WI: bill to make animal abuse the same as domestic abuse

[woof]

There is a very high positive correlation between animal abuse and child abuse.

 

[Zoogster]

See a dog running up to your little child in what may be an aggressive manner? Better not stop it or interfere until it shows it definately does want to bite them or you may lose your rights.
Neighbors dog roaming the neighborhood posing a threat? Treat it as a being with rights and don't you dare yell at it or spray it (battery) with a hose or pepperspray.

This is a very slippery slope. Animals huh? So what about a pet lizard? A monitor lizard? An alligator?
What about someone that harms a pet fish? Flush a pet fish down the toilet? That is not proper disposal, is cruel and inhumane, and you should have contacted the proper authorities to euthanize the fish.

In many countries people eat dogs, cats, etc. In this country they sell horse meat, it just is not usualy called horse meat.
I believe it is just as legal to buy some cows, sheep, pigs, rabbits etc and raise them and slaughter them as it is with dogs, cats, rabbits, fish or those we normaly keep as pets, both on a private level or as an income.
So is yelling at a cow a crime now? Chasing a pig? Is using a cattle prode to direct a several hundred pound animal now a form of inhumane torture? After all they could have just reasoned with the future steak and tried to convince it to walk to the slaughter house smelling of blood.



I know everyone pictures some guy abusing or torturing some poor dog, but the law is much broader than that.
If it is a serious incident it is already covered under felony laws. So this is specificly for MISDEMEANOR offenses.

 

[benEzra]

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
Under current law, “domestic abuse” is defined as actions by an adult family or household member, an adult caregiver, an adult former spouse, an adult in a current or former dating relationship, or an adult parent of a child in common with another person intentionally to inflict physical pain, physical injury, or illness upon another family or household member, intentionally to impair the physical condition of the other person, to commit sexual assault on the other person, to commit criminal damage to the property of the other person, or to threaten to commit any of those acts against the other person. A victim of domestic abuse may petition the court to obtain first a restraining order and then an injunction against the family or household member who committed the domestic abuse. This bill expands the definition of domestic abuse to include harm or threat of harm to the animals owned by the petitioner, the respondent, either of their children, or household members. It provides an exception for actions taken to animals for legitimate and necessary agricultural or veterinary purposes.

OK, that puts it in a different light, if this is indeed the case.

It seems to be talking about the abusive ex who harms or threatens to kill the abused person's pet in order to get at the person.

*IF* that is the case, it's a whole different ball game from "swat your dog, go to jail."

Does anyone have the text of the bill?

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

iffin I remember my ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE CLASS correctly, we humans are animals also. Tell me, just what is it that differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom so much that we can consider ourselves that much better than them? Does the amount of wars and the damage to mother earth that we human animals have participated in make us better than our family dog? Apparently.

You play the part of bleeding heart hippie quite well. Or should I say, quite well man.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Wisconsin already has laws that punish the abuse of animals.

MICHAEL T, I was very surprised to see Democrat Senator Julie Lassa's name on this bill. She's been one of the Democrats who have consistently voted for our concealed carry bill (and other pro-gun bills), and voted to override Governor Doyle's vetoes.

I'm going to give her office a call to find out if they understand the ramifications of this law as it pertains to Second Amendment rights.

 

[nwilliams]

Good, I hate animal abusers.

I've always believed that people capable of abusing animals are capable of abusing people as well, I don't tolerate either

 

[R.W.Dale]

im of mixed feelings on this. i dont think people that are convicted of animal abuse are hit hard enough with the justice system at the moment. (sorry, but hacking a horse up with a chainsaw while its alive warrents more than 3 months in prison or a $5000 fine).

Depends! If it's his horse then it's none of my or anyone else's business what he chooses do with with it.

NOW! if it's someone else's animal then he should be charged accordingly.

Is animal abuse morally wrong? YES

Is it the government's responsibility to dictate with the application of law that morality. NO!

Control always starts out with the least popular groups of people and spreads from there

 

[Richmond]

text of bill

Does anyone have the text of the bill?

LRB−0098/1
BAB:kjf:nwn
2007 − 2008 LEGISLATURE
2007 SENATE BILL 162
April 23, 2007 − Introduced by Senators RISSER, CARPENTER and LASSA, cosponsored
by Representatives HINES, BERCEAU, TRAVIS, MUSSER, SINICKI, ALBERS,
HRAYCHUCK and HIXSON. Referred to Committee on Judiciary and Corrections.
AN ACT to amend 813.12 (1) (am) (intro.) and 813.12 (1) (am) 6.; and to create
813.12 (1) (ab), 813.12 (1) (am) 4. and 813.12 (1) (f) of the statutes; relating to:
extending domestic abuse restraining orders and injunctions to include abuse
to animals and threats of abuse to animals.
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
Under current law, “domestic abuse” is defined as actions by an adult family or
household member, an adult caregiver, an adult former spouse, an adult in a current
or former dating relationship, or an adult parent of a child in common with another
person intentionally to inflict physical pain, physical injury, or illness upon another
family or household member, intentionally to impair the physical condition of the
other person, to commit sexual assault on the other person, to commit criminal
damage to the property of the other person, or to threaten to commit any of those acts
against the other person. A victim of domestic abuse may petition the court to obtain
first a restraining order and then an injunction against the family or household
member who committed the domestic abuse.
This bill expands the definition of domestic abuse to include harm or threat of
harm to the animals owned by the petitioner, the respondent, either of their children,
1
2
3
4


− 2 − 2007 − 2008 Legislature LRB−0098/1
BAB:kjf:nwn
SENATE BILL 162
or household members. It provides an exception for actions taken to animals for
legitimate and necessary agricultural or veterinary purposes.
The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do
enact as follows:
SECTION 1. 813.12 (1) (ab) of the statutes is created to read:
813.12 (1) (ab) “Abuser” means any of the following who commits domestic
abuse against an adult victim:
1. An adult family member or adult household member of an adult victim.
2. An adult caregiver of an adult victim under the caregiver’s care.
3. An adult former spouse of an adult victim.
4. An adult who has or had a dating relationship with an adult victim.
5. An adult who has a child in common with an adult victim.
SECTION 2. 813.12 (1) (am) (intro.) of the statutes is amended to read:
813.12 (1) (am) (intro.) “Domestic abuse” means any of the following engaged
in by an adult family member or adult household member abuser against another
adult family member or adult household member, by an adult caregiver against an
adult who is under the caregiver’s care, by an adult against his or her adult former
spouse, by an adult against an adult with whom the individual has or had a dating
relationship, or by an adult against an adult with whom the person has a child in
common an adult victim:
SECTION 3. 813.12 (1) (am) 4. of the statutes is created to read:
813.12 (1) (am) 4. Other than for any legitimate and necessary agricultural or
veterinary purpose, any treatment to any of the following animals that would result
in penalties under s. 951.18:



2007 − 2008 Legislature LRB−0098/1
BAB:kjf:nwn
SECTION 3 SENATE BILL 162
a. An animal that is owned by or in the care, control, or custody of any abuser
or victim, wherever located.
b. An animal that is owned by or in the care, control, or custody of the child of
any abuser or victim, wherever located.
c. An animal that is owned by or in the care, control, or custody of any member
of the household of any abuser or victim, wherever located.
SECTION 4. 813.12 (1) (am) 6. of the statutes is amended to read:
813.12 (1) (am) 6. A threat to engage in the conduct under subd. 1., 2., 3., 4.,
or 5.
SECTION 5. 813.12 (1) (f) of the statutes is created to read:
813.12 (1) (f) “Victim” means any of the following who has been the recipient
of domestic abuse by an adult abuser:
1. An adult family member or adult household member of an adult abuser.
2. An adult under the care of an adult abuser who is the adult victim’s caregiver.
3. An adult former spouse of an adult abuser.
4. An adult who has or had a dating relationship with an adult abuser.
5. An adult who has a child in common with an adult abuser.
SECTION 6.0Initial applicability.
(1) This act first applies to domestic abuse restraining order petitions filed on
the effective date of this act.
(END)

http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/SB-162.pdf

 

[woof]

Krochus wrote:

"Depends! If it's his horse then it's none of my or anyone else's business what he chooses do with with it.

"NOW! if it's someone else's animal then he should be charged accordingly.

Is animal abuse morally wrong? YES

Is it the government's responsibility to dictate with the application of law that morality. NO! "


That anyone would have this attitude in this day and age is just scary. But I guess it isn't surprising since it was little more than a century ago that the same attitude was widely held toward children. No wonder gun people are viewed as neanderthals.

 

[R.W.Dale]

That anyone would have this attitude in this day and age is just scary.

Why cause I still hold to the Ideals of LIBERTY our country was founded apoun? No $#$^7( ANIMAL is worth depriving a MAN from his Life Liberty or pursuit of happiness. even if the behavior tward that animal is morally wrong in every way.

What's scary is liberals like you actually believe that your personal view of MORALITY should and can be dictated by the point of a gun by the state (I.E. The law)

let me ask you a SIMPLE question I would like for you to answer it with a simple no BS reply.

Pro life or pro choice?

 

[def4pos8]

ESCAPE THE PRW WHILE YOU STILL CAN! Before long, Doyle will build a wall along the full length of the borders and mine/wire you in.

Going "underground" in the Land of Dane is a poor secondary option.

The inmates are now in charge. . . .

 

[woof]

Krochus, I am totally pro life and an ardent Bush supporter who will never vote for any liberal. In fact, I am pro life for exactly the same set of ethical principles that makes me pro animal welfare. The democratic ideals you express are very much distorted. It is precisely because we the people have liberty and self rule that we are able to pass laws (if we have the votes) making certain things illegal that we don't want our communities and society exposed to. It is those who want to impose the rule of the minority under the guise of individual freedom that are the real threat to liberty. For example most people in America want at least more restrictions on abortions. But we can't have that because the court imposes the will of the minority. Anyone who thinks they have the right to do whatever they want to animals just because they own them to me, is very much like those who think they have the right to kill their babies just because they are still in the womb. You and Hillary - two peas in a pod

 

[R.W.Dale]

It is precisely because we the people have liberty and self rule that we are able to pass laws (if we have the votes) making certain things illegal that we don't want our communities and society exposed to

That's the most HYPOCRITICAL self conflicting statement I've EVER read. I can see there's no point in debating with you. you have a good day sir.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

People who seriously abuse their animals are not getting hit hard enough by the law. I don't think equating that to DV is the answer, but more serious punishment is definitely needed for burying dogs alive, or leaving a dog chained so tight that the chain actually becomes embedded in the dogs neck. That is just sick and twisted.

 

[swingpress]

If they want to stop you from having guns for domestic / animal abuse fine. Make it a felony.

I don't at all agree with the retroactive selection of specific misdemeanors as disqualification for owning a firearm.

I would not be opposed to seeing domestic abuse be a felony though.

(Not that I think a felony is sufficient to revoke your God-given rights, but here we are.)

 

[Doggy Daddy]

krochus

im of mixed feelings on this. i dont think people that are convicted of animal abuse are hit hard enough with the justice system at the moment. (sorry, but hacking a horse up with a chainsaw while its alive warrents more than 3 months in prison or a $5000 fine).

Depends! If it's his horse then it's none of my or anyone else's business what he chooses do with with it.

That has to be one of the most asinine statements I've ever read in a public forum.

Don't bother responding. You've shown yourself incapable of human reason or compassion.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Don't bother responding. You've shown yourself incapable of human reason or compassion.

Try to stop ME! And if you would use the entire quote!

Depends! If it's his horse then it's none of my or anyone else's business what he chooses do with with it.

NOW! if it's someone else's animal then he should be charged accordingly.

Is animal abuse morally wrong? YES

Is it the government's responsibility to dictate with the application of law that morality. NO!

Now what is your argument? OH wait you don't have one! you're just like the other liberals on this topic who swaps in their concervitive ideals when blinded by EMOTION!

bunch of useless liberals who need to "come out of the closet"

 

[woof]

Incapable of human reason or compassion - there's a lot of that among conservatives and it is a great source of conflict for us cro-magnon (as opposed to neanderthal) conservatives. In this day and age (so far) I am voting conservative based on what I believe are over-riding national security issues.

 

[R.W.Dale]

us cro-magnon (as opposed to neanderthal) conservatives.

RINO vs republicans is a more apt description.

please explain to me how a person has to believe it's the GOVERNMENTS responsibility to dictate morality in order to have compassion

the diffrence between me and you is if I see you drowning a cat I'll kick your a$$. if you catch me doing it you'll run to your ballot box. Now who has more compassion?

 

[Doggy Daddy]

krochus

Don't bother responding. You've shown yourself incapable of human reason or compassion.

Try to stop ME! And if you would use the entire quote!

Depends! If it's his horse then it's none of my or anyone else's business what he chooses do with with it.

NOW! if it's someone else's animal then he should be charged accordingly.

Is animal abuse morally wrong? YES

Is it the government's responsibility to dictate with the application of law that morality. NO!

Now what is your argument? OH wait you don't have one! you're just like the other liberals on this topic who swaps in their concervitive ideals when blinded by EMOTION!

Okay, I'll give you that. If I catch you cutting up a live horse with a chain saw, I'll leave the government out of it. But I will "intevene", myself.

 

[woof]

We have the right to pass laws controlling your behavior. If you don't like that you could move to a desert island where you won't have the burden of living with other humans (I use that term loosely).

 

[Richmond]

domestic violence

If they want to stop you from having guns for domestic / animal abuse fine. Make it a felony.

I don't at all agree with the retroactive selection of specific misdemeanors as disqualification for owning a firearm.

I would not be opposed to seeing domestic abuse be a felony though.

Serious animal abuse is now a felony in 40+ states. Domestic violence is also a felony under many circumstances and definitions. The WI act focuses on "extending domestic abuse restraining orders and injunctions to include abuse
to animals and threats of abuse to animals."

A representative statutory section from MN:

343.21 OVERWORKING OR MISTREATING ANIMALS; PENALTY.
Subdivision 1. Torture. No person shall overdrive, overload, torture, cruelly beat, neglect, or
unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate, or kill any animal, or cruelly work any animal when it is unfit
for labor, whether it belongs to that person or to another person.
Subd. 2. Nourishment; shelter. No person shall deprive any animal over which the person
has charge or control of necessary food, water, or shelter.
Subd. 3. Enclosure. No person shall keep any cow or other animal in any enclosure without
providing wholesome exercise and change of air.
Subd. 4. Low feed. No person shall feed any cow on food which produces impure or
unwholesome milk.
Subd. 5. Abandonment. No person shall abandon any animal.
Subd. 6. Temporary abandonment. No person shall allow any maimed, sick, infirm, or
disabled animal to lie in any street, road, or other public place for more than three hours after
receiving notice of the animal's condition.
Subd. 7. Cruelty. No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty
to any animal or animals, or any act tending to produce cruelty to animals.
Subd. 8. Caging. No person shall cage any animal for public display purposes unless the
display cage is constructed of solid material on three sides to protect the caged animal from the
elements and unless the horizontal dimension of each side of the cage is at least four times the
length of the caged animal. The provisions of this subdivision do not apply to the Minnesota State
Agricultural Society, the Minnesota State Fair, or to the county agricultural societies, county
fairs, to any agricultural display of caged animals by any political subdivision of the state of
Minnesota, or to district, regional or national educational livestock or poultry exhibitions. The
provisions of this subdivision do not apply to captive wildlife, the exhibition of which is regulated
by section 97A.041.
Subd. 8a. Harming a service animal. No person shall intentionally and without justification
cause bodily harm to a service animal while it is providing service or while it is in the custody of
the person it serves.
Subd. 9. Penalty. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, a person who fails to
comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person convicted of a
second or subsequent violation of subdivision 1 or 7 within five years of a previous violation of
subdivision 1 or 7 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(b) A person who intentionally violates subdivision 1 or 7 where the violation results in
substantial bodily harm to a pet or companion animal may be sentenced to imprisonment for not
more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.
(c) A person convicted of violating paragraph (b) within five years of a previous gross
misdemeanor or felony conviction for violating this section may be sentenced to imprisonment
for not more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
(d) A person who intentionally violates subdivision 1 or 7 where the violation results in death
or great bodily harm to a pet or companion animal may be sentenced to imprisonment for not
more than two years or to payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
(e) A person who violates subdivision 8a where the violation results in substantial bodily
harm to a service animal may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to
payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
(f) A person who intentionally violates subdivision 1 or 7 where the violation results in
substantial bodily harm to a pet or companion animal, and the act is done to threaten, intimidate,
or terrorize another person, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years or to
payment of a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
(g) A person who violates subdivision 8a where the violation results in death or great bodily
harm to a service animal may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than four years or to
payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
(h) A person who intentionally violates subdivision 1 or 7 where the violation results in death
or great bodily harm to a pet or companion animal, and the act is done to threaten, intimidate, or
terrorize another person, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than four years or to
payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
Subd. 10. Restrictions. If a person is convicted of violating this section, the court shall
require that pet or companion animals that have not been seized by a peace officer or agent and are
in the custody or control of the person must be turned over to a peace officer or other appropriate
officer or agent unless the court determines that the person is able and fit to provide adequately for
an animal. If the evidence indicates lack of proper and reasonable care of an animal, the burden
is on the person to affirmatively demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the person
is able and fit to have custody of and provide adequately for an animal. The court may limit
the person's further possession or custody of pet or companion animals, and may impose other
conditions the court considers appropriate, including, but not limited to:
(1) imposing a probation period during which the person may not have ownership, custody,
or control of a pet or companion animal;
(2) requiring periodic visits of the person by an animal control officer or agent appointed
pursuant to section 343.01, subdivision 1;
(3) requiring performance by the person of community service; and
(4) requiring the person to receive psychological, behavioral, or other counseling.
History: (10443) RL s 5152; 1959 c 571 s 1-2; 1974 c 3 s 2; 1981 c 53 s 2; 1986 c 386 art 4 s
24; 1986 c 444; 1990 c 387 s 1; 1990 c 612 s 2; 1993 c 326 art 4 s 10,11; 1Sp2001 c 8 art 8 s 9-11

The whole chapter can be found here:

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP&year=2006&section=343


Note that the statute addresses cruelty to animals where the intent is to terrorize another - several high profile cases in the twin cities added support to the adoption of the current statute.

 

[woof]

Majorities have the right to pass laws governing individual behavior but those same individuals have to option to exercise their moral judgement and break those laws understanding that they will be punished. Yes Doggy Daddy, I too if I saw someone doing such a thing to an animal would break a very serious law.

 

[R.W.Dale]

We have the right to pass laws controlling your behavior.

such conservative IDEALS.

If NOBODY is deprived of their Life Liberty or Property where's the crime?

 

[Doggy Daddy]

krochus

such conservative IDEALS.

"inhuman" =/= "conservative"