by The Daily Republic
February 5, 2013 at 11:27 pm in The Daily Republic
Activist: State needs felony for worst cruelty instances.
Tags: Agriculture, animal rights, Legislature, state, updates 22 Comments »
My name is Shari Kosel. I live in Lead, South Dakota. I am on the task force, South Dakotans Fighting Animal Cruelty Together.
I am a life-long resident of South Dakota. My husband and I own a business in South Dakota. We own land and a home in South Dakota. We are South Dakotans.
SB 171 is not about outside agencies. This is the truth. Those that speak that this is influenced by outside agencies are speaking lies.
On numerous occasions we have asked the Ag sector to sit down with us and listen to our stance. Not one of them have answered our calls/letters/comments. I have been pursuing this for over five years after my neighbor’s dog was killed and I found out the crime was the same penalty as getting a speeding ticket. A Class 1 Misdemeanor.
Mr. Krantz, TALK TO US! We all live here, we have nothing to do with HSUS, we are concerned South Dakotans that believe beating a dog to death with a hammer, setting a cat on fire, cutting a dogs ears off with a steak knife are all malicious acts of animal cruelty and have nothing to do with Agriculture and their practices.
These horrific crimes deserve felony penalties.
Mr. Krantz, I invite you over for coffee to sit and discuss so you better understand our plight before making rash comments and statements about a group that doesn’t exist.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 30 9
I volunteer my time and resources transporting rescue animals throughout South Dakota. Many of these animals have been horribly mistreated. Some have been stomped or pummeled to the brink of death. Some have had acid poured on them or have been set on fire. A couple years ago, 2 miniature horses where shot & killed for fun.
South Dakota needs SB171-“An act to establish the crime of aggravated cruelty to dogs, cats, and horses and to provide certain criminal and civil penalties therefore.”
I hunt and fish. I’m not a ‘tree hugger’ or activist. I’m not a member of PETA or HSUS or ASPCA, nor do I support these groups. I believe if any life is to be taken; it should be done quickly & mercifully, as do all ethical sportsmen. This bill will not affect my right to hunt or fish.
The passage of this bill may very well save human lives in the future:
*The FBI considers past animal abuse when profiling serial killers. According to Robert K. Ressler, who developed profiles of serial killers for the FBI, “Murderers…very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids.” FBI criminal profiler, John Douglas, writes in The Mind Hunter that serial offenders’ earliest acts of violence are often the torture and/or killing of pets or wildlife, then brutalizing younger siblings, and then finally engaging in domestic violence or street crime. Mass murderers Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert DeSalvo, and others committed heinous acts of animal cruelty before brutally killing their human victims. *(http://www.incasa.org/PDF/2011/animal_human_violence.pdf)
I believe the phrase “maliciously and intentionally” is key to SB171. I often hike in the Black Hills with my dog. If he was terribly injured and far from veterinary help, I would not hesitate to shoot him to prevent his suffering. My act would not be malicious, but rather an act of compassion. SB171 is meant to protect our companion animals, not to persecute owner, nor to impinge upon agricultural concerns in South Dakota.
Charlotte “Charlie” Petrick
Black Hills Rescue Transport
Rapid City, SD 57701
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 24 6
My name is Katy Stulc. I was born and raised in Mitchell, SD. After I graduated high school I moved to Sioux Falls to attend SETI. I graduated from SETI and moved to Rapid City, SD. I have lived in SD my whole life. I have attended the circus many times and I love going to the rodeo. Last week was the stock show in Rapid City and I attended many of their events. I am not a hunter, but I have close family members and friends who are and I look forward every year to getting my deer salami, pheasants and fish from them. And, I love a great steak! I love the fact that SD is a small, close knit state with agriculture and ranching. I would not support any legislation that would jeopardize that. I support SB171.
SB171 will not shut down circuses, rodeos, ranching, hunting, etc. SB171 has NOTHING to do with any of those topics. It simply allows law enforcement the necessary tools to prosecute the most horrible acts of abuse towards COMPANION animals. It has been proven time and time again that individuals who abuse animals, abuse humans. Not only will SB171 protect our pets, but could possibly take a violent offender off the streets before they harm or even kill a person.
All I am asking is for you to please take the time to read SB171 before jumping to any conclusions.
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to establish the crime of aggravated cruelty to dogs, cats, and horses and to provide certain criminal and civil penalties therefor.
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:
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 the death of the dog, cat, or horse. A violation of this section is a Class 6 felony. No person may own or possess a dog, cat, or horse for five years after the date of the sentencing.
Section 2. That chapter 40-1 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
For the purposes of section 1 of this Act, the term, 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. The term, serious illness, means any illness or starvation that creates a substantial risk of death, leaves a dog, cat, or horsesignificantly disfigured, or causes prolonged impairment of health. The term, torture, includes burning, poisoning, crushing, suffocating, impaling, drowning, blinding, skinning, fatal beating, fatal dragging, fatal exsanguination, disemboweling, or dismemberment of a dog, cat, or horse.
Section 3. That chapter 40-1 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
The provisions of section 2 of this Act 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 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.
Section 4. That chapter 40-1 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
Any person who violates the provisions of section 1 of this Act 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.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 23 6
Cats cemented, dogs beaten to death with a hammer, or horses starved. These are just a few news headlines, we are South Dakotans have had to read. Stories like this can really make anyone sick to their stomach. I was born and raised in this great state I call home, and am quite ashamed and astonished that we do not have laws protecting our companion animals: dogs, cats, and horses. It truly makes me sick to think someone could maliciously torture my dog and simply get a fine. There needs to be laws to protect our companion animals . We are not talking about anything else besides protecting the animals that are a part of our families. Who wants these people committing these heinous crimes not being held accountable or for that matter seeking counseling? These are the people who end up eventually committing crimes to other people, not just animals.
As a South Dakota animal advocate, I wish to correct Mr. Krantz. South Dakota elected officials are not “taking a stand against any more animal rights legislations.” The resolution he mentions (HCR 1001) that passed both chambers unanimously this session was in support of South Dakota’s number one industry, agriculture – it was not a resolution demonstrating disapproval of South Dakota animal advocates efforts to improve state laws.
You can read the resolution here: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2013/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1001ENR.htm I am proud my Senator, Stan Adelstein, is the prime sponsor of SB 171. The bill is well-written and specifically addresses malicious and intentional acts of cruelty against dogs, cats and horses. Animal lovers, hunters and ranchers alike support SB 171 because it exempts agriculture, hunting and fishing.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 21 5
I have been a lifetime resident of South Dakota, over 50 years. My husband and I live and work in Rapid City. We have been involved, as volunteer advocates, in animal welfare for 14 years, volunteering for area animal shelters and regional breed (Golden Retriever) rescue. We’ve seen more than our share of abuse and cruelty befall innocent dogs, at the hand of people who live in our great state.
I take issue with Mr. Krantz’s comment “animals must be cared for in a decent, humane manner, but passing laws based on what other states do is not the right answer.” I believe South Dakota does need stronger animal cruelty laws; not only because our neighboring states made the connection between animal cruelty and human violence 10 to 20 years ago, but because there are a number of animal cruelty cases in SD where current penalties are not adequate when dealing with violent offenders. The following is a link to recent cases: https://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/lets-pass-felony-animal-cruelty-laws-in-sd/facts-about-sd-animal-cruelty/341668932597869
SB 171 has been introduced by South Dakotan’s (not activists) to establish as a felony, penalties for malicious and intentional acts of cruelty against companion animals and it will go a long way to providing prosecutors with another tool when dealing with violent offenders in South Dakota. Acts of animal cruelty are not only disturbing on their own, but there is documented research that proves that animal cruelty is a predictor and indicator of violent crimes, domestic violence and child abuse. If our courts and prosecutors are granted the ability to prosecute, as a felony, a proven act of violence to a domestic animal, that prosecution may in fact save the life of a child. That possibility in its own right should be reason enough to support this important bill. This isn’t just about advocating for SD’s companion animals, it is about human and animal welfare for everyone who make South Dakota their home.
This subject has nothing to do with “activists” infringing upon or undermining the rights and livelihood of our agriculture producers, nor is there any intention to “pit urban against rural”, as Mr. Krantz states. Our farmers and ranchers are our family, our neighbors and our friends. The concern that SB 171 may conflict with South Dakota’s agriculture industry is simply unfounded. SB 171 was specifically written to omit any and all agriculture animals, as well as any reference to hunting and fishing and is devoted strictly to legislation to protect companion animals.
There is also a misconception that I, along with dozens of other animal welfare advocate’s in SD, have an association with HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) and the ASPCA (The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). We do not belong to either organization, nor do we donate money to them. Their involvement in pursuing felony legislation in SD has simply been to endorse the goal for important legislation to protect the rights of SD’s companion animals and the rights of their responsible and caring owner’s, should malicious and intentional acts of cruelty befall them.
It is time that South Dakota take a stand in creating Felony Animal Cruelty laws to protect our communities and our pets.
Like or Dislike: 20 6
I am writing in support of SB171. I am not a member of any outside organization or animal activist group. I am a registered veterinary technician and have worked in the field of veterinary medicine for nearly 17 years now. I am a South Dakotan. And I am a concerned citizen.
As a veterinary technician, I support SB171 because I have seen the results of malicious, intentional acts of cruelty. Is it something we see on a daily basis? No. But you are fooling yourself if you believe these things don’t happen in the great state of South Dakota. SB171 would establish felony penalties for these acts and hold guilty parties accountable for their actions.
I support SB171 as a South Dakotan. In South Dakota we have a great respect for our farmers and our ranchers. I support SB171 because it will in no way affect production agriculture and the customary practices of our farmers and ranchers. Furthermore, SB171 has nothing to do with hunting, fishing or trapping.
As a concerned citizen I support SB171 because research shows that many people who abuse animals go on to commit acts of violence against people. Why not address the issue at it’s beginning rather than let it progress to something like child abuse? Let’s be proactive, not reactive. SB171 would accomplish that.
Read the bill. The intent is clear. Those who oppose this bill are trying to make it into something that it’s not. The key words are “malicious, intentional acts of cruelty to a dog, cat or horse”. Ag lobbyists and other Ag entities want you to see this bill as anti-Ag. Have they not read the bill? Have they not read the provisions in Section 2 of the bill?
South Dakotans, most of us anyway, have high moral standards and live by a set of principles and values that are good, honest, decent and humane. For those few individuals who don’t live by these principles, we need to have measures in place to hold them responsible. SB171 would do this. Please support SB171.
Like or Dislike: 16 6
Anybody that abuses an animal is sick in the head. Given the chance they would not hesitate to abuse a human also. I hope your laws get changed.
Like or Dislike: 5 5
Evidentally 5 people at least think it’s okay to light dogs and cats on fire, kill horses for fun, and smash small animals heads in just for the hell of it is okay.
Like or Dislike: 3 2
I wonder if the people promoting this law would be willing to extend the same protection to innocent unborn babies?
Like or Dislike: 11 9
Why not let the people that have something important to say on this topic (humane treatment of animals) have their say.
Like or Dislike: 4 5
Humans are animals or do you think that they are lower than animals? Why did you comment, you had nothing important to say?
Like or Dislike: 4 1
This article includes quotes from the Humane Society of the United States, a terrorist group.
Like or Dislike: 6 9
A TERRORIST group?
Let me take a guess … the HSUS declared a jihad on donkeys.
Devilschild, it is comments like yours that bring me back to these discussion boards. That comment is hilarious! “Serious” debate is great, but every now and then it doesn’t hurt to add a little humor. Thanks.
Like or Dislike: 2 4
HSUS has close ties to the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front and is in a jihad against domesticated animals and humans they consider unfit.
Like or Dislike: 5 2
What are you talking about? Please give an example.
The comments before yours have nothing to do with what you are talking about. The people just want the punishment to fit the crime.
Humane Society of the United States “185 Reasons to Stop Horse Slaughter”, There is no difference on a practical side between the slaughter of horses and any other farm animal. Their agenda is to stop production animal agriculture or to make it prohibitively expensive to produce meat products.
Like or Dislike: 3 3
Wayne Pacelle, President of the HSUS, ” We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the US”. Wayne Pacelle, former president of the Fund for Animals, Former president of the Animal Rights Alliance, former editor of the Animal Rights Network.
Like or Dislike: 4 3
Nicely done “smart”imus (still living up to that most ironic handle title I see). Quoting the lobbying arm of the tobacco, fast food and meat industry — the Center for Consumer Freedom (an astroturf organization brought to us by generous donations from Philip Morris). Gotta really take seriously any organization opposed to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Center for Disease Control, PETA, the Humane Society, etc.
Um … wait, CCF actually formally apologized for trying to label the Humane Society a terrorist organization or connecting it to ALF a while back (at least five years ago). And the supposed quote is from 1990 when the guy was 25. Think he might have gotten a little less radical over the years? Certainly EVERYTHING he has said and done since suggests he has.
In any case, though throwing in red herrings (abortion, big business lobbying organizations’ silly attacks) is your modus operandi, it detracts from the heartfelt statements of the folks at the beginning of the thread. Do you have to throw the silly Faux news statements into every thread?? And if you do, could you at least do a little research and maybe once in a while not confirm the irony of your handle??
Like or Dislike: 5 4
Apparently the SD legislature saw the sinister organizations behind this law and their thinly veiled plan to further their anti-human agenda. Reason overcame emotion.
This law didn’t make it out of committee.
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company