- Are gas chambers still legal in Georgia to euthanize unwanted animals?
The RULES OF GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-ANIMAL PROTECTION DIVISION (Amended version Sept 13, 2001) states: 40-13-13-.08(2) A chamber using commercially bottled carbon monoxide gas which was used on July 1, 1990, for euthanasia of dogs and cats may continue to be used provided the
Commissioner of Agriculture was notified in writing, on or before August 1, 1990, that such a chamber was in use by such animal shelter or facility on July 1, 1990. A chamber which causes a change in body oxygen by means of altering atmospheric pressure or which is connected to an internal combustion engine and uses the engine exhaust for euthanasia purposes shall not be permitted under any circumstances.
Back to top
- There was a lawsuit filed in March 2007 regarding Georgia's law on the gas method of euthanasia. Do you have an update?
GLPA volunteer, Toni Ross, June 2007 Update:
Report on the status of Chesley V. Morton and Jennifer Robinson v.
State of Georgia
Department
of Agriculture and Tommy Irvin, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner, Cause
No. 207-CV-130830, In the Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia, Family
Division
Background
On March
26, 2007, the Honorable Cynthia D. Wright executed an
interlocutory order in the above-referenced lawsuit (the “Order”). The Order noted that in 1990, the Georgia
General Assembly enacted a law that specified that sodium pentobarbital was the
exclusive method of euthanasia of dogs and cats in animal shelters, with
certain exceptions. See O.C.G.A. §4-11-5.1. The
exceptions included shelters in counties of less than 25,000, dangerous
animals, and gas chambers in use as of July
1, 1990 provided that the shelter filed their notice of
exemption with the Department of Agriculture by August 1, 1990. See O.C.G.A.
§4-11-5.1.
The Department of Agriculture is the exclusive agency to
inspect and license animal shelters, including insuring compliance with the
euthanasia provisions of the law. See Order, p.1. While the Commissioner contended that the
1990 law was unclear, Judge Wright held that “[t]he legislature could not have
been more clear in prohibiting euthanasia using gas chambers for dogs, cats,
puppies, and kittens except in very limited circumstances.” Order, p. 2.
The Court also noted that at the hearing “[i]t was abundantly clear…that
the Commissioner and the Department employees have virtually ignored the clear
statutory mandate.” Order, p.2.
On March 26, 2007, after the submission of extensive
evidence, the Court ultimately issued an interlocutory injunction “enjoining
and restraining the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Agriculture and employees of the Department of Agriculture from
advocating and sanctioning violation of O.C.G.A. §4-11-5.1 by state-licensed
animal shelters.” Order, p. 3.
Current
Status of the Case
Both parties engaged in extensive briefing regarding and
leading up to the injunction. More
importantly, on June
6, 2007, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Contempt,
claiming that “Defendants have intentionally violated the Court’s Order and
attempted by their conduct to circumvent the effect of the Order.” Motion for Contempt, p. 1.
The Brief in Support of the Motion for Contempt contends
that the Cobb County Animal Shelter has been operating a gas chamber in direct
violation of the Humane Euthanasia Act for the last twelve years. The Department of Agriculture received
complaints about Cobb County Animal Shelter’s allegedly unlawful conduct after
the Order was issued.
An
April 25, 2007, letter from Leana Stormont of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (“PETA”), asking the Department of Agriculture to “undertake
appropriate investigative and enforcement action to ensure swift compliance
with the law” is attached to the Brief in Support of the Motion to Compel. John Hennelly, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, responded on April 30, 2007, requesting that correspondence be
directed to his attention and noting that the Order was “aimed at maintaining
the status quo,” and that “the effect of the order is to prohibit, rather than
compel, action.” This letter is also
attached to the Brief in Support of the Motion for Contempt. Ms. Stormont replied in a May 10, 2007,
letter, requesting certain public records related to the Cobb County Animal
Control facility and noting that PETA interprets the Order as an “expectation
that the Department will take some
action in response to violations of which it is made aware” and that it
“prohibits the Department from standing idly by and acquiescing when violations
are brought to its attention…” The
letter is also attached as an exhibit to the Brief in Support of the Motion for
Contempt.
On May 25, 2007, the
Department of Agriculture sent an inspector to the Cobb County Animal Shelter. The inspector gave the Cobb County Animal
Shelter a passing grade for its euthanasia program, and the inspection report
did not address the facility’s use of a gas chamber. The Department of Agriculture responded to
PETA’s Open Records Act request that afternoon, enclosing the inspection
report.
Plaintiffs
argue that the Defendants are in violation of the Order and thus, should be
found in contempt. They request that the
court “fashion a remedy that compels Defendants to follow the Order…and
prevents the harm that has been caused by Defendants’ attempts to both violate
the Court’s decision and provide a shield for the illegal gassing of dogs and
cats occurring in Cobb County on a daily basis.” Brief in Support of Motion for Contempt, p.
6. Plaintiffs seek that the Court
“compel Defendants to undertake enforcement activities with respect to the
illegal gassing that is ongoing at the Cobb County shelter, and to award
Plaintiffs the costs of filing and preparing [the Motion for Contempt].”
Defendants
have not yet responded to the Motion for Contempt, nor has the Court issued any
ruling.
Download Actual Court Documents by Clicking HERE
Back to top
- Where can I get a copy of Georgia's Rabies Manual?
Click here: GEORGIA RABIES MANUAL
Back to top
- Do rescue groups or animal foster parents need licensure in Georgia?
Yes. See this link for a full answer: http://rules.sos.state.ga.us/docs/40/13/13/02.pdf
Back to top
- I'd like to patronize a vet in my state who does not declaw cats. Where can I find one?
The following link will take you to an internet site that lists vets who reportedly do not declaw: http://www.declaw.com/list.asp
For a fact sheet on why you should never declaw your cat, please click here.
Back to top
- Is animal cruelty related to child abuse?
Yes.
In 1991 the United States Board on Child Abuse and Neglect released a report indicating that more than 2.5 million American children are
suffering from abuse and neglect.
· A 1983 survey in NJ of families reported for child abuse found that in
88% of the families at least one person had abused animals.
· The NJ study also found that in 2/3 of these cases the abusive parent
had injured or killed a pet and in 1/3 of the cases, children were the
animal abusers.
· A study by the Royal SPCA in Great Britain found that 83% of families
with a history of animal abuse has also been identified by social service agencies as at-risk for child abuse or neglect
Back to top
- Are animal cruelty and domestic violence related?
Yes. Every 15 seconds a woman is battered.
· In 3 surveys in women's shelters in WI and UT in the late 1990's an average of 74% of pet-owning women reported that a pet had been
threatened, injured or killed by their abuser.
· The Buffalo, NY police department and the SPCA of Erie County found
that 1/3 of the residents with animal abuse complaints also had domestic
violence complaints.
· A survey of women in a safehouse in UT found that 20% delayed leaving
the abusive situation out of fear that their pet would be harmed. Data
currently being collected in Canada found almost 50% delayed leaving. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that up to 75% of women delay leaving their abuser out of fear for the safety of their pet. (NOTE: There are safe houses for pets in the United States for women fleeing domestic violence. Click here to visit Safe Haven to find a pet safe house in your state. · A 1995 UT survey also found that children witnessed the animals abuse
in over 60% of the cases and 32% of women reported that one or more of
their children hurt or killed a pet.
Back to top
- Is there a documented link between violence to animals and future violence to people?
Yes.
· The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that in 1996 there were
9.1 million violent crimes in the United States.
· A 1997 study by the MSPCA and Northeastern University found that 70%
of animal abusers had committed at least one other criminal offense and
almost 40% had committed violent crimes against people.
· A 1986 study reported that 48% of convicted rapist and 30% of
convicted child abusers admitted perpetrating acts of animal cruelty in their childhood or adolescence.
· A history of animal abuse was found in 25% of aggressive male
criminals, 30% of convicted child molesters, 36% of those who assaulted women and
46% of those convicted of sexual homicide.
Back to top
- Can a perpetrator be denied access to an animal victim of crime in Georgia?
Yes. Many prosecutors are unaware that they can make a
condition to a bond that the perpetrator is not allowed access to the animal
(victim).
Urge your prosecutor and/or judge to utilize this
when a defendant, charged with animal cruelty or domestic violence, is bonding
out of jail.
Back to top
- What is "willful neglect" when it comes to harming an animal in Georgia?
Georgia code 16-12-4. "Willful neglect" means the intentional withholding of food and water required by
an animal to prevent starvation or
dehydration. (b) A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals when he or she causes death or
unjustifiable physical pain or suffering to any animal by an act, an omission, or willful
neglect.
Back to top
- What constitutes felony animal cruelty in Georgia?
Georgia code 16-12-4. A
person commits the offense of aggravated cruelty to animals when he or she
knowingly and maliciously causes death or physical harm to an animal by
rendering a part of such animal's body useless or by seriously disfiguring such
animal. A person convicted of the
offense of aggravated cruelty to animals shall be punished by imprisonment for
not less than one nor more than five years, a fine not to exceed $15,000.00, or
both, provided that any person who is convicted of a second or subsequent
violation of this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than
one nor more than five years, a fine not to exceed the amount provided by Code
Section 17-10-8, or both. (1) Any person who is convicted of a second or subsequent
violation of this subsection shall be punished by imprisonment not to
exceed 12 months, a fine not to exceed $5,000.00, or both; and (2)
Any person who is convicted of a second or subsequent
violation of this subsection which results in the death of an animal shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature
and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months nor more
than 12 months, a fine not to exceed $10,000.00, or both, which punishment shall
not be suspended, probated, or withheld.
Back to top
- How can I help a chained dog?
Chaining is very bad for dogs. Statistics indicate that dogs who are forced to live on a chain are much more likely to bite than dogs who are not chained. They can't run away from perceived threats (like approaching children, for instance), so their only choice is to bite. Dogs are by nature pack animals, so when forced to live on chains become lonely, bored, scared because they feel vulnerable, and are likely to become aggressive over time (hey, how would you feel if you were tied to a tree all the time?).
If you are aware of a chained dog that needs help, please visit this informative website for more in-depth answers on what you can do: www.Unchain Your Dog.org
Back to top
- What is an open records request and how do I make one?
Under the Georgia Open Records Act, all public records are available for
inspection and copying unless they are specifically exempted from disclosure
under the law.
An Open Records Request should be made directly to the
custodian of the records that are sought.
A request to inspect or copy
records may be made either orally or in writing. For purposes of documenting
and clarifying the scope and timing of the request, it is a better practice
to make the request in writing. For more info visit: http://www.state.ga.us/ago/faq.html
Sample
Request:
(Date)
(Agency)
(Address)
RE: Open
Records Act Request
Dear (Records Custodian):
This letter is a
formal request made under the Georgia Open Records Act (O.C.G.A. 50-18-70) to
obtain access to and permission to copy certain records in your
offices.
Specifically, we are requesting... (describe the records you are
seeking). We are prepared to pay reasonable search and retrieval fees if
necessary. Should your estimate of those fees exceed $XX (whatever you
would expect to reasonably pay), please advise us of the costs before
they are incurred.
If our request is denied in whole or in part, we
ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the
Georgia Open Records Act. I will also expect you to release all
segreable portions of otherwise exempt material.
Please feel free to
call me if you have any questions about this request. I look forward to
hearing from you within three days in accordance with the
Act.
Sincerely,
(Your name)
Back to top
Do animal victims of crime have to be held indefinitely at animal control or can they be let out prior to the trial so they don't go "cage crazy"? Some trials can take up to 2 years. Does the animal HAVE to sit in a cage at animal control all that time?
This is a question we get a lot. We have
debated this question with other prosecutors and the good news is that most
agree with this answer. There are a lot of things to take in before deciding the appropriate answers.
In general, the title has the provision to allow
early forfeiture of animal PRIOR to the criminal case. The animal is more so
"evidence" than anything else. Preserving evidence is the key to any successful
prosecution. The immediately and proper procurement of evidence versus the
failure secure and keep evidence can make or break a case. In a case where
seizure was under title 4 and the owner fails to take his due process by failing
to claim or respond to notice, the appropriate action is to apply to the court
for dispose of animal (a fancy of saying early forfeiture of an animal). Keep in
mind, you must get the approval of the prosecuting attorney first because he or
she must make sure enough photos and/or video is collected of the dog i.e.
evidence, before the evidence is "disposed". Disposal can be euthanasia but not
always. Most states and municipalities dare not adopt out animals that have been
involved in fighting for liability reasons (public threat, danger to children,
etc.). Some cities have a total ban on adoption out, for example, any pit bull
regardless of how it came into the shelter. Chicago is one of them.
· 4-11-9.3.
(a) It
shall be the duty of any person impounding an animal
under Code Section 4-11-9.2 to make reasonable and proper arrangements to provide the impounded animal with humane
care and adequate and necessary
veterinary services. Such arrangements may include, but shall not be limited to,
providing shelter and care for the animal at any state, federal, county,
municipal, or governmental facility or shelter; contracting with a private individual,
partnership, corporation, association, or other entity to provide humane care
and adequate and necessary veterinary services for a reasonable fee; or allowing
a private individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other entity to
provide humane care and adequate and necessary veterinary services as a
volunteer and at no cost. (b) Any person impounding an animal under this
article or providing care for an impounded animal shall have a lien on such animal for the reasonable
costs of caring for such animal. Such lien may be foreclosed in any
court that is competent to hear civil cases, including, but not limited to,
magistrate courts. Liens shall be foreclosed
in magistrate courts only when the amount of the lien does not exceed
the jurisdictional limits established by law for such courts. (c)
Any person impounding an animal under this
article is authorized to return the animal to
its owner, upon payment by the
owner of all costs of impoundment and care and upon the entry of a consent order ,
unless such owner was, in a prior administrative or
legal action in this state or any other state, found to have failed to provide humane care to an
animal, committed cruelty to animals, or engaged in dog fighting in violation of
the laws of this state or of the United States or any of the several
states. Such consent order shall provide conditions relating to the
care and treatment of such animal, including, but not limited to, the following,
that: (1) Such animal will be given humane care and adequate and necessary
veterinary services; (2) Such animal will not be subjected to cruelty; and (3)
The owner will comply with this article. (d) The provisions of subsection (c) of
this Code section shall not apply to an animal that was an object or
instrumentality of a crime nor shall any such animal be returned to the owner
without the approval of the prosecuting
attorney. An agency having
custody of an animal that was seized as an object or instrumentality of a crime
may, with the consent of the prosecuting
attorney, apply to the court having jurisdiction over the offense for
an order authorizing such agency to dispose of
the animal prior to trial of the criminal case as provided by
law.
The whole concept of not having animal
victims of crime languishing in impound for months and months while waiting for
trial of a potential criminal case was the moving force behind the Title 4 part
of the Animal Protection
Act of 2000. Assuming that an
animal is properly impounded pursuant to the procedures outlined in Title 4, then the
impounding agency has the following options for disposing of the animal:
Option A (Return to owner under consent order): Under
4-11-9.3 ©, the agency impounding an animal other than an animal which would be
considered an "object or instrumentality of a crime" can return the animal to
the owner under a consent order (unless the owner has been previously convicted
of cruelty in a criminal case or found to have not imparted humane care in an
administrative hearing). This is a unilateral decision that can be made by the
impounding agency UNLESS the animal was an object or instrumentality of a
crime. If the animal was an object/instrumentality of a crime, then the animal cannot
be returned to the owner under a consent order without the
prosecutor's approval and a disposal order from the court having jurisdiction
over the criminal case. The prosecutor has to maintain control of his/her
evidence. Keep in mind, the animal is considered "evidence" first and foremost
and the ownership of animal is secondary when dealing with a crime.
Option B (Court order for disposal of
animal which was object/instrumentality of a crime): An agency having custody of an
"object/instrumentality of a crime animal" may, again with the approval of the
prosecutor, apply to the court that has the criminal case for an order allowing
disposal of the animal prior to trial of the criminal case ( 4-11-9.3(d)).
As far as procedure, many counties
do it differently. In Gwinnett for example, they seized 31+ pits under neglect.
The prosecutor requested forfeiture and went ahead and tried the case on the
same day because the defendant was available and it was shortly after the
seizure. One would assume that the prosecutor would be the one to draft the
application for the disposal order, since (s)he has to approve the process, and
the order has to be signed by the court that has jurisdiction over the criminal
case. But, the law is silent on who must draft it. It just says an agency
(FAC) having custody may apply.
Therefore, you can or you can get your prosecutor to do it. The law is also
silent on whether the approval from the prosecutor has to be in writing or
verbal.
Option C (Hearing): If a consent order
isn't entered, and owner still wants the animal back, (s)he has to request
his/her hearing, and follow the procedures for that. If the hearing officer
finds the impound was improper, then (s)he enters an order that the owner gets
the animal back. If the hearing officer finds that the impound was proper, then
the hearing officer can give the animal back to the owner (again assuming no
prior cruelty/inhumane findings) or may order the impounding agency to dispose
of the animal according to 4-11-9.6. This hearing procedure does not
apply to an "object/instrumentality of a crime animal." An "OIC animal" cannot be returned to the owner or
disposed of without the prosecutor's approval. This would prevent the
prosecutor from potentially losing his/her evidence due to a lame decision by
some hearing officer.
So to answer the question, yes….where an animal has been the object of cruelty or the instrumentality of
fighting, the impounding agency can, with the prosecutor's approval, apply for a
court order allowing the disposal of the animal, by either return to the owner
(we could imagine a situation where the owner was not the perpetrator of the
crime against the animal, and in that situation, owner and animal probably need
to be reunited ASAP), or disposed of according to 4-11-9.6, prior to
trial. The prosecutor can decide not to give consent of early forfeiture and
the animal can be in the cage till case is adjudicated. Many states do not have
a provision for early forfeiture. Ours is a bit convoluted and clandestine to so
many in the field (prosecutors & judges too), but at least we have it.
You do not have to, but
you may mention these reasons if your judge is
reluctant
1) Prosecutor has
sufficient documentation and photo/video of animal, therefore, does not need to
keep the animal;
2) animal may stay in
cage for an unreasonable amount of time (we have seen cases take more than 2
years);
3) animal will go "cage
crazy" (of course we would use the medical terminology to explain the
psychological phenomenon known as "cage crazy". There is plenty out there on
this subject);
5) animal may loose
it's ability to be rehabilitated (cage crazy) for possible adoption in the
future;
6) animal's care and
boarding will be paid by the taxpayers (granted, title 4 seizure makes it so the
defendant has to cover the cost, but in reality it is doubtful that the
perpetrator would have the money to cover the cost of care (which could be for
months or years in some cruelty cases) and pay a fine.
7) animal will be
occupying a "cage" which is primarily used for adoption purposes. Thus, the
shelter will not only loose that cage, but it may affect the numbers in
euthanasia (euthanasia numbers are a big deal to shelter managers for public
opinion and to their commissioners for funding);
8) if the criminal case
involves numerous animals (as in the case of hoarders, dog fighting ring,
breeders, etc.), The shelters cages could potentially be used to board
OIC animals in many cages for a very long time and disrupt the shelter's
purpose of adopting animals. In the case for fighting dogs, they must be kept
separated;
9) animal kept in cage
will only prolong animal's suffering, it is inhumane. This is a victim as well
as evidence.
10) Shelter virus
outbreaks are common, and the animal waiting for trial could be affected by
any shelter virus outbreak.
11) tax payers may foot
the bill for the housing and care of animal.
12) The animal poses a public threat and is too aggressive to
stay in shelter (poses threat to employees) or can not be adopted due to shelter
policy or aggressive nature (liability issues).
Back to top
|