Well, our old friend, former Farm Bureau President David Waide,is at it again, telling more lies about the animal cruelty bill, SB# 2127, to the Daily Times Leader (West Point):
"Waide said he is against anyone being cruel to animals, but feels the charge for those found guilty of animal cruelty should continue to be a misdemeanor.
“There's so many people in Farm Bureau who make their living in livestock production, and we have to be careful how we craft this Bill so we don't affect their livelihood,” Waide said. “Farmers every day catch wild dogs that kill calves. We don't want farmers in jeopardy of conviction, trying to protect his livelihood. I just cannot accept making (the crime) a felony.”
Waide said farmers and anyone else should be able to protect their animals and other property from the threat of dogs and other animals.
Waide said if the Bill passes and individuals caught torturing animals are charged with a felony, one disadvantage for some county taxpayers is that they would have to pay for the convicted to have an attorney if the convicted can't afford one..." Article
Mr. Waide either failed to read the bill or is lying. Lying? Kingfish, that is a really strong accusation. Yes, it is indeed a strong accusation but a reading of the bill makes it clear Mr. Waide's statements do not coincide with the facts. Rather than simply refute Mr. Waide point by point, I'm going to break down this bill and provide some unexpert analysis.
Section 1 merely restates current law in Mississippi. Section 2 introduces the felony portion of the proposed law:
"(2)(1) If any person with malice shall torture, mutilate, maim, burn, starve, disfigure or kill any domesticated dog or cat, every such offender, for every offense, shall be guilty of aggravated cruelty to a dog or cat, which is 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 (5) 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)."
Section (2)(1) covers the most egregious forms of animal cruelty: setting a dog on fire, chopping off its body parts for fun, or throwing it off a bridge. The law specifies it applies only to DOMESTICATED dogs and cats. This is Mississippi. Everyone is pretty familiar with the problem of feral cats and wild dogs roaming the countryside, including the author of the bill.
The element of malice is required to prove evil intent (ah...remember the Melton trial and Mr. Danks' long discourse on malice?). Thus merely kicking a dog or protecting your property is not going to be considered aggravated animal cruelty under this section. The felony charge of aggravated cruelty is similar to simple assault and aggravated assault. or the misdemeanor and felony components of domestic violence laws. Section (2)(2) merely states the suspect can't be charged for aggravated cruelty can't also be charged with cruelty to animals for an offense involving the same animals. Section (2)(3)(a)deals with restitution to pet owners:
"The measure for such 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"
and Section (2)(3)(b) authorizes a judge to order restitution for law enforcement:
"The court shall also order that restitution be made to all law enforcement agencies, animal control, or humane societies for the costs of investigation, sheltering, transporting, rehabilitation and other costs directly related to the case."
Section (2)(3)(c)(i) allows a judge to order psychiatric evaluation and counseling:
" The court may also require: (i) Psychiatric or psychological evaluation, and if determined appropriate, psychiatric or psychological counseling or treatment for a length of time prescribed by the court. The cost of any psychiatric or psychological evaluation, counseling, or treatment shall be ordered paid by such person up to the jurisdictional limit of the court."
Let's face it: someone who tortures animals for fun or burns them to death needs psychological help. Yes, animals ARE property but they are still ALIVE. Beating a dog in the head with a hammer is not the same thing as destroying someone's tv set with the same hammer and everyone knows it. Numerous studies have shown those who torture animals all too often move on to more heinous crimes. I keep using the example of Luke Woodham for a reason. Animals do indeed make good test subjects but unfortunately, not just for science but also for crimes that are brutal in nature.
Sections (ii) and (iii) state those convicted of aggravated animal cruelty can lose their right to own animals for a period of time specified by the court. The animal control officer is also allowed to make unannounced home visits if the offender is allowed to keep animals after conviction.
Section (2) dealt with the offense and penalties. Section (3) specifies the exemptions. Most, if not all, of the reasons Mr. Waide and his ilk give for opposing this bill are actually dealt with in this section. Section (3)(1)(a) states someone will NOT be prosecuted for
"(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;"
This section allows you to protect your family AND your property. This is especially important in rural areas where there are few, if any, animal shelters and no animal control officers. Wild animals, including dogs, are an active threat and not one person in MS-FACT denies a person has the right to defend his family, pets, and livestock. Section (d) protects the rights of veterinarians to practice. Section (e) allows someone to put an animal out of his misery if suffering.
Section (g) covers the subject most dear to Farm Bureau's heart and gives lie to what Mr. Waide claims:
(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as prohibiting a person from:
"(g) Performing accepted agricultural and animal husbandry practices on livestock or poultry, including, but not limited to, slaughter, butchering, food processing and marketing practices"
Everyone get that? This law PROTECTS farmers and those engaged in the production of poultry, fish, and beef products. This is the reason I say Mr. Waide is lying or he has not read the bill because the key objection of Farm Bureau is covered in this bill. There is no way this can be construed as a means to give PETA nuts a way to attack Farm. If someone says he is against this bill because its being pushed by animal rights activists who want to make everyone vegetarians, ask him to point that out in the bill. He will not do so because it does not exist.
The rest of the bill has definitions and other exemptions such as pest control, good Samaritan protections, rodeo activities, hunting, fishing, and training of animals. The criticisms Farm Bureau made a year ago were thoroughly addressed in this bill. Mr. Waide can lie to reporters as much as he wants to about this bill but the fact remains, agricultural interests ARE protected in this bill as are the rights of farmers to defend their families, property AND livestock. Its time Mississippi joined forty-six other states and made aggravated animal cruelty a felony.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Time to discuss the Animal Cruelty Bill.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
85 comments:
I agree with Mr Waide... Farmers should be able to protect their stock. Thanks for the clarification.
What is your point? The bill allows them to do so and did last year.
Mr Waide said cruelty should CONTINUE to be a misdemeanor. 97-41-1 "Living creatures not to be cruelly treated was ruled unconstitutional in 2001." Did he mean we should continue to not have a cruelty law? At this time there is nothing to continue.
Mr Waide said cruelty should CONTINUE to be a misdemeanor. 97-41-1 "Living creatures not to be cruelly treated was ruled unconstitutional in 2001. Did he mean CONTINUE to not have a law?
As always I ask, "How can this bill exclude other forms of pets?"
Kingfish, you know that is going to be the very first thing tried.
"I have a pot-bellied pig and it is exactly like a dog!!!"
You mean I can keep kicking my fish around? ;)
He's being a dip.
I guess pretty soon we won't be able to kidnap the puppies from their mother and sell them for profit.
Mr Waide said one disadvatage for county tax payers whould be that if they could not afford a lawyer county tax payers would have to pay for it. Does Mr Waide know that if you go to the county jail for a misdemeanor conviction the county tax payers have to pay for that?
The bill does exclude other animals Paul. It only applies to cats and dogs. period.
I see that, but you know that is where the weakness lies. Why are dogs and cats more EQUAL than raccoons and ferrets?
Look, the issues of extreme abuse are few and far between, but when they rear their ugly heads, law enforcement is powerless to stop consistent abuse this law is designed to stop.
Mr. Waide is chasing a boogie-man.
Paul, you know I am no fan of more laws, there are already too many on the books that make it easy for some to manipulate to achieve a certain end. In this case, I believe the cases are rare enough, based on testimony I heard in the House, that a law such of this, if applied will be applied very narrowly and with explicit facts.
RE: "Mr. Waide either failed to read the bill or is lying."
OR...he did read the bill and just doesn't comprehend what it says.
Kaptain and Kingfish,
First let me state the obvious, that any human with any feelings condemns some sick asshole torturing and/or killing animals to satisfy some twisted portion of their pathetic existence. They should be slapped with the full weight of the law. Our family used to run Angus beef. One of our neighbors had a pack of "domesticated" dogs. Their "pets". Those dogs repeatedly killed our calves. You are saying that if I shot on of those "domesticated" dogs, I should be charged with a felony? I find that difficult to accept. Would you two be willing to help me with my attorneys fees when the owners of these "domesticated" dogs had me charged and arrested? Just asking. Don't be a hater.
6:06
Should we assume you'd determined they were "domesticated" dogs? Or are you eager to start blowing innocent dogs away? Once again, this is a singular and extreme incident that would be covered.
I have the same concerns as 6:06. What about nuisance pets of others? I'm not in the same situation as his family was in losing valuable livestock, but I have some irresponsible pet owners in my neighborhood that let their yapping dogs run loose and ruin my property. Five dogs peeing on my landscaping five times a day has ruined many of my expensive plants and flowers. I've also had the pleasure of working in my yard, stepping in the various piles of dog poo, tracking it in my house, and spending the next few hours mopping my floors because of their damn dogs. There are several dog owners that tie their yappers up in the front yard for the rest of us to listen to their fricking yapping all day. I would be more supportive of the bill if it included provisions for some serious animal control/penalties to protect the rest of us from irresponsible pet owners.
I wish people would read the bill it is not that long! Protecting people and aniamls is not a crime.
What are you doing about your neighbor's nuisance pets? If you are not burning them or hanging them this law will not effect you anyway!
I think it is unreasonable not to let cattle farmers protect their stock.
No resolution in talking to the neighbors... I suppose it wouldn't be a crime to accidentally leave a pan of anti-freeze out on my property.
6:06 and 7:17:
You are purposefully ignoring the language in the bill. The bill SPECIFICALLY STATES you are allowed to protect property, that includes LIVESTOCK.
What part of that section of the bill do you not get?
8:19 PM If you don't think giving the dog anti-freeze won't nail your butt, think again!
§ 97-41-17. Poisoning 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.
And Paul Mitchell - pigs are already covered under livestock by a felony cruelty law.
§ 97-41-15. Maliciously injuring livestock
(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.
And under section 95-5-19 addresses Dog Endangering poultry or livestock:
§ 95-5-19. Dog endangering poultry or livestock
The owner, or the immediate family, employee or agent of the owner, of any poultry or livestock, including cattle, horses, mules, jacks, jennets, sheep, goats and hogs, may kill any dog in the act of chasing or killing any such poultry or livestock, and any such person shall not be liable therefor to the owner of the dog.
So what part of any of this do people don't get?????
Sorry, Anon 10:27, I am not talking about livestock, I am talking about pets. What part of my question is difficult to understand? I understand that the bill is written to protect dogs and cats, but you know that is not going to be the limit. Why is my pet squirrel less "pettier" than your cat?
These folks are doing this in other states too. For example Missouri.
Missouri Legislator Ready to Repeal Puppy Mill Ban
"Last November, Missouri voters narrowly passed Proposition B, a statewide referendum designed to crack down on cruel and negligent dog breeding in a state that has been labeled the puppy mill capital of the United States. Prop B is a necessary and important law, and it was approved by a majority of the voters, after they had been exposed to millions of dollars of advertising on both sides of the issue."
But NO says the Missouri farm Bureau and others:
"Proposition B ought to be a done deal, but it isn't. Enter Missouri State Senator Bill Stouffer, who last month filed a bill to repeal Proposition B lock, stock and barrel...."
"...I'll explain his reasoning, then we can mock it together. Basically, in Stouffer's world, Prop B passed, but he doesn't much care for the people who voted it in. The referendum passed in November largely on the strength of urban and suburban voters, while rural voters generally voted against it. According to Stouffer, the fact that rural voters overwhelmingly opposed Prop B is reason enough to scrap the whole thing. Or, to put a finer point on it, Bill Stouffer believes that if you live in the city, your vote ought to be worth less than if you live out on the farm.
To hear Stouffer tell it, he's just listening to his constituents, but it's not outside the bounds of credibility to wonder if he's been listening to some of the pro-puppy mill propagandists. You know, the guys who compared Prop B to "Obamacare" and further compared puppy mills to apartment buildings. " additional information and more links at the link above.
Here is a report on the hearing held January 25, 2011 by the Missouri House Agriculture Policy Committee to well the author puts it this way:
"There have been at least seven bills so far introduced in the Missouri General Assembly to either repeal or seriously weaken the law passed by almost 52% of the voters in Missouri in November. "
Meat Eaters Defend Puppy Mill Cruelty
"The first outside witness in favor of HB 131 was Karen Strange of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners. She said her organization's goal is to protect animal owners from the "animal rights movement." She warned the committee that there is an insidious plot by animal activists to" change the face of agriculture""
"The star witness for the prosecution was Leslie of the Missouri Farm Bureau. She is on a first name basis with all the committee members so no need to look her up. They all thanked her profusely for coming, "good to see you again, " etc. I'm sure if the committee members could have reached her from their high perches they would have given her a big hug. I wonder if part of the kissing up thing has to do with candidate endorsements? No, probably not.
Leslie really spelled out the "hidden agenda" of the animal rights activists. She pandered to provincial fears by mentioning those evil creatures who live on the East Coast and West Coast and how they are behind this whole takeover thingy. Booga Booga ! She went on and on about all the money for Prop B that came from out of state. Oh, excuse me while I bring up some unpleasant facts. If we're going to "follow the money," let's follow it right back to the Center for Consumer Freedom.* I posted something about this last year.
Additional stories on this topic and additional links at the link above.
Does this all sound a little familiar?
Stop believing FB and David Waide's lies and read the bill for yourself. To those who think it's government interfering with your rights please come to Noxubee County and I'll show you a little kitten whose eyelids have been cutoff with a pair of scissors or a little puppy that was tied to a rope and set on fire. These are the criminal acts that would be covered under this law. Why would anyone want someone who performed such sadistic acts walking around the neighborhood enabled to strike again at any given moment? 46 states have laws protecting animals - why shouldn't Mississippi?
I can only guess that some don't understand that words in law have specific meaning ...words like malicious and domesticated and livestock ...or else we wouldn't have such silly comments about squirrels and conspiracies.
And, I suppose that people are totally clueless about the experience in other states and totally unfamiliar with the Puppy Mill industry and politics or else one would not make " slippery slope" comments or compare two totally different bills as if they were the same.
Instead of letting Waide think for you or letting irrational fear form your opinion, why don't you actually do a bit of studying of the issues at hand?
The only thing more insane than being a crazy extremist is letting fear of crazy extremist dictate how you make decisions.
And, the definition of gullibity is accepting what your told without question.
You have to understand Paul Mitchell. He doesn't ever try to posit anything constructive, he always tries to think of the most ridiculous and extreme exception and then try to use it as an excuse for opposing something. Its the equivalent of off the roof over the tree under the car off the backboard nothing but net. You can't win with people like him because he is not interested in resolving a problem or finding a solution but instead stirring up a debate by constantly moving the goalposts so he can be a smart alec the whole time.
paul mitchell said:
"Sorry, Anon 10:27, I am not talking about livestock, I am talking about pets. What part of my question is difficult to understand? I understand that the bill is written to protect dogs and cats, but you know that is not going to be the limit. Why is my pet squirrel less "pettier" than your cat?"
Paul Mitchell, as usual, is acting the fool. He trembles so badly at the thought of his oft used slippery slope mantra he has become frozen in repetitive gibberish.
"When a finger points to the moon, the imbecile looks at the finger."
-Chinese proverb
Very well said, Kingfish. I'm willing to bet he has acted that way since 1st grade.
I think kingfish is being incredibly disingenuous when he attacks Farm Bureau and in particular , David Wiade.
Farm Bureau (on behalf of many) do not want to take these extreme steps and give animal rights activists a foothold in their relentess attempt to pursue their
obsession.
The bill clearly states that it would be a felony to "unjustifiably" injure any animal. I can see the first lawsuits coming claiming farmers
and or citizens are injuring animals unjustifiably and would arugue like a rabid dog in a court just for the opportunity to draw attention.
It's difficult these days to differentiate between those who argue for the sake of being arugmentative,those with unrealistic notions of their own intellect and education, Internet trolls,those with a hidden agenda, crazy people,idiots and the ignorant.
This five minutes,though,that Farm Bureau members are silent while Waide makes absurd claims tarnishes my view of the entire membership. I will suspect any Farm Bureau connected person I meet of being either gullible, stupid or cowardly and assume them a waste of my time and energy.
Doesn't FB have anyone with leadership skills and a brain who will step up to the plate and say, " The Emperor is butt naked" ?
(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;
what if the unconfined animal is on the street, someone else' property or otherwise not on "the person's property"?
9:29:
You are the one who is being disingenious. Yes, the bill uses the word "unjustifiable". It uses it ONE TIME, in the FIRST section, which is, now pay attention because I know you have a reading comprehension problem, A RESTATEMENT OF THE CURRENT LAW. In other words, you are criticizing the current law which is a misdemeanor. The NEXT section is the one that deals with aggravated cruelty and making it a felony an the word "unjustified" no where used in that section.
You say "The bill clearly states that it would be a felony to "unjustifiably" injure any animal. You sir, are a flat-out liar. Period. The bill does not say that NOR does it give ANYONE the ability to insitute civil lawsuits dealing with animal cruelty. Period. This bill is only a criminal statute bill and does not have anything to do with civil liability.
And lets get one thing clear, every time Farm Bureau people like you come here and and deliberately mistate the bill and make completely false claims, you are going to be called out and yes, the word "lying" will be used because that is exactly what you are doing.
Calm down kingfish, unless its a felony to talk about farm bureau. I guess its a JJ felony.
Of course its not. However, when he is clearly lying, I'm going to say so. I'd love for him to cite section that supports what he claimed.
"Farm Bureau's concern is that this type legislation will be used as a vehicle to open avenues for activists to extend their reach and push other, more extreme agendas," outgoing Farm Bureau president David Waide said in a letter describing his lobbying group's opposition to the bill last year.
KIngfish said: "You have to understand Paul Mitchell. He doesn't ever try to posit anything constructive, he always tries to think of the most ridiculous and extreme exception and then try to use it as an excuse for opposing something." ----
Kingfish, that said, can you tell us why the safety of other pets should not be of concern? Why only dogs & cats?
BTW---when you start calling the questioner names, it is a pretty good sign he has touched a point you aren't comfortable with.
My guess is that you realize this legislation is not as simple as you hoped it was and have come to realize there really are valid questions that it raises (and that are NOT addressed by the stature itself)...but are not comfortable acknowledging such.
You would have to be a regular reader of JJ and see Paul's comments on other subjects to see what I am talking about.
As for questions, what I am waiting for is for people like you to stop raising bullshit talking points and actually start citing sections of the bill that you have problems with. I never said I was against amendments and every bill can always use an improvement or two. However, I'm going to call out the spin doctors when I see them at work. You do this blog for awhile and you get to where you can start telling the difference between a reader who has legit questions and the astroturfers.
I've yet to see any of you sections with which you disagree. I've repeatedly cited portions of the bill in support of my arguments. Have you?
this legislation will be used as a vehicle to open avenues for activists to extend their reach and push other, more extreme agendas.
Isnt it clear that Kingfish is an animal rights ACTIVIST ?
Yeah, this conservative/libertarian who hates PETA and the Sierra Club is an animal rights whacko. right. Keep it up. I get a kick out of comments like that.
Fair enough,,,, I just trying to get a rise out of you.
Apology Extended
The person with the neighbor with a " pack of domesticated" dogs seems unaware that other solutions are available short of killing the dogs since IF he got the dogs in the act, he'd have no problem with this bill in force of doing that again.
If you didn't SEE it but assumed then...
Did you " get" the one or two that killed your calf or one or more of the other ones?
Any chance the dog you shot just LOOKED like your neighbor's and was someone else's dog?
Did you call the law or sue your neighbor for the loss or even talk to your neighbor?
ASIDE from the fact this bill doesn't prevent you from protecting livestock, you do yourself no favors admitting to being a shoot first and ask questions later kinda guy who uses violence as your first choice of remedy.
The " slippery slope" arguments are nonsense. Read THIS bill. If you get a future bill that moves in that direction, THEN I'll be on your side, but until then, you are acting based on irrational fear of change and just seem overly emotional.
KIngfish, I am really surprised that you are sluffing off very logical questions that come to mind after a reading of this legislation, with outright name calling and derogatory characterizations of the questions (ex:“bullshit talking points”). Why you can’t/won’t explain why only DOGS and CATS , and nothing else, should be similarly protected is very peculiar.
If anyone would have a useful and thoughtful response to such questions, I thought it would be you. Instead, we get some very leftist-ish name calling and characterization of the question as “bullshit talking points”. I am thinking you are the one stuck to the talking points…and that’s too bad. You have been a credible and seemingly thoughtful source in the past. But the “name-calling-as-a-substantive-response” that dominates your approach with this particular subject is really weird.
You're leaving out ants. Yes, ant farms. Under Paul's thinking, ants should be protected as well.
Kingfish, I would assume that no one would include ant farms, but what about those spiders that folks keep as pets?
While we are at it, why not include worms. No more fishing. I cultivate worms to help my grass grow.
C'mon Paul, you know this is a good bill.
And folks out there critical of Mr. Mitchell, I'm a fan, recognize that we need critical thinking that he provides to encourage thought, to promote thinking, to engender the very premise we celebrate in our discussions here; the ability to openly discuss and fully understand what is going on around us.
I would like to say that this bill addresses only cats and dogs! If you have a problem or concern of whether a bill protects pet squirrels, worms, ants or whatever the hell else you want to come up with, then write your own damn bill address it yourself! Get off your ass and do something and stop criticizing the work of others who are sick and damn tired of seeing people burn, kill, maim or whatever to the cats and dogs! And that is my F...ing two cents!
Paul Mitchell seems so concerned about the possibility of the "slippery slope" in this well-defined bill.
He seems to be afraid that if it passes it could open the gates to endless possibilities.
Look what happened when women were allowed the right to vote. They started wearing shoes, finally got out of the kitchen and began using birth control. They sure took advantage, didn't they? That was one helluva slippery slope wasn't it? I'll bet Paul Mitchell would've been making the same argument back then about that as he does today about this.
Kangaroo, I'll bet if you ask nicely Paul Mitchell will give you an autograph since you are such a huge fan of his.
Anon 4:48, yes, this concerns me but certainly not because I equate women to dogs and cats as you do.
Bwahahaha, good try, Paul Mitchell.
I thought we were talking about slippery slopes, laws and how they can go awry.
But then, I must consider the tactics you use when attempting to obfuscate and confuse in any debate.
Without a doubt, you are a waste of time.
Anon 6:29, I made the point that you know for a FACT that the first challenge to the bill will be the limitations to cats and dogs. It shall happen. Squat and watch.
I am going to assume that you are also Anon 4:48 and state again that YOU were the one that equated this animal cruelty proposed legislation with the Nineteenth Amendment. There is only one way that could be the case, if someone equates women with pets. Crawfish from your statement if you like, but that doesn't mean that was not your argument.
People, please READ THE BILL. Not just the parts Kingfish is spoon feeding to you to illustrate very clearly that David Waide is indeed a liar, but the entire bill. Most of your arguments against 2127 are covered in the bill itself. It's just not that complicated. Bottom line, this felony law would cover only the most egregious, malicious acts of dog and cat torture. Why does anyone want the people who commit these acts walking around unpunished?
You have to admit, it is nice to have someone like pm show you the direction of the opposition. While completely illegitimate at this point, the absurdity does highlight the certainty that there will be opposition.
I'm spoon-feeding?
Yeah, right.
Was surprised by the same comment. Spoon fed? Freaking learn to read or don't comment folks. If you are too stoopid to figure out that this one issue does not drive this site, you are obviously someone who would assume that KF spoon feeds us.
And, all you extremists, give it a rest. You make the case for opposition because you just can't shut your traps. Be patient.
I would like everyone to know that I am not pro-animal cruelty at all, I just had to push a danged cat off my belly to type this. All I am saying is that there is certainly more than one way for this bill to be interpreted and the fact that Tomie Green is a judge should give one pause before passing something that is destined to be misinterpreted.
In addition, one other thing to be said is that the only stuff that I have read from Farm Bureau has been on JJ. Throwing people into the pile of wanting "the people who commit these acts walking around unpunished" or as believers in David Waide's statements is disingenuous at best.
Paul, that was way off base. You are clearly a rabble-rouser. At best, I believe you do enjoy the life that is best, at worst, you are the opposition that frankly in this fight of the bill at hand, is grasping at straws.
So, what do you think about the beer situation? Need some real strong thinking.
KK, I am Catholic, I am all for beer.
Oh, and BTW, Tommie is not going to be interpreting this law. I assure you; if it is charged in JAN, it is probably going to be a dead on application of abuse. You yourself have made the statement about JAN and it wasn't dogs.
Well, I'm Episcopal, AKA Catholic Light...
Well, it amazes me what will probably happen now the great Farm Bureau President is Randy Knight. Not only is he an idiot by saying he didn't even know livestock had a felony law in place (and this coming from a dairy farmer) plz...he is a liar too! And amazingly, now there is a bill in works to break MS for a handful of Dairy Farmers. I feel sure the good ole boy Ag members will put this through!
Read HB91 for yourself (if you can). On January 1, 2011 Randy Knight a dairy farmer from Rankin County took over as president of Ms Farm Bureau. On January 4, 2011 HB91 the Dairy Farmer Stabilization Act was refered to Greg Ward's Agriculture Committee. This bill would provide $10,000,000.00 in state general obligation bond to the dairy industry. There are less than 200 liscensed dairy farmers in Mississippi.
So I ask he is padding whose pockets???
Dogma verses the dogs, love it!!!
"Well, I'm Episcopal, AKA Catholic Light... "
All the salvation with half the calories? ;-)
I think that it is interesting that so many people say that this bill will hurt livestock production when it is already a felony to abuse livestock and the standard for abuse is much lighter than it would be for the TORTURE required against a dog or cat for the felony to apply under 2127.
As for the comments related to farmers being able to shoot dogs that are injuring their livestock, that is in the 95 code section and has been for years....and nothing about 2127 changes that.
Please read the bill, and UNDERSTAND CURRENT LAW before making ridiculous assertions about 2127. If you are unfamiliar with the 95 code section that deals with the killing of dogs that are menacing livestock, just look it up. It takes 2 minutes. If you are unfamiliar with current livestock abuse laws, do the same.
For those who say that 2127 will hurt livestock, would you feel better if the words "dog and cat" were added to the list of animals protected under 97-41-15? That is the section that protects livestock and production animals. Keep in mind, doing so will make it a felony to mischievously kill or injure a dog or cat. This is a much lighter standard than what is being supported in 2127.
Also, please remember that the Farm Bureau SUPPORTED 97-41-15 when it was going through this same process. For them to acknowledge that making it a felony to mischievously kill or injure livestock does not hurt livestock production/slaughter then how does offering up a felony for the protection of dogs and cats with a much higher standard hurt them. Are farmers being prosecuted under -15 for slaughtering animals for food? Are they being prosecuted for how they conduct their business as it relates to the handling of their animals? It is all smoke and mirrors. The Farm Bureau is counting on the people of MS to remain uneducated about current laws as much as they are trying to convince them that 2127 is bad for farmers.
So , why is farm Bureau against it?
and before I hear a resounding,,
WE DONT KNOW? THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF TORTURING DOGS AND CATS and DAIVID WAIDE IS A LYING ASSHOLE>
Why dont you, (who so eloquently
stated that many dont know what is in the bill) why dont you try to articulate exactly why Farm Bureau doesnt support it.
They honestly believe the slippery slope argument applies here. Unfortunately, PETA has tried to attack farm and meat production in other states and these guys think the animal rights whackos are dressing them selves up a little bit more nicely in order to gain a foothold and then attack said production in this state.
MS-FACT has had meetings with them, they've tried to make them understand that is not the case, all to no avail. Some of their leadership really believes it and issues the marching orders to kill the bill. Some, like Waide, outright lie about the bill and use fearmongering to whip up their members and political allies to kill the bill. The opposition is led by David Waide. He can't be reasoned with, he won't negotiate, and he has made it clear lying to advance his cause is just fine. In his and his ilks mind, these are left wing california animal rights whackos and they don't deserve to be heard or have their concerns addressed.
Reminds me of some of the legislators who fight domestic violence laws or say "we don't need no harvards down here". Another reason for the opposition is cultural. Many people think of a dog or cat as a piece of clay and if someone wants to burn one to death, its horrible but oh well, thats life.
To add to what KF says in 12:54, in addition to meeting with David Waide and Farm Bureau multiple times, individual members of MS-FACT have asked David Waide, the Farm Bureau lobbyist (Samantha Cawthorn), and the Farm Bureau public relations person to please provide any documented facts or real life examples Farm Bureau has that illustrate how this particular bill could possibly lead us down the slippery slope they claim to have seen in other states. Farm Bureau has not responded to any of these requests. Instead, Farm Bureau, led by David Waide, spreads misinformation about the bill itself and works to frighten people with a constant call of "PETA is coming!" MS-FACT has repeatedly attempted to work WITH Farm Bureau on this issue to absolutely no avail. MS-FACT has also attempted to contact the new FB President, Randy Knight, in the hope of having a rational discussion with him on this issue. He has not responded to our calls or e-mails.
Signed, Marlo Kirkpatrick
I looked online for it and couldn't get the C-L website to pull it up, but there was a letter-to-the-editor in Saturday's paper from a Farm Bureau member. He said he called the new Executive Director to express his support for the bill and to ask why FB had taken a stand against it. The answer? There wasn't one, the ED hadn't even read the bill.
When a powerful Mississippi lobby is actively fighting against legislation that its leader hasn't even read, something screwy is going on. At this point I think it's just plain old stubbornness that keeps Waide and his people going.
what I find interesting is in Virginia, when they finally passed their animal cruelty bills, the lobbying efforts were led by the vet school and the Vet Association. AND where do these organizations stand in MS in this issue? They are afraid of funding getting cut if they support this legislation. These are the guys who are supposed to look out for animals. What a bunch of spineless woosies.
Where does this fit in? Clearly not pets. Not significantly different than puppy mill dogs? (only purpose obviously to make money for owner).
Even uses Farm Bureau farmer word "cull" instead of other activist-vegetarian words like kill or slaughter.
"SPCA probes 'execution' of 100 sled dogs
Employee of Whistler company claims stress after carrying out cull"
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/SPCA+probes+execution+sled+dogs/4200999/story.html
Ask Farm Bureau if they are worried about the law getting in the way of doing something like this. Felony, misdemeanor, or get out of jail free? Ask them if there is even anything wrong with killing 100 surplus assets-dogs like this.
"When a powerful Mississippi lobby is actively fighting against legislation that its leader hasn't even read, something screwy is going on."
Business as usual is going on.
Theres commies vageterians and outside agittaters sneakin inn every where dontcha kno. Lord amighty some has tattoos and earrings big as hog rings!
Farmb Bureau- They nose theys outthere! Some evin snuk intu the guvermnint! Wes' watchin all of you.
12:48 - I think that David Waide articulated this quite well himself before the 2010 session in a debate on the issue that was on public radio. He specifically said that he didn't want people to have trouble getting a job if they had a felony conviction, worried about the law becoming a gateway to cruelty against production animals (funny since that is already a felony), along with some remarks about cost. I believe that Kingfish had posted that debate on this site at the time.
As for why the current Farm Bureau President does not support the bill, there is no mystery there. He stated within the last few weeks that he has not even read it and did not know that it was a felony to mistreat livestock already. It is unconscionable that the President of the Farm Bureau is not well versed in the laws that protect farmers and their animals.
Now, since I have answered your questions, how about answering a couple of mine.....Have you read the bill? Have you read the current laws that relate to the protection of farmers, animals, etc.. in the state of MS? If you are concerned about 2127 impacting farmers, what specific concerns do you have? Please be sure to check current law and the exemptions section of 2127 before answering! :-)
And, before I hear a resounding, "It is a slippery slope and this will impact farmers in MS....." Why don't you come up with some specific examples of a law in another state that has impacted farming that was enacted to do what 2127 does, and has all of the exemptions that this bill allows for, and it should be a state with a voting population similar to MS.
Since EVERY other southern state has a felony law to protect cats and dogs you should have lots of states to look to for examples... I look forward to reading the results of your research.
I keep seeing this "impact farmers" argument and the huge focus on Farm Bureau. Am I missing something here because not one person has even attempted to address what I see as the glaring inefficiencies of this proposed legislation.
Kingfish (and the myriad Anons), how will we keep this limited to just cats and dogs when there are so many other kinds of legitimate pets? And why would anyone want to limit this legislation to dogs and cats if they were concerned about pets in general? It just seems hinky to me and always has.
Paul Mitchell - You keep seeing impact on farmers and Farm Bureau because they are the ones who are putting pressure on the Ag committee to kill the bill.
For the other issue:
It is already a felony to abuse livestock (cows, horses, sheep, pigs, poultry, goats, etc) so no need to revisit that. Some of those animals are also considered pets by many (the pig you referenced in an earlier post...at least I think it was you, I have to go back and read through all of this to be sure).
The felony for dogs and cats is a glaring inadequacy in the MS law because they are the two animals most often associated with abuse that escalates to people. This bill is not just about protecting dogs and cats, it is about protecting people from violent offenders.
As for other animals, they are covered in a misdemeanor statute (97-41-1) that has been on the books in MS for quite a while, but was deemed unconstitutional based on the lack of the language of intent. Apparently it was not opposed when it went through the legislative process because it became law. 2127 does clean up that language making the current statute valid once again.
Alright, I just got through reading the bill for about the fifth or sixth time.
Seriously, there is no reason to pass this at all. It will be overturned on the first try from anyone if any judge puts thought to it.
Y'all, please, just sit back down and try again, this is simply worthless because it doesn't even do what you want it to do other than throw someone in jail for a short amount of time and force them to pay for their psych eval, which they will not have to do anyway. Ignore the fact that I think what y'all want it to do will still be overturned with the first challenge.
But, I have no clue why Farm Bureau is even opposed to this, unless they think like I do that it is a regulation that serves no purpose and is unenforceable because of the utterly vague language.
So Kinfish, how would this be affected by your animal cruelty bill?
http://www.mississippilink.com/news/article_ad8c2112-27ca-11e0-a2ab-001cc4c002e0.html
Mr. Mitchell, I would again proffer the most sane argument against the third offense felony out there and I would love for you to answer the nagging question: If, according to the FB, laws such as this hurt meat, corn, and soybean production the first two times anyone gets caught abusing a dog or cat, why does it NOT hurt meat, soybean, and corn production when they get caught the third time (as if anyone would really get caught the third time because by then, they have moved on to people...)? I notice I have posed this question several times and have got no response from those of you who oppose this bill.
Anon 10:59, I have no clue why Farm Bureau opposes this bill and could not care less why, either.
Why would anyone support this bill when it is so wishy-washy and will get overturned the second someone challenges it?
You must not have read the bill.
Mr. Mitchell, you still have not answered the question...... and I helped write last year's bill. Health issues would not allow me to be as active this year.
Anon 12:40, my question has been out there on this thread since 12:32 on January 29, and not one person has addressed my concerns at all. I have no idea which of the myriad of anonymous comments you are, so I have no idea to what question YOU are referring.
Y'all do know that you could add a pseudonym to your comment and continue to use it and then the conversation would not be so futile, right?
Damn you mitchell, just damn you. I am not participating in this one. Just damning you.
Thanks, KK, I thought that I was not going to get damned today.
Post a Comment