July 25, 2013
Action Alert, ALDF, Animal Abuse & the Law, Animal Ag-Gag Law, Animal Cruelty, Animal Health & Welfare, Animal Husbandry, Animal Investigator, Animal Rights, Animal Torture, Animal Trade, Animal Trainers, animals, Animals denied food & lack of care, Animals Denied Treatment After Injury, Animals Desperately Need Food, Animals in entertainment, Crimes Against Nature, Freedom of Information Act, Petitions to sign please
Amy Meyer, Animal Legal Defense Fund, CounterPunch, Facebook, Gag order, Law, Tennessee Attorney General, Utah, Will Potter
The Animal Legal Defense Fund, along with PETA, has filed the nation’s first lawsuit against ag gag legislation, taking Utah to court for infringing on the free speech rights of activists, investigators, and journalists by criminalizing undercover investigations at factory farms.
Watch Video below!
Utah’s ag gag law aims to prevent animal advocates and law enforcement from collecting evidence of egregious and illegal abuse of animals on factory farms.
Ag Gag & Animal Cruelty
Factory farms want to keep their cruel practices hidden from the public, but the public deserves the truth about how the billions of animals suffering on industrial farms are treated and whether or not laws are being broken that jeopardize food safety, workers’ rights, and environmental standards.
Shocking exposés from undercover investigations have revealed severe animal abuse on factory farms, like animals beaten, kicked, maimed, and thrown by workers. Industrial agriculture has also brought us the unsavory likes of ammonia and pink slime in hamburgers, antibiotic-resistant “superbugs,” chickens abandoned by the thousands to starve to death, pregnant and nursing pigs held in gestation crates that never allow them to turn around, and sick and downed cows dragged on the ground to become lunchmeat. Corporate agriculture’s massive profit ratio and proven inclination to hide in a dark world of secrecy makes journalistic and investigative freedom imperative to the well-being of animals across the nation—and to our own health and safety.
Utah’s ag gag law criminalizes free speech. That is why the Animal Legal Defense Fund is joining with journalists Will Potter and Jesse Fruhwirth; Daniel Hauff, an undercover investigations consultant specializing in factory farms; the political journal CounterPunch; and professor James McWilliams, as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “There’s a long history of investigative journalism in this country based on exactly the type of research and whistleblowing that these laws criminalize,” Will Potter explains. “Ag gag laws make it impossible to report stories that are vitally important to the public.”
Utah activist Amy Meyer is also a plaintiff in the case. In February, Amy made headlines by videotaping the operations at Dale Smith Meatpacking Company in Draper, Utah from the roadside. Amy was charged under Utah’s ag gag law—making her the first person in the nation to be prosecuted under an ag gag law–although the charges were dropped after public outcry.
Ag gag laws aim to control our behaviour by instilling fear of prosecution. This is legally known as the “chilling effect” because it intimidates people from acting and gathering information—even in legally-protected ways. Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam recently vetoed a proposed ag gag law after the Tennessee Attorney General called the bill “constitutionally suspect.” Erwin Chemerinksy, a professor and dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine, and a leading scholar of U.S. constitutional law, has weighed in in support of the lawsuit, explaining, “The Utah law is very much directed at restricting speech, and especially particular messages. This is exactly what the First Amendment prohibits.”
First Person Charged with Violating Ag Gag Law
Published on 22 Jul 2013
Amy Meyer was the first person charged with violating an ag gag law, for simply filming a slaughterhouse from a public road in Draper City, Utah.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund has filed the nation’s first lawsuit against ag gag legislation, taking Utah to court for infringing on the free speech rights of activists, investigators, and journalists by criminalizing undercover investigations at factory farms.
June 14, 2013
Animal Abuse, Animal Anatomy, Animal Behavior, Animal Cruelty, Animal Emotions Behaviour & Instincts, Animal Health & Welfare, Animal Sodomy Bestiality & Zoophilia, Animal Welfare, Animals in entertainment, Crimes Against Nature, EU Law
1 January 2014, Directive, Erlandsson, Eskil Erlandsson, Germany, Law, Local, Member of Parliament, Monica Green, Riksdag, Sweden, Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå, Zoophilia
Sweden on Thursday proposed legislation that would completely outlaw bestiality, tightening current rules that only prohibit sex with animals that causes mental or physical harm.
”The government is now toughening bestiality laws so that there is no doubt that it’s prohibited to abuse animals,” Rural Affairs Minister Eskil Erlandsson said in a statement.
“There should be no doubt whatsoever that bestiality is unacceptable.”
Until now, bestiality was illegal in Sweden only if it could be proven that the animal had been subjected to suffering.
Starting on January 1st, 2014, however, any sexual act with an animal will be punishable by a fine, a maximum prison sentence of two years, or both, even if the animal shows no sign of injury or suffering.
“I hope that this sort of act doesn’t take place in society at all. And now we’re putting that explicitly into law,” Erlandsson told the TT news agency.
In 2008, Erlandsson came in for criticism for using graphic language during a debate on the floor of parliament in an attempt to describe the difficulty of legislating against bestiality.
While he first expressed his “disgust” for anyone who has sex with animals, Erlandsson continued to offer a graphic example to demonstrate that “what counts as sexual abuse of animals” isn’t always easy to define, much to the surprise of fellow MPs.
“It was distasteful. It sunk to a horrendously low level. I don’t think one needs to discuss details like that in the Riksdag,” Social Democrat MP Monica Green told the Aftonbladet newspaper at the time.
“He mixed up people’s sexuality with animals’ sexuality. His example was also appalling.”
While it’s been nearly 18 months since the government first commissioned an inquiry into the bestiality ban, news that the law was finally on its way came as welcome news to Sweden’s veterinarians.
“It’s very good that the law will be changed,” a spokesman for the Swedish Federation of Veterinarians (Sveriges Veterinärförbund), Johan Beck-Friis, told AFP.
“It’s very important that society makes a clear statement that it is unacceptable to use animals that way,” he said.
The ban will bring Sweden in line with a European Union directive.
Germany introduced a ban in December, following in the footsteps of Britain, France, and Switzerland among others.
The Swedish parliament is expected to pass the bill into law soon, as there is broad political consensus on the issue.
According to Beck-Friis, under the current law veterinarians may suspect that an animal has been sexually abused but they are generally unable to prove it.
As a result, there are no statistics available on how common bestiality is in the country.
In 2006, the latest year for which statistics are available, about 100 cases of animals suffering injuries suspected of being related to bestiality were brought to the authorities’ attention, Beck-Friis said.
May 15, 2013
Animal Abuse, Animal Ag-Gag Law, Animal Health & Welfare, Crimes Against Nature, Criminal Code, Environmental Groups, Farmed Animal Abuse, Human Greed = Animal Cruelty, Humane Society, Mercy for Animals, Sentencing Not Severe Enough, Slaughter House, Surveillance
Andy Holt, Humane Society, Law, Mercy for Animals, Meyer, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah
First Ag-Gag Prosecution Almost Comes to Fruition in Utah
Amy Meyer was driving by the Dale Smith Meatpacking Company slaughterhouse in Utah when she decided to pull over and videotape what she saw: piles or horns littered across the property, cows being dragged across the grounds, one cow in particularly who appeared sick or injured being hauled off in a tractor “as though she were nothing more than rubble,” Meyer told the online paper Green is the New Red.
Meyer’s videotaping did not go over well with the slaughterhouse manager, Darrel H. Smith, the town mayor, who told her to stop. She made it clear that she was not on his property, and had every right to record anything she wanted.
At least that’s what she thought.
However, later on Meyer learned that she was going to be prosecuted under Utah’s new law (a law many people refer to as an “ag-gag law”) which is designed to prohibit undercover videos of farms and slaughterhouses.
The charges were eventually dropped, perhaps since Meyer was on the roadside, and not trespassing on private property (although Utah’s law is sketchy on those particulars). However, this brings to light the progress that these ag-gag laws have made over the course of the year.
Background on Ag-Gag Laws
Ag-Gag Laws aren’t that new. Kansas, Montana, and North Dakota all have had forms of this type of law in place for the last two decades. But in recent years more and more states are considering implementing rules that prohibit undercover videos of animal abuse. Much of this has come as a result of troubling videos made by groups like the Humane Society and Mercy for Animals. These videos were truly undercover, meaning that the videos were taken on the property of the farms (oftentimes by employees-turned-whistleblowers of the farm or slaughterhouse).
Most of the Ag-Gag laws don’t prohibit the ability to film from a roadside (like Meyer did). However, states are finding ways around this. For example, Pennsylvania’s proposed bill criminalizes anyone who “records an image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation,” or who “uploads, downloads, transfers or otherwise sends” footage using the Internet.
Tennessee’s bill passed, and is awaiting the governor’s signature. During the process, however, one state rep (Andy Holt) referred to the Humane Society’s use of undercover footage of animal abuse as no different than how human-traffickers use 17-year-old women. He claims that organizations like the Humane Society “seek to profit from animal abuse” using a “tape and rape” method.
Proponents of ag-gag laws share at least part of Holt’s sentiment. Proponents claim that if any animal abuse does take place at a facility, employees have the ability, and obligation, to report to authorities. Videos, they believe, do nothing but sensationalize the problem, and, in fact, those who videotape these abuses for use in supporting a cause are participating in the abuse. Those who videotape animal abuse ought to be required to submit the evidence to police, immediately, rather than to broadcast it to the world.
Opponents of ag-gag laws claim that employees are not likely to openly report abuses to authorities, because they aren’t quick to report themselves or their co-workers. Furthermore, opponents claim that these videos can be used later on as evidence of abuse, if formal charges are ever brought to light.
However, above all else, opponents of ag-gag laws claim that not being able to broadcast abuse severely limits their ability to inform the public of the truth. When people actually get to see and hear the abuse, they’ll realize the problem is far worse than they imagined. These images and videos might stir people into anger and, eventually action.
Currently Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont are considering ag-gag laws similar to that of Utah and Tennessee.
Well-known animal activists, such as Carrie Underwood, aren’t taken this ag-gag progress lightly. On April 18, soon after Tennessee’s bill passed, she tweeted this to her thousands of followers:
“Shame on TN lawmakers for passing the Ag Gag bill. If Gov. Bill Haslam signs this, he needs to expect me at his front door. Who’s with me?”
Well, who’s with her?
March 31, 2013
Agriculture, ALDF, Animal Abuse, Animal Advocates, Animal Anatomy, Animal Breeders, Animal Control, Animal Cruelty, Animal Emotions Behaviour & Instincts, Animal Equality, Animal Health & Welfare, Animal Husbandry, Animal Neglect, Animal Rights, Animal slaughter, Animal suffocated, Animal Torture, Animal Welfare, animals, Birds, Captive Breeding, Consumer Goods, Crimes Against Nature, Died, Diseased Animal, Disfigured Animals, Farmed Animal Abuse, Food Chain/Products, Food Safety Laws, Gross Neglect, Guilty, Health and wellness, Human Greed = Animal Cruelty, In Court Again, Purchase things, Purposely Inflicted Harm, USDA
ALDF, Animal Legal Defense Fund, California, Foie gras, Force-feeding, France, Friday, Law, Napa, Napa County California, San Francisco
“How can anyone think, shoving a gavage (pipe or tube) down the esophagus, of geese or ducks then force feeding them with, typically, corn boiled with fat (to facilitate ingestion) so the birds liver becomes over enlarged; so it can then be eaten as a delicacy… is totally beyond me! Of course it’s bloody cruel & barbaric, no other animal that I can think of is force fed via a tube to make any part of their body fatter for human consumption. Yes animals are given extra grain & even growth hormones but they are not force fed it via a bloody pipe…it’s savage & uncalled for; we kill enough animals to meet the demand for meat or other animal body parts! Do we really have to force feed a bird in constant chronic pain from the tube…just for a delicacy?? What will they come up with next, pickled eyeballs, coated in vinegar daily, to get that perfect crunch?? One could say, this is almost as bad as bear bile being taken from a bear!!
Goose being force-fed so humans can dine on their enlarged livers!!
“Look at the disgusting filthy gavage (pipe) & other equipment; there is no wonder so many birds die of disease. While force feeding is required to meet the French legal definition of “foie gras”, producers outside France do not always force feed birds in order to produce fattened livers that they consider to be foie gras, instead allowing them to eat freely, termed ad libitum. Interest in alternative production methods has grown recently due to ethical concerns in gavage-based foie gras production. Such livers are alternatively termed fatty goose liver, ethical foie gras, or humane foie gras.” Source-Wikipedia
“During feeding, efforts are made to avoid damaging the bird’s esophagus, which could cause injury or death, although researchers have found evidence of inflammation of the walls of the proventriculus after the first session of force-feeding. There is also indication of inflammation of the esophagus in the later stages of fattening. Several studies have also demonstrated that mortality rates can be significantly elevated during the gavage period.”Source Wikipedia
The Animal Legal Defense Fund tried to sue the government to declare force-fed foie gras illegal, and federal courts shut it down. Inside Scoop SF reports that a lawsuit between the ALDF and the U.S. Department of Agriculture was dismissed on Friday. “Please click on the links to read more!”
The ALDF (the same anti-foie group that sued Napa restaurant La Toque) had argued that foie gras is “a diseased product unfit for human consumption,” and asked the court to step in and order the USDA to “remove foie gras from the American food supply.”
In the ruling (warning: PDF), U.S. District Judge Otis Wright explains his decision to dismiss the case: “Plaintiffs‘ voluminous submission of technical papers and data supports the Court’s view that Plaintiffs are challenging a scientific conclusion and not a legal one … this is an issue falling squarely under the USDA’s discretion by law.”
Although selling and producing foie gras is still illegal in California, the ALDF is not entitled to judicial review on this case so, for now, the rest of the country can rest easily knowing their foie is safe. “For those who partake in this delicacy…I hope it fxxxxg chokes you!”
· Court dismisses USDA foie gras lawsuit [Inside Scoop SF]
· All Foie Gras Coverage on Eater [-E-]
November 29, 2012
Agriculture, Animal Abuse, Animal Control, Animal Cruelty, Animal Rights, Animal Sodomy Bestiality & Zoophilia, Animal Torture, Animal Welfare, animals, Bestiality, EU Law, Farmed Animal Abuse, Health and wellness, New Animal Legislation, Obscene or Offensive
Angela Merkel, Animal welfare, Bundestag, Germany, Hans-Michael Goldmann, Ilse Aigner, Law, Michael Kiok, Thomas Schröder, Zeta, Zoophilia
“Regards the recent news from Germany to outlaw Bestiality…this post has a little more information in than the original one, thought you might be interested”
Agriculture minister to outlaw ‘inappropriate‘ sexual acts as zoophiles threaten legal action.
Ilse Aigner, the German agriculture minister, is reversing a 1969 decision to legalise zoophilia. Photograph: Gon Alo Silva/Demotix/Corbis
Germany is to introduce a ban on bestiality with a revision of animal welfare law that will reverse a decision in 1969 to legalise zoophilia.
Animal rights groups have called for the practice to be recognised as animal defilement and rape, using dramatic photographs of animals being cruelly treated by humans for sexual purposes to put pressure on the German government.
Zoophiles, or those who practise bestiality, argue that they treat animals as equals and never force them to do anything against their will.
“We are going to take legal action to fight this,” said Michael Kiok, chairman of the pressure group Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information (Zeta), which has about 100 members. “Central to the beliefs of zoophiles is that we don’t do anything that the animal doesn’t want. “How can one know the animal doesn’t want to, those poor animals used will obviously conform, they will have learnt or been trained to react in a certain way…but try it with a dog who hasn’t & your probably going to get a nasty bite!”
We do not treat them cruelly. An animal is quite capable of showing precisely what it wants and does not want. When I look at my dog I know immediately what it wants. Animals are much easier to understand than women,” he said.“WTF…how the hell can an animal tell you it wants to $£%$(&*()£^£()+_- ?? It’s ridiculous, I bet all of the members are ugly (the ones I have seen so far are!) with beer bellies & foul breath, they can’t get a women, that’s their problem!”
The centre-right government of Angela Merkel, which has shaped the law change, said key to the new legislation was recognising that sex with humans was “inappropriate” for animals. “Of course it is, any sane person is disgusted just at the thought of it!”
According to Hans-Michael Goldmann, chairman of the parliamentary agricultural committee which will discuss the law on Wednesday before a final vote in the Bundestag on 14 December, animals should not be used “for personal sexual activities or made available to third parties for sexual activities … thereby forcing them to behave in ways that are inappropriate to their species”. “Exactly, forcing them to act in a way that is totally unnatural & unacceptable. Both parties in a sexual relationship must agree to have sex, if one does not but is forced or cohered into doing so, then it is classed as rape!”
Animal rights’ campaigners welcomed the ban, but said it was being used to divert attention from more widespread and pressing animal rights issues. “We welcome the new amendment (to the law) to ban sodomy,” said Thomas Schröder, president of the German Animal Welfare Association (DTSB). “But this achievement in the animal welfare struggle cannot be used as an excuse to conceal other urgent animal rights questions“. “No it can’t, so we the public, will keep up the pressure, until such things are changed!”
Agriculture minister Ilse Aigner was said to have introduced the amendment to appease animal rights campaigners angry that more is not being done to tackle perceived animal rights abuses in the agricultural industry. Campaigners want bans on cutting off piglets’ tails, and the castration of piglets and branding of horses without anaesthesia. In the end Aigner has affected a change only on the issue of castration, but not until 2018, when the practice will only be allowed to be carried out under local anaesthetic. “There is much work to be done to put all the wrongs humans do to animals, right, this we know. Especially in the agricultural industry as animals have always been seen as objects without feelings; but it is changing slowly for the better!”
Kiok, 52, a university librarian from Münster, southern Germany, who lives with his 8½-year-old Alsatian called Cessie in what he calls a relationship, said zoophiles had been “put on the sacrificial altar of a lazy compromise“. Estimating there are about 100,000 active zoophiles in Germany, he said the group remained deeply misunderstood.“Of course it’s misunderstood because normal people don’t see animals as sexual partners!”
“We don’t have anything to do with people who abuse animals,” he said. “We only want what’s best for the animal. “It cannot be that the mutually gratifying sexual contact between human and animal is forbidden because it’s unfavourable to the species, but the abuse of animals in the agricultural industry continues.” “What’s best for the animal is for human sexual predators to stay away from them. One can not say sex between human & animal is mutual, because animals can’t tell you otherwise.”
He said he had received death threats from campaigners who were threatening to remove his dog. The protesters posted on Facebook that they had the addresses of 800 zoophiles and would campaign to have their pets taken from them. “Humans who only see other humans as sexual partners will of course think pets are better away from those who interfere with them!”
Koik said he had been through years of therapy and despair due to his zoophilia, only discovering on the internet the “huge number of zoophiles, especially in the US,” he said. “It was a relief to feel I wasn’t a monster as I’d heard for much of my life,” he said.“Of course other people who dabble in bestiality, zoophiles, sodomy etc. are going to stick together & confirm what they do is not wrong etc.; as do those of us who think what they do, is totally wrong!”
November 27, 2012
Action Alert, Animal Abuse, Animal Behavior, Animal Cruelty, Animal Equality, Animal Rights, Animal Sodomy Bestiality & Zoophilia, Animal Torture, Animal Trade, Animal Welfare, animals, Animals in entertainment, Bestiality, Child Animal Abusers, EU Law, European, Good News, Health and wellness, New Animal Legislation, Obscene or Offensive, Pedophiles, Petitions to sign please, Pets, Purposely Inflicted Harm, Rape, Sentient beings, Sexually Abused, Sodomy Animal Gratification, Video Production
Agence France-Presse, Animal welfare, Bild, Die Tageszeitung, German, Germany, Goldmann, Hans-Michael Goldmann, Illegal, Internet, Law, Michael Kiok, Petitions to sign, Zeta, Zoophilia
“YES YES YES YES…..THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO SIGNED THE PETITIONS ETC…. THEY HAVE BEEN TAKING NOTICE; BUT WE MUST CONTINUE TO SIGN UNTIL ALL ANIMALS ARE PROTECTED FROM HUMAN SEXUAL PREDATORS.”
“This is terrific new’s, Hans-Michael Goldmann, please do the right thing & forbid this disgraceful, sinful, disgusting & immoral habit.
BERLIN, Nov 26 – Germany is set to tighten its laws against bestiality in a bid to improve animal welfare, a lawmaker involved in drafting the legislation said on Monday.
Bestiality was removed from Germany’s penal code in 1969 and since then has only been against the law if “significant harm” is inflicted on the animal.
But Hans-Michael Goldmann, head of the parliamentary commission looking into the subject, told AFP he wanted to “ban bestiality in a draft law on animal protection”. “My new Hero”
According to left-leaning daily Tageszeitung (TAZ), the new legislation will make bestiality punishable by a fine of up to 25,000 euros (Sh2.7 million).
The act will no longer depend on whether harm is inflicted, but rather on whether the animal is forced to commit “actions alien to the species” according to the draft legislation. “Are not most animals forced into these sexual relations with humans? They wouldn’t normally want to perform sex with a human!!”
A spokesman for the agriculture ministry told a regular government briefing that the new legislation aims to clarify the legal position.
“With this explicit ban, it will be easier to impose penalties and to improve animal protection,” Goldmann told mass circulation Bild. “Improve animal protection… that’s what we like to hear”
But the president of a group representing people who engage in the act of bestiality said he would take legal action. “This group is called ZETA…If they do we will double take it, bunch of sickening perverted Neanderthals”
“It is unthinkable that any sexual act with an animal is punished without proof that the animal has come to any harm,” Michael Kiok said in an interview with the TAZ.
Below is an extract from a German News Paper….
Zoophiles are up in arms.“We will take legal action against this,” Michael Kiok, chairman of zoophile pressure group ZETA (Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information), told SPIEGEL ONLINE. “We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don’t force them to do anything.”
He said sex with pets wasn’t demeaning to the animals, and that they make it evident if they’re not interested.
“People have tried to create the false impression that we hurt animals,” said Kiok, who lives with an Alsatian called Cessie. He said he has had special feelings for animals ever since he was four or five and that the fascination took on erotic elements in his teens.
Still Legal in Denmark
Sex with animals has been banned in a number of European countries including France, Switzerland and even the liberal Netherlands. Sweden is preparing a ban too, said Kiok. “But it’s still legal in Denmark.”
In most cases, the sexual partners are likely to be dogs because they are such common pets now. In the days of old, it used to be cows, horses, sheeps, goats and pigs, said Kiok.
Sexual research in the 1940s suggested that 5 to 8 percent of men and 3 to 5 percent of women engaged in zoophilia. “That would put the figure in Germany at 1.6 million but that’s definitely too high. Taking a wild guess, I’d say it’s well over 100,000,” said Kiok.
He criticized the planned legal amendment because it still didn’t ban the unanesthetized castration of piglets in the meat processing industry, or the branding of horses. He also said the farming industry sexually abuses animals by allowing breeders to ram electric rods into the backsides of boars to make them ejaculate, and tying up mares so that they can be mounted by stallions.
Kiok knows what his first priority will be if the law is passed in parliament: “I’m going to make sure I keep my dog.” “Well that tells you what he intends to carry on doing…doesn’t it!”
“The sign below is the ZETA logo, so zoophiles can recognise one another!”
“Related articles: Below are just a few of the posts regards bestiality…Please click the last one which has the best petitions to sign. We also need Animal Abuse Registry’s…you will find a petition for this within the lick. Please keep signing & passing along…we must stop sentient beings having their innocence taken away by human sex pests.”
November 13, 2012
Action Alert, African Wildlife, Animal Behavior, Animal Breeders, Animal Lover, Animal Sanctuary, Animal Services, Animal Shelter, Animal Trade, Animal Trainers, Animal Welfare, animals, Animals in entertainment, Captive Breeding, Exotic Animals, Hobbies, Human Animal Conflict, Pets, Reptiles, Wild Animals
Associated Press, Columbus, Columbus Ohio, Law, Lawsuit, Microchipped, Mike Stapleton, Monday, Ohio, Registration of Exotics, Terry Thompson, Zanesville
(I know, I know, I am behind with a lot of posts, so some news has been & gone… I’m going as fast as I physically can do… )
“I honestly don’t think anybody should have the right to own & especially breed wild animals. If want to see a wild animal then go to its habitat instead of being lazy & growing one in your backyard!”
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Four owners of exotic animals in Ohio are suing the state’s agriculture department and its director over a new law regulating dangerous wildlife, contending the restrictions threaten their First Amendment and property rights.
The lawsuit was filed Friday in Columbus federal court. It comes as the owners faced a Monday deadline to register their animals with the state.
In this Aug. 25, 2010 photo, Cyndi Huntsman poses in front of caged tigers at her Stump Hill Farm in Massillon, Ohio. Huntsman is one of four owners of exotic animals in Ohio suing the state’s agriculture department and its director over a new law regulating the dangerous wildlife. Photo: Mark Duncan / AP
The owners’ attorney said Monday that the state has agreed not to enforce certain provisions of the law until there’s a hearing on the lawsuit. Attorney Robert Owens said lawyers were still reviewing the agreement, but a court order detailing the arrangement was expected in the coming days.
For instance, under the agreement, Ohio officials wouldn’t refer owners for prosecution if they didn’t register their animals by Monday.
Under the law, owners who don’t register could face a first-degree misdemeanor charge for a first offense, and a fifth-degree felony for any subsequent offenses.
A spokeswoman for the agriculture department declined to comment on the lawsuit and the agreement.
The owners claim the law forces them to join private associations and possibly give up their animals without compensation. They also take issue with a requirement that the animals be implanted with a microchip before they’re registered, so the creatures can be identified if they get lost or escape.
The state has said it would work with owners on the microchip requirement.
As of Monday, Ohio’s agriculture department said it had received 130 registration forms accounting for 483 dangerous wild animals in the state.
In this Aug. 25, 2010 photo, Cyndi Huntsman holds a baby zebra at her Stump Hill Farm in Massillon, Ohio. Huntsman is one of four owners of exotic animals in Ohio suing the state’s agriculture department and its director over a new law regulating the dangerous wildlife. Photo: Mark Duncan / AP
Ohio’s restrictions on exotic animals had been among the nation’s weakest.
State lawmakers worked with a renewed sense of urgency to strengthen the law after owner Terry Thompson last fall released 50 creatures from an eastern Ohio farm in Zanesville before he committed suicide.
Authorities killed 48 of the animals, fearing for the public’s safety. Two others were presumed eaten by other animals. The six surviving animals were placed under quarantine at the zoo. Five were later returned to Thompson’s widow, Marian Thompson. The zoo had to euthanize one leopard.
Marian Thompson was among those who registered animals with the state. She submitted information for the two leopards, two primates and a bear that survived.
Registration forms obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request also show she has two 11-week-old leopards on the property.
The owners suing the state have multiple breeds of exotic animals. They are Terry Wilkins, who owns a reptile and amphibian store called Captive Born Reptiles in Columbus; Cyndi Huntsman, owner of Stump Hill Farm in Massillon; Mike Stapleton, owner of Paws & Claws Animal Sanctuary in Prospect; and Sean Trimbach, owner of Best Exotics LLC in Medway, where he breeds, raises and sells exotic animals.
In their lawsuit, the owners say the cost of implanting a microchip in the animal can exceed the animal’s value. They also contend that joining certain groups to become exempt from the law means they would have to associate and fund organizations with which they disagree.
The law exempts sanctuaries, research institutions and facilities accredited by some national zoo groups, such as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the Zoological Association of America.
While the law took effect last month, some aspects have yet to kick in. For instance, a permit process for owners won’t begin until next October.
Current owners who want to keep their animals must obtain the new state-issued permit by Jan. 1, 2014. They must pass background checks, pay fees, obtain liability insurance or surety bonds, and show inspectors that they can properly contain the animal and care for it.
One of the factors of obtaining of permit includes timely registration.
If owners are denied permits or can’t meet the new requirements, the state can seize the animals.
News Link:- http://www.chron.com/news/article/Owners-lawyer-Agreement-reached-in-exotics-case-4009262.php#photo-3692025
October 26, 2012
Abandoned, Animal Abuse, Animal Abuse & the Law, Animal Abusers, Animal Cruelty, Animal Husbandry, Animal Neglect, Animal Rights, Animal Welfare, animals, Animals denied food & lack of care, Courtroom sentencing, Died, Gross Neglect, Health and wellness, Pets, Purposely Inflicted Harm, Sentient beings, Totally Neglected Left To Die
Bill S1303, Civil & Criminal Penalties, Cruelty, extreme neglect, Law, miracle dog, Negect, New Jersey Senate, Patrick, Pit bull, Senators, Tom Kean
The New Jersey Senate unanimously passed S1303, designated as Patrick’s Law, yesterday afternoon.
The bill is named for the Pit Bull named Patrick, who was rescued in 2011 after he was starved to the brink of death, then dumped down an apartment complex trash chute in Newark.
The proposed law revises penalties for animal cruelty, toughening both civil and criminal penalties for abuse and neglect. Photographs of the emaciated dog with the big haunting eyes that accompanied his story rallied activists and the general public to the cause.
The bill increases to crimes of the fourth degree the offenses of depriving an animal of necessary sustenance, or abusing an animal, and it increases the grade of these offenses to crimes of the third degree if the animal dies as a result of these acts. The civil penalty for these offenses will also be increased under the bill to a fine of $1,000 to $3,000 for a first offense, and $3,000 to $5,000 for a second or subsequent offense.
The bill will additionally increase the criminal and civil penalties for inflicting unnecessary cruelty upon a living animal or creature by any direct or indirect means, unnecessarily failing to provide a living animal with proper food, drink, shelter or protection from the weather, or leaving it unattended in a vehicle under inhumane conditions. The criminal penalty will be increased to a fine between $500 and $2,000, imprisonment for a term up to six months, or both, at the discretion of the court. If an animal is killed or dies as a result of one of these violations, or the person has a prior conviction, the person will be guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. The civil penalty recoverable will be a fine of between $500 and $2,000.
Court ordered restitution to the animal’s owner will include the monetary cost of replacing the animal, plus any costs for food, shelter, veterinary care, euthanasia, if necessary, or other costs.
The bill was sponsored by Senators Tom Kean Dick and Codey. It heads to the Assembly for consideration before it becomes law.
Senator Kean said in a statement after yesterday’s vote, “How someone treats animals in their care is a window into his or her soul. Caring for an animal comes with basic responsibilities that include finding a safe, humane environment for that animal if you cannot or do not wish to care for it any longer. Patrick’s Law will make the penalties for those who shirk those responsibilities appropriately more severe.”
A significant aspect of Patrick’s Law is its recognition of extreme neglect as an act of cruelty comparable to any other.
Patrick, called a miracle dog, recovered and continues to thrive.
October 26, 2012
Action Alert, Animal Abuse, Animal Control, Animal Cruelty, Animal Husbandry, Animal Investigator, Animal Neglect, Animal Services, Animal Welfare, animals, Animals denied food & lack of care, Caught On Tape, Died, Gross Neglect, Guilty, Health and wellness, OMG, Pets, Police Sheriff, Pure Evil Scum, Purposely Inflicted Harm, R.I..P, Sentient beings, Very Sad News, Video
Animal welfare, Cruelty to animals, Danny Neira, Died of it's injuries, dirty, Great Dane, Kathleen Rice, Law, malnourished, Neira, New York City, Rose Neira, Starved to death, United States, YouTube
“I know this beautiful dog passed over Rainbow Bridge in 2010, but it didn’t stop me from shedding a few tears for him. Such a gentle giant, he didn’t deserve to be ill treated, no animal does! Why do people get pets, only to abandoned them when they’ve had enough. Can’t be bothered to walk or play with the dog anymore, CAN’T BE BOTHERED TO FEED THE DAMN DOG either”. R.I.P Zack x
They could face up to one year in jail on the charge after discovery of their emaciated dog, Zack.
A Farmingdale couple whose Great Dane was found emaciated from neglect has been convicted of animal neglect by a Nassau County Jury.
Rose Neira, 32, and her husband Danny Neira, 41, a New York City police officer, were convicted of misdemeanor animal neglect after being accused of failing to provide food and medical care for their dog, Zack. The jury took just three hours to convict the couple, whose dog weighed just 87 pounds when it was found by authorities.
The animal, despite extensive rehabilitative efforts by veterinarians including surgery, died about a month later.
Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said the couple faces up to one year in jail. They are due back in court Dec. 11 for sentencing.
“There is no excuse or explanation for this level of cruelty and neglect, and I am shocked that these two people, one of whom is a police officer, did nothing while Zack wasted away in front of their eyes,” Rice said.
The case dates to Nov. 22, 2010, when district attorney investigators and members of the DA’s Animal Crimes Unit went to the Neiras’ home after receiving multiple tips that an animal was being neglected there.
Investigators found a 2-year-old Great Dane named Zack, “grossly emaciated with protruding ribs and its backbone visible through its skin,” Rice said.
When questioned by investigators, Rose Neira initially claimed that the dog’s condition was due to parasites, but she could not provide the name of a veterinarian for the animal, nor could she produce any medication that was being administered to the animal. She stated that she kept the Great Dane in the kitchen, taking it out only once a night, and that she had not sought veterinary treatment for more than a year.
Danny Neira is an officer with the New York Police Department, the district attorney’s office said.
Prosecutors obtained a warrant to seize the dog the following day and the Town of Oyster Bay’s Animal Control transported it to Oyster Bay Animal Hospital, where it was treated by a veterinarian for 10 days.
In addition to the dog’s emaciated appearance, its nails were damaged and overgrown and its ear cavities were caked with dirt and grease. Zack’s multiple health issues forced veterinarians to feed him intravenously, authorities said.
A normal, healthy Great Dane should weigh between 120 and 150 pounds. Zack succumbed to multiple health problems on Dec. 1, 2010 while still receiving around-the-clock veterinary care.
Assistant District Attorney Matthew Libroia of the Animal Crimes Unit is prosecuting the case for the DA’s Office. The Neiras are represented by Robert DelGrosso.
Numerous reptiles, turtles, birds and fish were also observed living in unsanitary conditions inside the Neira home, many of which were seized by authorities.
Rice issued a thank you to the Town of Oyster Bay, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the Suffolk County SPCA for their assistance in this case.
“I strongly encourage anyone who is aware of an animal being abused or neglected to contact my office’s Animal Abuse hotline at (516) 571-ACHL,” Rice said.
Video footage of Zack taken by DA Investigators can be viewed on DA Rice’s YouTube page
Published on 11 Oct 2012 by NassauCountyDA
Danny and Rose Neira were convicted of neglecting their their Great Dane, Zach. This video was taken by an investigator from District Attorney Kathleen Rice’s Animal Crimes Unit. Though vets tried to save Zach, his organs had deteriorated too much to survive. His visible ribs and vertebrae, unclipped nails, and dirty ears are additional evidence of neglect. DA Rice created the animal crimes unit to protect animals like Zack, but also because those who are cruel to animals often harm people too. To report animal abuse in Nassau County, call the anonymous Animal Crimes Hotline at (516) 680-8624.
October 18, 2012
Animal Cruelty, Animal Lover, Animal Shot, animals, Caught On Tape, Killed, Pets, Police Sheriff, R.I..P, Surveillance, Very Sad News, Video
Dog, Law, Law Enforcement, MailOnline, Police, Police officer, Raul Ayala, Ray Huffman, Rottweiler, Shot & Killed, YouTube
- Raul Ayala claims his dog was shot ‘in cold blood’ by police officer Ray Huffman
- Video shows the cop firing several shots at the dog before dragging it away and washing the blood away with a hose
- Town stands by Officer Huffman, saying that the shooting was justified
A heartbroken father claims a police officer shot his family’s dog ‘in cold blood’ in a gruesome act by a local police officer – all caught by his home securitycameras.
Family tragedy: The Ayala family looked to Bos as a guard dog
Raul Ayala of Lyman, Nebraska, said he had gone into town on September 22 with his wife and children, leaving his 18-month-old Rottweiler, Bos, in the yard.
He later received a call from his brother-in-law, saying that he had heard shots being fired and went to the house to find Bos was dead.
After returning to his house, Mr Ayala looked at his home security tapes, where he saw the officer fire about four shots from close range.
Bos can be seen spinning in place before collapsing and writhing on the sidewalk.
The video was also posted on YouTube on October 14 by Pittsburgh Cop Block, an organisation dedicated to naming and shaming police officers believed to have used excessive force or brutality
The police officer, Ray Huffman of the Lyman Police Department, claimed that he had only shot Bos after pepper spray was ineffective – and that the dog had lunged at him.
A post on the ‘Justice for Bos Ayala’ Facebook page reads: ‘He protected us with all he had he wasn’t just a dog he was more like family my baby who didn’t deserve what happen (sic).’
Also on the video, the officer comes into the shot as Bos lays dying, grabs the animal by one of his back legs, and drags him off to the side.
He then takes a hose that was hanging nearby and uses it to rinse the blood off the concrete. He tosses the hose on the ground just before the video ends.
Police said that Huffman washed the blood away because he did not want the family to see it.
The family is now calling for Huffman’s dismissal from the Lyman Police Department.
But the village won’t budge, saying that it has numerous witnesses ‘who saw the dog acting aggressively and that it was not the first time.’
The Village of Lyman said in a statement that it ‘supports the actions taken by Officer Huffman and will defend such actions unless it is proven that Officer Huffman acted negligently in his duties as a police officer.’
But Ayala claims the security tape shows that the village is wrong, and that the shooting was not justified.
Mr Ayala told the Star Herald: ‘Nothing in the Village of Lyman’s statement is consistent with what is shown on my video. Furthermore, nothing said by Mr Huffman is consistent with what is being shown on my video.’
News Link:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219226/Ray-Huffman-Familys-horror-cop-shoots-dead-pet-dog-caught-video.html#ixzz29c6Sfevb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Watch video here (WARNING: Graphic content)
Published on 17 Oct 2012 by khairiyo
A heartbroken father claims a police officer shot his family’s dog ‘in cold blood’ in a gruesome act by a local police officer – all caught by his home security cameras.
Raul Ayala of Lyman, Nebraska, said he had gone into town on September 22 with his wife and children, leaving his 18-month-old Rottweiler, Bos, in the yard.
He later received a call from his brother-in-law, saying that he had heard shots being fired and went to the house to find Bos was dead.