My Lead neighbor Shari Kosel is pushing for South Dakota to toughen its animal cruelty laws. According to a post on her new blog, South and North Dakota are the only two states in the Union that do not make cruelty to companion animals a felony. The only felony I see codified in our animal cruelty chapter is the Class 6 felony we apply to dog fighting. (It's a misdemeanor just to be present at a dog fight.)
Kosel has sent out a questionnaire to legislators and candidates to gauge their interest in making animal cruelty a felony. She's likely hoping for a better response from legislators than previous efforts have garnered. Kosel promoted a tougher animal cruelty laws during the 2010 Legislative session, but that bill targeting commercial dog breeding operations (2010 HB 1146) incurred a quick response from the pet industry and farm interests. The House Ag and Natural Resources committee quickly and unanimously killed the bill.
There's no excuse for torturing a helpless animal. But I'm curious: does animal cruelty warrant a felony punishment?
We are actively pursuing legislation again this session and are looking for a bill sponsor.
Please contact us to help in our fight against companion animal cruelty.
Or does it depend on the kind of animal. Serious question. I tried to read one of your internet links Mr. H but it did not work. Does being mean to a dog or horse or dolphin warrant the same punishment as being mean to a mouse or a worm or a cat, Ms. Kosel?
so he put his head in the fence....
The bill we have drafted specifically states companion animals; dogs, cats and horses. A felony would be imposed for the most egregious acts of violence....like hammering your neighbors dog to death while it's trapped in a kennel (Burbank, SD). http://ow.ly/gWGZj
I can post specific cases of late, all of which resulted in a Class 1 misdemeanor. As a fellow volunteer so eloquently stated "Writing a bad check and setting your cat on fire currently carry the same penalty."
Yes, I can see where ball-peening a trapped dog is worse than some other things. Thank you for the clarification.
Curious how self-defense against a genetically-altered weaponized dog would be argued in court.
Probably the same as self-defense against a chemically-altered weaponized human already is.
Should the state consider legislation that would require a psych eval to possess a weaponized animal?
Horses: slaughter houses, BLM, invasive species robbing parts of the West of habitat. Fascinating.
I'm sorry, this isn't funny to me but I will humor your remarks.
Humans are altering South Dakota's ecosystems by exterminating its apex predators while well-meaning NGOs divert resources in their efforts to discriminate against the wild. Why?
I understand. I agree. I need to keep this focus on companion animal cruelty.
I agree, Ms. Kosel.
Could someone direct me to where the concept of companion animal is defined for legislative consideration before i twist off?
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for felony penalties for aggravated cruelty to dogs, cats, and horses.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA: Section 1. That Chapter 40-1 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
40-1-27.1 Aggravated cruelty as felony. No person may maliciously and intentionally cause the mistreatment, torture, or cruelty of any dog, cat, or horse resulting in serious injury, serious illness, or death of the dog, cat, or horse. A violation of this section is a class 6 felony. “Serious injury” means any injury that creates a substantial risk of death, leaves a dog, cat, or horse significantly disfigured, causes broken bones, or causes prolonged impairment of health. “Serious illness” means any illness or starvation that creates a substantial risk of death, leaves a dog, cat, or horse significantly disfigured, or causes prolonged impairment of health. “Torture” includes but is not limited to burning, poisoning, crushing, suffocating, impaling, drowning, blinding, skinning, fatal beating, fatal dragging, fatal exsanguination, disemboweling or dismemberment of a dog, cat or horse.
This section may not be construed to prohibit:
(1) Hunting, trapping, fishing, or any other activity regulated under Title 41; (2) The marking of an animal for identification, and any other activity that is a usual and customary practice in production agriculture; (3) Examination, testing, individual treatment, operation, or euthanasia performed by or under the supervision of a licensed veterinarian; (4) Lawful medical or scientific research conducted at a public or private facility or laboratory by or under the direction of a qualified researcher; and (5) Any lawful activity undertaken to protect a person’s life or property from a serious threat caused by a dog, cat, or horse.
Any person who violates this section may also, at the discretion of the court, be ordered to undergo psychological or psychiatric evaluation and obtain psychological counseling, including counseling in responsible pet ownership or animal cruelty prevention, for which the person shall bear any costs incurred; and not to own or possess a dog, cat, or horse for up to five years after the date of the sentencing.
It's common law sense, Mr. Kurtz. If an animal is a companion, then it's a companion animal. If you have one of those little horses that lead the blind like dogs do, it's a companion. A cow standing in the field isn't. A mouse in your pocket is a companion, and mouse living under your bed is not. Common sense law.
my goddess: the right wing of south dakota's legislature would fight this if it protected women from violence. you people suck.
It looks like a good law.
We have 13 legislators willing to co-sponsor. No one willing to sponsor. Our time is running out.
God wishes for you to protect the slave species from the imperial colonial power, Ms. Kosel; therefore, your side fails.
"fatal exsanguination" is how most animals die at the slaughter house: how does that not discriminate against other species not necessarily considered "companion animals?"
Captive bolt pistols and fatal exsanguination is the rule of law.
Why not arm these animals with sidearms?
Ms. Kosel: the people of South Dakota support the torture of any creature within range.
It's a good law.