In Georgia, rescuers and caregivers such as an animal shelter are subject to inspections by the Ministry of Agriculture and must pay the appropriate fees depending on the number of animals the facility can keep (Animal Welfare FAQ, Georgia Department of Agriculture, available at www.agr.georgia.gov/animal-protection-faqs.aspx). In addition, all facilities must comply with the Georgian Animal Protection Act (O.C.G.A. § 4-11-1) to be considered for licensing. Rescue and care programs in Georgia must also first review local zoning regulations before inspections by the Ministry of Agriculture take place. However, if a rescuer does not want to be allowed as an animal shelter, the other option in Georgia is to work under contract with an animal shelter. Under the contract, rescue staff and nurses work as shelter agents. Read all adoption contracts carefully. Some shelters or rescues may claim a “higher title” and monitor the animal for the rest of its life. This gives them the right to take it back if you are not up to date. In addition, rescue groups can recover these health care costs from the defendant accused of animal cruelty, even if the rescue group receives donations from the community. Reparation serves two purposes: to restore victims and to make the defendant pay for the crime committed (Mahan v. State, 51 pp.3d 962, 968-69, (Alaska App. 2002)).
In Mahan v. The accused had more than 130 sick and poorly cared for animals. Alaska Equine Rescue and Alaskan State Troopers abducted the animals and took them to nursing homes. Mahan was found guilty and attempted to appeal the conviction and some aspects of the verdict (Id. at 963-64). In Gold Bar, Washington (one hour outside Seattle), Local Ordinance § 6.02.019 imposes restrictions on the keeping of foster animals. It states that a person being cared for on behalf of a licensed shelter cannot accommodate more than four dogs at a time. The regulation also limits the length of time a dog or cat can be considered a caregiver.
After six months, the animal loses its identity as a foster, rescue or placement animal and is subject to a licence. If the person or establishment cares for four dogs for more than six uninterrupted months, a private kennel permit must also be obtained. In an unpublished statement, an Ohio court upheld a decision to grant a local animal welfare society, various rescue groups, and individual volunteers the right to collect reimbursement fees for the care and welfare of more than a hundred pets from a kennel operator convicted of animal cruelty (Lay v. Chamberlain, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5783, (Ohio Ct. App., Madison County December 11, 2000)). The dogs had been seized by court order, and Ohio law gave “each person” the legal authority to cover the costs necessary to provide food, water, and attention to an animal belonging to another person when it is necessary to protect the animal from neglect (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1717.13). The court held that the term “any person” would extend to all volunteers, rescue organizations or animal welfare societies (Lay v. Chamberlain, at p.
15). Although the above case shows that in some situations there may be no responsibility for problems that emanate from a dog after the rescue organization no longer owns the dog, rescue groups may still want to consider the ethical component of disclosing as much information as possible to potential adopters. Ensuring that the organization and all volunteers adhere to a code of ethical conduct when adopting dogs or cats will help ensure that the organization maintains a respected reputation in the community, including with local animal shelters, law enforcement agencies and other rescue groups. Of course, if an animal is in a shelter or foster family, it may not be possible to know the exact age or breed of the animal, but not informing someone that the animal has had an aggressive incident in the past will likely damage the reputation of the rescue and could cause the dog to end up in a shelter (See, Vicki DeGruy, Ethical Issues Confront Purebred Rescue Groups, National Animal Interest Alliance, (June 30, 1998), available from www.naiaonline.org/articles/article/ethical-issues-confront-purebred-rescue-groups). The animal welfare movement began in the 1860s with the introduction of anti-cruelty laws in states. In 1866, the American Society for the Prevention for Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) was founded in New York City. Humane societies focused on education, welfare, veterinary care and, later, euthanasia and homeless animals. The movement originally began for horses, but later, as the role of cats and dogs in our society evolved, the focus on animal welfare expanded to include these other pets (Rebecca J.
Huss, Rescue Me: Legislating Cooperation Between Animal Control Authorities and Rescue Organizations, 39 Conn. L. Rev. 2059 (2007)). When an animal rescue organization takes in sick animals in cases of cruelty, it usually has to provide the necessary health care. Some state laws explicitly state that a convicted defendant may be held liable to animal organizations that assumed custody and responsibility for neglected animals and the costs incurred for their care. For example, Washington`s anti-cruelty law states that some states have begun to redefine these terms in their statewide legislation to reflect the differences between these different types of animal organizations.
Comments are closed.