Revised animal cruelty bill expected to be taken up next year

The Associated Press

Sen. Sue Madison, D-Fayetteville, whose bill in 2007 failed amid concerns raised by farmers and hunters, presented the revised measure at a meeting of the House and Senate judiciary committees, stressing that it applies only to cruelty to dogs, cats and horses.

“We’re not talking about chickens or fish or goats or anything else,” she told the committee. “We’re not talking about swatting your dog with a newspaper. This is really extreme cases of cruelty.”

Madison said the revised version differed in two respects: It eliminates making it a crime to abuse an animal in front of a child and adds a requirement that animal-abuse investigators be trained and certified.

Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota are the only states that do not have first-offense felony animal-abuse laws. Arkansas law currently makes it a misdemeanor to abuse an animal, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Gov. Mike Beebe has said he would like a stronger law, and spokesman Matt DeCample said Wednesday the governor would be watching the legislation as it gets closer to the 2009 session. DeCample said the governor would support a measure that is tougher on animal abusers while allowing hunters and farmers to operate as they normally do.

The felony proposal would make “aggravated cruelty to dogs, cats and horses” punishable by up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Elements of aggravated cruelty would include torture, prolonged pain, failure to provide sufficient care, or killing the animal “in an especially depraved manner” in which the offender “relishes the killing.”

The violator would lose ownership of the animal and a judge could order that person to undergo psychiatric counseling or treatment. Also, under the bill, only a law enforcement officer could make felony arrests, while a certified animal-abuse investigator could arrest someone on a misdemeanor charge.

Some committee members agreed that abusive behavior toward animals has become a serious problem in Arkansas and that animal abuse has been known to lead to violence toward people. But many expressed concern that wording in the bill may be ambiguous or too broad.

“How do you establish that a person relished killing? There’s room for interpretation there,” said Rep. Mark Martin, R-Prairie Grove, adding that some animal rights groups might think hunters are depraved.

Still, he said, “I certainly believe that something needs to be done.”

Rep. Nathan George, D-Dardanelle, asked if he could be prosecuted for killing a dog some time after it has chased his cows and no longer presents an “imminent threat or damage” to his livestock, as spelled out in the bill.

“This scares the heck out of me,” said George, a poultry and cattle farmer. “We do have to do this to protect our property.”

Rep. Clark Hall, D-Helena, asked if euthanizing a thoroughbred horse injured while racing at Oaklawn Park would be considered cruelty under the bill. Also, Hall said, a friend of his when he was a teenager did something “very dramatic” to a cat but regretted it later. He said his friend’s life would have been ruined if a prosecutor charged him with a felony.

“Do we not have a sense of compassion? Even though a terrible thing happened, he never made another mistake,” Hall said.

Rep. John Paul Wells, D-Paris, asked if he would be guilty under the proposed bill if he shoots a dog that attacks his dog. Rep. Chris Thyer, D-Jonesboro, said he was worried that shooting a horse that breaks its leg would be subject to prosecution.

Madison said the exact wording may have to be changed in some places to address their concerns, but the bill was a good step toward punishing extreme cases.