|
|
Endangered Animal Ordinance
|
|
T O P I C
|
Discussion Started: 04-13-2005, 4:43 PM
|
|
|
|
What do you think about an ordinance that allows people accused of endangering animals to keep them while their case is heard in court?
|
|
View Messages: [newest first] | [oldest first]
|
lsan2z
|
07-08-2005, 7:55 PM
|
|
|
The animals should be made wards of the county, state, etc., while the outcome of legal action is pending.
|
gtbdave
|
04-15-2005, 6:42 PM
|
|
|
They are forced to comply with the law, but by the way, the laws should be brought up to somewhere near the 21st Century. Some of the laws read like and old Zane Grey novel. We are currently selling a home near Ft.Smith because of barking all night, dangerous running free dogs. (Ok Side). It does no good to complain, the law is on the animal abuser's side, and the officials and lawmakers are all on the side of the animal abusers, and they will resist any attempt to change the laws to favor home owner-tax payers or responsible pet owners. The worst animal abusers are the guys you elected to office. All pets should be spayed or neutered, leash laws, noise ordinances, and licenses ought to cost about 100 dollars a piece, with severe penalties for puppy mills. If you don't feel that way, try losing your home because of a puppy mill next door, with the operator selling puppies at the Walmart parking lot. It is impossible to sleep with parking all night dogs, and you are delusional if you think that the laws or the officials are sufficient to do anything about it. Naive.
|
shaggyb
|
04-15-2005, 3:51 AM
|
|
|
People who are accused of endangering any animal should NOT be allowed to keep the animals or ever be able to own any more after that! They shouldn`t need an animal in prison anyway! We are too soft on these abusers!
|
pslfayar
|
04-14-2005, 10:57 AM
|
|
|
I think it is deplorable that any consideration would be given to returning these dogs to their owner. I feel that rule applies only to people who have lost animals they love dearly. Mistreating animals that are domestic or wild is not ok.
|
kimb0356
|
04-14-2005, 8:56 AM
|
|
|
Anyone convicted of animal cruelty should NEVER EVER be allowed to be in the presence of an animal EVER again. While the person is under investigation, the animals should be in the custody of the animal shelter or foster homes. This happens way to often! The laws MUST be changed!
Susan
|
possum45
|
04-14-2005, 12:28 AM
|
|
|
I think the people of that county should get it together. Would the county allow a child molester to keep the child also? He should be in prison and all the other inmates be allowed to know why he is in prison.
be fair Dozer
|
HomeTownKB
|
04-13-2005, 10:14 PM
|
|
|
Not only should possession of the obviously neglected animals be denied to the man in question, but he should be legally reprimanded for this behavior. Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the public.
|
JennyShrev
|
04-13-2005, 8:41 PM
|
|
|
The man who owned these beagle dogs & allowed them to live in the horrible conditions they were in & to develop the skin & other bad medical problems should definitely not be able to keep them while awaiting trial. I challenge anyone to see these animals & to view the property where they were kept & say that they were being treated humanely. These dogs were suffering! If we are going to have companion animals in our society, we must live up to the responsibilities inherent in this; decent shelter, food, water & adequate medical attention, at the very least. Love, exercise & attention are also important. This owner gave these dogs NONE of these.
From Jenny Shreve
|
StephanieL
|
04-13-2005, 7:06 PM
|
|
|
SPEAK for the MEEK!!!
Thank You, Stephanie
|
Pets Haven
|
04-13-2005, 6:27 PM
|
|
|
In any animal cruelty case where the animals could possibly be endangered again, they should never be returned to the person perpetrating the abuse or neglect. They should be allowd to be adopted out to good homes by the shelters without having to wait for trial outcomes, the animals did not commit any crimes.
|
|