AWA Original Intent

June 7, 2012

Many of you are considering how to respond to the APHIS proposal. In doing so, have you stopped to consider from whence the AWA came?
"the stolen pet never made it upstate. Pepper had been sold instead to a research hospital... Resnick introduced a dog-napping bill... wanted government licensing for the dealers and laboratories that traded in dogs and cats, and proposed that the theft of these animals be made a federal offense"
That's right. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) was to protect personal property rights, to deal with animals being stolen from owners and sold for profit by thieves. We, the PEOPLE, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property). We, the PEOPLE, have the right to be secure in our homes, papers, and property; secure from unreasonable searches and government intrusion.

APHIS has created a rule that puts us at risk from the thieves who would enter our homes or, in the alternative, we must endure excessive and unreasonable government intrusion. The proposed APHIS rule puts our fundamental rights second to its whims. I hate to be simplistic but we, the PEOPLE, have current rights to our animals. They the public have no rights whatsoever until and if they purchase an animal. It, the government, has the duty to protect OUR rights and OUR property, not from us but from they, the public. The government has the duty to assist in keeping strangers and potential thieves OUT of our homes. The government has the duty to stay OUT of our homes and we have the right not to self incriminate, not to "speak" at all. These proposed rules turn the law on its head, reversing all the rights, duties and obligations.

The AWA was intended to protect property from others, including the government; to provide penalties for violators. APHIS must be reminded of this Constitutionally viable purpose.

APHIS must also be reminded that the government may not peek into our bedrooms to see with whom we sleep or into our homes to spy upon our children or our parenting methods, much less peek into our homes for the far lesser purpose of observing how we treat our animals. When the government arrives, it must have it's viable allegations already in hand. It is not permitted to pry open our doors and peep. The currently proposed rules are the crowbar that pries open our doors for peeping by the public and the government. Not only does this not protect our property rights, it puts them at great risk and accomplishes exactly the opposite of the AWA's original intent. APHIS should be reminded and then encouraged to restore the original intent by drafting rules in accord with that intent.

"a dog-napping bill... proposed that the theft of these animals be made a federal offense"
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/pepper/2009/06/pepper_goes_to_washington.single.html

We have been asked to be polite in our responses. I'm not sure about the rest of you but there's only so much I can take from the government before going postal (or at least using some colorful language) and we're fast approaching that point for me. (Yes mother. I can hear you from across the veil... Use my words. Yeah, well, I'm going to use ALL my words shortly on this one.)

Go Back

You mirror my thoughts on this one. The USDA's purpose is to regulate agriculture and protect our food supply, and we'd do well to realize the addition of protection of property rights as the justification to initiate the AWA. I'm suspicious about the influx of ARist employees at the USDA. I am also having trouble restraining my emotions when it comes to the government butting into our lives as regards our animals.



Comment