The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec. 30, 2006
    Posts
    1,209

    Default Right to Own Animals

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    Indiana Ag Gag bill dead....

    http://www.southbendtribune.com/news...,4633416.story

    Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, pulled a conference committee report for Senate Bill 373, the controversial "ag gag bill," in the waning hours of the 2013 session of the Indiana General Assembly, effectively killing the bill.

    The bill went to conference committee for further discussion after author Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle, disagreed with changes made by the House after the bill passed the Senate. Those changes included removing all mentions of taking or disseminating video or photographs.

    The bill could have survived if Holdman would have agreed to the changes made by the House, but he didn't, according to The Associated Press.

    The original bill prosecutes trespassers and those who gain employment with a company who might bring harm to a business. Various versions of the bill have removed or included provisions for photography and video, as well as exceptions if someone brings evidence of animal abuse or other crimes to authorities within two days.

    An uncommon move according to several legislators, pulling the bill so late in the session created another stumbling block for the piece of legislation already making headlines for potential First Amendment violations, among other issues.

    Punishments in the bill included a Class A misdemeanor for trepassing or deception, depending on the violation.

    The conference committee report widened the scope of the bill to any business on any private property, as well as widened actions from the original bill to "an act ... on the real property with the intent to harm any business that operates on the real property," according to the report.

    Many spoke against the conference committee report, which passed the Senate 29-21 first but was pulled by Bosma in the House before a vote.

    Rep. Bill Friend, R-Macy, sponsored the bill in the House. He defended the bill based on the concept of "intent" -- if the intent of someone is to do good or prevent harm, they would not be prosecuted, he said, though the committee report did not have that expressly written in as an exception.

    "The key phrase there is 'with the intent to harm,'" Friend explained. "I have had many examples thrown at me in the last couple of hours (such as businesses with health violations). This bill doesn't make those people guilty, because their intent is to expose those unsafe, unsanitary conditions."

    Local Reps. B. Patrick Bauer and David Niezgodski, D-South Bend, both spoke out against the bill. Bauer coined the term "gag-all bill," stating the conference committee version of the bill stepped far beyond agricultural boundaries.

    "You have to ask the question: who's trying to hide what? Right now we've had Boston (marathon bombing), with explosions and people dying, the West, Texas (fertilizer factory) explosion and people dying," Bauer said. "Fortunately in Boston, they had cameras everywhere. They needed cameras everywhere. They're talking about having more cameras everywhere.

    "We in Indiana have decided to gag all?" Bauer continued. "Gag the whistleblowers? Why do we always want to do something outrageous?... People that are doing this and are trying to whistleblow on danger should be rewarded for trying to protect lives, not threatened."

    Niezgodski said he understands what the bill attempted to do because he is a businessman, but that the bill was too overreaching.

    "Sometimes you just have to be real," Niezgodski said. "I understand you're trying to do something good, but just look at how wide of a spectrum this is."

    There was some support in the House, with Rep. Bill Davis, R-Portland, giving his support to the bill because it protects private business on private property.

    "What this bill is talking about is private business where you're allowed (privacy)," Davis said. "In a private business, you have a right to konw who's there, why they're there and that if they're going to take pictures or a recording, you have approved that."

    Sen. Democratic Leader Tim Lanane, Anderson, said the broad report changes could lead to prosecuting the press and may not uphold a constitutional challenge.

    Sen. Karen Talian, D-Portage, also spoke against the bill, stating that it "infringes on the right of free press -- it infringes on the right of free speech."

    Sen. Jean Leising, R-Oldenburg, spoke in support of SB 373's comittee report. She said he helps protect property rights.

    "In regard to animal agriculture, there have been concerns because there are individuals and organizations in our state that are very anti-animal agriculture," Leising said. "Sometimes their motives are against our goals, and with how big the animal agriculture industry is in our state ... for the sake of animal agcriculture, for the sake of property rights, I ask you to pass this bill."

    Bill author Sen. Travis Holdman, R-Markle, said the bill is constitutional based on analysis by several attorneys. He said he remembered prosecuting a case in Wells County where the judge called property rights a "sacred trust" between owner and constitution.

    "I think we need to be focused on our individual property rights to pursue happiness and prosperity on our private property because these are our rights," he said.

    The issue could come up next legislative session.
    Article sure reflects the many COTH discussions on the matter. And it correlates this fear of losing the rights to have animals and own property are fueled in much the same way as the fear of the FBI plotting domestic terror and taking away guns.

    It is incredulous to me that legislators are willing to assert that the process of exposing animal abuse for purpose of prosecution poses a threat to agriculture. It begs the question - however ignorant of me - but I will ask - are there any "right to own animals" laws?

    IMO - if there is a real threat of losing the right to own animals - it would be better for legislators to simply tighten up any law or laws which establish the right to own animals. Seems THAT should suffice to protect agriculture and not cause the many difficulties Ag Gag laws present.
    from sunridge1:Go get 'em Roy! Stupid clown shoe nailing, acid pouring bast@rds.it is going to be good until the last drop!Eleneswell, the open trail begged to be used. D Taylor


    2 members found this post helpful.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,652

    Default

    Well, in general, animals are property, and you can own property. But then it's a gray area, because there are laws making owning certain wild animals illegal, or certain exotic animals illegal. And cities can ban ownership of certain exotic animals, or more than a certain number of dogs/cats.

    I know in Canada, they don't allow landlords to not allow renters to own dogs. But here in the US, the landlords can put no pet rules in place except for service animals.

    As far as a right to own animals, it is a gray area for the reasons above.



  3. #3

    Default

    they are everywhere,

    you can only have <insert number> dogs,
    you can only have <insert number >animals in a house,
    no chickens in the city limits,
    no goats in the city limits,
    no pitbulls,dobermans,boxers,german shepherds,great danes in the apartment complex...(that is where my oldest child lives now),
    no more than <insert number> of cattle in a barn.....

    the list is endless and passes unnoticed or uncared for by most everyone.Some of which, I ever even knew about until I saw an animal hoarders episode when some woman could only have three dogs and two cats by county ordinance,I was floored...

    yes she was filthy and so were all her animals and I do think that more than two dogs is generally an unmannerly pack and should be avoided, I never imagined a county could set a limit,blew my mind

    I agree with Sen. Jean Leising totally and always have...the intent of the HSUS is to stop us from farming and from having production livestock...they have shown this with their endless fund raising using the one same downer cow video that has been seen the world over....the same way they show the pathetic puppies in ads and get old women and children to send them $5,knowing none goes to anything but their support of the terrorists in the ALF...

    this is about stopping them.We are in their sights now,ya'll will be next.

    Tamara
    Production Acres,Pro A Welsh Cobs
    I am one of the last 210,000 remaining full time farmers in America.We feed the others.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec. 30, 2006
    Posts
    1,209

    Default

    Yes, the only laws I know of are how you keep them and where you keep them - and for sure that you are liable for ownership of any animal/property/thing. But I know of no law that establishes whether animal ownership is a right or not.

    But with all the coming to take them all away worries - maybe we need such a law to firmly establish a right to own domestic animals.

    I just had to ask - and thanks for the replies.
    from sunridge1:Go get 'em Roy! Stupid clown shoe nailing, acid pouring bast@rds.it is going to be good until the last drop!Eleneswell, the open trail begged to be used. D Taylor



  5. #5

    Default

    animals are property and protected under the fourth amendment,until they lose that status and then they are not protected anymore

    one of the main reasons for the 4th was that British soldiers quartered in Colonist's homes could order the only dairy cow killed because they wanted steak,or the sheep killed for mutton that day,or all the eggs taken for themselves.
    outside of inherited silver, livestock and a stocked pantry were the wealth of a family in that time.

    Tamara
    Production Acres,Pro A Welsh Cobs
    I am one of the last 210,000 remaining full time farmers in America.We feed the others.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hurleycane View Post
    Yes, the only laws I know of are how you keep them and where you keep them - and for sure that you are liable for ownership of any animal/property/thing. But I know of no law that establishes whether animal ownership is a right or not.

    But with all the coming to take them all away worries - maybe we need such a law to firmly establish a right to own domestic animals.

    I just had to ask - and thanks for the replies.
    If you don't know any laws to take our rights to own animals away, just look at the controversy over so many "guardian" laws animal rights extremists keep trying to introduce.

    The legal definition of "guardian" rather than "owner" is a very scary one.
    As a "guardian", your rights are very much restricted.

    Just look that up.

    As for the misnamed "ag gag laws", those are a try to curb the abuses we have been seeing lately, where animal rights extremists have been using myths and out of context stories with well edited videos of abuse, that should not happen, we all agree on that, to brand all that work with animals as abusers.

    While abuses are something everyone working with animals or kids or patients or the elderly or you name it is always trying to prevent, well, some times abuses do happen.

    What animal rights extremists, thru their propaganda, do with the abuses and mismanagement that sadly happens at times, is to work on the minds of the gullible public, that doesn't know any better, believes that abuse is what, say, all dairymen do, as in the Illinois lobbying drive a year ago, to eventually eliminate all animal uses.

    Yes, that includes horses too, eventually.

    Those laws are the result of that, trying to curb the zealots from doing harm while going about their work of finding abuses for their agendas.
    Those zealots have been abusing themselves in several ways, one by the lies they have been caught with and who knows how many others they have not, like the circus case the HSUS lost for paying someone to lie, to try to upheld privacy laws.

    I expect these laws will be tweaked time and again, until a good working law to try please all with an interest in this, as they find what are good solutions in this.



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec. 30, 2006
    Posts
    1,209

    Default

    No. I did not ask that.

    What I did not know of was if any law exists that establishes a right to animal ownership.

    True - Having a legal right to own an animal will not stop laws that pertain to how and where we keep animals.

    But the problem I see is I do not know of a law that established a right to animal ownership.

    Having that ( ^ ) in place would be a plus.
    from sunridge1:Go get 'em Roy! Stupid clown shoe nailing, acid pouring bast@rds.it is going to be good until the last drop!Eleneswell, the open trail begged to be used. D Taylor


    1 members found this post helpful.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec. 30, 2006
    Posts
    1,209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tamara in TN View Post
    animals are property and protected under the fourth amendment,until they lose that status and then they are not protected anymore

    one of the main reasons for the 4th was that British soldiers quartered in Colonist's homes could order the only dairy cow killed because they wanted steak,or the sheep killed for mutton that day,or all the eggs taken for themselves.
    outside of inherited silver, livestock and a stocked pantry were the wealth of a family in that time.

    Tamara

    from Wiki: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    from sunridge1:Go get 'em Roy! Stupid clown shoe nailing, acid pouring bast@rds.it is going to be good until the last drop!Eleneswell, the open trail begged to be used. D Taylor


    2 members found this post helpful.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    4,407

    Default

    The poster child of PETA :

    Zurich, Switzerland has a court appointed animal rights lawyer. A proposed new law would have added 25 more public defenders for animals – to cover other parts of the country was defended in public referendum

    Nearly 71 percent of the voters rejected it.



    Switzerland currently has a very thorough 160–page animal protection law.

    "It governs everything from how much space owners must give their gerbils, to the water temperature for frogs. It outlines that social animals such as pigs and birds must have companions and that horses and cows get regular exercise. It even requires guardians of dogs to take a training course on how to care for their pets. And of course the law also forbids cruelty and abuse."


    1 members found this post helpful.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tamara in TN View Post
    animals are property and protected under the fourth amendment,until they lose that status and then they are not protected anymore

    one of the main reasons for the 4th was that British soldiers quartered in Colonist's homes could order the only dairy cow killed because they wanted steak,or the sheep killed for mutton that day,or all the eggs taken for themselves.
    outside of inherited silver, livestock and a stocked pantry were the wealth of a family in that time.

    Tamara
    ^^^^

    See answer above, yes there are already laws designating ownership of animals.

    By the way, those misnamed "ag gag laws" are not really well accepted by many that think we don't need many more laws, just use what we have already.

    Only in very specific situations, to address the new technology, as in who can use cameras to spy on others, laws need to be changed to address that, or new ones added.

    Some of those "ag gag laws" are all over the place in how appropriate they are and the worst of the whole is the process, that any law gets "worked over" by politicians and it ends up not being quite what it was intended to be, but has this or that tail added to it, sneaking in stuff many for that law would never have approved.

    Making laws is a two edged sword, you start the process, but won't know what you end up with and some results are not what you wanted.



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec. 30, 2006
    Posts
    1,209

    Default

    Hey Tamara - not sure how your quote above got all "expanded." - I just wanted to respond cause I missed your additional info on the 4th ans this expanded version of your post came up. Might have been a puter glitch? Sorry.


    Never mind - I see it was a delay in uploading the edit.
    from sunridge1:Go get 'em Roy! Stupid clown shoe nailing, acid pouring bast@rds.it is going to be good until the last drop!Eleneswell, the open trail begged to be used. D Taylor



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar. 28, 2002
    Location
    East of Dog River
    Posts
    5,731

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    I know in Canada, they don't allow landlords to not allow renters to own dogs. But here in the US, the landlords can put no pet rules in place except for service animals.
    I beg to differ - MOST apartment complexes and many single family dwelling rentals are pet free except for service animals and this has been the case for decades. So many pet owners leave a horrible mess behind and do not think it is their responsibility to clean yards and houses when they leave since they do not own the propertly. Not sure where you are getting your outdated information.....

    There are also by-laws in effect in urban areas regarding number of animals to a private dwelling except when designated agricultural or industrial (boarding kennels, etc), where a large animal clinic can exist, what city streets you can haul livestock down to get to fair grounds (for example, city of Regina allows one to transport an empty trailer through downtown, but not one with livestock inside unless you are providing animals for display and jump through the proper hoops), then there is the neverending urban chicken debate in many communities. Even worse, some places have outlawed fire pits and some even barbecue grills. We are legislated to death here in Canada and yet the treehuggers want more.
    Founder of the Dyslexic Clique. Dyslexics of the world - UNTIE!!

    Member: Incredible Invisbles



  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hurleycane View Post
    Hey Tamara - not sure how your quote above got all "expanded." - I just wanted to respond cause I missed your additional info on the 4th ans this expanded version of your post came up. Might have been a puter glitch? Sorry.
    Never mind - I see it was a delay in uploading the edit.
    all good,even DSL is slow here in the rain,two inches in the last 24hrs.

    the effects include the animals of the farm and then you come to the bit about no searches w/o warrant

    and then the question is asked does that cover air space and drones ?
    can something captured by a drone be used as evidence collected w/o a search warrant?
    or can we just blast the drones down because they are trespassing on a farms airspace ?
    can a farm have airspace ?
    you see that is where this goes

    I will say that me, as a person, is less likely to look past abuse if I know I am required to report it.That is the deal,decent people don't over look it,film it, be entertained by it or extend malice for their own purposes.

    And yes as a long long time farmer here in both animals and row crops,my opinion on animals and land and both's use and abuse does have more weight that some complete stranger who staggers hysterically into a sheriffs dept with a peta sticker on their car.

    This law does not let me look the other way.And that is the way I personally view it.

    best
    Tamara
    Production Acres,Pro A Welsh Cobs
    I am one of the last 210,000 remaining full time farmers in America.We feed the others.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb. 20, 2010
    Location
    All 'round Canadia
    Posts
    5,197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sk_pacer View Post
    I beg to differ - MOST apartment complexes and many single family dwelling rentals are pet free except for service animals and this has been the case for decades. So many pet owners leave a horrible mess behind and do not think it is their responsibility to clean yards and houses when they leave since they do not own the propertly. Not sure where you are getting your outdated information.....
    Agreed. Absolutely in Canada the landlord may have a no-pet clause; most apartments I've lived in had one. I think Nunavut is the only territory where pets are allowed across the board (and possibly public housing, their rules are different).

    Breaching the no-pet clause is not an evictable offense in all provinces, that varies province to province, but they all allow no-pet clauses.



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2006
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    4,407

    Default

    PETA will start with a valid point such as puppies and kitties are cute then distort that into humans are terrible


    2 members found this post helpful.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun. 27, 2005
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    4,662

    Default

    A lot of the restrictions I see are related to ordinances.
    Obviously I wouldn't be allowed to have 50 horses in my front yard, but the law
    would not have any say if I owned that many.

    I do however feel that in cases of abuse a prosecutor should have the ability to restrict a convicted abuser from owning animals for however long the law in that jurisdiction allows for.

    ************************
    \"Horses lend us the wings we lack\"



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    41,138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    A lot of the restrictions I see are related to ordinances.
    Obviously I wouldn't be allowed to have 50 horses in my front yard, but the law
    would not have any say if I owned that many.

    I do however feel that in cases of abuse a prosecutor should have the ability to restrict a convicted abuser from owning animals for however long the law in that jurisdiction allows for.
    Now, rare as that may be, this one time I do agree with you that anyone convicted of animal abuse should be monitored and not again be permitted to own or have animals under their care, as that one Vick fellow.

    That goes for anyone that breaks such laws, be it child abuse, drunk driving and such.
    Some people just can't be trusted and that is when laws need to insure that they are, either locked away, or somehow not given another chance to abuse.

    I wonder what Guilherme would say may work with existing laws and concerns about this.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2006
    Posts
    2,882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmytbs View Post
    I do however feel that in cases of abuse a prosecutor should have the ability to restrict a convicted abuser from owning animals for however long the law in that jurisdiction allows for.
    Convicted abusers and those convicted of neglect are routinely denied animal ownership for a period of time, or limited on the number they can own. The prosecutor always has the ability to seek whatever conditions they feel are appropriate (and that they feel a judge will go along with).

    In my experience, it isn't a case of the prosecutor not having the ability to ask for X, Y or Z or the judge's ability to impose a sentence of X, Y or Z. The problem comes from the convicted person picking up and moving to another jurisdiction entirely and starting over again. One jurisdiction isn't going to track behavior once A) the original terms of probation have been met and B) they don't track behavior once the person leaves that jurisdiction.

    There was a woman here in Idaho that was charged and convicted on neglect. She had a couple of hundred dogs living in squalor. This was in 1998? Maybe 1999? She was prohibited from owning any more than a certain number of animals as part of her sentencing (which was a plea agreement, if I remember). In 2003 she charged with neglect again. This time she had over 500 dogs. The county in Idaho never really tracked her through probation, she picked up and moved to Oregon and started all over again.

    Jurisdictions need to communicate better and enforcement needs to improve. But there is already an already adequate legal ability available in the court system.
    Sheilah



  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec. 19, 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    I think you're right, OP, it would make sense to establish animal ownership as a right. I think if it were publicized it would become one of those situations where all the RARAs would come out with their "animal ownership is slavery" banners and start picketing the capitol and before you know it the politicians will have simply swept it back under the rug to avoid the hassle. They'll think it better left alone as an assumed right, like having children. There's no law that says you have the right to have children (and goodness knows, some people shouldn't be doing that)

    As for some of the comments about restricting that right, sometimes you have to. I think we all see why... we may wonder why a town restricts people to no more than three dogs but we all gasp when someone has fifty. Somewhere a line has to be drawn, right? In many cases, if you really want to have more dogs there are ways around it, for example, obtaining a kennel license. I've found that most of the time the laws are in the best interest of the animals.

    For what its worth, people are restricted too. Threre are "55 and over" communities all over (not just in Florida!) where kids can't even visit longer than two weeks. Many apartment/condo complexes restrict residents on the number of people that can live in a unit based on the number of bedrooms. So it's not just animals.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hurleycane View Post
    from Wiki: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    Since animals are property you have the right to own them. But you don't have the right to house them wherever you want.



Similar Threads

  1. Isn't that cruelty to animals?
    By Alagirl in forum Off Course
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Mar. 1, 2012, 10:29 AM
  2. What is attacking my animals?
    By KristiKGC in forum Off Course
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Aug. 10, 2010, 11:10 PM
  3. PSA Your animals might not be responsible
    By Robin@DHH in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Dec. 26, 2009, 01:52 PM
  4. What do you need to drive to AK with animals?
    By dacasodivine in forum Off Course
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: Dec. 14, 2009, 07:59 PM
  5. Do you vaccinate your old animals?
    By carrievalentino in forum Horse Care
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: Apr. 1, 2009, 04:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness