Laws and Rescue Groups According to ARs+Which Animals Kill People

https://www.animallaw.info/intro/laws-regulating-rescue-and-foster-care-programs-companion-animals

Below is information that was posted to the above site link, most of which is animal rights leaning. We have long noticed a tendency for the site to post articles, and cases which seem to take the side of activists but will skimp on the cases that favor the winning side,  if the winner was human and not the "animal."  We also never use the term "companion" animals, we always use either "animal" "pet" or "owned" animal.
Owners have paramount rights over animals, period. Animal rights people believe that people should have no ownership of animals, that animals should not be used in entertainment, that animals should not be used for food or anything else that humans may want or like. Such as horses pulling carriages in Central Park in New York; sled dog races, the circus, the rodeo, etc.  The fact that some people may be negligent will not change animals into children. The word "guardian" is not something we use either. A guardian is lifted from child welfare statutes. It confers NO OWNERSHIP, therefore we do not use that term. It is an activist term to which none of us subscribe.

Further-- the author of the "article" is ...part of the ALDF (Animal Legal Defense Fund), Student affiliation, so they can recruit animal activists........

Student Animal Legal Defense Fund (SALDF)

SALDF is a student group that is affiliated with the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) and shares its mission to protect the lives and advance the interests of animals through the legal system. The goals of SALDF include educating the University of Denver community about forms of institutionalized animal abuse, understanding how the law can be used to combat animal abuse, and supporting the larger Denver community in its efforts to improve animal welfare.SALDF sponsors fundraisers for local animal welfare agencies, promotes animal cruelty awareness through school events, and educates students on available career paths in animal law. Officers, Titles, and Contact President: Jessica Leabo Vice President: Kristen pariser. 

Overview of Laws Regulating Rescue and Foster Care Programs for Companion Animals
Kristen Pariser (2014)

"The types of people who work in rescue and foster care programs are often very passionate and caring; running these organizations requires a lot of patience and access to resources. However, there has been a lack of regulations and oversight in monitoring these groups. Additional legislation defining these organizations and laws to require licensing and inspections will ensure all organizations are accountable to the animals they shelter."

"Although there are few states that currently define these groups, other general laws on animal facilities may be able to be applied. The first step to becoming a rescue or a foster care provider is to be licensed. Because there is no national law regulating these organizations, the requirements will vary from one state to another, and even from one city to another. In some states, a rescue or foster home may be regulated like a commercial kennel or similar to a shelter. The organizations may be subject to inspections from the Department of Agriculture or they may opt to work under contract as an agent of the shelter. Some states will have no regulations and simply leave it up to the city or county to regulate permitting and enforcement of the rescue and foster groups."

Note by author of this blog: In CA it is not generally required to be "licensed" in general in order to "rescue" an animal such as a dog, cat, bird by the State; some cities/counties may require a local license but generally, shelters do not require a 501(c)(3) to pull animals necessarily; and rehoming without a 501(c)(3) is usually not illegal, since non profits can exist WITHOUT a 501(c)(3). Animal control limit laws usually do not exempt rescues, so some rescues warehouse in rural areas. Kennel permits are usually quite expensive and are discretionary approval based in most cases. Often septic systems are required and a host of other codes in regard to building will apply. Often the permit application fee is not refundable and can be thousands of dollars.  For exotics, it is an entirely different setup with federal regulations and is both somewhat complex and difficult, especially where activists do not want many species to be owned, bought or sold, even bred species such as tropical birds or fish.  

"Once the organization becomes licensed the group will need to acquire companion animals to begin their work saving and re-homing the animals. This can lead to issues because under the law animals are still considered property and can be the subject of contractual agreements. Disputes over ownership can happen. When this occurs a court will look to see if a valid contract was in place. Next, it will look at the terms of the contract and determine which party has breached those contract terms. Many shelters will contract with rescues and foster care providers and depending on how the contract is drafted, the shelter will either retain ownership of the animals or will transfer ownership over to the receiving party. A rescue group will also set up contractual agreements with their foster parent volunteers. Contracts with dog breeders can also become a problem if a rescue takes a dog surrendered by its owner when the animal should have been returned to the breeder according to its purchase contract."

Note by blog author: We never use the word "foster parent" as no foster family is the 'parent' to an animal, period. An animal is not a child. It may be a temporary foster home, kennel or other setting, but in no instance is the fostering considered a parental unit. In fact, the foster entity normally is not ultimately responsible for the animal legally, but the rescue likely would be. SELECTING the foster unit may cause further liability to the rescue itself since a foster may not know what they are doing and then allow the animal to cause harm to a child or other prospective buyer. Further, legal issues can arise pitting the rescue against the actual buyer of the animal in the event that the rescue claims to still "own" the animal even when the buyer has already purchased it. Using the word "adoption" does not mean no ownership transfers. If a rescue claims to own property that has already been sold, then there was not a sale, but something else. These circumstances can cause expensive legal bills and should be avoided. This addresses the alleged "flipping" mentioned below, claiming that an animal is "resold" for "a profit."

"Pet flipping is also becoming an animal welfare concern in the world of adoptions. Pet flipping is where someone finds a dog for adoption and then turns around and re-sells the animal for a profit. Rescue and foster groups are now considering revising pet adoption contracts to prohibit adopters from re-homing an animal once it is adopted. This as a practical matter could be difficult to enforce and retaining certain rights over the animal after it is sold can possibly leave a rescue or foster open to further liabilities."

Note by blog author: "Flipping" is constantly done by RESCUES. "For a profit" is simply the animal activists way of saying that selling an animal should NEVER result in a "profit." Well guess what? Many rescues sell animals for a profit. They only make money by selling animals and by gaining donations. If they don't get donations then they gain by selling the animal. If they cannot keep afloat by either means, then they shouldn't be in business, BECAUSE rescuing animals is quite expensive to do. If rescues are set up in BUSINESS, being a non profit does NOT mean they cannot make a profit. In fact, ASPCA and HSUS are huge examples of profit making "non profits" just like the huge cancer groups that take millions of donations. Their profits are used to keep their work going in theory but the reality is, HSUS for example, spends plenty on pension funding, lobbying, and advertising on TV. So much so, that HSUS has bragged for years on end, that they go from the state capitols to the Congress to the courts.

"The legal complexities however don’t just end with licensing and acquiring companion animals. Rescues and foster care providers must also abide by several other laws when operating their non-profit organization. A majority of the states have a spaying and neutering requirement that applies to both shelters and other releasing agencies. In addition, there has been a trend in animal rescue groups to travel across state lines and bring animals from high-kill shelters in the south to the north for fostering. Some northern states have instituted new laws and regulations in response, which may require quarantine, health certificates or additional veterinary inspections to help reduce the spread of contagious disease."

Note by blog author: There are far more laws than several. Activist animal rights people are CONSTANTLY telling people how we owners should do everything, they insist on telling us where we MUST obtain a pet. They insist on claiming we have no right to choice as to what we buy. That we must all buy what they want US to own. HA. Not in our opinion.

"Many cities and counties may also have pet limit ordinances that limit how many pets an individual can keep at one given time. Courts have upheld these statutes as being constitutional, therefore, rescues that use foster homes will need to be sure that all volunteers abide by the statutes. In addition to pet limit laws, private nuisance and zoning laws can limit the number of animals that can be kept in residential zones. Rescues and fosters should also be aware of local tethering laws. Some cities may have anti-tether laws that prohibit tethering and others may permit it under limited circumstances. All rescue and foster volunteers should be sure to have the appropriate type of housing for securing the companion animals that they house."

"Another issue that rescues and foster groups can run in to is breed specific legislation, which will prohibit owning and keeping certain breeds of dogs that have been deemed dangerous. Rescue groups wanting to help those breeds of dogs will have to operate outside of the city limits where breed specific legislation has been enacted."

Note by blog author: BSL laws, while disfavored, do not deem all dogs listed as necessarily dangerous, but simply are lists of dogs that the city or county claims are dangerous due to the statistics used by insurance companies, based on dog bites. Thus, certain breeds can be on a list even if NOT deemed dangerous. Like Saint Bernard, Great Pyr, and others.

"Regardless of which dog breeds a rescue or foster group works with, it is important to have liability insurance. A majority of states have strict liability dog bite statutes, which mean that even if a rescue or foster volunteer does not intend for someone to get hurt, the owner or keeper of the dog will still be held liable for damages caused by the dog."

Note by blog author: In California, the dog's owner is subject to strict liability. If a rescue takes in a dog, it owns the dog. If the rescue fails to tell the truth about a biting dog, or a dog with dangerous propensities, or a dog that has bitten many times, the rescue is in trouble. If the rescue tells an owner it will not own the dog but will find it a home, and knows of the bad behavior of the dog, the rescue can still be sued. No rescue should be rehoming dogs with questionable or known bad propensities. 

Most rescues are NOT professional dog handlers, dog behaviorists, or dog professional anything, period. Which is why we see "rescue" people in the news, getting KILLED by having 3-7 rescues dogs or even 1 rescue dog, which kills the rescuer, seriously maims the rescuer, or may even kill children. In most cases, the killed or maimed "rescuer" was female.

Over half of dog-human fatalities is likely attributable to REHOMED dogs.  This fact is not broadcast widely, [because animal rights activists don't want to admit that rehomed dogs can present huge liability problems, legal issues, behavioral issues, health issues and even huge danger]  but when only about 15-18% of dogs are sourced from rescued/rehomed/shelter-- and they are responsible (in fatalties) at over 50% of the killings nationwide, we can see that the chances of it being "coincidental" is impossible. Note that nothing was stated about "breed" of dog, despite the generic "pitbull" label assigned to most dog attacks in the media.

If only 37 dogs per year kill 37 people, it is nearly impossible to find that half of the killings would be done by the minimal percent (15-18%) of rescued/rehomed/shelter animals. Yet because it is true, we can see that this huge unlikely fact means that rehomed/rescue/shelter animals pose far greater risk of harm to people than just regular dogs obtained as puppies, NOT from shelters, which stay with a family from day one.  As yet another example of this, a Bay Area guy bought a dog from the shelter; it was pregnant apparently, and he kept the dog and at least one puppy. He ended up with 4-5 of such dogs, and they ended up killing his step-grandson in the garage. 
           First, no one should be keeping 5 dogs in the garage. Second, no one should leave a child with even 1-2 dogs, much less more. Third, the door to the house leading to garage was obviously not secure. Fourth, the owners should have known better than to keep more than 2 of such dogs when they didn't know anything about the breed, propensity, or other behaviors of such shelter animals. It was NOT surprising to find the owner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter.  Rescued animals killed the child.

Trial begins for step-grandfather of Concord child killed by ...

www.contracostatimes.com/.../trial-begins-grandfathe...

Contra Costa Times

Aug 21, 2013 - Trial begins for step-grandfather of Concord child killed by pit bulls ... faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted of involuntary manslaughter and child ... morning Jacob wandered into an unlocked garage where the dogs were...

"Lastly, animal rescues and foster care providers may be entitled to reimbursement costs when taking in and caring for sick or injured animals from cruelty situations. Authority for reimbursement can come either from state statute or a judge may order the defendant to pay restitution, even when the non-profit receives donations from the public."  

Note by blog author: Yes, and here when we see this situation, is where we see the dark underbelly of rescues that seize/keep animals to profit off of them by mounting up here storage LIENS, free propaganda advertising, donation central, and in general, to profit off the situation. If you didn't know it before, you probably need to learn more about animal rights in general.