The Kentucky Animal Control Act

For many years there has been an ongoing debate on whether or not animals should be given rights, even there own bill of rights. Some who are against the animal bill of rights argue that testing products on animals is important to the safety of humans. Others who want the new bill of rights claim that animals have feelings and that science is treating them inhumanely. Animal activists also add that animals are intelligent beings and are aware of how they are treated. Based on science proving animal activists correct on many of their points, this calls for a new bill of rights, in the United States, especially written for the protection and care of wild and domestic animals.

The Animal Bill of Rights is meant to protect animals that don’t have legal protection. There are laws that protect some of the animals, but are often insufficient and full of loopholes. In this society we have many people who think the total opposite of defending the animals. It may be because of selfish thinking. Sometimes one might think, it is needed for them to survive or because they want to be able to show their children the animals in person at zoos. Now, the question is, if animals need a Bill of Rights? I strongly believe that they do need a Bill of Rights because there are animals on the day-to-day basis that are being mistreated and abused by humans that don’t care for them. We need the Bill of Rights because it will give a better voice to the animals being treated as if they were nothing in this world. I agree with what the source indicated “ Animals in the U.S. are considered just “property” by law, even though they are living, feeling beings”. If they were not considered “property” humans wouldn’t be harming these animals and would rather be caring or not giving them much attention if they aren’t an animal enthusiast.

Plaintiff, Dobbie Brown, a minor child, has brought a cause of action with his parents, Michael and Tina Brown against our client, defendant, Lawrence Vincent Smith for statutory liability under Florida’s dog bite statute. On October 31, 2009, around 9:30 p.m., Plaintiff, along with seven other children came running up to our client’s property to trick or treat. Plaintiff ran to the glass window where owner’s dog Beast was. Plaintiff began to pound on the window yelling, “Trick or Treat!!” while Beast barked, ran back and forth and jumped around. Our client answered the door a few minutes after he went to retrieve his hot biscuits from the oven. When our client answered the door, the kids were screaming “Trick or Treat” at the top of their lungs. Plaintiff was dressed up in a cat costume. When our client opened the door, and handed Plaintiff a biscuit, Beast sprang up from the door and bit off Plaintiff’s finger. Our client quickly restrained Beast, wrapped up Plaintiff’s hand along with the severed finger and took Plaintiff to the hospital where doctors were able to successfully reattach the severed finger. Our client had purchased Beast about eight months before the incident. The Beast is an eight to ten pound Yorkie who has bitten our client’s niece on a prior occasion, although the bite was minor. The Beast has been around children in

Every life has a choice. Every choice has a reason. Every reason has a purpose. All answers come into place. Why? Now that is the question people ask themselves on a daily basis when trying to find human cures or treatments. Why are the experiments having this sort of effect? Why have the experiment subject’s internal organs disintegrated? Nevertheless, people assume test subjects to be volunteering humans, the homeless, or desperate aliens who are willing to do anything to cross the border or country. In reality, animals [mainly cats, dogs, and mice] are the ones that endure experimentation for the future of mankind. Even though animal testing helped discover treatments for aggressive diseases and safely determined the outcome of mankind, it still sidesteps the fact that animals are their own being, it violates the Animal Welfare Act of 1970, the discovery of humane methods shows it to be beneficial, and the test results will soon become void for the benefit of mankind.

Breed-specific legislation is not as functional or as useful as it was intended to be. According to Fred Kray of StopBSL.com, “Breed specific legislation (BSL) is a law that bans OR restricts certain types of dogs based on their appearance, usually because they are perceived as ‘dangerous’ breeds or types of dogs”. These restrictions include total exclusion of certain breeds from individual cities, muzzle requirements for dogs in public, the requirement of purchasing liability insurance for dog bites or even the requirement of placing a “vicious dog” tag on the dog’s collar just to name a few. BSL causes the bully breeds (breeds considered dangerous and most importantly, have a Pitbull terrier appearance) to become more dangerous, leads to the discrimination of individual breeds, and causes Pitbulls to be put down when surrendered to shelters instead of being adopted into loving homes.

The wildlife is beautiful in Western Kentucky, but some people don’t respect them and the right way to hunt them if they are legal to kill. The main animals affected are usually the most common animals poached. The animal the that was affected the most is the black bear. The poaching was so bad, it almost erased black bears from Kentucky. The second most affected animal in western Kentucky is a whitetail deer. This is the most commonly hunted animal in western Kentucky. The poaching of these deer, have at times made the population low. The next most affected animal is the wild turkey. This type of hunting is less common than deer hunting, but it is still pretty popular. The turkey weren't that close to endangered as the others but it

On 05/29/16 at 8:00pm, I was dispatched to 2142 Balford Square East on injury-possible dangers or vicious dog and owner surrender. I arrived at the house and spoke to dog owner Delane Murrell Jr. Mr. Murrell stated that his son was standing in the kitchen when their dog came in the house from the back yard and attacked his son. Mr. Murrell wrote out a statement of facts in regards to the incident. Mr. Murrell also stated that he wanted to surrender the dog. I took pictures of the injuries to Qimari Brown. Qimari has puncture wounds to his right thigh and to the right side of back. Mr. Murrell was unable to show proof of dog license. Mr. Murrell was issued violations for failure to license and failure to control a dangerous dog. Mr.

Their dog intention was not to attack the other dog but to play with it. They stated the victim dog started the attacked and had their dog by the neck. Ms. Diverlbliss husband was hitting the victim dog with his crutches to get the dog to let go of his dog. Mr. Divelbliss stated that Mr. Todd was unable to get his dog to let go of his and was trying to open his dog mouth with his hands resulting in his injuries. The dogs were eventually separated. Ms. Diberlbliss was unable to show proof of a dog license or vaccinations. I confirmed with Fairfield County Deputy Sheriff J. Warner to determine if that was the story he was presented, he confirmed it was. Deputy Sheriff J. Warner also talked to the victim via phone advising me that the offending dog bite him. Deputy Sheriff J. Warner is a witness to Mr. Todd stating that the offending dog bite him. I issued Ms. Divelbliss violations for failure to license, failure to vaccinate and failure to control a dangerous dog. Ms. Divelbliss dog name Holly was designated dangerous. I went to Grant Hospital to talk and take pictures of Mr. Todd injuries. Mr. Todd had visible injuries to his right and left hand front and back, and an injury to his right leg in the vicinity of his knee. I took pictures

legislation is more likely to be accepted than new laws that ban certain breeds. If

Breed Specific Legislation refers to a law or set of regulations applicable to certain types of dog breeds. The law forbids the possession of certain dogs believed as dangerous to both the owner and the general public (Walden). BSL allows punishment of innocent animals while owners never fault, giving the specific breed a bad name. According to the American Kennel Club Web site, an appellate court in Ohio ruled BSL as unconstitutional. The court found no proof that the pit bull breeds seem more of a risk verses other breeds of dogs (American Kennel Club). This paper gives a synopsis that abolishment of the Breed Specific Legislation, especially regarding pit bulls, ought to take place due to unethical and biased reasons. The three key points

Recently, the amendment of animal control laws on pit bull ban in Montreal has risen many controversial opinions related to matter as a “public safety” after the death of a 55-year-old woman by the brutal attack of dog which is thought as a pit bull. Pit pulls are regarded as American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers and any mix breed dogs that have a part of those breeds or a dog with similar physical characteristics. The legislation prohibits pit bull, restrains the existing pit bull and makes stricter penalties for dogs which pose the danger to the public (“Montreal passes controversial”, 2016). The council’s decision about this issue is questionable whether to ensure the public safety, the city of Montreal should not adopt this controversial legislation which is unfair, ineffective and unenforceable.

Everyday, animals worldwide are discriminated upon strictly because of their appearances. Could you imaging your beloved chihuahua being taken out of your home and killed for the sole reason of it looking “aggressive”? For many, this vision is a harsh reality. Dogs of several breeds are becoming banned and illegal to own because some consider them an aggressive breed or a threat to the safety of others around them. This discrimination is inhumane and should ultimately be stopped.

There should not be an amendment to the constitution granting animals rights. The reason I feel there should not be any amendment is because they provide us with food, give us resources that we use daily and we also get long lasting clothes from using their fur or flesh. But I do believe there should be laws on how to properly kill animals we consume or use for their fur, flesh or meat.

§2143(a) (b) and §2149(b), which are part of the Animal Welfare Act, were enacted so that standards of humane treatment can be given to animals used by research facilities, dealers, and exhibitors. The Animal Welfare Act was passed in 1966 because of the increasing concern about the stealing of dogs and cats for use in research facilities (National Anti-Vivisection Society, 2015).

Animals are found throughout lives of humans. As companions, entertainment, test subjects and food, animals serve vital roles throughout our lives.The Animal Bill of Rights, through the Animal Legal Defense Fund, attempts to defend the basic legal rights of all animals. However, to weigh the need for such an act, one must compare the suffering of animals to the benefits such suffering gives to humankind. It’s much more important to highlight the crucial medical advances that lab animals have provided over the injustices they may suffer, but this suffering can not and should not be ignored. It is with measure that we do not enact a bill of rights for animals, however we bring new awareness of animal research and the ethical treatment of all