Let’s not forget who coined the term of Puppy Mill Captil of the US—HSUS in its press releases in Illinois and other states when they were trying to pass “puppy mill” laws there.  With HSUS everything in couched in humane terms with anything but humane intentions at the end.

Isn’t it interesting that HSUS will donate $450,000 toward their pet project against Puppy Mills in Mo but will not donate a dime to care for any of the dogs that they capture in their raids?    Also interesting that the legality of those raids are being challenged with judges ruling that they were conducted illegally.

How is it that the innocent still contnue to pay the “dues” for those who would wrongly accuse them?  In the case of the seized dogs, how much time and money is being wasted, on both sides of the argument, for a case that all but seems to have been created as a work of fiction?  So, assuming no wrongs were committed by the owner of the kennel where the dogs in question were seized, who pays for his attorney fees in defending himself against a seizure that should have never happened?  It would seem to me that Second Chance Rescue Center and the HSUS owe Mr. Christensen not only monies to reimburse him for his attorney fees but also for the lost sales opportunities he has missed since all of his dogs were seized.  Surely there are laws against making false statements like this and there has to be reprecussions from making such statements.