Thursday, November 29, 2012

North Carolina Hunting Issues, A Must Read !

 
Why does NC law place a higher emphasis on a hunter instead of a landowner? Currently, under NC law, a hunter may go on any property that is not posted. Who does the law protect more, hunters or landowners?

Myth of Hunting - Hunters need to stick together because there is strength in numbers, Not! (Article #9 Page 1)

Not hardly.

Let's explain it this way. A very small percentage of our population actually purchases a hunting license. The number of anti-hunters that are as dedicated to ending the act of hunting is roughly the same percentage of our population as those that hunt. Each group, hunters and anti-hunters, comprise maybe 3-5% of our population. This is a rough estimate but is close to accurate for this example. Let's be very liberal with our estimation and say that 10% of our population belongs to each one of these groups and those two groups together make up 20% of the population (again, a very liberal estimate). This leaves 80% of our population that is neither for or against hunting. Quite frankly, this 80% group doesn't care one way or the other as they are not exposed to it. It is this group of people that hold and control the balance of power in the hunting versus anti-hunting debate. It is this group of people that should be considered and "positively influenced" for the future of hunting, that is, if hunting is to continue. Any instance of hunter behavior that portrays hunting in a negative light will have an adverse affect on the perception of hunting within this group. It is possible that hunting will continue to exist as long as 51% our population support it. A good question to ask is this: Which side of the hunting vs. anti-hunting debate will get the 51% first? Currently the hunting vs. anti-hunting support level are running in a close race. Is there a method of hunting (Still vs. Dog) that produces an overwhelming majority of all total complaints against hunting every year? The answer is yes, there is. It is much harder to be an anti-hunting advocate when you only perceive hunting as Still Hunting and not Dog Hunting. This is because Still Hunting produces so few complaints. Whereas, Dog Hunting produces many, many more complaints. The percentage of our population that is anti-hunting on moral grounds is much smaller compared to those who are anti-hunting because they are inconvenienced by hunting. This is because irresponsible hunting disturbs their life. For the purpose of describing hunting, it is time to differentiate the types of hunting and to stop classifying each as Sport Hunters. One method is sport hunting and the other is meat hunting. Let the land manager designate which method is best for his land and manage it accordingly as these two types of hunting do not mix together.

In the state of North Carolina, especially the eastern part, the dog hunters are causing harm to the sport of hunting. Personally speaking, I see no sport at all in dog hunting. It is meat hunting only and it can be easily proven. Sport hunting is the act of growing and harvesting a mature deer and this benefits the whole herd. When was the last time that anyone saw a dog hunter pass up a shot on a deer because it was not a mature animal? They don't because only by shooting and killing the animal being chased can they get the dogs back. This is not sport. The state of North Carolina is refusing to separate the two types of hunting and until they do so, still hunting will always take a back seat to the dog hunters. Members of the North Carolina Legislature and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources commission, I ask you to wake up. Our state is not rural enough to support dog hunting in the traditional manner. Our population has increased in the last 50 years to the point that there are not many rural areas left. Hunting should be separated between responsible and irresponsible hunting. Otherwise, will dog hunting discredit the "sport" of hunting to the point that the public rebels against all hunting and bans it altogether? "Still" hunters would rather envision Responsible Hunting before hunting is banned. "Dog" hunters would rather hunt in the traditional manner even if it means continuing to produce negative public opinion. This is a very selfish attitude and puts themselves ahead of others.

Do our current laws promote or instill Responsible Hunting? - No.

Is hunting a right or a privilege? - The hunter education manual of NC says that it is a privilege. But NC law leads one to think it is a right.

Why does NC law place a higher emphasis on a hunter instead of a landowner? Currently, under NC law, a hunter may go on any property that is not posted. Who does the law protect more, hunters or landowners?

Too often a sport hunter considers an "anti-hunter" as someone who is morally against killing an animal. The act that will greatly reduce the amount of sport hunting will not be based on ethical questioning. Hunting will be reduced by changes in the political climate regarding laws that have not been addressed or even looked at in many years. As our state becomes more urbanized, more and more landowners will get tired of continuously putting up posted signs only to have them removed by hunters that consider hunting as a "right". The landowners will eventually start asking, "why do I have to tolerate this?". Then at some point, somebody will ask their elected officials, "why does NC law protect a hunter's privilege more than a landowner's rights?"

Addressing the question of landowner's rights versus hunter's privilege has the potential to reduce hunting far more than anything else. Hunters sticking together to fend off attacks on their sport based on moral grounds is useless.

http://ncwildlife.info/Knowledge_Base/op=show/kid=9.html


AuthorAdmin

It's not about the people, it's about the animals ONLY




It has never been or will be personal for me, my work, questions and care for the animals is just that, it’s about them. So maybe it’s time for some of the other Animal Advocates to stop spinning the facts, same with some Shelter Employees. If it was about you I would without a doubt mention your name, take your inflated ego and leave it at the door. Animals are dying by mass numbers here in NC, many transported illegally to unknown locations up North with no vaccinations. This is not Responsible Rescue, if you really care about the animals you work so hard to get “pulled” from a kill shelter then why don’t you seem to care where or what happens to them after the “pull”. Just being out of the shelter is not “ SAFE”, you might of just sent these animals to live Animal Research Facilities, to a hoarder or to an animal abuser. I’m sorry if you think answering questions is  “drama”, that alone shows you have much to hide.
 
Again this is about the animals who have no voice on what takes place to them, the best thing you could do for these animals is to follow them from pull to adoption and make sure they are cared for, otherwise you are doing more harm than good to the bigger picture for those of us that work to better change and enhance the NC Animal Welfare Act and Statues.
 
Responsible Rescue means staying involved after the "pull", fully vetting an animal, spay and neuter, home visits on the people you hand these animals off to. Dropping them off to anyone in a Burger King parking Lot is not caring for these animals.


North Carolina Guide to Animal Control Law Book

A must have for all North Carolina Animal Advocates. Keep this in your car at all times.

A North Carolina Guide to Animal Control Law



The School of Government copyrights all publications, including the electronic chapters of the publication below. These chapters are view-only PDF files. You may view these files on your computer and save them for future viewing, but you will not be able to print them. Sale or commercial use of these files is prohibited without express written permission from the School of Government.
A North Carolina Guide to Animal Control Law, 2008, by Aimee N. Wall 182 pages. [2008.04] ISBN 1-56011-577-9. $34.00 (Click here to order a printed version of the book through the
School of Government's online shopping cart.)
A summary and analysis of animal control laws that apply in North Carolina of interest to animal control officers,
health directors, shelter operators, city and county attorneys, city and county managers, and animal welfare
organizations. Chapters cover subjects such as animal cruelty, rabies control, dangerous dogs, regulation of
animal shelters and more. This book revises, expands, and replaces previous editions of Animal Control Law for
North Carolina Local Governments
, by Ben F. Loeb, Jr.
Animal Fighting Exhibitions
Other Criminal Laws
Local Laws
Conclusions
Relevant Statutes
Chapter 2: Civil Cruelty
Civil Cruelty Actions under State Law
Cruelty Investigators
Recovering the Custodian's Costs
Local Laws
Conclusion
Relevant Statutes
Vaccination Requirements
Exposure and Potential Exposure
Rabies Enforcement
Rabies in the Community
Local Rabies Laws
Relevant Statutes
Local Ordinances
Relevant Statutes
State Law
Local Ordinances
Relevant Statutes
Background
Federal Law
State Law
Local Ordinances
Conclusion
Relevant Statutes
State Law
Federal Law
Relevant Statutes
Local Government Funding
Relevant Statutes
Terminology
Federal Law
State Law
Relevant Statutes
Pet Licensing
Petting Zoos
Disposal of Dead Animals
Emergency Preparedness
Bird Sanctuaries
Pets in Hotels
Electronic Dog Collars
Relevant Statutes
Euthanasia Methods Approved by the AVMA, AHA, and HSUS
Punishment under Structured Sentencing

Animal Abuse in Fremont NC, Wayne County Animal Control Step In


 
A Fremont man faces charges in what Wayne County animal control officers call "the most horrific, disturbing case" of animal cruelty they have ever seen.

Lawton McKenzie, 28, of Old Black Creek Road, was arrested Tuesday on three misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty after authorities who went to his home found dismembered animals, a machete, knives, bowls of blood and what appeared to be a puppy’s head in a plastic bag.



The investigation is ongoing, and more charges are possible, the Wayne County Sheriff's Office said. Authorities declined to release his exact address.

Animal control officers found the remains of several dozen animals on Dec. 3, Justin Scally, director of the Wayne County Department of Animal Control Services.

"There were multiple animals that had been decapitated," he said. "I don't think you're ever really prepared to see situations like this."

Other animals were being burned on what Scally described as "a homemade grill of sorts."

Investigators also found the remains of a decapitated dog with its front paws cut off, dead snakes, a dead turtle, dead puppies and what appeared to be a goat’s head on the grill.

Other items were unidentifiable. Investigators also found the remains of several predatory birds, such as owls, on the property.

An accurate count of how many deceased animals will never be available, Scally said, because of the number of unmatchable dismembered parts found on the property.

Investigators removed 26 living animals from the house, including a dying goat, Scally said. It was rushed to a local veterinarian's office and survived.

“It was the most horrific, disturbing case that I have ever investigated," he said. “What we saw, I don’t think I will ever forget for the rest of my life."

Neighbors said Tuesday they had complained to animal control in the past about animal carcasses in the yard and about pit bulls getting loose from McKenzie's residence and killing other animals in the neighborhood, including a pony and two cats.

Scally said he had questioned McKenzie before and that he denied killing the animals, that they were road kill and that he was studying taxidermy and using the animals' bones to make necklaces.

Investigators were only able to charge McKenzie last week when they determined they had enough evidence.

Scally said the animals are improving and should all have no problems if adopted. While he said the scene at McKenzie's home disgusted his investigators, workers have been concentrating on the surviving animals.

"Our goal is providing the best care that we can for these animals," he said, "and to prosecute (McKenzie) ... to the greatest potential."
The County of Wayne has filed a civil complaint against McKenzie requiring he pay for the upkeep of the seized animals. The county also requested McKenzie post sufficient funds with the Clerk of Superior Court to insure the care of the animals for an additional 30 days.
McKenzie is scheduled to appear in court on the civil charge on Jan. 15.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

No Laws for Hunting Dogs in North Carolina

 

In North Carolina we have not one law on the books that appears to protect hunting dogs, so here we have a sweet very sick hunting dog at a local Animal Shelter still  with its radio collar attached to him and we know who the owner is. The Shelter Staff or Animal Control Officers did not and do not have enough compassion for an animal to cut the radio collar off the dog while processing it at the shelter.

Please note this dog is very sick with mange, scabies and more than likely has never had a single vaccination or rabies shot as North Carolina gives these Hunters a free pass.

So to recap, North Carolina doesn’t seem to know how to treat animals unless a law is in place and for a Policy & Procedures Rule book is in each employee’s hand for them to view at all times.

How disappointing, disgusting and backwards is this? North Carolina, can you not do better than this for the animals of your state? Why is it that you do your best to hide any and all activity in your County Animal Shelters versus just bringing yourselves into the 21 Century and giving these animals the care and compassion they deserve?

We are about to step into 2013, while must you stay in 1950?

Statute 19A-39 states

Nothing in this Article  (NC ANIMAL WELFARE  ACT) shall apply to those kennels or establishments operated primarily for the  boarding or training hunting dogs. (1977)

 
 

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

What is going on with the Pitt County, NC Courthouse







This case has been going on since July 11,2011. Why has this case not been heard?

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/18304/NC/US/

76 animals seized from home

Greenville, NC (US)

 

Incident Date: Monday, Jul 11, 2011

County: Pitt

 

Charges: Misdemeanor

Disposition: Alleged
 
You can contact the Pitt County DA's Office at:








 

Alleged: Catherine Campbell

 


Authorities on Tuesday served a woman with 21 warrants on charges of animal cruelty and neglect following the July 11 rescue of 76 animals from her Pitt County home.

 

Catherine Campbell, 40, of 109 N.C. 903 North is scheduled to appear in District Court on Sept. 22, said Michele R. Whaley, director of Pitt County Animal Control. Campbell was released from custody on a $10,000 unsecured bond.

 

Acting on an anonymous tip, Whaley had to muster assistance from the Humane Society of the United States and other area shelters to find temporary boarding for the dogs, cats and a rabbit.

 

Whaley said she suspects that Campbell received many of the animals from shelters in different parts of the state and possibly other states.

 

"This woman believed she was a rescuer because she was taking dogs and cats home from shelters," Whaley said at the time of the rescue. "She did not want them taken from her, thinking they were better off with her than in a shelter."

 

A variety of dog breeds were discovered tethered on chains to trees, the chains wrapped around tree trunks, Whaley said. They lived with with no water and no shelter from the sun and in poor sanitary conditions. Many of the animals were kept in cages that were too small for them. Many of the dogs had to be euthanized.

 

Cathy Campbell's home housed 15 dogs, 16 wolf hybrids and three cats who had to be euthanized due to medical conditions.

 

Pitt County Animal Control director Michele Whaley told Nine on Your Side the animals were not in the best conditions. Many of them were very dehydrated, had severe tick and flea infestation and some of them had mange and other different medical conditions.

 

Whaley's office had intervened with Campbell in 2010, when the woman had about 30 animals. Two officers worked with her to bring standards of care up to an acceptable and legal level, Whaley said.

 

When Whaley received another complaint, she dispatched an officer familiar with the case just before the July Fourth weekend. He reported conditions were worse than last year.

 

The Pitt County Animal Shelter continues to care for some of the animals. Anyone interested in assisting with animal care or adoption is asked to call 252-902-1975.

 

References

 •reflector.com- Jul 27, 2011wnct.com- Jul 27, 2011witn.com- Jul 27, 2011

 

« NC State Animal Cruelty Map

« More cases in Pitt County, NC

 

 

Read more: 76 animals seized from home - Greenville, NC | Pet-Abuse.Com Animal Cruelty Database http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/18304/NC/US/#ixzz2DTJUZ1IU
 
Again you can contact the Pitt County  DA's Office at








 

 

Help NC in 2013 pass an ANTI SLAPP SUIT LAW


 
 
 
 
In North Carolina we have no Anti Slapp Law, in fact we don’t even have one on the table to go up for a vote, why should this matter to you? If you care about any issues in our State, whether it be about the Animals and their Welfare, The School System, Fracking, Farm Land Issues or just local Politics on getting a street light up you need to care about the lack of this State Statue. Many NC Tax Paying Residents are in court being suit via SLAPP Lawsuits, these Lawsuits are meritless cases that are clogging up our court houses only filed to stop us from speaking out on valid concerns on State and County Issues. I urge you to please contact your General Assembly Members and tell them it’s time we put an Anti Slapp Bill back on the table and move forward like other states.

 
Right now there are 28 states with ANTI-SLAPP laws. The North Carolina bill introduced by Representative Hamilton did not make it out of committee last year. And if we want one back on the table for 2013 the General Assembly needs to hear from YOU!

 
http://www.ncleg.net/

 

Sunday, November 25, 2012

North Carolina Animal Shelter & Rescue Inspectors Fall Short on Employee Handbooks

 
                                                                                                                   
In North Carolina we have State Animal Shelter & Rescue Inspectors that are put on the job with no Policy and Procedure Manuals. So now we know why Shelters are not Inspected or Audited in the same fashion or timeline, this is why many in the Animal Rescue Community do not see consistency from Inspection on local rescue to the next. If NC can create an Animal Welfare Act, Hire State Inspectors from a State Budget then the least they can do is prepare an Employee Handbook on how to conduct yourself for rules and procedures while doing these State Required Inspections, if you agree I hope you write the NC Dept. of Agriculture and tell them it's time they draft and publish a Shelter & Rescue Inspection Employee Handbook for their employees to adhere to. Maybe this way they can keep themselves out of many of the ditches they found themselves in lately. Favoritism is at play when no written policy is in place for everyone to follow.

http://www.ncagr.gov/

lee.hunter@ncagr.gov
Steve.Troxler@ncagr.gov
 

Monday, November 19, 2012

North Carolina Dog Laws 101


 

DOG LAWS 101

NORTH CAROLINA LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS

(some of the main statutes)

North Carolina Statutes (2011)

Chapter 19A. Protection of Animals (§§ 19A-1 - 19A-70)

Article 1. Civil Remedy for Protection of Animals
(§§ 19A-1 - 19A-9) Article 2. Protection of Black Bears (§§ 19A-10 - 19A-19) Article 3. Animal Welfare Act (§§ 19A-20 - 19A-44) Article 4. Animal Cruelty Investigators (§§ 19A-45 - 19A-59) Article 5. Spay/Neuter Program (§§ 19A-60 - 19A-69) Article 6. Care of Animal Subjected to Illegal Treatment (§§ 19A-70)

North Carolina Statutes (2011) Chapter 19A. Protection of Animals
(§§ 19A-1 - 19A-70) Article 3. Animal Welfare Act (§§ 19A-20 - 19A-44)

Article 3. Animal Welfare Act [Combined]

§ 19A-20. Title of Article § 19A-21. Purposes § 19A-22. Animal Welfare Section in Animal Health Division of Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services created; Director § 19A-23. Definitions § 19A-24. Powers of Board of Agriculture § 19A-25. Employees; investigations; right of entry § 19A-26. Certificate of registration required for animal shelter § 19A-27. License required for operation of pet shop § 19A-28. License required for public auction or boarding kennel § 19A-29. License required for dealer § 19A-30. Refusal, suspension or revocation of certificate or license § 19A-31. License not transferable; change in management, etc., of business or operation § 19A-32. Procedure for review of Director's decisions § 19A-33. Penalty for operation of pet shop, kennel or auction without license § 19A-34. Penalty for acting as dealer without license; disposition of animals in custody of unlicensed dealer § 19A-35. Penalty for failure to adequately care for animals; disposition of animals § 19A-36. Penalty for violation of Article by dog warden § 19A-37. Application of Article § 19A-38. Use of license fees § 19A-39. Article inapplicable to establishments for training hunting dogs § 19A-40. Civil Penalties § 19A-41. Legal representation by the Attorney General § 19A-42 through 19A-44. Reserved for future codification purposes

§ 19A-21. Purposes

The purposes of this Article are (i) to protect the owners of dogs and cats from the theft of such pets; (ii) to prevent the sale or use of stolen pets; (iii) to insure that animals, as items of commerce, are provided humane care and treatment by regulating the transportation, sale, purchase, housing, care, handling and treatment of such animals by persons or organizations engaged in transporting, buying, or selling them for such use; (iv) to insure that animals confined in pet shops, kennels, animal shelters and auction markets are provided humane care and treatment; (v) to prohibit the sale, trade or adoption of those animals which show physical signs of infection, communicable disease, or congenital abnormalities, unless veterinary care is assured subsequent to sale, trade or adoption.

§ 19A-23. Definitions

For the purposes of this Article, the following terms, when used in the Article or the rules or orders made pursuant thereto, shall be construed respectively to mean:

(1) "Adequate feed" means the provision at suitable intervals, not to exceed 24 hours, of a quantity of wholesome foodstuff suitable for the species and age, sufficient to maintain a reasonable level of nutrition in each animal. Such foodstuff shall be served in a sanitized receptacle, dish, or container.

(2) "Adequate water" means a constant access to a supply of clean, fresh, potable water provided in a sanitary manner or provided at suitable intervals for the species and not to exceed 24 hours at any interval.

(3) "Ambient temperature" means the temperature surrounding the animal.

(4) "Animal" means any domestic dog (Canis familiaris), or domestic cat (Felis domestica).


(5) "Animal shelter" means a facility which is used to house or contain seized, stray, homeless, quarantined, abandoned or unwanted animals and which is under contract with, owned, operated, or maintained by a county, city, town, or other municipality, or by a duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare society, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other nonprofit organization devoted to the welfare, protection, rehabilitation, or humane treatment of animals.

(5a) "Boarding kennel" means a facility or establishment which regularly offers to the public the service of boarding dogs or cats or both for a fee. Such a facility or establishment may, in addition to providing shelter, food and water, offer grooming or other services for dogs and/or cats.

(6) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner of Agriculture of the State of North Carolina.

(7) "Dealer" means any person who sells, exchanges, or donates, or offers to sell, exchange, or donate animals to another dealer, pet shop, or research facility; provided, however, that an individual who breeds and raises on his own premises no more than the offspring of five canine or feline females per year, unless bred and raised specifically for research purposes shall not be considered to be a dealer for the purposes of this Article.

(8) "Director" means the Director of the Animal Welfare Section of the Animal Health Division of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

(9) "Euthanasia" means the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves rapid unconsciousness and immediate death or by a method that involves anesthesia, produced by an agent which causes painless loss of consciousness, and death during such loss of consciousness.

(10) "Housing facility" means any room, building, or area used to contain a primary enclosure or enclosures.

(11) "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, joint-stock company, corporation, association, trust, estate, or other legal entity.

(12) "Pet shop" means a person or establishment that acquires for the purposes of resale animals bred by others whether as owner, agent, or on consignment, and that sells, trades or offers to sell or trade such animals to the general public at retail or wholesale.

(13) "Primary enclosure" means any structure used to immediately restrict an animal or animals to a limited amount of space, such as a room, pen, cage compartment or hutch.

(14) "Public auction" means any place or location where dogs or cats are sold at auction to the highest bidder regardless of whether such dogs or cats are offered as individuals, as a group, or by weight.

(15) "Research facility" means any place, laboratory, or institution at which scientific tests, experiments, or investigations involving the use of living animals are carried out, conducted, or attempted.

(16) "Sanitize" means to make physically clean and to remove and destroy to a practical minimum, agents injurious to health.

History.
Amended by 2005 N.C. Sess. Laws 276, s. 11.5.(a), eff. 10/1/2005.

§ 19A-35. Penalty for failure to adequately care for animals; disposition of animals

Failure of any person licensed or registered under this Article to adequately house, feed, and water animals in his possession or custody shall constitute a Class 3 misdemeanor, and such person shall be subject to a fine of not less than five dollars ($5.00) per animal or more than a total of one thousand dollars ($1,000). Such animals shall be subject to seizure and impoundment and upon conviction may be sold or euthanized at the discretion of the Director and such failure shall also constitute grounds for revocation of license after public hearing.

§ 19A-40. Civil Penalties

The Director may assess a civil penalty of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) against any person who violates a provision of this Article or any rule promulgated thereunder. In determining the amount of the penalty, the Director shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation. The clear proceeds of civil penalties assessed pursuant to this section shall be remitted to the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund in accordance with G.S. 115C-457.2.

§ 19A-41. Legal representation by the Attorney General

It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to represent the Commissioner of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, or to designate some member of his staff to represent the Commissioner and the Department, in all actions or proceedings in connection with this Article.

§ 19A-70. Care of animal subjected to illegal treatment

(a) In every arrest under any provision of Article 47 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes or under G.S. 67-4.3 or upon the commencement of an action under Article 1 of this Chapter by a county or municipality, by a county-approved animal cruelty investigator, by other county or municipal official, or by an organization operating a county or municipal shelter under contract, if an animal shelter takes custody of an animal, the operator of the shelter may file a petition with the court requesting that the defendant be ordered to deposit funds in an amount sufficient to secure payment of all the reasonable expenses expected to be incurred by the animal shelter in caring for and providing for the animal pending the disposition of the litigation. For purposes of this section, "reasonable expenses" includes the cost of providing food, water, shelter, and care, including medical care, for at least 30 days.

(b) Upon receipt of a petition, the court shall set a hearing on the petition to determine the need to care for and provide for the animal pending the disposition of the litigation. The hearing shall be conducted no less than 10 and no more than 15 business days after the petition is filed. The operator of the animal shelter shall mail written notice of the hearing and a copy of the petition to the defendant at the address contained in the criminal charges or the complaint or summons by which a civil action was initiated. If the defendant is in a local detention facility at the time the petition is filed, the operator of the animal shelter shall also provide notice to the custodian of the detention facility.

(c) The court shall set the amount of funds necessary for 30 days' care after taking into consideration all of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the need to care for and provide for the animal pending the disposition of the litigation, the recommendation of the operator of the animal shelter, the estimated cost of caring for and providing for the animal, and the

defendant's ability to pay. If the court determines that the defendant is unable to deposit funds, the court may consider issuing an order under subsection (f) of this section.

Any order for funds to be deposited pursuant to this section shall state that if the operator of the animal shelter files an affidavit with the clerk of superior court, at least two business days prior to the expiration of a 30-day period, stating that, to the best of the affiant's knowledge, the case against the defendant has not yet been resolved, the order shall be automatically renewed every 30 days until the case is resolved.

(d) If the court orders that funds be deposited, the amount of funds necessary for 30 days shall be posted with the clerk of superior court. The defendant shall also deposit the same amount with the clerk of superior court every 30 days thereafter until the litigation is resolved, unless the defendant requests a hearing no less than five business days prior to the expiration of a 30-day period. If the defendant fails to deposit the funds within five business days of the initial hearing, or five business days of the expiration of a 30-day period, the animal is forfeited by operation of law. If funds have been deposited in accordance with this section, the operator of the animal shelter may draw from the funds the actual costs incurred in caring for the animal.

In the event of forfeiture, the animal shelter may determine whether the animal is suitable for adoption and whether adoption can be arranged for the animal. The animal may not be adopted by the defendant or by any person residing in the defendant's household. If the adopted animal is a dog used for fighting, the animal shelter shall notify any persons adopting the dog of the liability provisions for owners of dangerous dogs under Article 1A of Chapter 67 of the General Statutes. If no adoption can be arranged after the forfeiture, or the animal is unsuitable for adoption, the shelter shall humanely euthanize the animal.

(e) The deposit of funds shall not prevent the animal shelter from disposing of the animal prior to the expiration of the 30-day period covered by the deposit if the court makes a final determination of the charges or claims against the defendant. Upon determination, the defendant is entitled to a refund for any portion of the deposit not incurred as expenses by the animal shelter. A person who is acquitted of all criminal charges or not found to have committed animal cruelty in a civil action under Article 1 of this Chapter is entitled to a refund of the deposit remaining after any draws from the deposit in accordance with subsection (d) of this section.

(f) Pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, the court may order a defendant to provide necessary food, water, shelter, and care, including any necessary medical care, for any animal that is the basis of the charges or claims against the defendant without the removal of the animal from the existing location and until the charges or claims against the defendant are adjudicated. If the court issues such an order, the court shall provide for an animal control officer or other law enforcement officer to make regular visits to the location to ensure that the animal is receiving necessary food, water, shelter, and care, including any necessary medical care, and to impound the animal if it is not receiving those necessities.

History.
Amended by 2006 N.C. Sess. Laws 113, s. 2.1, eff. 12/1/2006.

Chapter 14. Criminal Law
(§§ 14-1 - 14-461) Subchapter XI. GENERAL POLICE REGULATIONS (§§ 14-289 - 14-461) Article 47. Cruelty to Animals (§§ 14-360 - 14-363.2)

§ 14-360. Cruelty to animals; construction of section § 14-360.1. Immunity for veterinarian reporting animal cruelty § 14-361. Instigating or promoting cruelty to animals § 14-361.1. Abandonment of animals § 14-362. Cockfighting § 14-362.1. Animal fights and baiting, other than cock fights, dog fights and dog baiting § 14-362.2. Dog fighting and baiting § 14-362.3. Restraining dogs in a cruel manner § 14-363. Conveying animals in a cruel manner § 14-363.1. Living baby chicks or other fowl, or rabbits under eight weeks of age; disposing of as pets or novelties forbidden § 14-363.2. Confiscation of cruelly treated animals

§ 14-360. Cruelty to animals; construction of section

(a) If any person shall intentionally overdrive, overload, wound, injure, torment, kill, or deprive of necessary sustenance, or cause or procure to be overdriven, overloaded, wounded, injured, tormented, killed, or deprived of necessary sustenance, any animal, every such offender shall for every such offense be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(a1) If any person shall maliciously kill, or cause or procure to be killed, any animal by intentional deprivation of necessary sustenance, that person shall be guilty of a Class H felony.

(b) If any person shall maliciously torture, mutilate, maim, cruelly beat, disfigure, poison, or kill, or cause or procure to be tortured, mutilated, maimed, cruelly beaten, disfigured, poisoned, or killed, any animal, every such offender shall for every such offense be guilty of a Class H felony. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to increase the penalty for cockfighting provided for in G.S. 14-362.

(c) 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.

(5) The physical alteration of livestock or poultry for the purpose of conforming with breed or show standards.

History.
Amended by 2010 N.C. Sess. Laws 16, ss. 1, 2, eff. 12/1/2010.

Amended by 2007 N.C. Sess. Laws 211, s. 2, eff. 7/11/2007, s. 1, eff. 12/1/2007.

§ 14-361. Instigating or promoting cruelty to animals

If any person shall willfully set on foot, or instigate, or move to, carry on, or promote, or engage in, or do any act towards the furtherance of any act of cruelty to any animal, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

§ 14-361.1. Abandonment of animals

Any person being the owner or possessor, or having charge or custody of an animal, who willfully and without justifiable excuse abandons the animal is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

§ 14-363. Conveying animals in a cruel manner

If any person shall carry or cause to be carried in or upon any vehicle or other conveyance, any animal in a cruel or inhuman manner, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Whenever an offender shall be taken into custody therefor by any officer, the officer may take charge of such vehicle or other conveyance and its contents, and deposit the same in some safe place of custody. The necessary expenses which may be incurred for taking charge of and keeping and sustaining the vehicle or other conveyance shall be a lien thereon, to be paid before the same can be lawfully reclaimed; or the said expenses, or any part thereof remaining unpaid, may be recovered by the person incurring the same of the owner of such animal in an action therefor.

EXAMPLE OF LAWS INTRODUCED IN NC IN 2011

House Bill 426/Senate Bill 2
, called "Chamberlin’s Law," would have expanded the state’s cruelty laws and lowered the standard for the definition of cruelty from an act that is "intentional" to an act that is only "reckless." While exceptions are made in current law for physical alteration of livestock and poultry to conform to breed standards, no exception is made for dogs. Anyone who is found guilty could have been prohibited from owning or having custody of dogs for an established period of time, and ordered to receive a psychiatric or psychological evaluation at his own expense. HB 426 was referred to the House Committee on Judiciary B. SB 2 was re-referred to the Committee on Rules and Operations of the Senate. Neither bill was scheduled for a hearing.

A BILL to amend the laws regarding cruelty to animals.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1.
G.S. 14-360 reads as rewritten:

"§ 14-360. Cruelty to animals; construction of section.

(a) If any person shall intentionally recklessly overdrive, overload, wound, injure, torment, kill, or deprive of necessary sustenance, or cause or procure to be overdriven, overloaded, wounded, injured, tormented, killed, or deprived of necessary sustenance, any animal, every such offender shall for every such offense be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(a1) If any person shall maliciously recklessly kill, or cause or procure to be killed, any animal by intentional deprivation of necessary sustenance, that person shall be guilty of a Class H felony.

(b) If any person shall maliciously or intentionally torture, mutilate, maim, cruelly beat, disfigure, poison, or kill, or cause or procure to be tortured, mutilated, maimed, cruelly beaten, disfigured, poisoned, or killed, any animal, every such offender shall for every such offense be guilty of a Class H felony. However, nothing in this section shall be construed to increase the penalty for cockfighting provided for in G.S. 14-362.

(b1) If any person pleads guilty or nolo contendere or is found guilty under subsection (b) of this section, the court may, in addition to the penalties provided for in G.S. 15A-1340.17, do any of the following:

(1) Prohibit the person convicted from having custody of animals for any period of time the court determines to be reasonable or impose any other reasonable restrictions on the person's custody of animals as necessary for the protection of the animals. If any person violates any prohibition or restriction imposed by the sentencing court under this subdivision, that person shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

(2) Order the person convicted to receive a psychiatric or psychological evaluation and, if determined appropriate, to receive psychiatric or psychological counseling or treatment. The cost of any evaluation, counseling, or treatment ordered under this section shall be paid by the person ordered to receive the evaluation, counseling, or treatment.

(c) 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.

(5) The physical alteration of livestock or poultry for the purpose of conforming with breed or show standards."

SECTION 2.
Article 47 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:

"§ 14-362.4. Failing to provide adequate shelter to dogs.

(a) For the purposes of this section, "adequate shelter" means, at a minimum, an artificial shelter with a waterproof roof that reasonably may be expected to protect a dog from physical suffering or impairment of health due to exposure to the elements of adverse weather. A metal or plastic barrel is not adequate shelter for a dog.

(b) A person who owns or has custody of a dog and intentionally fails to provide the dog with adequate shelter is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."

SECTION 3.
This act becomes effective December 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. Prosecutions for offenses committed before the effective date of this act are not abated or affected by this act, and the statutes that would be applicable but for this act remain applicable to those prosecutions.

POTENTIALLY GOOD LEGISLATION

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED to establish the Spay/Neuter advisory board and the spay/neuter donation and memorial fund.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1.
Chapter 19A of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new Article to read:

"Article 4A.

"Spay/Neuter Advisory Board and Spay/Neuter Donation and Memorial Fund.

"
§ 19A-59. Spay/Neuter Advisory Board.

(a) There is established the Spay/Neuter Advisory Board of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The duties of the Spay/Neuter Advisory Board are to promote spay/neuter initiatives and to oversee the expenditure of funds in the Spay/Neuter Donation and Memorial Fund established in G.S. 19A-59.1.

(b) The Spay/Neuter Advisory Board shall consist of eight members as follows:

(1) One person with experience in advocating spay/neuter, to be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

(2) One person with experience in advocating spay/neuter, to be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

(3) Two veterinarians, one to be appointed by the North Carolina Veterinary Board and one to be appointed by the faculty of the North Carolina School of Veterinary Medicine.

(4) Two managers of animal shelters or their designees, one to be appointed by the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and one to be appointed by the North Carolina League of Municipalities.

(5) The President of the North Carolina Federation of Dog Clubs, or the President's designee.

(6) The Director of the Animal Welfare Section, Animal Health Division, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, or the Director's designee.

(c) In order for the terms of members to be staggered, one initial member appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, one initial member appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the initial veterinarian appointed by the North Carolina Veterinary Board, and the initial animal shelter manager appointed by the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners shall serve two-year terms. The remainder of the initial appointees shall serve for four-year terms. Subsequent terms shall be for four years. Initial terms shall begin July 1, 2011.

(d) All current members shall continue to serve until the expiration of their terms unless a member is removed or the position becomes vacant, in which case the vacancy shall be filled in accordance with subsection (e) of this section.

(e) The appointing authorities provided for in subsection (a) of this section may remove any member for good cause shown and shall fill any vacancies on the Board. Members appointed to fill vacancies shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term and until their successors have been appointed and qualified.

(f) Members of the Board shall serve as volunteers and shall not receive reimbursement for expenses.

"
§ 19A-59.1. Spay/Neuter Donation and Memorial Fund.

(a) The Spay/Neuter Donation and Memorial Fund is established as a nonreverting, interest-bearing special account in the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The Fund shall consist of donations, memorials, and other private contributions made to the Fund for the purpose of spaying and neutering dogs and cats in order to reduce the population of unwanted animals in the State. The Fund shall be separate from the Spay/Neuter Account established in G.S. 19A-62. Monies in the Fund shall be used only to reimburse eligible counties, cities, and nonprofit organizations for the direct costs of spay/neuter surgeries for dogs and cats, including feral cats; provided that up to two percent (2%) of the fund annually may be used to defray the administrative costs for the Fund.

(b) A county, city, or nonprofit organization is eligible for reimbursement from the Spay/Neuter Donation and Memorial Fund if the Spay/Neuter Advisory Board established in G.S. 19A-59 determines that the county, city, or nonprofit organization offers one or more of the following programs to low-income persons on a year-round basis for the purpose of reducing the cost of spaying and neutering procedures for dogs and cats. For purposes of this section, the term "low-income person" shall mean an individual whose income is less than three hundred percent (300%) of the federal poverty guidelines. Programs offered also shall provide reduced-cost spaying and neutering procedures for feral cats, regardless of the income status of the person presenting the feral cat for spaying or neutering.

(1) A spay/neuter clinic operated by the county, city, or nonprofit organization.

(2) A spay/neuter clinic operated by a private organization under contract or other arrangement with the county, city, or nonprofit organization.

(3) A contract or contracts with one or more veterinarians, whether or not located within the county, to provide reduced-cost spaying and neutering procedures.

(4) Subvention of the spaying and neutering costs incurred by pet owners through the use of vouchers or other procedure that provides a discount of the cost of the spaying or neutering procedure fixed by a participating veterinarian or other provider.

(5) Subvention of the spaying and neutering costs incurred by persons who adopt a pet from an animal shelter operated by or under contract with the county, city, or nonprofit organization.

(c) In February of each year, the Department shall report to the Joint Legislative Commission on Governmental Operations and the Fiscal Research Division on all contributions made to the Fund and all reimbursements made by the Fund as provided in this section."

SECTION 2.
This act becomes effective July 1, 2011.

OTHER LEGISLATION LIKELY FOR 2012 and BEYOND

Breeder’s Licensing Laws at State and local levels. (See Federal Legislation below, outlining problems with that potential legislation)

Additional Amendments on the Definition to "Cruelty to Animals".

Problems (Part of the Discussion):

1. Definitions are often overbroad. For instance: a breeder, by "definition" may include someone who occasionally breeds a litter of puppies (but may have ownership interests in several dogs for breeding and showing purposes). The major problem is that definitions are vague and subject to interpretation by "policing authorities", who may have no experiencing and training in the area, often interpreted arbitrarily, and often without recourse. Many proposed laws change the standard for "criminal intent" to a lower standard, which may be a violation of one’s constitutional rights.

2. Regulations are unduly burdensome on the average responsible owner of dogs who may be unaware of new laws. This violates the basic liberties to own animals, and in particular, family pets, without interference from government or "do gooders" who "know better".

3. North Carolina already has effective laws criminalizing animal negligence and cruelty, as well as regulation of "dealers". More legislation does not necessarily protect against certain people who are abusing dogs and should be prosecuted under existing laws; at best it puts average people who are responsible owners and who love their dogs being at risk that they may be violating an unreasonable law, arbitrarily enforced against them. Most new proposed laws will do nothing to protect the health or welfare of dogs in North Carolina. North Carolina's existing animal protection statutes, if properly enforced, actually do a better job of protecting dogs.

4. To adequately enforce proposed new laws, the state would have to add enforcement officials at a significant cost. Most new legislation creates new, unfunded mandates for counties; they do not, however, provide funding for this. In this difficult economic climate, it is unnecessary and unwise to create costly new programs that requires North Carolina counties and their taxpayers to find the funding to properly implement them.

FEDERAL LEGISLATION IN THE WORKS

111Federal

Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS)

HR 5434 and S3424

Who is Included and The Effects

PUPS would create a new category of breeder, "High Volume Retail Breeder." High Volume Retail Breeders would be required to be licensed by USDA under the Animal Welfare Act/AWA. They would be defined based on their ownership of or of having of ownership interests in one or more "breeding female dogs," and sales, or offer to sell, by any means, of more than 50 of the offspring of those "breeding female dogs" in any 1‐year period.

In the past, legislation has excluded home/hobby breeders since they are exempt under the AWA from federal licensing. However, in this bill, home/hobby breeders would be required to follow USDA rules and regulations, should they meet the High Volume Retail Breeder definition. This bill would, for the first time, require home/hobby breeders to follow the strict USDA requirements, such as engineering standards designed for large commercial kennels and not homes. Such regulations would exceedingly difficult to meet in a home/residential breeding environment. This bill would affect all breeders who sell directly to the public, including show/hobby/working dog breeders.

If passed, PUPS would disastrously reduce purposely‐bred pups for the public.