JustOneMorePet

Every Pet Deserves A Good Home…

Holiday Weekend Pet Safety

Memorial Day weekend is upon us. We have our annual Blues Festival here in Silver City and it’s a fun weekend of music, dancing and maybe even a beer or two. Many of you will be having family and friends over to celebrate and maybe a little BBQ action is in store. Others may be headed for the beach or the river to escape the heat. Whatever your plans, don’t forget the pets. Holidays can be stressful, and in some cases dangerous times for pets.

Memorial Day is right up there with the Fourth of July when it comes to pets getting lost. Be very careful with cats especially when family and friends are coming and going a leaving doors and windows open.

Here are a few more tips to help keep your cat and dog safe:

1. Talk to the kids, and in some cases, the adults. Let them know how to approach and play with the cat or dog. Some cats don’t take kindly to being picked up by a little stranger, let alone grabbed by the tail. Same goes for the dog. You’ll need less antibiotic ointment and fewer band aids if you lay a few ground rules.

2. Leashes, collars,tags and chips: Make sure the cat and dog have their collars on and discuss the rules for taking them outside or for walks. If you use tags to identify your dog or cat make sure the info is up to date. If you micro chip your pet make sure the info in his database is up to date, too.

3. Windows and doors: With all the family and guests coming and going escapes can be a real issue. Stressed dogs and cats may seize any opportunity to bolt. Keep a watchful eye and see number 2 above.

4. Food: Try to keep the pets on their normal diet. Hold the rich food, desserts, chocolate and raisins. They won’t feel left out if you deny them their own rack of ribs. If each one of your guests gives them an itty, bitty treat it can add up fast. It’s enough to clean up the kitchen after a Memorial day cookout let alone cleaning up after a sick dog or cat.

5. Give them some attention: Your pet is going to be dealing with a lot so don’t forget to take them for walks and give them plenty of pats and hugs. They will need it. You probably will, too. Your pet, unlike your mom, sibling or in-law, probably won’t look askance as you grab that second piece of pie or don’t grab that second piece of pie, for that matter.

6. Finally, if the lake, river or beach is on the agenda, use some common sense. Many dogs love the water and unless they are good, experienced swimmers, they can get into trouble just like the kids or aunt Milly. It’s ok for them to jump in a take a swim, but don’t try for an Olympic distance record when you are heaving the stick.

Some dogs may be totally inexperienced around the water. I’ll never forget the first time I took Darcie in the canoe. She got up on the seat and calmly stepped off right into the river. She had no idea that the water surface would give. It was a shocking revelation for her.

Miles is a very strong swimmer like most Labs, but we take him swimming all the time and we know his limits even if he does not. If your dog is not familiar with the water, don’t throw the ball or stick out into the current or across the river. Don’t throw it too far into the lake either. They can easily become exhausted if they are not used to swimming for exercise and they will drown if you are not careful.

Even pet insurance can’t revive a dog or pull one from the current of a rushing river.  One final word of caution; unless you are a strong swimmer yourself, avoid the temptation to go in after a struggling pet. I know this is hard advice, but every year someone drowns trying to save a pet that should not be in trouble in the first place. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of heroics in this situation.

h/t to PurinaCare.com Blog

May 29, 2011 Posted by | animal behavior, Animal or Pet Related Stories, animals, Dogs, Holidays With Pets, If Animlas Could Talk..., Just One More Pet, Man's Best Friend, Pet Blog, Pet Friendship and Love, Pets, responsible pet ownership | , , , , | Leave a comment

Was That a ‘Sea Monster’ Living Beneath the Brooklyn Bridge?

monster

Over the last few weeks, conspiracy theorists have been in their glory. Likewise, the blogosphere and local (NYC) news outlets have been abuzz. Why, you ask? Because an enormously large and grotesque mystery creature washed ashore near NYC’s Brooklyn Bridge last week.

The beast, affectionately referred to as the “East River Monster,” was seven feet in length and, according to witness accounts, quite ugly. Gawker dramatically described the enigma as follows:

It had the scales of a fish, body of a serpent, head of a pit bull, and was the size of a large alligator.

Quite a looker, no?

While New Yorkers were enjoying the mystery and cooking up all sorts of hilarious tales, experts were preparing to slash any and all sci-fi dreams. Within days of the discovery, marine biologists offered up a reasonable explanation, thus dispelling the rumors and calming the firestorm of excitement. According to biologists, the mystery creature was actually a gigantic decaying fish (called a sturgeon). FOX News has more:

“We could tell it was an Atlantic sturgeon right away,” Kim Durham, a rescue program director and biologist for the Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation in Riverhead, N.Y., told Life’s Little Mysteries.

“They have bony plates all over their bodies. There’s no mistaking a sturgeon,” she said.

A not-so-mysterious looking sturgeon (above).

So, the hoopla was all for nothing. This scenario is oddly reminiscent of another NYC monster tale — the Montauk Mystery — an even creepier story that was characterized by an even more decrepit-looking animal. Luckily, there’s no legitimate mega-monster threat (for the time being, that is). Still, the speculation was fun while it lasted.

Source:  the Blaze

May 28, 2011 Posted by | Just One More Pet, Unusual Stories, Wild Animals | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Amazing Dog Returns Home After Tornado with Two Broken Legs !!!

A little dog, carried away by one of the Alabama tornadoes, somehow made it back home, two weeks later, walking on two broken legs! His name is "Mason" and he was in his owners’ garage, when the storm blew him away. They couldn’t find him… But two weeks later, he showed up on their porch. Vets are now trying to figure out the best way to treat "mason’s" legs.

For more on this story: MyFoxAL.com – WBRC.

May 25, 2011 Posted by | Adopt Just One More Pet, animal behavior, Animal or Pet Related Stories, animals, Dogs, If Animlas Could Talk..., Just One More Pet, Man's Best Friend, NO KILL NATION, Pets, Success Stories, Unusual Stories | | 2 Comments

TOUGH DOG: GAME OF CATCH ENDS WITH HEART IMPALED BY STICK

KOMO-TV:

KIRKLAND, Wash. — If it weren‘t for her strength and her owner’s quick thinking, Abby may not have survived the harrowing experience.

The 4-year-old German shorthaired pointer was impaled through the heart with a stick while playing catch with a ball in the woods.

“She just started crying,” said owner Adam Becker. “I went over there and saw a hole in her chest, about four inches.”

Becker saw that the stick was actually in Abby’s heart, pulling it to one side.

“And I put my shirt on her and carried her out,” he said.

(h/t GMA)

Source:  The Blaze

Will keep you updated but so far she’s doing amazingly fine!~

May 25, 2011 Posted by | Adopt Just One More Pet, animals, Dogs, If Animlas Could Talk..., Just One More Pet, Man's Best Friend, Pet Friendship and Love, Pet Health, Pets, responsible pet ownership, Success Stories | | 1 Comment

Family Facing $4 Million in Fines for Selling Bunnies

Almost nine months after a Missouri dairy was ordered to stop selling cheese made from raw milk, I share details of another hare-raising story from the Show-Me State: John Dollarhite and his wife Judy of tiny Nixa, Mo., have been told by the USDA that, by Monday, they must pay a fine exceeding $90,000. If they don’t pay that fine, they could face additional fines of almost $4 million. Why? Because they sold more than $500 worth of bunnies — $4,600 worth to be exact — in a single calendar year.

About six years ago, the Dollarhites wanted to teach their young teenage son responsibility and the value of the dollar. So they rescued a pair of rabbits — one male and one female — and those rabbits did what rabbits do; they reproduced. Before long, things were literally hopping on the three-acre homestead 30 miles south of Springfield, and Dollarvalue Rabbitry was launched as more of a hobby than a business.

“We’d sell ‘em for 10 or 15 dollars a piece,” John said during a phone interview Tuesday afternoon, comparing the venture to a kid running a lemonade stand. In addition, they set up a web site and posted a “Rabbits for Sale” sign in their front yard. Most customers, however, came via word of mouth.

In the early stages, some of the bunnies were raised and sold for their meat. Much further down the road, John said, they determined it more profitable to sell live bunnies at four weeks old than to feed bunnies for 12 weeks and then sell them as meat.

“We started becoming the go-to people” for rabbits in the Springfield area, John said. “If you wanted a rabbit, you’d go to Dollarvalue Rabbitry.” He added that the family even made the local television news just before Easter in 2008 for a report about the care and feeding of “Easter bunnies.”

Initially, the Dollarhites sold the large, white, pink-eyed variety of rabbits. Eventually, however, they switched to selling a couple of different varieties of miniature rabbits, the mating pairs of which were purchased from breeders across the state. Not only did their “show-quality” miniatures reproduce well, but they ate less and seemed to be more popular with theme park visitors and retail buyers.

During the summer of 2009, the Dollarhites bought the rabbitry from their son who had grown tired of managing it. They paid him what he asked for it, $200. Things kept growing, however, and the Dollarhite’s landed a pair of big accounts in 2009.

A well-known Branson theme park, Silver Dollar City, asked the Dollarhites to have them provide four-week-old bunnies per week to their petting zoo May through September. When the bunnies turned six weeks old, they were sold to park visitors. The Springfield location of a national pet store chain,Petland, purchased rabbits from the Dollarhites as well.

In the fall of 2009, the theme park deliveries ended for the year and the Dollarhites scaled back their operation. At about the same time, the folks at Petland asked the Dollarhites to raise guinea pigs that the store would purchase from them. No big deal.

By the year’s end, the Dollarhites had moved approximately 440 rabbits and grossed about $4,600 for a profit of approximately $200 — enough, John said, to provide the family “pocket money” to do things such as eat out at Red Lobster once in a while. That was better than the loss they experienced in 2008.

Then some unexpected matters began demanding their attention.

It’s an understatement to describe the Dollarhites as being “beyond surprised” when, in the fall of 2009, a female inspector from the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed up at the front door of the family home, wanting to do a “spot inspection” of their rabbitry. She said she had come across Dollarhite Rabbitry invoices while inspecting the petting zoo at Silver Dollar City.

“She did not tell us that we were in violation of any laws, rules, anything whatsoever,” John said, explaining that the inspector said she just wanted to see what type of operation they had. Having nothing to hide or any reason to fear they were doing anything wrong, the Dollarhites allowed the inspection to proceed.

John said he had to go to work at the family’s computer store, so Judy took the inspector to the back of their property where the rabbits were raised. There, the inspector began running the width of her finger across the cage and told the Dollarhites they would need to replace the cage, because it was a quarter-inch too small and, therefore, did not meet federal regulations.

Such a requirement came as a shock to the Dollarhites, because they had just invested in new cages to ensure the bunnies had a healthy amount of space to develop, John explained. Though raising dwarf breed varieties of rabbits which require less space, they had opted to purchase cages designed for “large breed rabbits” so the dwarfs would have plenty of room. All for naught.

Not only was the cage too small, according to the inspector, but she noted a small rust spot on a feeder and cited it as being out of compliance. When the Dollarhites told the inspector that rabbit urine causes the cages to rust and that they worked hard to keep the rabbits cages in top shape, she told them it didn’t matter. The rust spot would count as an infraction.

The inspector then asked how the cages were sanitized, John said, and Judy explained how she moved the bunnies to travel carriers and powerwashed the cages, using bleach when necessary. Afterward, she allowed the cages to dry in the sun before putting the bunnies back inside them.

The Dollarhites’ practice was much safer than that used by some breeders who used blow torches to burn hair and manure from the cages — a practice that can lead to rusting metal and produce toxic fumes from burning metal.

During the course of the spot inspection, John said, the inspector asked his wife if she and John would like to have their operation certified by USDA. Judy said she wasn’t sure and asked what certification would entail and if it would help them sell more rabbits. The inspector responded, telling her it would involve monthly inspections and was completely voluntary. The inspection ended with the inspector telling Judy that the Dollarhites rabbits looked healthy and well-cared for.

After the inspection, the Dollarhites didn’t hear from the USDA again until January 2010, John said, when he received a phone call from a Kansas City-based investigator from the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

“He called us and said, ‘I need to have a meeting with you and your wife,’” John recalled.

After explaining that he asked the investigator to come after the workday at the computer store had ended, John said he asked the investigator about the purpose of the meeting,

“He said, ‘Well, it’s because you’re selling rabbits and you’ve exceeded more than $500 dollars in a year,’” John said, “and I went, ‘Okay, what does that have to do with anything?’”

John said the investigator refused to discuss details over the phone and made it clear that rejecting his request for a meeting would be a costly error in judgment.

When Judy asked if they should have an attorney present, the investigator responded, saying, “Well, that might be a good thing.”

“At that point, we kind of set back, (wondering) what in the world is going on,” John said. Then he found an attorney who is also a farmer.

“I didn’t want a ‘city slicker,’” said John, a farmer himself until 1996 when he sold his farm to build a home in Nixa. “I wanted someone that had been around the agriculture and farm business.”

John found a guy and they met for the first time a couple of days later — at the same time both met the APHIS investigator in person at John’s home.

“The first thing (the investigator) said was ‘My name is so and so, I’ve been in the USDA for 30-plus years, and I’ve never lost a case,’” John recalled, continuing. “He said, ‘I’m not here to debate the law, interpret the law or discuss the law, I’m here just to do an investigation.’”

John said the investigator went on to explain that he would ask questions, write a report based on the answers and send that report to his superiors at the USDA regional office in Colorado Springs, Colo. The entire process was suppose to take about a month, and John was told to contact the regional office if he had not heard anything in six weeks.

“At this point in time, we were still not knowing anything about the law he was talking about,” John explained, adding that his rabbitry had never had any issues with any animal welfare agencies.

Eight weeks passed, and John decided to call Colorado Springs. Immediately, he was given the number to a USDA office in the nation’s capitol. He called the new number, and the lady he reached there was blunt, John said.

“She said, ‘Well, Mr. Dollarhite, I’ve got the report on my desk, and I’m just gonna tell you that, once I review it, it’s our intent to prosecute you to the maximum that we can’ and that ‘we will make an example out of you.”

When John once again tried to determine which law he and his wife had violated, he said the USDA lady replied, “We’ll forward you everything.”

“Ma’am, what law have we broken,” John said.

“Well, you sold more than $500 worth of rabbits in one calendar year,” she replied, according to John.

“Okay, what does that have to do with anything?” John countered.

The lady replied by saying there is a guideline which prohibits anyone from selling more than $500 worth of rabbits per year, John recalled, but she refused to cite any specific law and, instead, promised to send him the report containing details.

At that point, John said he called his attorney and was told not to worry about it, because he couldn’t find evidence of any law or regulation the Dollarhites had violated.

Soon after the meeting with the APHIS investigator and with the stress of the investigation hanging over their heads, John said he and his wife traded everything associated with the rabbit operation for other agricultural equipment.

At this point, some important facts about the manner in which the Dollarhites conducted their operation are worth reviewing:

The business was carefully conducted on the property of their Missouri home;

The business complied with all applicable state laws;

The bunnies were kept in large, clean and well-maintained cages; and

Not a single bunny was sold across state lines.

Recently, the Dollarhites received a “Certified Mail Return Receipt” letter (dated April 19, 2011) from the USDA informing them that they had broken the law and must pay USDA a fine of $90,643. Their crime? Violating violating 9 C.F.R. § 2.1 (a) (1): Selling more than $500 worth of rabbits in a calendar year.

At this point, Dollarvalue Rabbitry is expected to produced a $90,643 certified check to cover the fine issued by the Department of Agriculture. The USDA was, however, kind enough to provide in the letter the web address for a website — http://www.pay.gov — where they could go to pay their fine by credit card by May 23, 2011. Now, that’s convenient!

Based on an average price per rabbit sold being $10.45, the fine comes out to more than $206 per rabbit. In addition, the letter contains the following statement:

APHIS laws and regulations provide for administrative and criminal penalties to enforce these regulatory requirements, including civil penalties of up to $10,000 for each of the violations documented in our investigation.

If the threat contained in the letter is to be believed, the family could be fined as much as $10,000 per rabbit beyond the first 50 bunnies that netted the family its first $500. Do the math (390 rabbits x $10,000 each) and, if they don’t pay the initial fine, they could face additional fines totaling $3.9 million.

Needless to say, the Dollarhites stopped selling rabbits in January 2010 and are considering setting up a legal defense fund.

To see what the USDA has to say about the matter, read my follow-up post, USDA Stands Behind Hare-Raising Fine.

by Bob McCarty at BigGovernment.com -  Cross-Posted at JustOneMorePet.com

Hat tip: Bungalow Bill’s Conservative Wisdom

May 22, 2011 Posted by | Animal or Pet Related Stories, animals, Just One More Pet, Pets, Unusual Stories | , , , , | 3 Comments

On the Pirates Set…

« Back to On The Set

Did you know?

  • Johnny Depp works well with pigs.
  • Geoffrey Rush has a real way with monkeys.
  • You can’t take a poisonous snake to Honolulu.

Beth Langhorst knows all this, because she has served as Senior Certified Animal Safety Representative on the set of all four Pirates of the Caribbean movies — including the latest, “On Stranger Tides.” Since the Pirates film series began in 2003, Langhorst has monitored hundreds of animals on its sets. The 14-year Animal Safety Rep veteran can say, with certainty, that “No Animals Were Harmed”® on the sets of these Walt Disney films.

“Everything that looks dangerous in the film was done as safely as possible,” Langhorst said.

Weather matters
The filming of “On Stranger Tides” lasted about six months and took the crew to London, Hawaii and Puerto Rico to capture Captain Jack Sparrow’s (Johnny Depp) adventures. The on-set weather involved everything from cold, boggy gloom to tropical jungle swelter. To help ensure the comfort of the horses used on set — about 70 in total — the producers used three different groups of horses, each native to the climate of the filming locale.

Aloha CGI
Hawaii prohibits venomous reptiles on its islands, and those in its zoos are not allowed to leave — plus, Johnny Depp would probably rather not hold a poisonous snake. So, the producers used computer-generated imagery for all the frog and snake scenes in the movie.

Some Pig
One of Langhorst’s favorite animals to work with on the set was the pig, who started out a little wild but soon got used to working for food rewards and belly scratches.

“He was a great little pig,” she said. “By week four, we had turned him into a star.”

Fifth movie?
Sorry, we can’t tell you — but if there is another Pirates of the Caribbean movie, Langhorst will be there on the set protecting animals.

Source: American Humane Film and TV

May 21, 2011 Posted by | animal behavior, Animal or Pet Related Stories, animals, If Animlas Could Talk..., Just One More Pet, Stop Animal Cruelty, We Are All God's Creatures | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Animal Cruelty and Animal Cruelty Laws

I just moved to a new state… a cowboy state as they like to call themselves, and to a small town; diametrically the opposite of where I came from and grew up in, in just about every way.  It has been quite the experience in many ways… from the weather to breaking my ankle and an overall adjustment in perspective. 

There are many good things here, but there are also a few that will take more than just a little adjusting to.

I went out with some friends to a local bar (one of 3 in town) for the first time since breaking my ankle just a month after we arrived.  it was a slow night so you could actually sit and talk and hear what everyone was saying, although about 40-minutes into the conversation I wished I couldn’t hear as well.

We were at a table that soon grew into two of about 12 to 14 people.  One gal who came in late with a good friend of mine and her son, came in grumbling.  It was a gal that you just know has trouble follow her, or perhaps it is that she creates it?  We will call her Les(lie).

Les had been complaining about her dad, her ex, her horses and then out of the clear blue asked if anyone there would be willing to shoot her dog in the head.  My heart immediately fell into my stomach. She repeated the question directly to a couple of the guys, who actually said they would do it.  And what bothered me even more than her question, or their seeming willingness, was the fact that they did not even ask why? Before I could get out of my whirling thoughts, another gal, who also did not grow up here in cowboy town said. “Hey… I don’t like where this is going!!”  And I immediately chimed in “Me neither!!”

My local friend, who obviously recognized our disgust and uneasiness, quickly changed the subject and then afterward threw in that Les had a black German Shepherd that just loved her.  I took the opportunity to ask what exactly was wrong with the dog in question that she would need to shoot it.  Her response was that it was a pup that was hyper and she couldn’t deal with it.  So of course our logical question was, “Why not get it some training, give it to someone who wanted it, or take it to a rescue or the shelter? She said she tried to give it to her father who couldn’t take it and then rambled something ridiculous about not wanting to be responsible if someone else took the dog.  I guess killing it is better?

By this time I could hardly breath and the fact that only two of us, who weren’t from there, realized that this was wrong on so many levels, despicable and cruel angered as well as amazed me.

Because of the dynamic of the relationships at that table, I decided to keep my mouth shut for the moment since the conversation had moved on.

The other gal who spoke and I have found a rescue for the dog… but the underlying problems still exist:  the mental problems and cruelty of the gal who wanted to shoot her dog in the head because it was a high-strung pup/dog; the willingness of two people at the bar to shoot the dog; and the complacency and the acceptance of the rest of them with the idea and solution.  And then there is the question of whether I can remain here with attitudes like this… or whether I must remain here to stop the unnecessary killing of pets and inhumane treatment of animals in general?  M~

State Cruelty Laws Alabama-Montana

State Cruelty Laws Nebraska-Wyoming

Wyoming
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/title06/chapter03.htm (Scroll ~1/4 down the page for the correct statute.)
Wyo. Stat. 6-3-203

Cruelty to animals is defined as: "knowingly and with intent to cause death, injury or undue suffering: overrides an animal or drives an animal when overloaded; or unnecessarily or cruelly beats, tortures, torments, injures, mutilates or attempts to kill an animal; or carries an animal in a manner that poses undue risk of injury or death; or unnecessarily fails to provide it with the proper food, drink or protection from the weather, or cruelly abandons the animal, or in the case of immediate, obvious, serious illness or injury, fails to provide the animal with appropriate care."  Cruelty to animals is a Misdemeanor with a fine up to $750 and/or imprisonment up to 6 months.

Aggravated animal cruelty is defined as: "Owns, possesses, keeps or trains fowls or dogs with the intent to allow the dog or fowl to engage in an exhibition of fighting with another dog or fowl" or attends, permits or promotes such an event. Aggravated cruelty to animals or a second or subsequent offense of cruelty to animals is a high misdemeanor with a fine up to $5000 and/or imprisonment up to 1 year.

Felony cruelty to animals is defined as: "knowingly and with intent to cause death, injury or undue suffering, cruelly beats, tortures, torments, injures or mutilates an animal resulting in the death or required euthanasia of the animal."  This is a Felony with a fine up to $5000 and/or imprisonment up to 2 years.

Additional sentencing provisions are: forfeiture of animals, cost of care, and prohibit or limit possession, ownership or custody of animals.  Exemptions are made for use of dogs in livestock management, use or training of dogs or raptors for hunting, humanely destroying an animal, industry accepted agricultural and livestock practices, rodeo, hunting or capture or predatory animals or other wildlife not otherwise prohibited.

Wisconsin
http://folio.legis.state.wi.us/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?clientID=96087&hitsperheading=on&infobase=stats.nfo&jump=951.02&softpage=
Wis Stat. 951.02 et. seq.

Cruelty to animals is defined as: "No person may treat any animal, whether belonging to the person or another, in a cruel manner."  Intentional or negligent violation is a Class A Misdemeanor punishable with a fine up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment up to 6 months.  Intentional violation that results in the mutilation, disfigurement or death of an animal is a Class E Felony punishable with a fine up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment up to 2 years.  Additional sentencing provisions include forfeiture of animals, cost of care, and forbidding the convicted from owning, possessing or training any animal of the type or species of the abused for not more than 5 years.  Exceptions are made for laws regarding wild animals, scientific research and veterinary care.
Back to Top

West Virginia
http://www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/61/masterfrm2Frm.htm (Scroll down list on the left to 61-8- 19.)
W. VA Code 61-8-19

Cruelty to animals is defined as: "cruelly mistreats, abandons or withholds proper sustenance, including food, water, shelter or medical treatment necessary to sustain normal health and fitness or to end suffering or abandons any animal to die, or uses, trains or possesses any domesticated animal for the purpose of seizing, detaining or maltreating any other domesticated animal."  This is a Misdemeanor with a fine of $300 to $1000 and/or imprisonment up to 6 months.  A second conviction is a Misdemeanor with a fine of $500 to $1000 and/or imprisonment of 90 days to 1 year.  Imprisonment is mandatory.  With a second or subsequent conviction, the convicted cannot be granted probation until they have undergone a complete psychiatric or psychological evaluation that is reviewed by the court.

There is a Felony provision for "intentionally tortures or maliciously kills an animal, or causes, procures or authorizes any other person to torture or maliciously kill an animal… For the purposes of this subsection, "torture" means an action taken for the primary purpose of inflicting pain."  This Felony conviction carries a fine of $1000 to $5000 and imprisonment of 1 to 3 years.   Additional sentencing provisions include forfeiture of the animals, cost of care, prohibition of possession or ownership of animals for 5 years if convicted of a Misdemeanor, 15 years if convicted of a Felony.  Exemptions are made for veterinary care, hunting, fishing, trapping, animal training, farming, game farms, and scientific research.
Back to Top

Vermont
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/sections.cfm?Title=13&Chapter=008
Vt. St. Ann. Title 13, Chapter 8, 351 et seq.

Cruelty to animals is defined as: "intentionally kills or attempts to kill any animal belonging to another person without first obtaining legal authority or consent of the owner; overworks, overloads, tortures, torments, abandons, administers poison to, cruelly beats or mutilates an animal, exposes a poison with intent that it be taken by an animal; ties, tethers, or restrains an animal, either a pet or livestock, in a manner that is inhumane or is detrimental to its welfare; deprives an animal of adequate food, water, shelter, rest or sanitation, or necessary medical attention, or transports an animal in overcrowded vehicles; owns, possesses, keeps or trains an animal engaged in an exhibition of fighting; acts as judge or spectator at events of animal fighting or bets or wagers on the outcome of such fight; as poundkeeper, officer, agent of a humane society or as an owner or employee of an establishment for treatment, board or care of an animal, knowingly receives, sells, transfers or otherwise conveys an animal in his or her care for the purpose of research or vivisection; intentionally torments or harasses an animal owned or engaged by a police department or public agency of the state or its political subdivisions, or interferes with the lawful performance of a police animal; knowingly sells, offers for sale, barters or displays living baby chicks, ducklings or other fowl which have been dyed, colored or otherwise treated so as to impart to them an artificial color, or fails to provide poultry with proper brooder facilities; uses a live animal as bait or lure in a race, game or contest."  The classification of the crimes are not defined in the statutes.  Cruelty to animals is punishable with a fine up to $2000 and/or imprisonment for up to 1 year.  A second or subsequent is punishable with a fine up to $5000 and/or imprisonment up to 2 years.  Animal fighting (either statute) is punishable with a fine of up to $5000 and/or imprisonment up to 5 years.

Aggravated cruelty to animals is defined as: "intentionally kills an animal by means causing the animal undue pain or suffering; or intentionally, maliciously, and without just cause tortures, mutilates, or cruelly beats an animal."  Aggravated cruelty to animals is punishable with a fine up to $5000 and/or imprisonment up to 3 years.  A second or subsequent conviction is punishable with a fine up to $7500 and/or imprisonment up to 5 years.  Other sentencing provisions include: forfeiture of animal possessed or owned, cost of care, forfeiture of future rights to own or possess animals for a period determined by the court, animal cruelty prevention or educational program, psychological counseling, periodic and unannounced inspections by a humane officer.  Exemptions are made for activities regulated by Fish & Wildlife, scientific research, animal husbandry, veterinary medicine or surgical procedures, protection of person or other domestic animals, rabid animals, pest control, euthanasia by organized humane society, pound or shelter.
Back to Top

Utah
http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_0B011.htm
Utah Code Ann. 76-9-301

Cruelty to animals is defined as: "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence: fails to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for an animal in his custody; abandons an animal in the person’s custody; transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner; injures an animal; causes any animal, not including a dog, to fight with another animal of like kind for amusement or gain; or causes any animal, including a dog, to fight with a different kind of animal or creature for amusement or gain."  If these acts are committed "intentionally or knowingly", it is a Class B Misdemeanor with a fine up to $1000 and/or imprisonment up to 6 months.  If these acts are committed "recklessly or with criminal negligence" it is a Class C Misdemeanor with a fine up to $750 and/or imprisonment up to 90 days.

Aggravated Cruelty is defined as: "tortures an animal; administers poison or poisonous substances to an animal without having a legal privilege to do so; kills or causes to be killed an animal without having a legal privilege to do so."  If these acts are committed "intentionally or knowingly" it is a Class A Misdemeanor with a fine up to $2500 and/or imprisonment up to 1 year.  If these acts are committed "recklessly" it is a Class B Misdemeanor with a fine up to $1000 and/or imprisonment up to 6 months.  If these acts are committed "with criminal negligence" it is a Class C Misdemeanor with a fine up to $750 and/or imprisonment up to 90 days.

Other penalties that may be used at the court’s discretion: psychiatric or psychological counseling; forfeit any rights to the animal; repay the reasonable costs incurred in caring for each animal; no longer possess or retain custody of any animal during the period of probation or parole or other period.

Exemptions are made for veterinary practice, bona fide scientific research, protection of livestock, fowl or domestic animals, humanely destroying a suffering animal which is beyond recovery, and animal training.
Back to Top

Texas
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm  (Scroll  down to Chapter 9, Chapter 42, Section 42.009 and click the link)
Texas Penal Code, Title 9, Chapter 42, 42.09

Cruelty to animals is defined as: " (1) tortures an animal; (2) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for an animal in the person’s custody; (3) abandons unreasonably an animal in the person’s custody; (4) transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner; (5) kills, seriously injures, or administers poison to an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner’s effective consent; (6) causes one animal to fight with another; (7) uses a live animal as a lure in dog race training or in dog coursing on a racetrack; (8) trips a horse; (9) injures an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner’s effective consent; or (10) seriously overworks an animal."  Sections (2), (3), (4), (9), or (10) (provide necessary food, care, shelter; abandons; transports in a cruel manner; injures, or seriously overworks) are a Class A Misdemeanor with a fine up to $4000 and/or imprisonment up to 1 year. The third conviction of the above is a State Jail Felony, with a fine up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment from 180 days to 2 years.  Sections (1), (5), (6), (7), or (8) (tortures; kills, seriously injures or poisons; animal fighting; uses as a lure; trips a horse) is a State Jail Felony with a fine up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment from 180 days to 2 years.  A third conviction of the above is a Felony of the Third Degree with a fine up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment from 2 to 10 years.  Exemptions are made for bona fide scientific research, protection of property or persons, fishing, hunting or trapping, wildlife control, and animal husbandry.
Back to Top

May 20, 2011 Posted by | animal abuse, Animal or Pet Related Stories, Animal Related Education, Animal Rights And Awareness, animals, Dogs, If Animlas Could Talk..., Just One More Pet, Man's Best Friend, NO KILL NATION, Outreach for Pets, Pets, Stop Animal Cruelty, Toughen Animal Abuse Laws and Sentences, We Are All God's Creatures | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Utah ex-councilman charged in shooting of dog

SALT LAKE CITY — A former rural Utah town councilman was charged Thursday with a felony count of torturing a companion animal after he was arrested earlier this month for investigation of shooting his neighbor’s dog.

Duchesne County prosecutors filed the third-degree felony charge against Rickey E. Wilberg, 58, of Tabiona. He also faces a misdemeanor charge of intoxication.

Wilberg made an initial court appearance Thursday. In a telephone call with The Associated Press, he declined comment and said he was trying to hire an attorney.

Wilberg initially faced a misdemeanor animal cruelty charge but could spend up to five years in Utah State Prison if convicted of the felony. It wasn’t immediately clear why Deputy County Attorney Grant Charles had bumped up the charge, and a message for him wasn’t returned.

Prosecutors contend Wilberg shot and killed "Rocky," a 9-month-old Chihuahua, with a .22-caliber rifle on May 13. The dog was being trained to be a companion for an elderly person, owner Peggy Redmiles told the AP.

Redmiles, who shares a back fence with Wilberg, said she and her son found the dog in the yard with a bullet hole through its throat. The dog, one of four in the home, usually stays indoors but was left outside while Redmiles took material to a nearby dump.

Two days before the shooting, Redmiles said, Wilberg left a message on her answering machine with a complaint about her dogs.

"Peggy, this is Rick. We’ve had three complaints from the neighborhood," a man said on the message played by Redmiles for the AP. "They want you to shut up your yapping dogs."

Redmiles said she had heard no other complaints from neighbors. She said she would have immediately taken care of any problem if Wilberg had called police or animal control officers and asked them to address the problem.

"I’m devastated that my dog is gone," said Redmiles, who works in local schools.

Earlier this week, Wilberg resigned his post on the Tabiona Town Council in a letter to Mayor Ronnie Giles. Wilberg was halfway through his second four-year term. The council has 30 days to appoint a replacement.

A hearing was set for July 7 in 8th District Court, about 114 miles southwest of Salt Lake City.

May 20, 2011 Posted by | animal behavior, Animal or Pet Related Stories, animals, Chihuahua, Dogs, If Animlas Could Talk..., Just One More Pet, Man's Best Friend, NO KILL NATION, Pet Abuse, Political Change, Stop Animal Cruelty, Toughen Animal Abuse Laws and Sentences, We Are All God's Creatures | , | 1 Comment

Lying Dogs vs. Useful Dogs… No Need for Machines at Airports! Dogs Do It Better!

Lying Dogs vs Useful Dogs

Video:  Real Airport Security

Chertoff & Company have raised the price of their mandatory full body irradiation devices from $160,000 to $250,000 since the winter.
Why the big price increase?

They’ve got a lot of Congressmen to pay off.

The good news is that the GOP (god bless their pointy little heads) have said "NO" to funding additional purchases of these things.
Personally, I made the decision back in November to stop flying into or out of any airport that uses these things which means I’m not flying in the US.

I’m lucky that I no longer have to fly for work and most of my family is within a reasonable drive.

The fact is my quality of life has improved noticeably since I stopped flying. No more stress of getting to the airport on time and dealing with all the crap that takes place there and on the planes.

I’m discovering all the great things I can do within 250 miles of my home and have learned that I’d never run out of interesting, pleasurable things to do within that radius in ten lifetimes.

Disney World? Las Vegas? Is it really worth getting on a plane to go to places like that and in doing so support outrageous conduct on the part of the government?

I don’t think so, but that’s just me.

There are dogs everywhere who need a job and purpose and there are millions of us who don’t want to be groped and have our privacy and rights infringed upon any longer!!  (Video: All Breeds:  Awareness)

May 18, 2011 Posted by | animal behavior, Animal or Pet Related Stories, Animal Rescues, animals, Dogs, Just One More Pet, Man's Best Friend, NO KILL NATION, Pet and Animal Training, Success Stories, We Are All God's Creatures | , , | Leave a comment

‘LITTLE GIRL WITH A DEAD SQUIRREL’: IS THIS ‘BAD PARENTING’ OR JUST A MORBIDLY CUTE VIDEO?

This clip is screaming to be introduced by “America‘s Funniest Home Video’s” Tom Bergeron or possibly Dr. Phil as he launches into a show on bad parenting. Either way, it’s a winner.

A young girl is outside playing and sees the family dog kill a squirrel. It doesn’t shock or even frighten the young lady. She wants to show this trophy to her parents, whose first instinct is to run and grab the video camera.

Watch the clip that sparked a very broad reaction at the offices of The Blaze.

(Content warning, mom’s language not for broadcast)

Video:  Little Girl Plays With Dead Squirrel

There is a poll at the end of the video on the Blaze.  At time of posting:

Out of 4,153 votes:

  • just plain crazy! That squirrel could be swarming with disease. 48.64% (2,020 votes)
  • brilliant. The video will be seen by millions on AFV next season. (cha-ching) 3.32% (138 votes)
  • good parents. They didn’t overreact, and the kid learned about life and death.48.04% (1,995 votes)

What do you think?

May 14, 2011 Posted by | animal behavior, Animal or Pet Related Stories, animals, Dogs, Pets, Unusual Stories, Wild Animals | , | Leave a comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 231 other followers