Mass Senate Bill 767 Right to sue for perceived animal abuse

Knob Creek

NES Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
10,937
Likes
9,203
Location
South Coast Mass
Feedback: 101 / 0 / 0
More frivolous lawsuits:

Massachusetts State Senator Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) recently introduced a bill that would allow private individuals to file a lawsuit for the “protection and humane treatment of animals.” This is of great concern for all sportsmen, farmers, and dog owners.

“Under this bill, animal rights activists would be able to sue anyone – including sportsmen, farmers, and dog owners – whenever and wherever they think animal cruelty is being committed,” said Evan Heusinkveld, USSA’s Director of Government Affairs. “This could force sportsmen and women who have done nothing wrong to spend thousands of dollars to defend themselves against animal rights zealots looking to take them to court.”

For example, if an animal rights activist thinks common dog training practices—such as using a shock collar or tethering—are inhumane, they would now be able to sue the sporting dog owner or trainer claiming animal cruelty. Likewise, an activist that disapproves of certain farming practices could sue farmers for the practices they consider cruel. Even if a judge ultimately throws out the case, the animal’s owner will likely have had to spend a good deal of money and time fighting the bogus lawsuit.
- See more at: Massachusetts Bill Allows Animal Rights Activists to Sue Sportsmen | U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
 
Votes for dogs!

No Ken'L'Ration without representation!

No Justice! No fleas!

May your leashes rest lightly upon you as you sniff the asses of your oppressors!
 
This sounds like a filed by request type of bill. This is not the first time that the animal rights industry and/or its supporters have tried to get legal status to intervene in somebody elses business. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that these zealots will, with backing from the MSPCA, HSUS, PETA, etc.. use this law to sue animal use by ordinary citizens into oblivion. They will just bury people with legal fees and make it unaffordable for people to fight back.
 
They just keep on trying to chip away at us. My local paper did an article yesterday that listed 8 proposed animal rights bills, and one bill requiring written owners permission to be on someone's land for hunting or trapping purposes, which I thought was a law already.
 
and who would be the recipient of the funds? the animal?

Years ago I had a black lab that barked in his kennel, not all the time, and ended up with the dog officer at my door. He recommended that I buy a shock collar to prevent being taken to court by a group of elderly called the "Grey Panthers". So i bought the collar and a few weeks later I had a note and business card on my door from the MSPCA. A neighbor called me in for animal cruelty for putting the shock collar on the dog! You can't f****** win with these people no matter what you do.
 
No, It is not. Here in New England we have what is called the open field doctrine. If the property is not posted or you have not prohibited from being there by the owner or agent, then you can be there. There are certain rules that apply such as, you not walk through cultivated fields.

Also YOU CANNOT BE SUED if you allow your property to be used for a recreational purpose with out charging a fee for such use.

In New Hampshire, yes. This is NOT the case here in Connecticut. You need the landowner's written permission (at least for deer/turkey hunting):
http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2700&q=514450&deepNav_GID=1633#PERMISSION
 
Last edited:
You should have called the MSPCA agent and told them they come on the property again, that they better have a warrant. If not you will have them charged for trespass after notice.

This. In Spades. Humane Society enforcement officers act as though they are real police officers. They are not. They are special state police officers with a narrowly limited statutory authority. They serve at the pleasure of the Colonel of the State Police who "may" license them for one year. This license is subject to review, revocation or non-renewal if the Colonel so decides. These "specials" have over-stepped their authority in the past and have been warned by the State Police. If an MSPCA or Animal Rescue League enforcement officer shows up on your property make sure he has a warrant (they will nearly always be accompanied by the local P.D. if they do). If they don't order them to leave or you'll call the real police and have them removed.
Every so often these cat cops will try to step into the statutory domain of the Environmental Police when they think nobody is watching. They are subject to arrest if they do, and they know it.
Trust me on this.
 
A few years ago I caught a nosy distant PETA loving neighbor in my back yard because the "poor little doggy" was tied on her run and barking.
I told that bitch ( the neighbor) to stay put while I let the poor doggy loose so she could find out how much the doggy appreciated her efforts while I called the cops to let them know there was a shredded stranger on my property.
That old clambag beat feet some fast.
 
Key word here ( perceived ) like many other laws, make shit up as we go and see what sticks.

Do harm to an animal you get sued

Have sex with an animal A-OK

Lord the Button pushers in this State blow.
 
I just sent a polite message via Facebook to Ben Swan...."Why in the world would you co-sponsor a bill (S767) that would let every crack-pot in this state sue someone else for "Perceived" animal abuse. Seriously....are there not enough frivolous lawsuits tying up our courtrooms today? The courts need to be open to prosecute real criminals.....So if I see you shoo your cat into your house using a loud voice, I can sue you for animal cruelty?...Just because I "perceive" you to be cruel to your cat? Come on now....We pay you to do a job for us. This does not help anyone...only makes lawyers richer and ties up the courts."
 
Back
Top Bottom