Posts Tagged ‘animal cruelty’

Court Upholds Law Protecting People and Pets

While the U.S. Supreme Court tomorrow will consider a landmark case on the commercial sale of videos showing illegal acts of animal torture, another decision just issued by a federal court in Louisville could also have a meaningful impact on animal protection policies nationwide. The court upheld as constitutional nearly every component of Louisville’s comprehensive animal care and control ordinance, which protects pets and their owners in the metro area.

Pitbull 
A federal court upheld Louisville’s comprehensive animal
care and control ordinance
.

The controversy began in November 2005, with two fatal attacks by pit bulls in Louisville, and city lawmakers reacted by proposing a pit bull ban. The city’s animal control ordinance was set to expire anyway, resulting from the merger of the Louisville and Jefferson County governments, so lawmakers decided to take the opportunity to address more wide-ranging problems, such as Louisville’s overpopulation of stray dogs and cats.

HSUS and other groups that oppose breed-specific legislation argued that a ban on pit bulls would be ineffective at addressing dangerous dog problems, and that other factors, such as the level of training and socialization provided by the dog’s owner, have a greater impact on aggressive behavior. To their great credit, lawmakers opted to pursue a measure that was not breed-specific but instead placed primary responsibility for a dog’s behavior on owners, and encouraged owners to consider spaying and neutering their dogs in order to decrease the likelihood of biting and aggression. 

The new law passed in 2007 not only took a proactive approach to dangerous dogs, but also strengthened other areas of the law—protecting dogs from continuous tethering, imposing certain requirements on dog owners and kennels to provide basic necessities to their dogs, disclosing information to consumers who purchase animals, and incentivizing the spaying and neutering of pets through differential licensing fees. Given that Louisville’s shelter euthanasia rate was three times the national average, something had to be done to address particularly acute and escalating animal control problems.

In their zeal to prevent any restrictions on animal use, however, the Louisville Kennel Club, local hunting organizations, and other plaintiffs filed a broad and haphazard lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of nearly two-dozen provisions of the law, including both newly enacted provisions and provisions that have existed in the Louisville animal control ordinance for years. The Kennel Club sought to invalidate the entire ordinance, which would have deprived the Louisville metro government of its ability to provide critical public safety protections for its citizens, divest the county’s animal control department of virtually every one of its functions, decriminalize acts of cruelty to animals, and put the county back on track toward becoming one of the most prolific dog and cat killing jurisdictions in the nation.

On Friday, the federal district court resoundingly rejected the Kennel Club’s challenge to the law. The court did not strike any of the language of the ordinance, and enjoined implementation of only one aspect of the law in a very narrow class of cases—the forfeiture of animals where a court has determined that there is probable cause that a violation of the law has occurred, but the owner is not able to pay a bond to cover the costs of care for the animal pending trial, and the owner is eventually acquitted of the offense. The court did not strike the bond requirement, nor the provision requiring forfeiture of animals to the metro government in certain cases after an owner is found to be in violation of the animal control ordinance.

The Kennel Club’s effort to invalidate key provisions of the ordinance was rejected over and over again in the court’s opinion. Important sections of the animal control law challenged by the Kennel Club and upheld by the court include the:

  • prohibition of cruelty to animals;
  • provisions preventing animal nuisances;
  • restrictions on tethering animals in a cruel or neglectful manner;
  • provisions concerning impoundment and license revocation;
  • restrictions on sales of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs;
  • provisions granting animal control the authority to seize animals of owners violating the ordinance;
  • requirements for veterinarians to report public health information, such as vaccination records and animal bites, to the government; and
  • definitions of “dangerous dog,” “potentially dangerous dog,” “proper enclosures” for unaltered dogs, “nuisance,” “attack,” “restraint,” and “cruelty.”

Notably, the court also resoundingly rejected the Kennel Club’s challenges to the enforcement authority of the director of Louisville Metro Animal Services, discarding the claims of “arbitrary” and “selective” enforcement. Responding to the allegation that the director intends to conduct warrantless searches in enforcing the ordinance, the court stated that the Kennel Club and other plaintiffs “are doing battle with a bogeyman of their own conjuring.”

Other municipalities have adopted more sweeping ordinances, such as pit bull bans or mandatory spay and neuter. Louisville policymakers, after a long and unusually deliberative legislative process, adopted a comprehensive but measured approach, striking a balance between the governmental interests in public health and safety and the interests of animal owners. And the court, in upholding the core provisions of the measure, sent the message that the protection of animal welfare is an important governmental responsibility.

http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2009/10/court-upholds-law-protecting-people-and-pets.html

————————————————————————————————

I seriously doubt there is a greater opponent to the Kennel Club than myself.  The biggest problem for me with that organization is the front they put on for the public. They put out propaganda that makes people think they care about specific breeds of animals and only look out for the welfare of the dogs.

Truth is they only care about their members making the most money possible. This is a pretty bold claim you may say, but I have been in and out of this business for over 20 years now and can tell you it is a fact. These people are breeders whos primary focus is to keep the industry free of regulation.

Please stop supporting these people with your donations. When I find an organization or store in my area that belongs to Kennel Club I immediately take my business elsewhere.


Bookmark & Share

New Animal Cruelty Laws in Two Unlikely Countries

New Animal Cruelty Laws in Two Unlikely Countries

by: Sharon Seltzer 1 day ago

Two far-east countries that are infamous for violations against human rights are making a very unlikely compassionate leap by instituting their first policies to protect animals.  The Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal has passed its first Animal Welfare Act and the People’s Republic of China has drafted the China Animal Protection Law.

 

The recently approved Animal Welfare Act in Nepal already has two initial projects in the works.  The building of the country’s first animal sanctuary for rescued animals and a separate sanctuary for donkeys.  Both are scheduled to open in mid October.

 

The shelter will house rescued animals and include a veterinary hospital and spay and neuter clinic.

 

The donkey sanctuary already has 14 rescued animals waiting to be transferred to the facility.  They are part of a rescue mission from one of the worst cases of animal cruelty Nepal has ever witnessed – 55 other donkeys died during that tragedy. 

 

The abuse to donkeys is widespread in Nepal because they are frequently used for labor and made to carry heavy loads on their backs.  They are crowded into small sheds and given little food or water. 

 

Animal Nepal, a network of animal rights activists, hopes the new Animal Welfare Act will, “Raise awareness against animal cruelty.”  The group has been fighting for the new law for many years.

 

The China Animal Protection Law

In China, the Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) is very proud of the drafted Animal Protection Law about to be considered by the Chinese government.  The organization has been trying to get legislation like this passed for more than a decade. 

 

Paul Littlefair, senior program manager with the RSPCA’s international department said, “It is a very significant landmark – when it is passed it will be the first time in China’s history that the state is sending a clear message to every citizen: ‘the way we treat animals, matters’.”

 

The Chinese Animal Protection Law encompasses a vast area of animal welfare. It addresses the deliberate cruelty to animals and the inhumane culling methods used against dogs. It also stops the live skinning of animals for their fur and the feeding of live farm animals to big cats in zoos and wildlife parks.

 

Overall it protects six categories of animals, those on farms, in laboratories, pets, working animals, animals in entertainment and wild animals.

 

The RSPCA is committed to staying in China to see that all of these initiatives are implemented.  The group will also promote education to the public about many of the misconceptions they have regarding animals.  Many Chinese believe the cruel practice of culling dogs is the only method of destroying rabies and are unaware that vaccines are available for both the prevention of the disease and to cure it once someone has been affected.   Furthermore the organization will help oversee that the new law is enforced. 

 

Legal experts from the government have put the final touches on the proposal and sent it to be reviewed. Chang Jiwen, who helped draft the law said, “It’s different from Western laws.  For example, we won’t require keepers to give dogs shelters as most Chinese cannot afford that.  Only people who unnecessarily and intentionally abuse animals will be punished.”  He hopes regulations in the future will be more sophisticated and move toward Western laws.

 

However even before the China Animal Protection Law has been voted on, it is being credited with stopping the latest dog culling that was ordered to begin this week.

______________________________________________________________________________

To me this information is great. It looks like our efforts are not in vain and that the world is beginning to realize the place our animals have in our ecosystem. I know they have a tough long battle ahead of them. Laws are great but without enforcement they are useless. The best part of laws is that they begin to hold people accountable for their actions and give importance to a situation. They raise awareness and help shift public attitudes. They are the essential ingredient to fixing the injustices of the world. Once the foundations are laid over time we will see mass acceptance. 

I am telling you a revolution is upon us. The idea of democracy is being embraced by the majority of the world. One of the prevailing attitudes of this concept is equal rights and fairness. I am glad to note it is also one that promotes animal rights and global environmental concerns. Folks all we need is for each of us to push a little harder right now wherever we are. Every voice online is like 20 that are not. SPEAK UP! IT WORKS.


Bookmark & Share

My comments on adopting pitbulls

I agree and feel that humane euthanasia is a much better practice than putting them in homes. Dogs that were brought up fighting will never change. They will literally try to kill a dog at the drop of a hat without any signs of provocation. I know because I adopted one 7 years ago and dont suggest it for anyone. He is very sweet with me but anything can trigger him. I have no males left alive in the home so all is good. But no kids, friends or male dogs allowed. I really thought I could help him, which I have but I cant get him past the past. Its really tough.

If you want to get your toddler a pet, let me suggest an 8 week fixed male, lab/boxer or retriever mix.

 

You know BSL is within the rights of a community. However, the dogs already in the county should be grand-fathered in and only pertain to new dogs.

I am as big a dog lover and activist as they come.

How would you like it if someone said, hey you can no longer voice opinions against your government as it is no longer supported by the 1st amendment? When you push anti-BSL you are paving the way to destruction of our 1st amendment, unalienable rights as citizens of the USA to organize, protest and or change the law.

I will never vote for BSL, but I cannot with a clear conscious promote it either.

Missouri men plead guilty to federal dog fighting charges

Four defendants in Missouri have pleaded guilty to federal dog fighting charges stemming from the largest dog fighting raid in U.S. history, which happened July 8.

Four eastern Missouri men — Robert Hackman of Foley, Teddy Kiriakidis of Leasburg, Ronald Creach of Leslie and Michael Morgan of Hannibal — pleaded guilty this week in U.S. District Court in St. Louis to charges connected to the raid. Another man arrested in connection with the raid — Jack Ruppel of Eldon — pleaded guilty to charges Sept. 4 in federal court in Jefferson City.

The ASPCA assisted the Humane Society of Missouri and federal and state agencies in conducting the raid, which resulted in the rescue of more than 400 dogs and the arrests of 26 people accused of organizing dog fighting rings. Arrests were made in eight states, including Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Mississippi.

Dogfighting 6.jpgDogs rescued exhibited numerous wounds and scars; one was missing lips; another was missing a leg. Many had internal parasites, ear infections and broken, worn or missing teeth.

“The ASPCA is determined to protect its nation’s pets from dogfighting and other forms of brutality” said ASPCA President and CEO Ed Sayres. “Animal cruelty cannot be tolerated, and we are pleased that the five Eastern Missouri defendants are taking responsibility for the pain and suffering that they inflicted.”

For Full story use link below!

http://www.missourinet.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=C9736B09-5056-B82A-37980A763DDA7109



Bookmark & Share

Animal Law Articles

Links:

·         Animal Law Articles 

http://www.oregonanimallaw.com/links

Arrow through the head!

Don’t chain your dog!

Over the next couple of years I am going to lobby hard for a new law of pet responsibility that says a dog cannot be chained for more than 3 hours a day. I do not believe there is a justifiable argument anywhere for this and I have heard them all. If you dont have a secure fenced in yard you have no business owning a dog or cat.




Bookmark & Share