This is a booklet of animal laws. It is not a how to book or even an interpretation of what the laws mean. It is a good thing to have, although we have found out it doesn't mean much without a lawyer.
Yeah. Great Booklet. Used to be on the LAAS Website, but it was taken off. It was a fraud.
I was using the stuff in the dog section to report someone who was not treating their dog according to the "law" indicated in the booklet, and contacted LAAS and the SPCA.
SPCA officer looked up the stuff I was referring to and called LAAS to remove it. He said the booklet was written by some people who committed fraud by writing it and trying to pass it as law; then they skipped town.
So, it's no longer up on the website.
Too bad cause I really liked the stuff about flea control and making sure your dog and cat have adequate space and shelter, including specific temperature indications, etc. But, it's all a fraud. I felt horrible.
Too bad cause the booklet talks about responsible ownership and such. A real bummer book's a fake. Wish it were law.
That's not true about that booklet. Two lawyers wrote that booklet for BHLE which was an SPCA. SPCALA didn't want competition so they made up lies about BHLE being ALF and such. Those things were not true. They were not a fraud. They had their officers go through all training and paperwork. When it came time to swear in, the judge said they didn't have to raise their hand and swear on a bible. The officers wanted to swear in. The judge said they didn't have to. After a bust another another attorney told the judge that they didn't swear in. The judge apologized for not swearing them in, then he disallowed the search warrant and dropped the case. The people from BHLE are still in LA though the CEO moved to Hawaii with her husband.
yes, now I remember, it was a couple of lawyers who wrote the booklet and tried to pass it as law.
I asked the SPCA officer why things such as making sure responsible ownership can't be enforced; things like monthly applications of frontline or Advantage on your cat and dog, 250 square feet of space required for each cat, provision of shelters that do not exceed 80 degrees Farenheit during the summer heat, and something like they need to maintain 56 degrees warmth during the cold. You can look it up.
So many people have loads of animals, both cats and dogs without adequate space according to the specifications of the booklet, no shelter with any protection from the elements and certainly nothing that keeps their body heat in tact during the cold or rainy nights, and the dog houses, if there are any, are plastic pieces of shit without adequate protection from the heat and cold.
People have a ton of cats and stuff them in a back room somewhere or let 'em roam around in the yard without even a bed to sleep on, and they're full of fleas and worms.
The officer said you can't enforce the things written in the book, and they won't stand up in court. So, they took it off.
If the above were really law, as the booklet states, and it was all enforceable, I would be the first to make sure that animal collectors, hoarders, and cat feeders who don't provide adequate care for their animals according to the specifications written in the booklet were cited. As it is, LAAS can't do anything about these people. They leave the feeders alone, and they certainly don't go after them for not spaying and neutering the animals they're feeding.
The booklet is a superb guide to proper care of your animals, that's for sure. But a lot of the stuff in it isn't enforceable.
Poster 3, maybe you were looking at pet store requirements. They require a certain amount of space. People just have to give bare minimum food, water, shelter, veterinary care to animals. In LA they need protection from elements if they're outside, can't be tied up, need veterinary care. I think flea control would be veterinary care.
The spcala will only go after people if they believe conditions are so bad that the animal's life is in danger. They're too busy to go after all the bad owners. There are too many of them. spcala will step in if the animal is extremely emaciated, extremely dehydrated, has no fur from mites, has a major untreated injury. It's not the law that is the problem, it is lack of uniform enforcement
Right, poster #4. Exactly the point I was trying to make about the booklet being so detailed about the things I mentioned that it is impossible for Animal Control officers or SPCA officers to go after these people and enforce the "laws" that the booklet outlines on regarding space requirements, shelter, and everything else I mentioned.
It's the booklet that enumerates the stuff. That's where I got the details from when the "law enforcement field guide" booklet was still up on the La Animal SErvices website a few months ago.
A really nice SPCA officer notified LAAS about the details being erroneous and not law related at all, so they took it down. That's why I said that the SPCA officer said that the lawyers who wrote it were commiting fraud when they wrote it.
I still like the details, and so wish it were law, but not possible to go after all the people in regard to the thorough details re: responsible animal ownership and care, and it's relationship to the law.
Thanks for your input. I totally understand your point. We couldn't possible enforce everything that booklet outlines and says it's law. Officers spend their time on the really urgent stuff. The SPCA officer that told me that the book was fraud and was not law at all, told me about the basics that you just mentioned. He said that's all that is required. Not all the other stuff outlined in the book.
Too bad, cause I got totally excited about it and started complaining about the dogs from down the street who were caged up for a year in the back yard of the owner's home. No shelter. No shade, and it was hot. They just put a wooden board over the top of the cage and called it shelter.
The dogs were cramped in that cage. The officer was kind enough to go out there, and LAAS took care of the situation. The people relinquished one of the poor dogs and left the lonely dog behind. The owners finally built a dog run for the dog and built a dog house for him. He's still in the sun, and caged up, and no one ever pays attention to the dog or takes him out for a walk, and the poor dog is always sad, but between the SPCA officer and LAAS, they got the dog a much better situation. Took a whole year to get the owners to do anything. They didn't want to build a fence for the dog so that he could run around in the yard.
When the dog was in a cage, an officer kept telling me that was no problem as long as the dog can move around. That was very upsetting cause the dog was going to spend his life in that situation, and then they put a second dog in the cage with him and it was so hot last summer when I was complaining about the issue.
I reiterated all the stuff that the booklet stated about the specific dimensions required for each dog so that he could have humane treatment and enough space. I told them about the booklet and how it stated that the dog needed to be in shade during the summer and was supposed to be in a place no hotter than 80 degrees, etc., and that the dog was always scratching, so he had no flea control, apparently. I named everything in the booklet that supposedly stated was law. The officers had never heard of what I was talking about, including the SPCA officer. I kept telling them that all the details were in the Law Enforcement Field Guide, section such and such, and I gave them the page numbers. I wrote them emails and took the references right out of the book. The SPCA officer looked it up, found what I had been talking about and that's when he told me it was all fraud and the fact that the booklet was written by a couple of lawyers. That's why the book sounded so legal. But it wasn't real. It was jargon.
At least it tells interested people how to care for their animals if they want to do it right. I like the booklet. IT's just not the law, that's all. I totally get your point, though. It's exactly what the SPCA officer and other officers I talked to told me.
Hey you guys. This is not a chat room for stories about a bad public. That goes without saying.
This is LA Animal Watch. I look at the shelters, management, City Hall, laws, local animal matters--things we can reasonably change and which will impact tens of thousands of animals locally as well as a blueprint for no kill.
To talk about horrible hoarders living in filth, bad dog owners, etc., is beyond what we can reasonably do.
So, some of the public are nasty.
But what do you want to do about it? Do as you norally do for the animals but let's concentrate on actions where a few hundred people can save thousands of lives.
Withour political power, real animal welfare laws will not happen.
I can't post anymore comments about individual experiences with a nasty public.
OOPS! Sorry about the chit-chat, Mr. Muzika! Won't do it again.
Thanks for the reiteration about the things to look forward to and the things that can be changed.
"I can't post anymore comments about individual experiences with a nasty public."
Except as it relates to the no-kill equation? I don't mean we should indulge in drawn-out diatribes, but I do think it's relevant to the debate because, in Winograd's assessment at least, the public plays such a key role and, as we've clearly all experienced, the public (not meaning us of course, 'cause we're *perfect* (: ) is not a variable that can be relied upon.
Post a Comment