Update March 5, 2008: In the final hours of the 2008 legislative session, the Utah legislature passed Sen. Allan Christensen’s bill to create felony penalties for torture of a "domestic dog" or "domestic cat". Governor Jon Huntsman is expected to sign the bill.
It is the first time Utah has created a felony penalty for animal cruelty. Utah is no longer one of a handful of states without any felony penalties for animal cruelty. But the new law still leaves Utah with among the weakest animal cruelty laws in the country.
Torture is defined as "intentionally or knowingly causing or inflicting extreme physical pain to an animal in an especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or exceptionally depraved manner."
The compromise law is an amalgam of a bill, HB 470, by Rep. Sheryl Allen, as amended, and SB 297 offered recently by Sen. Allen Christensen instead of his earlier bill, S.B. 117 which would have weakened further Utah’s animal cruelty laws.
It appears the felony penalty will not apply to feral cats and dogs. Also, these animals may be considered "wildlife" which may be killed by any lawful means which includes hunting and trapping.
The compromise law also amends current law by excluding wildlife and many other animals from the definition of "animal". "Livestock" which is specifically defined as horses, cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens, turkeys and other animals are no longer "animals" but instead are creatures not entitled to any protection as long as they are treated according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices.
Whatever that means. It’s also not clear what recourse there will be against abusers of these animals (Yes, they are animals!) if they are not treated according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices. Again, whatever that means.
The new compromise also strips requirements for veterinary care from current law and removew animal cruelty as a form of criminal hazing.
This compromise came after a battle of more than a decade during which hundreds of Utah’s citizens tried to make at least animal torture a felony.
A strong veterinary and farm lobby have consistently defeated this effort. In this session they actually moved to weaken the state’s existing animal cruelty law.
S.B. 117
S.B. 117, sponsored by Sen. Allen Christensen, passed the Senate by a vote of 15-14. This bill would have weakened the state law in many respects though it would have made it a felony to torture an animal if the perpetrator had been previously convicted in the past 5 years of animal torture. See the chart below for details of this bill.
S.B. 102
Henry’s Law, S.B. 102, offered by Sen. Gene Davis, a bill that would have made animal torture a felony, died in committee. There was no public hearing on the bill.
The bill, S.B. 102, was called Henry’s Law in honor of the little dog whose owner put his eye out with a leafblower and then shut him in a heated oven, causing serious injuries to the little dog. The owner, Marc Vincent, was convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to 6 months in jail and two years probation and was ordered to pay a $500 fine and restitution of about $1000 to his wife, Rhonda Kamper, to cover the dog’s vet bills.
Under S.B. 102 torturing an animal like this would have meant up to 5 years in prison. Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203
The torture of little Henry was a driving force to pass this bill in the 2007 session, and the bill almost passed. Rhonda Kamper, Henry’s person, has led the charge to pass this bill. When it was defeated in the 2007 session literally minutes before the end of the session in last minute political maneuvering by a representative who is a veterinarian , Kamper called on the Governor to convene a special session to consider the bill. Governor Huntsman did that, but the legislature tabled it.
Polls show most Utahns supported the bill.
During the last session when Henry’s Law was under consideration, Sen. Christensen was concerned a felony charge for torturing an animal could "potentially ruin" the abuser’s life for what may be a "one time stupid thing".
HB 470
Then a third bill, HB 470 sponsored by Rep. Sheryl Allen, was offered as a sort of compromise. HB 470 initially created a category for companion animals which were offered more protections. The bill also addressed the problem of animal torture during domestic violence.
It appeared that there would be a fight between these two bills.
Compare HB 470 and SB 117
|
House Bill 470 |
Senate Bill 117 |
|
Removes animal cruelty as a form of hazing under Section 76-5-107.5 |
Same |
|
No mention of amending Section 76-3-203.3 to include animal cruelty and torture as primary offenses of a hate crime. |
Animal cruelty and torture can be primary offenses under the hate crime law, Section 76-3-203.3. |
|
Excludes from the definition of animal those "creatures" that are owned or kept according to accepted husbandry standards and are owned or kept by zoos or aquariums, or in USDA licensed circuses or traveling exhibitions temporarily in the state; or are kept or used for training hunting dogs or raptors |
Same except adds "customary farming practices: Excludes from the definition of animal those "creatures" owned or kept according to accepted husbandry practices or customary farming practices and are owned or kept by zoos or aquariums, and animals owned, USDA licensed circuses or traveling exhibitions temporarily in the state, or for training hunting dogs or raptors.
|
|
Excludes from the definition of animal those "creatures" kept or used for rodeo purposes if they are kept according to accepted rodeo practices |
same |
|
Excludes livestock from the definition of animal if kept according to accepted husbandry practices or customary farming practices; livestock is defined to include horses, pigs, sheep, goats, poultry, and others |
same |
|
Excludes wildlife from the definition of animal if hunted, fished, trapped or killed by other lawful means |
Excludes wildlife from the definition of animal |
|
Contains a definition for companion animals which are dogs (except those used primarily for herding or protecting livestock) and cats specifically, and also any animal dependent on the owner for care and considered a pet but which cannot include a horse or other livestock, fish or other aquatic animals, wildlife or amphibians. |
No definition of companion animal |
|
Contains no definitions of accepted husbandry practices or customary farming practices |
Lists the following as accepted husbandry or customary farming practices but does not otherwise define these terms: |
|
"Necessary food, water, care, or shelter" means the following, taking into account the species, age, and physical condition of the animal: |
No separate definition |
|
Defines torture to mean intentionally or knowingly causing or inflicting extreme physical pain to an animal in an especially heinous, atrocious, cruel, or exceptionally depraved manner. But now many animals like horses are no longer included in the definition of "animals" and would no longer be protected really at all unless one could make a case the treatment was not according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices. |
Defines torture to mean, without having a legal privilege to do so, intentionally, knowingly, and with depraved or sadistic intent, inflicting, or causing to be inflicted upon an animal or livestock, severe physical pain or prolonged suffering, regardless of whether the animal or livestock dies. Requires proof of depraved or sadistic intent to establish torture. Protects livestock but not the other animals excluded from the definition of animal unless one could make a case the treatment was not according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices. |
|
The crime of animal cruelty still includes failure to provide necessary food, care, or shelter, as defined above to include veterinary care and shelter against extreme weather, and also adds water as a requirement of care; abandonment of an animal, injury to an animal, and transporting or confining animals in a cruel manner; and causing animals to fight for amusement or gain.
But now many animals like horses are no longer included in the definition of "animals" and would no longer be protected really at all unless one could make a case the treatment was not according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices. |
Failure to provide food, water and shelter taking into account the species, age and physical condition of the animal, and abandonment of an animal, would be called neglect instead of cruelty, if done in a manner not in keeping with accepted animal husbandry practices or customary farming practices, and if the act or omission does not constitute torture or cruelty. Seems to include all animals and "creatures", though this is a confusing section. It’s not clear how these acts or omissions could ever be cruelty because they are no longer listed as cruelty and it would be difficult to establish these acts as torture. The section as written would seem to allow someone to defend this conduct on the basis it was really cruelty and they could not be charged because it is not a crime under the cruelty section. Apparently, the prosecutor must also prove the neglect was not an accepted animal husbandry or customary farming practice, whatever those terms mean. Animal cruelty would also no longer include failing to provide veterinary care, injuring an animal or transporting or confining an animal in a cruel manner; these acts seem to have been removed as crimes at all. Animal cruelty would include poisoning an animal or causing an animal to be poisoned, causing animals or livestock to fight for amusement, gambling or profit; or causing serious injury to an animal which is a new crime defined as bodily injury that: creates or causes serious permanent disfigurement; creates or causes protracted loss or impairment of the function of bodily member or organ; creates a substantial risk of death; or causes death. The animal cruelty provisions only protect livestock in the animal fighting related crimes and otherwise offer no protection to livestock and other animals excepted from the definition of animal unless one could make a case the treatment was not according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices. |
|
No similar defense |
It is a defense to cruelty, neglect and torture if the person reasonably believed, that the conduct was necessary to protect the property of the person from destruction or substantial damage. Does that mean someone could torture the neighbor’s dog for digging up a flower bed or chewing up outdoor furntiure? |
|
Retains crime of aggravated cruelty for torture, poisoning (adds causing to be poisoned as a crime), and killing or causing an animal to be killed, but these crimes remain misdemeanors except they will be 3rd degree felonies under the following circumstances:
But now many animals are no longer included in the definition of "animals" and would no longer be protected really at all unless one could make a case the treatment was not according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices. |
There is no crime of aggravated cruelty: poisoning or causing an animal to be poisoned, or causing serious injury to an animal would be animal cruelty along with causing animals or livestock to fight for amusement, gambling or profit. There is no specific crime of killing an animal or causing an animal to be killed. Torture of an animal or livestock is a misdemeanor no matter how depraved and sadistic except for a second offense within 5 years and then it is a 3rd degree felony. Protects livestock but not many other animals excepted from the definition of animal unless one could make a case the treatment was not according to accepted husbandry or customary farming practices. |
|
Creates enhanced penalties, meaning an increase in class of misdemeanor, for persons convicted of animal cruelty, torture, poisoning or causing an animal to be poisoned, killing or causing an animal to be killed, or being a spectator at dog-fighting related activities, and who has a prior conviction for animal cruelty, being a spectator at a dog-fighting related activity, injuring or killing a police dog, or violating similar laws in other states or US territories. other torture, poisoning or killing of animals |
Creates enhanced penalties, meaning an increase in the class of misdemeanor, for those convicted of animal cruelty or neglect or being a spectator at dog-fighting related activities, and who also have previous convictions for these crimes. There can be no enhanced penalties for animal torture. |
|
|
|
Then Rep. Allen amended HB 470 to make only torture of a dog and cat a felony. She also removed the enhanced penalties as set forth in the original bill (See the above chart.) Finally, the new HB 470 stripped the requirement of veterinary care for animals.
Sen. Christensen agreed to the amended HB 470 in principle and offered his own version, SB 297 which limited the felony penalty to torture of a domestic dog or domestic cat.
It is this bill, S.B. 297, that passed.
.yes my father threw two beautiful white cats against the wall and they where shaking and blood came out of their noses and there eyes filled with blood. the cats died. he cooked are pet rabbit. he would blame all his crazy ways on his parents. he told a story one time. that his mother burned puppies in the fire place and made him watch. people need to … wake up and stop the abuse all over the world.yes i hate my father. i do not understand that behaviour. . abused people always want to blame the abuser. i was abuse and i could not see myself hurting nobody because of it. the world is so blind and their are woman who invite that evil in there life and lay beside the devil? please help me understand this ignorance.? good job on all the people out their who show awareness to animal abuse. they do matter. they are so beautiful and they do such grate things. sorry about my spelling
Last years fight to pass this bill played out like a movie script. The bill passed one chamber, and then a few minutes before the session ended the other chamber changed one word in the bill then also passed it. Their was no time to run the bill over to the other chamber for approval, so even though the bill has been approved by both the house and senate, the bill never became law. The animal abusers have real friends in the great state of Utah.