New NC Law makes working dogs on livestock a Felony

[ccnnc]

Please cross post.

 

 

 

The bill passed the House June 30 (concurrence between House/Senate versions) and will be on its way to the Governor.

 

 

 

The amendment from Senator Snow exempted hunters from the fighting/baiting provision. The Wildlife Commission says the amendment also covers hunters for training situations as this falls under WRC regulations. However, if you work dogs *not* covered by WRC regulations for taking game, you are now at risk. By exempting a single class of owners in a single activity a distinction is made that owners of dogs working in venues outside WRC auspices are subject to Class H Felony charges. Stock dog work, herding, open field coursing and earth dog work could easily be construed as baiting and subject you to felony charges. With the strengthening animal rights movement today, laws have to be written absolutely clear so court interpretation is not needed.

 

 

 

The addition to the civil remedy provision in Statute 19A was a victory for animal rights activists and ALDF operating in NC. Now they can charge someone with cruelty, seize and relocate the animals, vet them (no limits are set) before the accused appears in court. While the third party provision is not new, it is unbelievable to allow private parties the right to violate your right to due process.

 

 

 

The remaining option is to voice your opposition to the Governor and ask for a Veto. Contact info for the governor?s office can be found on our alert page. http://www.ncraoa.com/alerts.html

 

Phone is preferable over fax or web form as it would likely be the faster method to be heard. Phone numbers: (919) 733-4240 or (919) 733-5811 (1-800-662-7952 valid in North Carolina only).

 

 

 

Make a call this week and ask Governor Easley to veto H 2098 Protection of Animals. We need to be vocal and we need the animal rights activists to know we are willing to fight. If not they will keep pushing one step at a time.

 

 

 

I hope that everyone has taken time to read Professor Reppy?s article, Citizen Standing: the North Carolina Experience. It is required reading if you want to understand the future agenda and stop animal rights infiltration into our laws. http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00001151/ The article is also now linked on http://www.ncraoa.com/HSUS.html under heading for ALDF.

 

 

 

Educate your friends on the remaining problems with the bill. Whether the bill affects you personally is beside the point. Make that call to the Governor!

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance (NCRAOA)

 

www.ncraoa.com

[Eileen Stein]

Colin, I don't understand from this what the problem is. I gather the bill criminalizes fighting and baiting, but working livestock is not fighting or baiting. Is baiting defined in the bill? What basis is there for thinking it would be interpreted to cover dogs working livestock?

[ccnnc]

Good morning, Eileen

 

First, my direct knowledge of the content of this bill is limited, but there are one or two aspects that are a bit worrisome.

 

The prime concern is that "baiting" is not defined.

 

The close second is that the bill allows anyone who thinks that "baiting" is taking place to come on to my property without notice or court order and remove my dogs to a place unknown for a period of time undisclosed.

 

Let's say I'm training a young dog. That can get to be a bit "grippy" at times. So, there I am in a confined space with a dog being somewhat aggressive to the stock. At that time a PETA freak drives by and sees the dog grip a sheep.

 

As explained to me, that could be perceived as baiting and the PETA person could exercise his/her "rights" under this law.

 

Another "baiting" situation could be goose dogs at work.

 

My primary concern about this law, as I understand it, is that it provides the dog owner no avenue to challennge the removal of the dog during or after the event.

 

The hunters in NC were better organized and got a specific exclusion from the "baiting" clause. I would hope that the livestock community in the state would push for the same exclusion, but that might be difficult if the governor signs the current language of the law.

 

While I DO support a ban on dog fighting, I am uncomfortable with the broad and vague language of the current bill.

[Dixie_Girl]

I read pretty much all of the article. The part that I thought was scary is what Colin just stated. ANYONE who thinks ANY dog is being used cruely, can remove that dog until the case goes to court. They can also vet them, which would include n/s, vaccinations, etc.. It has basically given the right to any person to decide what is cruel and what is not. Sure, when it goes to court, you probly will get your dog back, but at what cost? Monetary and emotionally? And what about the dog? What will it suffer through this? I was really shocked reading that part of the bill. And wanting to raise a dog to human standards is just silly. This is a very scary bill. And very scary times we are living in.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Yikes, can that be true? I can't imagine anything more likely to produce brawling and mayhem than for the law to authorize some unofficial stranger to try to take someone's dog away.

[Firchow]

I'm no attorney, nor do I live in NC, but doesn't this section indicate that that a complaint must be filed and verified and a judge grant an injunction before the "plaintiff" can take control of an animal?

 

********************************

 

"? 19A‑3. Preliminary injunction.injunction; care of animal pending hearing on the merits.

 

(a) Upon the filing of a verified complaint in the district court in the county in which cruelty to an animal has allegedly occurred, the judge may, as a matter of discretion, issue a preliminary injunction in accordance with the procedures set forth in G.S. 1A‑1, Rule 65. Every such preliminary injunction, if the complainant plaintiff so requests, may give the complainant plaintiff the right to provide suitable care for the animal. If it appears on the face of the complaint that the condition giving rise to the cruel treatment of an animal requires the animal to be removed from its owner or other person who possesses it, then it shall be proper for the court in the preliminary injunction to allow the complainant plaintiff to take possession of the animal. animal as custodian.

 

*****************************

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2005/...ML/H2098v4.html

[Firchow]

I guess I'm struggling with where this proposed bill could possibly be twisted to include livestock work. Definition of Baiting from Wikipedia:

 

***************************

 

Bait or Baiting is the act to worry or torment a chained or confined animal by setting game dogs upon it for sport. The dogs attack with endeavour, bite and tear, with an objective to subdue the opposing animal by incapacitating or killing it. Baiting is a blood sport utilized for entertainment and gambling. It is illegal in most countries with laws being enforced with varying degrees of effort and enthusiasm.

 

***************************

 

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessi...dogs&sbid=lc07b

[ccnnc]

I'm going to serve up a little humble pie....

 

After replying to Eileen this morning, I went to the NC House page and red the final version of the bill. It does have this language...

 

(this may seem a bit odd gramatically, it includes old wording and revisions)

 

"SECTION 1.1. G.S. 19A‑3 reads as rewritten:

 

"? 19A‑3. Preliminary injunction.injunction; care of animal pending hearing on the merits.

 

(a) Upon the filing of a verified complaint in the district court in the county in which cruelty to an animal has allegedly occurred, the judge may, as a matter of discretion, issue a preliminary injunction in accordance with the procedures set forth in G.S. 1A‑1, Rule 65. Every such preliminary injunction, if the complainant plaintiff so requests, may give the complainant plaintiff the right to provide suitable care for the animal. If it appears on the face of the complaint that the condition giving rise to the cruel treatment of an animal requires the animal to be removed from its owner or other person who possesses it, then it shall be proper for the court in the preliminary injunction to allow the complainant plaintiff to take possession of the animal. animal as custodian."

 

What I don't see here is any language that says the owner will be notified of the pending injunction and may defend his/her situation before the preliminary injunction goes into effect.

 

Still a bit scary.

 

Colin

[juliepoudrier]

Hmmmm...so it really sounds like the cruelty would actually be to the recalcitrant ewe or cow who challenges the dog and gets bit and not the dog doing the biting? I can just see some do-gooder hauling off a cow or two for its own protection ....

 

J.

[Black Watch Debatable]

Here are the North Carolina animal cruelty statutes: Chapter 14. Criminal Law. Subchapter XI. General Police Regulations. Article 47. Cruelty to Animals.

 

© As used in this section, the words "torture", "torment", and "cruelly" include or refer to any act, omission, or neglect causing or permitting unjustifiable pain, suffering, or death. As used in this section, the word "intentionally" refers to an act committed knowingly and without justifiable excuse, while the word "maliciously" means an act committed intentionally and with malice or bad motive. As used in this section, the term "animal" includes every living vertebrate in the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia except human beings. However, this section shall not apply to the following activities:

 

(1) The lawful taking of animals under the jurisdiction and regulation of the Wildlife Resources Commission, except that this section shall apply to those birds exempted by the Wildlife Resources Commission from its definition of "wild birds" pursuant to G.S. 113-129(15a).

 

(2) Lawful activities conducted for purposes of biomedical research or training or for purposes of production of livestock, poultry, or aquatic species.

 

(2a) Lawful activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.

 

(3) Activities conducted for lawful veterinary purposes.

 

(4) The lawful destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health.

Revisions to SECTION 3.1. G.S. 14‑362.2 seem very specifically aimed at the use of 'bait dogs' (and cats, etc.) in the training of fighting pit bulls. How this would leave stockdog people open to felony charges, given the excerpt from the statute quoted above, is a mystery to me. I imagine the excerpt above would also suffice to protect anyone with a grippy pup from PETA/ALF/HSUS intervention.

[Dixie_Girl]

Well, I don't know if it could or not, but given PETAs stand that even owning a pet is cruel to the animal, who knows where it would go.

[PennyT]

I would be interested to know how the fox hunting prohibition in Great Britain got started. Legislation like this? The wording is certainly broad enough. Then specific legistlation to actually prohibit fox hunting or a removal of exceptions.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

I don't know NC legal procedure specifically, but in general a preliminary injunction will not issue until both sides have had an opportunity to be heard. It's "preliminary" because it is issued prior to trial on the merits, but usually it requires sworn testimony (at least by affidavit) plus legal argument from both sides (unless the defendant defaults). That's in contrast to a temporary restraining order (TRO), which is what you get before the other side has been notified and had a chance to appear.

 

. . . .

{2} Lawful activities conducted for purposes of . . . production of livestock. . . .[/i] >>

 

That would clearly exempt most use of stockdogs, although possibly not trialing. But I still don't see how trialing, however much of a wreck might occur, could fit within any definition of baiting.

 

>

 

I think the fox hunting prohibition was a measure aimed head on at fox hunting right from the start.

[Black Watch Debatable]

From Wikipedia: the history of fox hunting legislation.

 

Former chief officer of the League Against Cruel Sports switches sides, joins hunters. From the article:

"One year on, nothing's changed. Hunting will continue as it is until the next change in government. The Conservatives have already said they'll bring back hunting in a free vote, and I think they will come in at the next election and we'll be back to square one in five years' time."

I'm no cultural anthropologist, but I think there were a number of elements to this debate that are unique to the UK. And the Brits seem to have been arguing about hunting with hounds for the past couple centuries

 

 

[Cartoon from the 1850s.]

[Meg's mum]

This is a mirror image of the Child Protective Services laws that operate here in Washington. I have a good friend whose child was taken away from her and her husband and put in foster care for three months when it was less than a year old. The incident that prescipated this was evidence of an old healed rib fracture foudn when she had taken him to the emergency with a bad cold.

 

Three months later she won her case against the state and got Trevor back, 6000 poorer, without a intact marriage and with a hefty counseling bill to help her through post traumatic distress syndrome.

 

I studied the argument carefully for a long time and have concluded that the dimension of abuse of children were so large that to violate the rights of innocents may warrant this tragic solution until better means are sought. That conclusion does not rest easily with me.

 

Are the dimensions of animal abuse so large that such a broadening of the power of the state is warranted????