It took six years, but Ohio humane agents now need animal husbandry training
to do their jobs
Evolution of a cruelty law
By Norma Bennett Woolf
After a six-year struggle, the Ohio State Legislature approved an animal cruelty
law that requires training for humane agents and due process for owners accused
of cruelty or neglect.
SB 221, a bill introduced by State Senator David Goodman, is a far cry from
the original measure supported by the Humane Society of the US and many animal
shelters. Ohio Valley Dog Owners Inc., an NAIA affiliate; the Ohio Association
of Animal Owners, a coalition of farmers and exotic animal owners; and a group
of cat fanciers led the drive for changes in early versions of a bill that allowed
confiscation of animals without a warrant, gave shelters the right to dispose
of animals prior to trial, and forced owners to pay for the care of impounded
animals even if they were acquitted of the charges.
The original bill introduced in the 1997-98 legislative session by Representative
Patrick Tiberi was so poorly written that it eliminated due process for animal
owners and increased the work load for humane agents without providing any training
to aid them in enforcing new standards. The bill passed the House Criminal Justice
Committee in that session but was referred to the Agricultural Committee by
a vote on the House floor. The Agriculture Committee did not schedule hearings
and the bill died.
Tiberi was back the following year with another version of the bill that went
through nine hearings and several reincarnations before it died at the end of
the session. Tiberi was elected to Congress, and Ohio State Senator David Goodman
took up the cause. Goodman’s SB 221 was an improvement: it included
- mandatory training in animal husbandry for humane agents;
- due process for animal owners;
- a modified version of a prepayment program for impounded animals;
- a provision that holds animal shelters responsible for unjustified impoundment
of animals and for failure to return animals to owners who are acquitted of
charges; and
- a requirement to use fine money for humane agent training.
The Goodman bill exempted hunting dogs from its provisions but failed to allow
breeders, exhibitors, and trainers of performance and working dogs the same
advantage even though many of the husbandry and training practices are the same
as those used by hunters.
Representatives from OVDO and OAAO met with the sponsors of the House and Senate
versions of the bill and with other representatives and senators to get changes
that would protect husbandry practices that are often misunderstood by the general
public and considered cruel by humane societies. We did not get across-the-board
exemptions, but we did manage to eliminate some language that jeopardized the
use of dog crates and received an exemption for the use of training collars
and practices.
Exemptions
Farmers have a strong lobby in Ohio. Farmers do not want increased oversight
of practices that are humane but are often misunderstood by the general public
and targeted by overzealous humane agents. Therefore, farmers are exempt from
the new law.
Hunters also have a strong lobby in the state and opposed any cruelty bill
that did not exempt them.
Research scientists are already covered by federal law, so were exempted from
the bill. The bill was therefore carefully crafted to define ‘companion
animals’ as ‘all dogs and cats and all other animals kept as pets
in residential dwellings.’ Owners who mistreat animals other than dogs
and cats are not subject to the increased penalties if the animals live in detached
garages or outbuildings on residential property or are kept in commercial or
retail facilities and may not be protected by the due process provisions in
the law that apply specifically to the abuse of ‘companion animals.’
The violence connection
SB 221 included two provisions triggered by recent research linking animal
cruelty and violence to humans: it gives the court the authority to order counseling
for those convicted of cruelty and it mandates cross-agency reporting between
humane societies and social service agencies if investigations turn up evidence
that animal or people are abused.
Proponents of the bill wanted felony penalties for something, but OAAO led
the opposition to penalties that were the same or stronger than penalties for
domestic violence against humans. The final bill includes a low-level felony
for a second offense of deliberate animal torture, the same punishment meted
out to those convicted of domestic violence with bodily harm, patient neglect,
and failure to pay child support on a second or subsequent offense. The penalty
is six months to a year in jail and up to $2500 in fines.
Due process
The various incarnations of Tiberi’s bills were written as if anyone accused
of cruelty was guilty. They allowed animals to be confiscated without a court
order, gave pre-trial payments for care directly to the impounding agency, provided
for forfeiture of the animals if the owner failed to pay up front, allowed shelters
to dispose of animals before trial, did not return money paid for the care of
animals if the owner was acquitted of charges, and failed to hold shelters responsible
if they disposed of animals in cases where owners were subsequently acquitted
of the charges.
Due process was a centerpiece of Goodman’s bill. It
- required court orders and hearings to determine if impoundment is necessary;
- directed pretrial deposits for animal care to a court escrow account to
be dispensed to the shelter only if the animal owner is convicted;
- provided compensation to the owner if the charges were not sustained; and
- changed current law that awards animal cruelty fines to animal shelters
by sending the money to the county treasury to be used for humane agent training.
The amended version of SB 221 passed the House on December 5, 2002, after successful
efforts to get last minute changes palatable to dog breeders and trainers by
representatives Bill Seitz, Tom Brinkman, and John Willamowski. The Senate concurred
with the changes five days later, and Governor Bob Taft signed the bill on January
6, 2003, and it went into effect in April that year.
This article appeared in the Winter 2003 issue of NAIA News. As of
January 6, 2004, the Ohio Police Training Commission staff was still writing
the curriculum for humane agent training. Ohio Valley Dog Owners, the Ohio Association
of Animal Owners, and other animal use groups are represented on the review
panel..
|
