Reports of sick puppies being sold were coming in from people buying them. No matter what you or the rest of the puppy mill supporters think or say, what these people do does not make it right. They operate one in Kentucky right now. Hopefully one day a law will be passed to ban/outlaw any and all puppy millers. The pics are real and it’s their old residence in Newbern. Pics from the present bust are not out till after this is resolved. It does no good to argue or debate with people who’s beliefs about right and wrong are so different from your own. I know in my heart what is right and what is true. What goes around comes around and one day this will come back in their faces full force. I hope I see that day.
“Once again the pics are of the place they lived before in Dyer CO. Not where they are now.”
Again, so you say. And you are only supported by what “best friends” and the HS that is under questioning, says. I’m sorry, that’s not proof.
Labels on pictures, which the validity of cannot be proven, means nothing.
Any one can take a picture of any place and call it what ever they want. I don’t know if those pictures are accurate and any one with any sense of wanting justice would want validation and proof that the pictures are actually of where you claim them to be.