news-record.com

I think what we're up against is the usual combination of ignorance and poverty. The casual care of a dog nowadays costs more than people anticipate. http://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=2+1671&aid=1543 Then there is the time involved each day. Dog ownership is not casual in any way. I know people think of having a dog as cheap security, but there is nothing cheap about having one. Supporting this kind of law is easy, creating the change in human behavior is not.

“Animal bills tend to be extremely controversial,” Allran said. In the past, hunting and dog breeding groups have fought related measures.

"Extermely controversial?" Gimme a break! And to the Republicans I can only say HOW ABOUT DOING THE RIGHT THING, INSTEAD OF THE POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT THING??? The law is NOT blind and is intended only to help abused and neglected animials - those who oppose it should be ashamed of themselves and need to spend some time on calls with the people who investigate these abuse/neglect complaints. Maybe THAT will convince them that something needs to be done to prosecute these people to the fullest extent of the law.

Well thank goodness that the Don and the Democrats have their priorities in order.

I don't really think any law will help in these cases until law enforcement officers are told to actually do their jobs and "enforce"! In the last couple of weeks Surry Co. Sheriffs department received many phone calls about a report of abuse. An officer went to the home and left because the owner said the dogs were being treated for worms. The dogs were in fact being starved, had inadequate housing, and 1 had frostbite on it's feet. Again, the phone calls started and animal advocates got the owner to surrender the animals, thankfully! So, if officers are not going to enforce the law, what's the real difference? Ok, law enforcement, you have been put on notice to do the jobs you were hired to do. Just because it's an animal and may not be important to you, "It's the law!"

While I understand the comments about the budget of NC, I too see this as a law that could help taxpayers. Think of how much it cost to house animals at shelters and to run those shelters, this law would be progressive in at least getting those animal owners in front of a judge and getting a charge that will stick. The problem with the law as it does stand is that it is vague in proving the intent. If this were to pass it could cover the cases that are not so cut and dry. A lot of these cases are due to the neglect of the owners not caring for the animals, neglect can be a lot of things. Not providing medical care for a dog with an embedded collar is one of those, as is starvation. The problem comes when you have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the owner intentionally starved their dog.

Educate petowners. Petownership is a privilige not a right. Some dogs & cats are left outdoors 24/7 --- that shortens a pet's life. While other pets are treated better than others treat their children. We have extremes on both sides of care & feeding of pets. Pets require innoculations, annual check ups, special food (not table scraps), training, cleaning/cleaning up after, walking, walking, walking, etc. I live in a pet-friendly-neighborhood. Our pets are our children. However, as I walk my pet on leash, I see forlorn-looking-pets who are left alone all day to watch from their windows. In the evening when their owners return home, pets are shuffled out the door for bathroom breaks, owner may or may not pick up after pet, then quickly returned home. Dogs need to be walked, they need exercise. That's why I have a pet. I need exercise too, otherwise, I would sit dormit. Some pet owners really get it; I wish more did.

The N&R has elevated this story. Vaughan filed other bills along with this one, but this is a human interest story and it's the one the N&R and other news outlets have chosen to focus on. Given the passion behind this issue I think he has listened to his constituents. The Republicans should pass it and it would be a non-issue. The Republicans are also pushing bills that are not budget/JOBS related such as: voter cards and a marriage amendment (which would duplicate an already existing law). I think both parties will concentrate on JOBS. The legislature hasn't even been in session for 48 hours. I don't understand how people can judge a person on his election promises in such a short time frame. My guess is no matter what Vaughan does it will never be good enough for some people. I think I'll take a "wait and see" approach.

People seem to be overlooking an important point which Vaughn has mentioned in the past. People who abuse pets are much more likely to abuse people. Strengthening animal cruelty laws gives law enforcement another "tool in their toolbox" to help protect families and identify potential psychopaths.

From the FBI

*
Pet abuse was identified as one of the four predictors for intimate partner violence in a recent study conducted by a nationally-recognized team of domestic violence researchers;
*
Multiple studies found that from 48.8 percent to 71 percent of battered women reported that their pets had been threatened, harmed, and or killed by their partners;
*
Among children, pet abuse is an early indicator of anti-social behavior. All the experts agree that early identification and intervention is the key to helping children at risk;
*
Department of Justice longitudinal studies found that pet abuse in childhood is associated with persistence in anti-social behavior;
*
Adults who engage in animal cruelty are more likely to participate in other criminal activities, including violence against people, drug and substance abuse, and property offenses;
*
During the 1980s, in developing profiles of serial killers, the FBI’s Behavioral Crime Unit discovered that all serial killers had engaged in repeated acts of animal cruelty;
*
Animal fighting, often an economic-driven form of animal cruelty, is associated with gambling, selling and possession of drugs, illegal firearms, gang activity, and other violent behavior;