Jackson Jambalaya

As you note, Waide's compromise bill is laughable. Equally as telling is that if Waide was so honestly interested in a compromise, any compromise, then why didn't he have his McCoy lackeys introduce and move through committee(s) in the House that alternative legislation? It is clear from the outset that the compromise bill introduced in the Senate was only cover to to use as spin for public consumption later should there be fallout.

The water carrying of Senators Dearing and Tollison to author SB2971 should rightfully draw their actions into question also as it is now clear that they also see animal cruelty as little more than an annoyance offense.

Well put, succinct and dead on; do they really think we buy their bullshit?

Thank you for continuing to point out all of the inconsistencies between what Waide says and what he does. . If Waide is really going to run for governor, his duplicity should be made known to voters. If he lies on this issue, how can we trust him on any others?

In the audio link Waide claims that the Farm Bureau is the voice for all rural Mississippians.

Here is the direct link to the audio. The interview is 14 minutes beginning at the 4 minute mark. Waide is all over the place. At one point he advocates stiffer fines instead of jail time. Then says the fines could be used to pay for mental health in Mississippi. Minutes later he advocates using the fines to pay for the food needed in animal shelters. He absolutely doesn't want the crime to be a felony conviction.

Sens. Dearing and Tollison were absolutley stand-up guys in the Senate (not the comedic kind...) so let's not harp on them. They supported 2623 to its fullest. So did Hewes. The blame belongs on Waide, Ward, and Pigott. And since FB's hiring policy excludes felons, then I suggest anyone who abuses animal should look for work at the FB. They might be hiring.

The best part of the radio interview is when Waide says he opposes the felony law because convicted animal abusers will not be able to get good paying jobs. Excuse me? We should be worried that people who torture animals can't find gainful employment? Since when did Farm Bureau become an advocacy group for felons? Based on Wiade's comments, I suggest that all you convicted felons out there looking for employment head over to Farm Bureau. Apparently David Waide has a desk waiting for you.

Also interesting that Waide forgets how many dogs he personally owns during the interview. He says, "I have four - no three - dogs." Coming on the heels of his nonsensical blathering about the food supply, I can only assume that he ate one of them.

If Dearing and Tollison are such good guys then why did they put their reputations on line with such a crap piece of legislation like 2971?

Burn a dog, drag a cat behind a truck, do the Luke Woodham thing, and the bill would have CUT the jail time from the current maximum of six months to TWO DAYS. TWO.

Kingfish, Why would you advocate torturing a dog like this, I am shocked that you are promoting the idea of such heinous acts.

I was criticizing bill 2971 in case you missed that part.

10:28 & 12:12 - Many legislatorss file bills "on request" of a constitutent or a group. Doesn't mean that they support it. Tollison, as Chmn of the committee agreed to file the bill when FB asked him to. There were actually six or seven different bills - four filed by Dearing, who has long been a supporter of tightening the animal cruelty laws. Once Tollison read all the bills, he decided to support 2623 and that is the one as committee chairman he brought to the Senate floor.

Dearing and Tollison, along with many other Senators have been working hard to get stricter laws on the books to deal with this problem. They really ought to be praised, not condemned. Just because they agreed to file the bill doesn't make them bad guys. They also were the ones that let it die on the calendar while the good bills (2623 & 3085 amended) were sent to the House.

And you can be assured that David Waide and the FB never worked for a compromise. Their bill established a higher standard (torture, maim, etc.) while reducing the penalty for the first offense from 6 months to 2 days. And they actually said this with a straight face - oh, but that is the same person that said with a straight face that a bill establishing a felony for dog or cat abuse could impact soybean and corn farmers.

Guess it is appropriate for Waide to think of himself as a candidate. But he ought to change his sights to be Speaker of the House - would be more appropriate for his mentality.

KF , This is the sleaziest display of jackassery (if thats what you call it) that I have witnessed in some time.

You take heinous, dispicable aborrant actions of some sick people and attribute them to Mr Waide and Farm Bureau, as if they are somehow supporting such terrible actions.

It is obvious (from all the lost dog,shelter dog, etc posts that you do) that you have an unusually strong, almost obsessive
feelings about this subject. Yo should not lash out at everyone , just because thye dont share your obsession.


Shame on you.

Gallo Show For Friday, March 12, 2010 FM 97.3

7:30 a.m. David Waide, President of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation joins me InDaHouse to talk about www.growingmississippi.org. Where are all the farmers going? What about the next generation?

Might be a good opportunity to discuss FB position on animals, etc... give Paul a call at 601.952.0986

FB at it again...see above.

That's a doozy. Kingfish thinks people should be kind to animals and that makes him obsessive.

Waaaaa, I'm David Waide and/or his minions, waaaaa, you like animals, you crazy, waaaaa.

Gallo won't even bring up animal cruelty with Waide. These types of interviews on his show are little more than indirect paid infomercials.

Will someone other than HSUS please introduce an animal cruelty bill? HSUS grassroots coordinator John "JP" Goodwin has stated many times that "My goal is the abolition of animal agriculture." That and other inflamatory statements might make it a little difficult for any agricultural organization to support anything HSUS introduces because of their not so hidden agenda.

Right...John Goodwin is behind the entire sane, well-written, rationale, humane, common-sensical bill. I remind you that FB and David Waife opposed PUBLICALLY and POLITICALLY; and here on this board they went further to defend their actions. Please, take another toke.

Damn it Kingfish. You have an unusually strong, almost obsessive attraction to women with ample bustlines.









Way to go. So do I! Now how about some chick pics to liven this place up a bit?

What does the Humane Society have to do with this? The animal cruelty bill was a grassroots effort.

I seriously don't get the people who are coming on here and complaining about the coverage and criticism aimed at FB. If you guys don't like people criticizing you, then don't do stuff that merits it. You can't practice demagoguery and then act all offended when people call you on it.

Waide, put on your big-boy pants and take it like a man. Stop sending your sad little minions to the site to rant -- or at least send the ones who can put together sentences that follow the rules of grammar and don't rely solely on that ultimate weapon of argumentation, cussing.

Seriously? The guy wants to run for Guv? That'd be as fun as Freeman's candidate.

Cussing? Rant?

1:26, 2623 was in no way supported by HSUS. In fact, they would not support the bill because they didn't think it went far enough. Nor did they have anything to do with drafting the bill. Why do you think anything that has to do with animal cruelty laws has to come from them? You assume that anyone supporting cruelty laws is , in the words of Mr. Waide, an "animal activist"?

Kingfish, many thanks to you for keeping this in the minds of folks who read your blog.

I hope Mr. David Waide has to explain himself every day for the rest of his cold, selfish life, for killing this bill.

I have written him and encourage everyone to do so.

2:57 PM. The poster @ 1:26 is working to purposefully confuse the situation so that Waide can attribute his actions to kill 2623 as a direct response to HSUS involvement. 1:26 needs a 'name' bad guy group to provide Waide with fodder to cover his ass.

While I was listening to Waide, all I heard was, "Der, der, der, der, der, meat, der, der, der." I also heard him clearly state, he has no clue as to why he opposes this legis-der-lation. "Der, der, der, der."

UPDATE:
PAUL GALLO SHOW
SUPER TALK MS FM 97.3

7:30 a.m. David Waide, President of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation joins me InDaHouse to talk about www.growingmississippi.org. Where are all the farmers going? What about the next generation?

Germans.

1:26, funny you should use that quote because that is the EXACT same quote that FB used when it sent a flunkie to speak at the Madison Rotary Club luncheon last spring, you know, that one? The one where the same flunkie got up and actually said that FB would support this legislation? Wonder who is making a post like that????

Der, der, der, it's not me David der Waide, der der, der, der!

Keep up the coverage K.F.

The more that F.B. has to say (mostly because of your coverage) about what they are doing- the harder it will be to deny what they are doing.

All the F.B. members need to know what their organization is doing in their name. Then they can decide if they want a piece of it.

4:20, I'm still laughing!!!!

Thank you 4:35pm. Thank you very much. ~bows~

dwaide@msfb.com

Let him hear from you.

Der, der, no email, der der, just rocks in my cheeks der, der.

All the F.B. members need to know what their organization is doing in their name.

It isn't only FB members. Waide claims to represent all of rural Mississippi in the MPB interview.

I.THINK.NOT

I wonder what the good folks in Wesson think about this?

And for your listening pleasure... something about der der that gets me all hot and bothered.

Click my name to find out...

KK

Why does an insurance man have such power over a proposed state law?
I won't use Farm Bureau. Ever.

Ficken Farm Bureau. Und David Waide.

h/t The Germans

Ah yes, posting lost dogs ads when people actually email them to me, every couple of weeks posting an "adopt this mutt" post, and having a small food drive for the rescue league makes me an animal nut. Another farm bureau troll like the one that showed his lying face on here yesterday.

Don't expect Gallo to allow any questions about this bill tomorrow when Waide is on the air. You have to understand his model: its about drawing in listeners by having prominent guests on there, in other words, its about the access, not the tough questions.

KF, you are so wrong about what you call FB troll and my lying face, if you are referring to the 3:15 post. Simply WRONG by 1000%

You cant assert with certainty something that is wrong.

During slow periods,(no Irby, no Bell) you put up lost doggie posts and/or IDF heroics.... God Bless the state of Isreal indeed,

(also, some bad rockn roll taste-
and you wont even admit that SRV stands head n shoulders above Calpton and Hendrix combined )

I was referring to 1:16 from a few days ago dummy. Actually I don't put up stuff because a period is "slow" although it may seem that way. What I like to do is break things up some. Don't want to be like the JFP and Two Lakes for example where its Two Lakes all of the time.

By the way, where has the JFP been on this issue? I guess since its Billy McCoy they are going to be very very quiet.

A short programming note.

In case after eight years you haven't figured it out.

DONNA LADD USED TO LIVE IN NYC.

Now we return you to your regularly scheduled blogging.

I may be a 'dummy' but youre the dummy for not crowning SRV as the most natural born blues guitar ever lived or died.

(peace-- as far as FB goes, there is no way that they are NOT against cruelty to animals, they just dont want to crack the doors open to un-intended consequences to farm raised animals. and quite frankly, I dont blame them- as for all the mission driven cults like PETA , ALF, and some lesser known militant organizations. Farmers in Mississippi and elsewhere treat their stock efficiently , effectively and humanely....and I would rather let a cattle farmer in Port Gibson decide how he wants to manage his herd than have a misguided, unscientific, emotional law that could become a burden to us all.) Perhaps my
opinions is based on a strong distrust of our government to manage anything thru laws. Why dont they enforce and prosecute all the current laws???

they are against making it a first-offense felony. Period. hell, one of the bills would have cut the jail time to 48 hours for a first offense.

Making it a felony has nothing to do with opening doors to anything. If that was the case, the nutjobs would be using current law to harrass farmers now.

Waide and his allies said at the Lowndes County breakfast last month and in the MBP interview last summer they were against first offense felonies for animal cruelty. I frankly don't see how Ms-Fact and MFB are going to agree with a bill when they are opposed on that one point.

Hey, 9:27 -- READ THE DAMNED BILL. It contained specific exemptions for farm animals.

"Nothing in this bill may be construed as preventing: (g) Performing accepted agricultural and animal husbandry practices on livestock or poultry, including, but not limited to, slaughter, butchering, food processing and marketing practices;"

Many other exemptions -- check it out. http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2010/pdf/lookup.htm. Senate Bill 3085.

Between the language in this bill and the fact that 99% of Mississippians (and probably 100% of Mississippi law enforcement) LIKE to eat meat and tend to think that people in PETA and similar organizations are a bunch of freaks, Waide (and by extension, YOU) saying that the bill would threaten agriculture is just DUMB-DUMB-DUMB.

As far as enforcing the current laws -- they are way too weak. If someone is caught burning cats alive or cutting the feet off of puppies, those people need to be considered FELONS for the protection of the rest of society. You really think those guys torture animals and never think of making the transition to people? Here's a list of articles linking animal abuse to domestic violence: http://www.vachss.com/help_text/animal_dv.html.

Go to this page and read what the nation's district attorneys say about animal abuse and crimes against humans: http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day17/archive/2007/08/14/animal-abuse-its-association-with-other-violent-crimes.aspx

Misdemeanor convictions with small fines and little-to-no jail time doesn't work in stopping these psychos. And the current laws have NO allowances for judges to request psychological evaluations of people convicted of particularly heinous abuse crimes.

This isn't about me or anyone else loving our puppies or kittens more than we love people (though based on some of the idiocy that has been posted here lately in defense of MFB, I might rethink that). It's about wanting to live in a society that recognizes SICK acts for what they are and deals with them appropriately.

The slipperly slope argument that passing this law will INEVITABLY (or even MIGHT) cause nut-job animal rights groups to gain a serious foothold in Mississippi is insulting to Mississippians. And it's just BAD argumentation.

There really is NO defense for allowing this kind of disgusting activity to continue. FB knows it can't defend themselves, that's why Waide keeps changing his story -- tell the Senate (Billy Hewes) he's OK with the bill but then scare his toadies in the House half to death and make them rely on the the SLEAZIEST, most UNDEMOCRATIC move our Legislature has, the "pocket veto" of the chair refusing to bring the thing up. The bill should get a vote, in committee and, if it makes it, on the floor.

The entire thing smells. Smells awful. And the smell is David Waide and Mississippi Farm Bureau.

What would happen to a cattle farmer who shoots a dog that is on his property....

If the dog was behaving in a threatening manner towards him, other people, or his livestock, or the carfer has reason to believe the dog would do that, he would be OK under the law.

If the neighbor's dog just happened to cross the property line chasing a tennis ball, and the shot farmer shot him, things could be different. If the dog had shown aggressive tendencies in the past or had previously behaved in a threatening manner, he would probably fit under the exemptions, even if the dog in THAT INSTANCE had made no aggressive moves.

HOWEVER, if we are talking about Farmer Crankypants who just hates the world and thinks it would be funny to shoot the neighbor's NON-threatening dog that has NO history of aggressive behavior, then he's probably in trouble. Shooting an animal simply because you don't want it peeing in your yard IS cruel, and kind of a sign that it's time for some anger management classes.

I doubt he'd get the whole book thrown at him -- the legislation did give judges some leeway. But, seriously, if you have NO reason to believe that an animal is a threat to you or your livestock, it's just that you HATE pets, you shouldn't shoot them.

what if the farmer shoots the dog that he believes has killed some calves and then the irresponsible dog owner sues him and argues in court that the dog would never hurt a flea and a jury convicts a farmer of felony abuse towards animals and we as a society decide we dont like this farmer anymore.

By arguing wiht yo about this should not make me a animal torturer or one who supports or condones animal abuse/torture.

also,I doubt Luke whats-his-name could care less if there was a law on the books....

READ THE DAMNED BILL

SECTION 1. The following shall be codified as Section 97-41-25, Mississippi Code of 1972:

97-41-25. If any person shall knowingly or with criminal negligence torment, unjustifiably injure, deprive of necessary sustenance, food or drink; or cruelly beat or mutilate; or cause or procure to be tortured, unjustifiably injured, tormented, or deprived of necessary sustenance, food or drink; or to be cruelly beaten or mutilated or killed, any living vertebrate creature, except human beings and fish, every such offender, for each offense, shall be guilty of cruelty to animals, which is a misdemeanor punishable by not more than one (1) year in jail, a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both.


yes, read the bill.... ALL of the bill

If the possibility of errors in the justice system were enough to keep from putting laws on the books, we'd have no laws against ANYTHING. You could used the possibility of someone lying to the court as a reason to revoke just about any criminal statute.

You may not like animal abuse, but sure don't take it as seriously as you should. That kind of blase attitude is really kind of alarming.

And no one thinks stricter laws would have prevented Luke Woodham from torturing animals -- but stronger laws and a greater appreciation for what animal abuse indicates about the character and psychology of the abuser can stop another Luke Woodham from that kind of sick behavior BEFORE he/she gets to the point of killing people.

11:00 is obviously the same person as 11:45, an idiot who has not taken the time to read the bill. I think they must also work at FB... or maybe it is actually Waide, Ward, Pigott. Or maybe Greg Gibson, Director of PR over at FB. I think he needs to look for another job. Soon.

Isnt it already against the law to torture or cruely treat animals???

since youre so damn interested that I read the bill. How bout you tell me what is law already?

11:00, 11:48, and 1:11 -- here's the part you conveniently haven't read:

SECTION 3. The following shall be codified as Section 69 97-41-29, Mississippi Code of 1972: 70 97-41-29.
(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting a person from:
(a) Defending himself or herself or another person from physical or economic injury being threatened or caused by an animal;
(b) Injuring or killing of an unconfined animal on the person's property if the unconfined animal is reasonably believed to constitute a threat of physical injury or damage to any animal under the care or control of the person;
(c) Acting in accordance with the provisions of Section 95-5-19;
(d) Engaging in practices lawful under the Mississippi Veterinary Practice Act, Section 73-39-51 et seq., or engaging in activities by any licensed veterinarian while following accepted standards of practice of the profession, including, but not limited to, the euthanizing, spaying or neutering, earcropping, taildocking, declawing, or debarking of an animal;
(e) Humanely killing an animal that is suffering from an incurable or untreatable illness or condition or if there appears to be no reasonable probability that the life or usefulness of the animal can be saved;
(f) Rendering emergency care, treatment or assistance to an animal that is abandoned, ill, injured or in distress related to an accident or disaster if the person rendering the care, treatment or assistance is:
(i) Acting in good faith; and
(ii) Not receiving compensation;
(g) Performing accepted agricultural and animal husbandry practices on livestock or poultry, including, but not limited to, slaughter, butchering, food processing and marketing practices;
(h) Performing professional pest control activities in a lawful manner;
(i) Training for or participating in a rodeo, equine activity, or competitive event, any lawful animal exhibition or competition practice, or any lawful zoological practice;
(j) Engaging in normal or accepted practices of animal identification, including, but not limited to, use of microchips, tatoos, eartags, branding, ear notching, or any similar practice to identify ownership of an animal;
(k) Engaging in lawful hunting, trapping, fishing, wildlife management, or any activity regulated by the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks;
(l) Any lawful scientific research or medical practice, or activities undertaken by research and education facilities or institutions that are:
(i) Regulated under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 USC 2131 et seq., as in effect on July 1, 2010;
(ii) Regulated under the provisions of the Health Research Extension Act of 1985, Public Law No. 99-158; or
(iii) Subject to any other applicable state or federal law or regulation governing animal research as in effect on July 1, 2010;
(m) Activities involving the training and deployment of dogs for the purpose of hunting and pursuit of game;
(n) Any conduct which is otherwise permitted under the laws of this state or of the United States.

Current Law, Part I

§ 97-41-2. Authority to seize maltreated, neglected, or abandoned animals.
(1) All courts in the State of Mississippi may order the seizure of an animal by a law enforcement agency, for its care and protection upon a finding of probable cause to believe said animal is being cruelly treated, neglected or abandoned. Such probable cause may be established upon sworn testimony of any person who has witnessed the condition of said animal. The court may appoint an animal control agency, agent of an animal shelter organization, veterinarian or other person as temporary custodian for the said animal, pending final disposition of the animal pursuant to this section. Such temporary custodian shall directly contract and be responsible for any care rendered to such animal, and may make arrangements for such care as may be necessary. Upon seizure of an animal, the law enforcement agency responsible for removal of the animal shall serve notice upon the owner of the animal, if possible, and shall also post prominently a notice to the owner or custodian to inform such person that the animal has been seized. Such process and notice shall contain a description of the animal seized, the date seized, the name of the law enforcement agency seizing the animal, the name of the temporary custodian, if known at the time, and shall include a copy of the order of the court authorizing the seizure.
(2) Within five (5) days of seizure of an animal, the owner of the animal may request a hearing in the court ordering the animal to be seized to determine whether the owner is able to provide adequately for the animal and is fit to have custody of the animal. The court shall hold such hearing within fourteen (14) days of receiving such request. The hearing shall be concluded and the court order entered thereon within twenty-one (21) days after the hearing is commenced. Upon requesting a hearing, the owner shall have three (3) business days to post a bond or security with the court clerk in an amount determined by the court to be sufficient to repay all reasonable costs sufficient to provide for the animal's care. Failure to post such bond within three (3) days shall result in forfeiture of the animal to the court. If the temporary custodian has custody of the animal upon the expiration of the bond or security, the animal shall be forfeited to the court unless the court orders otherwise.

Current Law, Part II

(3) In determining the owner's fitness to have custody of an animal, the court may consider, among other matters:
(a) Testimony from law enforcement officers, animal control officers, animal protection officials, and other witnesses as to the condition the animal was kept in by its owner or custodian.
(b) Testimony and evidence as to the type and amount of care provided to the animal by its owner or custodian.
(c) Expert testimony as to the proper and reasonable care of the same type of animal.
(d) Testimony from any witnesses as to prior treatment or condition of this or other animals in the same custody.
(e) Violations of laws relating to animal cruelty that the owner or custodian has been convicted of prior to the hearing.
(f) Any other evidence the court considers to be material or relevant.
(4) Upon proof of costs incurred as a result of the animal's seizure, including, but not limited to, animal medical and boarding, the court may order that the animal's owner reimburse the temporary custodian for such costs. A lien for authorized expenses is hereby created upon all animals seized under this section, and shall have priority to any other lien on such animal.
(5) If the court finds the owner of the animal is unable or unfit to adequately provide for the animal, or that the animal is severely injured, diseased, or suffering, and, therefore, not likely to recover, the court may order that the animal be permanently forfeited and released to an animal control agency, animal protection organization or to the appropriate entity to be euthanized or the court may order that such animal be sold at public sale in the manner now provided for judicial sales; any proceeds from such sale shall go first toward the payment of expenses and costs relating to the care and treatment of such animal, and any excess amount shall be paid to the owner of the animal.
(6) Upon notice and hearing as provided in this section, or as a part of any preceding conducted under the terms of this section, the court may order that other animals in the custody of the owner that were not seized be surrendered and further enjoin the owner from having custody of other animals in the future.
(7) If the court determines the owner is able to provide adequately for, and have custody of, the animal, the court shall order the animal be claimed and removed by the owner within seven (7) days after the date of the order.
(8) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent or otherwise interfere with a law enforcement officer's authority to seize an animal as evidence or require court action for the taking into custody and making proper disposition of animals as authorized in Sections 21-19-9 and 41-53-11.
(9) For the purposes of this section the term "animal" or "animals" means any feline, exotic animal, canine, horse, mule, jack or jennet.

Current Law, Part III

§ 97-41-3. Authority to kill injured, neglected, etc. animal.
Any sheriff, constable, policeman, or agent of a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals may kill, or cause to be killed, any animal found neglected or abandoned, if in the opinion of three respectable citizens it is injured or diseased past recovery, or by age has become useless.

Current Law, Part IV

§ 97-41-15. Malicious or mischievous injury to livestock; penalty; restitution.
(1) Any person who shall maliciously, either out of a spirit of revenge or wanton cruelty, or who shall mischievously kill, maim or wound, or injure any livestock, or cause any person to do the same, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction, shall be committed to the custody of the State Department of Corrections for not less than twelve (12) months nor more than five years, and fined an amount not less than One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00), nor more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).
(2) In addition to any such fine or imprisonment which may be imposed, the court shall order that restitution be made to the owner of any animal listed in subsection (1) of this section. The measure for restitution in money shall be the current replacement value of such loss and/or the actual veterinarian fees, special supplies, loss of income and other costs incurred as a result of actions in violation of subsection (1) of this section.
(3) For purposes of this section, the term "livestock" shall mean horses, cattle, swine, sheep and other domestic animals produced for profit.

Current Law Part V (this is a little out of order, Lexis posted the links out of sequential order)

§ 97-41-1. Living creatures not to be cruelly treated.
If any person shall override, overdrive, overload, torture, torment, unjustifiably injure, deprive of necessary sustenance, food, or drink; or cruelly beat or needlessly mutilate; or cause or procure to be overridden, overdriven, overloaded, tortured, unjustifiably injured, tormented, or deprived of necessary sustenance, food or drink; or to be cruelly beaten or needlessly mutilated or killed, any living creature, every such offender shall, for every offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Current Law, Part VI

§ 97-41-5. Carrying creature in a cruel manner.
If any person shall carry, or cause to be carried by hand or in or upon any vehicle or other conveyance, any creature in a cruel or inhuman manner, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

§ 97-41-7. Confining creatures without food or water.
If any person shall confine, or cause to be confined, in any stable, lot, or other place, any living creature, without supplying the same during such confinement with a sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

§ 97-41-9. Failure of owner or custodian to provide sustenance.
If any person be the owner or have the custody of any living creature and unjustifiably neglect or refuse to furnish it necessary sustenance, food, or drink, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Current Law Part VII

§ 97-41-11. Fighting animals or cocks.
Any person who shall keep or use, or in any way be connected with or interested in the management of, or shall receive money for the admission of any person to, any place kept or used for the purpose of fighting any bear, cock or other creature, except a dog, or of tormenting or torturing the same, and every person who shall encourage, aid, or assist therein, or who shall permit or suffer any place to be so kept or used, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. It shall be the duty of any policeman or other officer of the law, county or municipal, to enter into any such place kept for such purpose, and to arrest each and every person concerned or participating therein.

Current Law, Part VIII -- the best part, the weak-ass penalties

§ 97-41-13. Penalty for violating certain sections.
Any person who shall violate any of Sections 97-41-3 to 97-41-11, or Section 97-27-7 on the subject of cruelty to animals shall, on conviction, be fined not less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or shall be imprisoned in the county jail not less than ten days nor more than one hundred days or both.

EXCEPT for the penalties for agricultural animals:

§ 97-41-15. Malicious or mischievous injury to livestock; penalty; restitution.
(1) Any person who shall maliciously, either out of a spirit of revenge or wanton cruelty, or who shall mischievously kill, maim or wound, or injure any livestock, or cause any person to do the same, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction, shall be committed to the custody of the State Department of Corrections for not less than twelve (12) months nor more than five years, and fined an amount not less than One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00), nor more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).
(2) In addition to any such fine or imprisonment which may be imposed, the court shall order that restitution be made to the owner of any animal listed in subsection (1) of this section. The measure for restitution in money shall be the current replacement value of such loss and/or the actual veterinarian fees, special supplies, loss of income and other costs incurred as a result of actions in violation of subsection (1) of this section.
(3) For purposes of this section, the term "livestock" shall mean horses, cattle, swine, sheep and other domestic animals produced for profit.

***If the animal is one that Waide can make a quick buck off of, THEN abusing it is a felony***

Current Law, Part IX -- more penalties, but no minimums AND still a misdemeanor

§ 97-41-16. Malicious or mischievous injury to dog or cat; penalty; restitution.
(1) Any person who shall maliciously, either out of a spirit of revenge or wanton cruelty, or who shall mischievously kill, maim or wound, or injure any dog or cat, or cause any person to do the same, shall be fined not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or be imprisoned not exceeding six (6) months.
(2) In addition to such fine or imprisonment which may be imposed, the court shall order that restitution be made to the owner of such dog or cat. The measure for restitution in money shall be the current replacement value of such loss and the actual veterinarian fees, special supplies, loss of income and other cost incurred as a result of actions in violation of subsection (1) of this section.

§ 97-41-17. Poisons; administering to animals.
Every person who shall wilfully and unlawfully administer any poison to any horse, mare, colt, mule, jack, jennet, cattle, deer, dog, hog, sheep, chicken, duck, goose, turkey, pea-fowl, guinea-fowl, or partridge, or shall maliciously expose any poison substance with intent that the same should be taken or swallowed by any horse, mare, colt, mule, jack, jennet, cattle, dog, hog, sheep, chicken, duck, goose, turkey, pea-fowl, guinea-fowl, or partridge, shall, upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding three years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year, and by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.

§97-41-18 through §97-41-23 get into hogs fighting dogs, dogfighting, and service animals. Fines are higher there, and there are some minimums. But I am tired of posting all of this in tiny sections, as I am sure everyone else is tired of me doing it -- go here to look up the rest.

http://www.michie.com/mississippi/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=mscode

merci bc

11:00, 11:48, and 1:11 -- here's the part you conveniently haven't read:

What does Section 1 have to do with dogs and cats?

You Go Jackson Frugal Girl!!!!! You saved me a lot of copying and pasting.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Cats and dogs are vertebrates, vertebrates are specified in Section 1.

So, it's not just about cats and dogs. It's also about those who kill snakes, rats, raccoons, lizards, opossums, etc?

This is being sold as a bill simply to make it a felony to abuse cats and dogs. Why not simply change the existing law to make it a felony instead of creating new crimes?

We cancelled our FB insurance last month when we got wind of all of this. Waide and his cohorts are liars in addition to being twisted.

existing the current bill was tried but most others wanted a new bill. Amending an existing bill is always easier. And no, the FB was not behind that. It was some bad info that got carried through.

Again, look at the language in the bill -- one of the exceptions is:

Injuring or killing of an unconfined animal on the person's property if the unconfined animal is reasonably believed to constitute a threat of physical injury or damage to any animal under the care or control of the person.

Now, unless you often encounter rats, raccoons, possums, lizards, and snakes that are on leashes, then they are "unconfined" and since most reasonable people would tend to freak a little bit if charged by one of those animals, then the "reasonable threat" exists.

Never mind that a lot of those animals would also fall under the hunting exceptions.

Look at §97-41-1 -- the current law says "any living creature." If we are going to play the game of "how this law can be misterpreted by crazy people," then let's be sure to include what is already on the books.

Oooooo, BACTERIA are living creatures! So we have LAWS in Mississippi that make it ILLEGAL to use Lysol on kitchen countertops!!! I guess I can never clean the kitchen again! And does keeping hand santizer in my purse mean I am carrying a concealed weapon?

Now, isn't that foolish? Yes. It's the same kind of reasoning you are using.

The reason section 1 contains simple cruelty language and "vertebrate creatures" is because of the Farm Bureau. When MS-FACT met with them, and all of the other groups (Poultry Associations, Cattleman, Vet from Board of Animal Health, various animal welfare groups, and Canine Coalition, etc.) THEY had included a section in their proposed legislation that reinstated a currently unconstitutional law (97-41-1). That is a basic simple cruelty misdemeanor law.

The reason for "all living creatures" to be replaced with the words all vertebrate creatures, except humans and fish is because that is how the FARM BUREAU defined them in their language. Again, a compromise by MS-FACT.

Everyone at the meeting seemed to want 97-41-1 to be reinstated so we added it to the MS-FACT bill hoping that our compromise would meet with their approval.

To get confirmation of this, look at the bill that the Farm Bureau submitted (SB2971). It is all in there...

You see, MS-FACT offered to compromise on EVERYTHING that the Farm Bureau wanted in a bill, with the exception of the first offense felony. The Farm Bureau wanted a third offense felony. Although, David Waide stated that he didn't oppose and cat and dog bill, then that he didn't oppose a second offense felony, and then submitted a third offense felony bill...so who knows what they heck they really stand for...even they can't make up their minds.

The only players who didn't want to compromise were on team Farm Bureau....and maybe Canine Coalition since they did not say anything during the entire meeting. They had the opportunity to participate and put their two cents in but chose to remain silent and complain later.

Again, look at the language in the bill -- one of the exceptions is:

Injuring or killing of an unconfined animal on the person's property if the unconfined animal is reasonably believed to constitute a threat of physical injury or damage to any animal under the care or control of the person.

I looked at the language, you didn't comprehend it.

constitute a threat of physical injury or damage to any animal under the care or control of the person.

Secondly, 2 wrongs do not make a right. Because a previously written law was wrong, doesn't give credence to creating another law that's wrong.

It doesn't matter who suggested the language if it's wrong. I'm not on a Farm Bureau witch hunt and am simply offering that the proposed bill was junk because someone added Section 1. Perhaps, if as is suggested, Farm Bureau wanted it added because they knew it wouldn't pass muster with it added.

If you want a bill to emulate the livestock law, why not amend §97-41-16 to read:

Malicious or mischievous injury to dog; penalty; restitution.

(1) Any person who shall maliciously, either out of a spirit of revenge or wanton cruelty, or who shall mischievously kill, maim or wound, or injure any dog, or cause any person to do the same, shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction, shall be committed to the custody of the State Department of Corrections for not less than twelve (12) months nor more than five years, and fined an amount not less than One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00), nor more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00).

(2) In addition to such fine or imprisonment which may be imposed, the court shall order that restitution be made to the owner of such dog. The measure for restitution in money shall be the current replacement value of such loss and/or the actual veterinarian fees, special supplies, loss of income and other cost incurred as a result of actions in violation of subsection (1) of this section.

I looked at the language, you didn't comprehend it.

You're an asshole JDBerry.

8:54 - Thanks for your thoughful, well-reasoned and thorough analysis of JDBerry's brief, flippant, childish response. You have certainly persuaded me, and I suspect all JJ readers, with your command of the facts and incisive analysis and interpretation of the situation.

(I'd put here but why waste time? My dog seems able to carry on a higher level of conversation than you)

Mr. Berry, it should be obvious to you and anyone else reading this blog that the individual you are hammering about not comprehending the law or the bill has much more insight into the actual events that transpired than you do. Not only that but they seem to have a better understanding of the law than you do. I am in the legal field, read the bill, and found it to be very reasonable.

It matters not what insight of transpired "events" one has. The bill, as it was written, would have been bad law. Why should it matter how the bad bill came to be unless one is simply on a witch hunt?

I am not in the legal field, read the bill and found it to be very unreasonable and pointed out to the person that continually said I was not reading the bill that they were not comprehending the portion they attempted to use to refute one of my comments.

If that constitutes "hammering" to you, then so-be-it.

Mr. Berry, it is clear you are not in the legal field .
The bill addresses every irrational fear you've invented.
Worse, you, like Mr. Waide, try to paint everyone who had pointed out the FACTS as being part of some extremist group.
My family continues to have a working farm in a state that has an identical bill. NOTHING changed in their day to day operation.
Those opposing this bill are the far out, extremist nuts!

Mr. Berry, I thought we burned all the witches in this country in Salem a few hundre years ago.

What makes it clear that I'm not in the legal field? The fact that I said I wasn't in the legal field?

Or do you propose that only someone in the legal field is able to comprehend laws as written with complete disregard for the void for vagueness doctrine employed by our legal system.

Additionally, please explain where I painted anyone as part of an extremist group or proposed an irrational fear. Maybe you could indulge me that while not being an open hypocrite.

Maybe I am naive in thinking that a law shouldn't be so broad that it criminalizes behavior not intended to be criminalized by the law.

So Mr. Berry, why couldn't it had been fixed in committee if there was a problem with it as you allege instead of making killing the bill outright the goal from the outset?

I didn't allege there was a problem with it in committee. I don't allege that any lawmaker has a problem with it. I allege that I, individually, have a problem with Section 1. Whether anyone conspired to kill the bill outright, has nothing to do with anything I've stated, except that supporters of the bill apparently compromised and allowed such broad language to enter the bill while cherry picking the parts they like and promoting it as something different.

Cherry Picked???? Are you crazy??? You actually think these people who spent countless hours, $$$ of their own money, and time away from their families to cherry-pick a bill???? It was "promoted" as exactly as the bill was intended to be: A bill that would make it a felony to intentionally abuse a dog or cat, your family pet. And nothing else. You insult the people and the hard work they put into this bill telling them they compromised (as most things are in life....) to falsify the intent. You probably played Scrooge in the Christmas play when you were in high school and didn't have to work too hard at being believable.

Trying to have an actual debate with people like Mr. Berry is really kind of useless. You might have a reasoned, educated opinion, but he's a jouster in search of windmills. No reason to engage him.

It was "promoted" as exactly as the bill was intended to be: A bill that would make it a felony to intentionally abuse a dog or cat, your family pet. And nothing else.

Well, besides that part that also made it a misdemeanor to kill a pest animal.

3/15 4:32..... Amen