Kennel owners in Ohio who violate certain animal cruelty provisions would face felony charges under a new bill proposed by state lawmakers. A public hearing on the measure is set for Wednesday, April 6, 2011.
House Bill 108 prohibits an owner of dog kennel from:
• Torturing, tormenting, needlessly mutilating or maiming, cruelly beating, poisoning, needlessly killing, or committing an act of cruelty against the companion animal; and
• Depriving the companion animal of necessary sustenance, confining the companion animal without supplying it during the confinement with sufficient quantities of good, wholesome food and water, or impounding or confining the companion animal without affording it, during the impoundment or confinement, with access to shelter from heat, cold, wind, rain, snow, or excessive direct sunlight, if it can reasonably be expected that the companion animal would become sick or suffer in any other way as a result of or due to the deprivation, confinement, or impoundment or confinement in any of those specified manners.
Violators would face felony charges of the fifth degree.
In an industry alert, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council argued that animal cruelty laws “should encompass all persons, whether pet owners or otherwise, and should not target a specific group for prosecution.”
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
CT Man Gets Prison Time for Animal Neglect
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) - A man accused of years of animal neglect has been sentenced to serve 2½ years in prison.
Paul Novicki told Superior Court Judge Roland Fasano that he never intentionally hurt an animal. And Fasano said he took into account a traumatic brain injury that impairs the 63-year-old Novicki's judgment and reasoning.
But Fasano said Friday that he couldn't overlook Novicki's long pattern of animal abuse and grant Novicki's family's request for no prison time.
A prosecutor described Novicki as "sadistic." Animal control officers have seized hundreds of animals from Novicki's property since 2003, including horses, cattle, mules, chickens and rabbits.
An equine veterinarian told Fasano it was the worst case of neglect she'd ever seen. She said the horses were all diseased and hungry.
Fasano gave Novicki an eight year sentence, suspended after 2½ years.
Paul Novicki told Superior Court Judge Roland Fasano that he never intentionally hurt an animal. And Fasano said he took into account a traumatic brain injury that impairs the 63-year-old Novicki's judgment and reasoning.
But Fasano said Friday that he couldn't overlook Novicki's long pattern of animal abuse and grant Novicki's family's request for no prison time.
A prosecutor described Novicki as "sadistic." Animal control officers have seized hundreds of animals from Novicki's property since 2003, including horses, cattle, mules, chickens and rabbits.
An equine veterinarian told Fasano it was the worst case of neglect she'd ever seen. She said the horses were all diseased and hungry.
Fasano gave Novicki an eight year sentence, suspended after 2½ years.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Dogs sniff out wrong suspect; scent lineups questioned
Interesting Article about the use of dogs are part of a line-up. Michael Buchanek became the prime suspect in a Texas murder case after sniffer dogs indicated he was involved. The dogs were wrong. His case is at the heart of a controversy over the use of an investigative tool known as dog-scent lineups. Check out the full article...what do you think?
Monday, April 20, 2009
Hearing Slated For Nonnative Species Ban
A Congressional subcommittee has scheduled a hearing for legislation that could effectively ban ownership of thousands of nonnative species in the United States, including most birds, reptiles, fish and several mammals (hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs and ferrets) commonly kept as pets.
The legislation currently exempts dogs, cats, horses, goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus) and a variety of farm animals, all of which are also not native to the United States.
The House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife has scheduled a hearing on House Resolution 669 for April 23, 2009.
Essentially, the legislation would require the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to create lists of approved and non-approved species of nonnative wildlife (species not naturally found in the United States) based on risk assessments of the species’ potential likelihood to “cause economic or environmental harm or harm to another animal species’ health or human health.”
Currently, species are banned under the Lacey Act only when they’re determined to be an actual threat.
Proponents of the bill include animal rights organizations and some environmental groups.
Opponents have raised concerns that the legislation is too simplistic and too rigid to deal with a complex issue such as invasive species. It could also have a significant financial impact on several industries, including the pet industry.
One concern is that the legislation would seek risk assessments of all nonnative species, including the thousands that have already been in the pet trade in the United States for decades or more. It would require proving a nonnative species could not pose a threat of establishing a wild population anywhere in the United States, according to opponents. For example, the legislation would ban a species that could be a threat in Hawaiian waters, but not likely in Kansas or Arizona throughout the United States.
Also, the opponents say the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the resources to conduct risk assessments under the legislation’s timetables (37 months from the bill’s enactment to assess all non-native species compared to an average of four years to find a species harmful under the current Lacey Act).
The Fish & Wildlife Service also could determine it has insufficient scientific and commercial information to determine a species is either approved or unapproved, effectively banning trade and ownership of that species.
That is because the legislation prohibits import into or export from the United States, and interstate transportation of, any species not specifically listed on the approved list.
It also bans the possession or trade, breeding and release into the wild of such species. Pet owners who owned their pets prior to the risk assessment’s beginning would be allowed to keep their pets, under the proposed legislation.
Species that might be harmful but are already “so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility” would also be included on the approved list.
The legislation currently exempts dogs, cats, horses, goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus) and a variety of farm animals, all of which are also not native to the United States.
The House Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife has scheduled a hearing on House Resolution 669 for April 23, 2009.
Essentially, the legislation would require the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to create lists of approved and non-approved species of nonnative wildlife (species not naturally found in the United States) based on risk assessments of the species’ potential likelihood to “cause economic or environmental harm or harm to another animal species’ health or human health.”
Currently, species are banned under the Lacey Act only when they’re determined to be an actual threat.
Proponents of the bill include animal rights organizations and some environmental groups.
Opponents have raised concerns that the legislation is too simplistic and too rigid to deal with a complex issue such as invasive species. It could also have a significant financial impact on several industries, including the pet industry.
One concern is that the legislation would seek risk assessments of all nonnative species, including the thousands that have already been in the pet trade in the United States for decades or more. It would require proving a nonnative species could not pose a threat of establishing a wild population anywhere in the United States, according to opponents. For example, the legislation would ban a species that could be a threat in Hawaiian waters, but not likely in Kansas or Arizona throughout the United States.
Also, the opponents say the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the resources to conduct risk assessments under the legislation’s timetables (37 months from the bill’s enactment to assess all non-native species compared to an average of four years to find a species harmful under the current Lacey Act).
The Fish & Wildlife Service also could determine it has insufficient scientific and commercial information to determine a species is either approved or unapproved, effectively banning trade and ownership of that species.
That is because the legislation prohibits import into or export from the United States, and interstate transportation of, any species not specifically listed on the approved list.
It also bans the possession or trade, breeding and release into the wild of such species. Pet owners who owned their pets prior to the risk assessment’s beginning would be allowed to keep their pets, under the proposed legislation.
Species that might be harmful but are already “so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility” would also be included on the approved list.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Congressional Bill Threatens Fish Owners Rights
There is a new bill making its way through congress that could impact what people keep in their fish tanks. This bill is seen as an effort to keep the aquarium hobbyist from keeping many different types of fish among other things. It is committee right now.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-669See The bill Here
Although on the surface, the bill looks to protect the US from non-native species "invading" our habitats, it will ultimately pose restrictions on the hobbyist.
Since virtually all of our aquarium fish are non-native species, this bill, if passed as is, would severely restrict the fish we can keep in our tanks. The bill would allow the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine on a species by species basis which animals US citizens would be allowed to keep based on their potential to threaten native species.
While we can be sensitive to the idea that some tropical fish could survive in sub-tropical areas of the country (e.g. South Florida), limiting someone in Minnesota from keeping a fish that could only survive in Florida doesn't seem to make sense. Legislation of this kind, if at all, should be left to the states. Plus, it's assuming that these species are being let go in the wild, which is already known to be dangerous, and illegal.
Currently, the bill is in committee and a long way from passage. The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council has set up a HR669 page and is working with industry to combat this bill. At this point, they do not feel that a letter writing campaign is necessary, or maybe even the best thing to do.
The situation will be monitored, but if you ever get the ear of any of your local congress people, let them know the danger of passing this bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-669See The bill Here
Although on the surface, the bill looks to protect the US from non-native species "invading" our habitats, it will ultimately pose restrictions on the hobbyist.
Since virtually all of our aquarium fish are non-native species, this bill, if passed as is, would severely restrict the fish we can keep in our tanks. The bill would allow the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine on a species by species basis which animals US citizens would be allowed to keep based on their potential to threaten native species.
While we can be sensitive to the idea that some tropical fish could survive in sub-tropical areas of the country (e.g. South Florida), limiting someone in Minnesota from keeping a fish that could only survive in Florida doesn't seem to make sense. Legislation of this kind, if at all, should be left to the states. Plus, it's assuming that these species are being let go in the wild, which is already known to be dangerous, and illegal.
Currently, the bill is in committee and a long way from passage. The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council has set up a HR669 page and is working with industry to combat this bill. At this point, they do not feel that a letter writing campaign is necessary, or maybe even the best thing to do.
The situation will be monitored, but if you ever get the ear of any of your local congress people, let them know the danger of passing this bill.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Fur Often Flies in Pet Custody Battles
In the eyes of the law, pets are defined as property. Therefore, in divorce cases, a judge's decision about who gets custody of the pet requires no more legal consideration than deciding who gets the barbeque or the Barcalounger.
According to Pet Side Article, some judges have seen an increase in pet related disputes over the last seven years.
In the Midwest, a divorcing couple was clawing over the family felines. The wife claimed the cats ran away, but the suspicious soon-to-be ex-husband hired a private investigator to tail his former love. The investigator captured the woman at home with the cats in question on video. The husband then sued for joint custody in court.
A divorcing duo in Arizona insisted that the judge write into the final orders that along with joint custody of the children, they would also share joint custody of the family cat and all the hamsters.
Check out the article for more info and other resources on break-ups involving the pets.
According to Pet Side Article, some judges have seen an increase in pet related disputes over the last seven years.
In the Midwest, a divorcing couple was clawing over the family felines. The wife claimed the cats ran away, but the suspicious soon-to-be ex-husband hired a private investigator to tail his former love. The investigator captured the woman at home with the cats in question on video. The husband then sued for joint custody in court.
A divorcing duo in Arizona insisted that the judge write into the final orders that along with joint custody of the children, they would also share joint custody of the family cat and all the hamsters.
Check out the article for more info and other resources on break-ups involving the pets.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
NFAFC Protects The Deep Sea
The North-East Atlantic Fishers Commission (NEAFC, www.neafc.org) has agreed to implement a UN resolution from 2006 that protects cold water corals, sponges, and other deep-sea species in the Northeastern Atlantic.
This resolution will protect the deep-sea ecosystems and lead to more sustainable deep-sea fishing throughout the Northeastern Atlantic. The fisheries that use high seas bottom fishing methods that damages corals, and other species will be subject to environmental impact evaluations, and some areas will be closed to fishing where damage cannot be prevented.
The NEAFC has closed several high-risk areas over the past four years, but this resolution is a huge step in protecting Northeast Atlantic deep-sea species.
This resolution will protect the deep-sea ecosystems and lead to more sustainable deep-sea fishing throughout the Northeastern Atlantic. The fisheries that use high seas bottom fishing methods that damages corals, and other species will be subject to environmental impact evaluations, and some areas will be closed to fishing where damage cannot be prevented.
The NEAFC has closed several high-risk areas over the past four years, but this resolution is a huge step in protecting Northeast Atlantic deep-sea species.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Pet Theft On The Rise
Dognapping is on the rise as thieves are looking to turn a quick profit by stealing your pet.
The frequency might not be up there as property theft, but the occurances are growing.
Police reports don't make a distinction between pet theft and other property theft, so there's no way to pinpoint the exact number of stolen pets each year, but anecdotally, officers say that pet theft is increasing this year.
Toy breeds, puppies, and purebred dogs that look expensive or unusual are most vulnerable. Among the stolen breeds tracked by the AKC in 2008 are Yorkshire terriers, poodles, Pomeranians, shih tzu, bulldogs, corgis, a Norwich terrier and a mastiff.
Plus, people increasingly view their pets as members of the family and are willing to cough up big rewards if they go missing.
It's such a sick crime...and there was also an increase around Valentine's day, where it seemed people were stealing dogs so that they could bring a puppy home to their loved ones...but yet they took a loved pet from someone else.
The frequency might not be up there as property theft, but the occurances are growing.
Police reports don't make a distinction between pet theft and other property theft, so there's no way to pinpoint the exact number of stolen pets each year, but anecdotally, officers say that pet theft is increasing this year.
Toy breeds, puppies, and purebred dogs that look expensive or unusual are most vulnerable. Among the stolen breeds tracked by the AKC in 2008 are Yorkshire terriers, poodles, Pomeranians, shih tzu, bulldogs, corgis, a Norwich terrier and a mastiff.
Plus, people increasingly view their pets as members of the family and are willing to cough up big rewards if they go missing.
It's such a sick crime...and there was also an increase around Valentine's day, where it seemed people were stealing dogs so that they could bring a puppy home to their loved ones...but yet they took a loved pet from someone else.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Bizarre Lawsuit Against Petsmart
Widow sues Petsmart over husband’s death
Claims pet retailer’s sick hamster infected him after a liver transplant
Claims pet retailer’s sick hamster infected him after a liver transplant
According to a Reuters article, A widow is suing Petsmart Inc, saying that her husband died after a liver transplant that was contaminated by a sick hamster sold by the largest U.S. specialty pet retailer to the organ donor.
The suit, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in February, seeking unspecified damages, moved up to U.S. District Court in Boston this week.
In papers filed in the state court, Nancy Magee charged that a Petsmart in Warwick, Rhode Island in March 2005 sold a hamster infected with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, or LCMV, to a woman not named in the suit.
The suit, filed in Massachusetts Superior Court in February, seeking unspecified damages, moved up to U.S. District Court in Boston this week.
In papers filed in the state court, Nancy Magee charged that a Petsmart in Warwick, Rhode Island in March 2005 sold a hamster infected with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus, or LCMV, to a woman not named in the suit.
That woman later died of stroke and her liver was implanted in Magee's husband, Thomas, in April 2005. A month later, Thomas Magee died of LCMV.
Two other people who received organs from this woman died and one became seriously ill, the suit says, noting that medical authorities later tracked down the hamster in question and found it to be infected with LCMV.
Petsmart spokeswoman Jessica Douglas said the Phoenix, Arizona-based company does not comment on pending litigation.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Hamden, CT Dog Dumping Controversy
I have been holding off on posting about this subject since it's had both regional and national coverage. Plus, it's somewhat of a morbid subject. However, since I grew up in this town, I have been following this story and it is just disgusting.
A story was revealed by a cyber paper called the hamdendailynews.com, which brought to light the fact that dead dogs and cats were being thrown into the town dump. Not buried, not cremated, not even hidden...just there, dumped in plain view at the local transfer station.
As the story has unfolded, it was revealed that a change in policy was made....all in the name of saving money. Apparently it was costing the town over $2,000 a year to cremate and dispose of the dead animals. Dumping them, of course, would be free. The blame game started and no one really knew who changed the policy, or when, or how. It just suddenly changed. Plus, it's still unclear where these dogs are coming from....are they dogs found on the side of the road? Or are they homeless dogs that are being euthanized after not finding a home? There is also rumor that the town doesn't go above and beyond in trying to find the owners of lost dogs. They keep the dog for the minimum amount of time (1 week), and then have them put to sleep if no owner comes forward.
I would hate to think that if my dogs ever got loose, that any town would not do the best they could to find the owner of the pet....especially that of a tax paying citizen.
After much public outcry, the policy was changed back to cremation. But, there are still plenty of letters to the editor and public war of words, since there are some people who spoke out in favor the town dog dumping, caring more about a measly $2K.
You can read the original article at http://www.hamdendailynews.com/town_gov.html#dd. There are plenty of other articles and letters to the editor -- just go back to the home page.
A story was revealed by a cyber paper called the hamdendailynews.com, which brought to light the fact that dead dogs and cats were being thrown into the town dump. Not buried, not cremated, not even hidden...just there, dumped in plain view at the local transfer station.
As the story has unfolded, it was revealed that a change in policy was made....all in the name of saving money. Apparently it was costing the town over $2,000 a year to cremate and dispose of the dead animals. Dumping them, of course, would be free. The blame game started and no one really knew who changed the policy, or when, or how. It just suddenly changed. Plus, it's still unclear where these dogs are coming from....are they dogs found on the side of the road? Or are they homeless dogs that are being euthanized after not finding a home? There is also rumor that the town doesn't go above and beyond in trying to find the owners of lost dogs. They keep the dog for the minimum amount of time (1 week), and then have them put to sleep if no owner comes forward.
I would hate to think that if my dogs ever got loose, that any town would not do the best they could to find the owner of the pet....especially that of a tax paying citizen.
After much public outcry, the policy was changed back to cremation. But, there are still plenty of letters to the editor and public war of words, since there are some people who spoke out in favor the town dog dumping, caring more about a measly $2K.
You can read the original article at http://www.hamdendailynews.com/town_gov.html#dd. There are plenty of other articles and letters to the editor -- just go back to the home page.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
LA Pets Must Be Spayed or Neutered
A new law in LA requires all pets to be spayed or neutered before reachine four months of age.
The ordinance is aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the thousands of euthanizations conducted in Los Angeles’ animal shelters every year.
The ordinance does exempt some animals, including those that have competed in shows or sporting competitions, guide dogs, animals used by police agencies and those belonging to professional breeders.
The average pet owner, however, must have their dog or cat spayed or neutered by the time it reaches 4 months of age (as late as 6 months with a letter from a veterinarian).
First-time offenders will receive information on subsidized sterilization services and be given an additional 60 days. If they still fail to comply they could be fined $100 and ordered to serve eight hours of community service. A subsequent offense could result in a $500 fine or 40 hours of community service.
--- My question: How does this get enforced? Is it up to the vets to enforce it? The stores? The groomers? The town when you try to register your dog? The police?
The full text of the article can be found here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23359355/
The ordinance is aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the thousands of euthanizations conducted in Los Angeles’ animal shelters every year.
The ordinance does exempt some animals, including those that have competed in shows or sporting competitions, guide dogs, animals used by police agencies and those belonging to professional breeders.
The average pet owner, however, must have their dog or cat spayed or neutered by the time it reaches 4 months of age (as late as 6 months with a letter from a veterinarian).
First-time offenders will receive information on subsidized sterilization services and be given an additional 60 days. If they still fail to comply they could be fined $100 and ordered to serve eight hours of community service. A subsequent offense could result in a $500 fine or 40 hours of community service.
--- My question: How does this get enforced? Is it up to the vets to enforce it? The stores? The groomers? The town when you try to register your dog? The police?
The full text of the article can be found here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23359355/
Monday, February 18, 2008
Animal CSI: Solving horrendous pet crimes
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23185183/
Interesting article on how pet crimes are being solved using the latest in crime solving technology.
Interesting article on how pet crimes are being solved using the latest in crime solving technology.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Canada Town to Put Down Pitbull
Found this article on zootoo.com. Unbelievable that this stuff happens! Are people that naive about dog breeds? Apparently so!
by Matt Van Hoven
MISSISSAGUA, Ontario – A Canadian woman's pit-bull-mix could be euthanized because of a 2005 law that bans pit bulls and “substantially similar” dogs from the Canadian province of Ontario.
Gabriela Nowakowska says she bought 10-month-old Rambo a few months ago at a flea market.
So on Christmas when the dog got out of Nowakowska's back yard and was picked up by animal control, it came to light that the she was violating that law – although she didn't know it.
Now the City of Mississagua says that either the dog be turned over to them for euthanasia or Nowakowska will need to pursue legal action. But she says she can't afford a lawsuit.
Twenty-year-old Nowakowska says she has been able to raise about $500, which should be enough to get the dog out of “jail” pending trial
The law that's gotten Rambo into this mess was passed by Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty in 2005. The charge for that law was lead by another man, MP Michael Bryant. Interestingly, one Canadian source said that when Bryant was given 24 pictures of different dogs and asked to locate a pit bull, he chose a photo of a Preso Canario.
As for Rambo, it's been reported that employees at the animal control center where he's being held play with the dog regularly. Nowakowska backed that point, noting that the dog, which is a mixed-breed, is very gentle. We were unable to find any evidence that the dog has even been involved in any attacks.
Rambo's vet says it's hard to pinpoint exactly which breeds belong to the dog's heritage. The vet also said it's unclear exactly how old the dog is, but it seems to be around the 10-month mark.
All that aside, animal welfare groups and local Ward counsellors Pat Saito and Carolyn Parrish have stepped in to defend Rambo, citing the unclear wording of the law and the unfair nature of a breed ban.
Saito said dogs should be judged on their behavior, not their lineage.
Nowakowska says she's pushing to get Rambo back, and will only consider having him turned over to a rescue outside Ontario once she has exhausted the alternatives. Meantime, counsellors Saito and Parrish are working to get the dog a 24-hour reprieve for travel out of the province should he need to be relocated. That's because there's a travel ban on all pit bulls in the province, except those that are grandfathered in.
It seems unlikely that Nowakowska will get Rambo back considering overturning the law is no small undertaking. However, this is not the first time a pit bull has been booted from the province. Another dog named Bandit was relocated to Washington State not long ago. He now serves as a K-9 officer there.
Trackposted to Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Big Dog's Weblog, Rosemary's Thoughts, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, and A Newt One, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
|
|
|---|
