Property Rights and Right and Wrong

I had some questions asked following my post yesterday about ARC and Scotlund Haisley. There's lots of information about Mr. Haisley online. I particularly like Blue Dog State's write-up about him in 2010 where there are some details about Mr. Haisley's employment history, complete with photos of him kicking in doors and mishandling dogs. Haisley has worked for In Defense of Animals and HSUS, though he was let go from both places, perhaps because of the lawsuits that followed his raids.

You can also read about Haisley in an earlier San Francisco Gate article which provides some personal background.

As for ARC (Animal Rescue Corps), Haisley formed them last year. They are funded by radical animal rights groups like Ady Gil World Conservation group, the same people who fund the Sea Shepherd Foundation and anti-whaling activities, and who aren't afraid to get violent. They are also funded by the Arthur E. Benjamin Foundation which funds lots of animal rights groups. These financial backers are not secret. They routinely put out press releases when ARC conducts one of their animal seizures. I would imagine that anyone who sues ARC and Haisley for illegal animal seizures can expect to be paid lots of money if they win their case. Or perhaps they can accept a big payoff to make the case go away with such rich friends.

I was also contacted by the person who originally posted ARC's plea for donations. She wanted to know what I had against an animal group raising money for a roof. I have to admit that I literally laughed out loud. I don't have anything against animal groups raising money for roofs or for any legitimate purposes. However, I DO have a big problem with dishonesty and with trying to personally benefit by seizing someone else's animals.

Whether or not this situation involved a "dog fighting ring" or any other kind of animal activity that people don't approve of is for the courts to decide. It should not be left up to a group of animal rights vigilantes to come in and take someone's animals. Once those animals were in ARC's custody, ARC is a very well-funded organization and they do not need money from the public to care for the dogs. It is disingenuous for them to solicit money from the public to care for the dogs and then for someone to say, "We're going to use this money to put a roof on a building for this animal group."

You can't just seize someone's animals in order to use them to raise money for your own plans. By all means, let the animal group have a fundraiser or do other things to raise money for their roof. Go for it! But, you can't take money under false pretenses (i.e., we need the money to "care" for the dogs). You can't seize animals just because you don't approve of the owners or how they care for the dogs if they are not actually breaking the law. And at this point the owners have not had their day in court. All too often, not just in Tennessee but everywhere, dogs are seized and spayed/neutered, and even adopted out to new owners before the owners even make a court appearance or see a judge. Dogs and other animals are PROPERTY. They have financial value. No one should be able to do anything permanent with these animals before an owner has due process in a court of law. To be picky about it, the dogs are EVIDENCE. How can an owner receive any kind of justice when animal groups are busy spaying, neutering, and adopting out the animals before the owner has ever gone to court?

Unfortunately, the law is circumvented in many states and dogs are long gone before an owner can do anything to stop it, whether they are innocent or guilty, no matter how they might plead in court. All that's left is for them to try to save themselves and for the animal groups to go on asking for money. And yet, the owner will be expected to pay for the care of the dogs while the seizing groups have custody of them -- in addition to the money the groups raise from the public. Is that double dipping?

But for a group to try to raise money for a roof from the seized dogs is pretty hard to swallow, especially when the main group that took the dogs is so very well-funded and does not need public money to care for them.

If there is one thing for you to understand from this situation, it is this: we ALL have rights, whether we are likable or not. It doesn't matter if you like what I do with my property, you cannot come to my house and just take it, then auction it off so you can put a roof on your building. Now, we have laws, and if someone is breaking the law, then qualified law enforcement, with a duly sworn WARRANT, should step in and take action. Then the offender can have his day in court. Due process should be followed. But that still doesn't give vigilantes the right to come on someone's property and take something they like. You don't get to decide, "Hey, I don't like what they're doing. I'm going to take their stuff." Even if their "stuff" is dogs.

I know we seem to live in a time when property rights are not respected and people don't seem to understand right and wrong anymore, but that's still the law. It seems like people understand that if one person takes your dog, it's theft. But when it's an animal group with a cute name and they say they're doing it "for the animals," people can't comprehend that it's still theft.