Flood Warning expires at 5:29 PM on 4/22, issued at 5:29 PM Argyle, NY | Buskirk, NY | Cambridge, NY | Clemons, NY

Legislation requiring abusers to pay for care of seized animals becomes law

Set Text Size SmallSet Text Size MediumSet Text Size LargeSet Text Size X-Large
Updated: 12/19/2013 3:17 pm

BREWSTER, N.Y. – A bill that will require animal abusers to pay for the cost of care for abused animals that have been seized, has been signed by the Governor and will now become law.

Following the recent reports of animal cruelty statewide, Senator Greg Ball (R, C, I – Patterson) said this legislation, S2665B, couldn't come at a better time.

"It seems as though weekly we are disturbed by even more heinous accounts of animal cruelty. These reports are heartbreaking and underline the exact need for this new law. This law will now enable courts to hold hearings to compensate impounding organizations for their services, which will in turn help continue to provide care to abused animals," said Senator Greg Ball. "I would like to thank my colleagues in the Senate and Assembly for supporting this important piece of legislation to hold those that abuse animals accountable. Along with child predators, animal abusers are some of the lowest forms of human life. I would like to thank Governor Cuomo for signing this bill into law today. Let us remember that those who commit crimes against animals often expand their carnage to their neighbors and the larger community."

Often in cases of animal cruelty, a law enforcement agent seizes animals. Afterward, housing and care for these animals must be found. Historically, organizations such as shelters, humane societies, societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals and rescue organizations have assisted law enforcement by providing care for these animals. Such organizations have provided services often with little or no reimbursement.

The financial burden of caring for many animals, often for lengthy periods of time, is forcing some organizations to decline assisting law enforcement, refusing to place seized animals. Where there is no organization to care for seized animals, law enforcement is less likely to conduct seizures and animals remain in abusive situations and conditions.

The legislation was sponsored in the Assembly by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, (D-Scarsdale).

"These people have abused these animals and that is horrible in and of itself. They should be punished to the greatest extent of the law because of what they have done. In addition, they need to be financially responsible and must shoulder the burden monetarily to provide the resources that will allow these poor animals to be nursed back to health," said Assemblywoman Paulin.

5 Comment(s)
Comments: Show | Hide

Here are the most recent story comments.View All

The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of FOX23 News.

hunterr1950 - 12/23/2013 7:13 AM
0 Votes
redriveratdawn - I don't know where you live- for rescue groups to get soo much money from the abusers. I volunteer for a rescue group and we never see that much money. I volunteer my time, vehicle and gas to help animals. People are calling to surrender their dogs because they can’t afford food and vet treatment. If they don’t have enough money to feed their dogs they don’t have money for us - to take care of their pets. Do you know how sad to see a dog that should have weighed 150 lbs weighing only 87 lbs? We didn’t have enough proof to charge the owner with animal abuse but we still took the dog in and provided a foster home and care. Who should we turn to for the money? It all comes from donations! Another rescue - two adult dogs that had torn ligaments the owner couldn’t afford. One dog had both back legs needing surgery while the other dog only needed one leg repaired. Each leg cost at least $3,000.00 It took awhile but We collected enough money to pay for their surgeries. I’m sure for someone like you – you would have taken the dogs “out back” and shot them instead of trying to save them.

Sinend - 12/22/2013 12:08 PM
0 Votes
It may not be stated elegantly but the first poster is correct. This is redundant, as anyone convicted will in nearly every case get hit with restitution fees on top of the criminal fees. This law really doesn't change anything. Side note - there are shelters who abuse this, who charge excessively for care, and then sell the animals, and then cry to the public for even more money. Not every shelter does this, but some do.

justice seeker - 12/21/2013 7:01 AM
1 Vote
redriveratdawn: Yes the shelters that care for the abused animals from the seizure only get money because they reach out to the public. Imagine how much it costs to not only care for 1 animal, let alone 5-8.The courts don't always award tens of thousands of dollars.Your talking about large well known shelters like the SPCA etc. I believe they are speaking of shelters in general (wherever the animal is taken to for help), so yes these shelters could really use the monetary support as its just not the care but supplies and food that are needed to run a shelter. Yes this may not stop abuse but at least it's a step in the right direction- something positive. Why do you hate animal lovers?On another note if the abusers are required to already pay for the animals, this is making it mandatory and official. Because a judge can pose any kind of sentence they see fit, so not all abusers are required to pay towards the animals.

ninkasii - 12/19/2013 10:26 PM
0 Votes
Someone tortured kittens when they were little.

redriveratdawn - 12/19/2013 8:26 PM
0 Votes
And by "abusers" you really mean "hoarders". Guess what? This story and this idiotic legislation is a complete waste of time and money and is a red herring. Animal "abusers" already do pay for the animals. Not only that but, the outfits that get the animals from the seizure get tons of money in donations from the public, fees assessed on the owner, fines assessed on the owner for supposedly breaking a law somewhere, money in for resale of the supposedly abused animals and often, court awards in the tens of thousands of dollars (Houston SPCA many times over). That is, unless they kill all the animals, then they won't get money from resale, but still, that leaves 3 or 4 other revenue streams to tap. So, this law is completely redundant and unnecessary. Just a bunch of idiot politicians wanting to be able to claim that they "DID SOMETHING" for "abused" animals. BTW, this won't keep a single animal from being abused, so what was the point? Oh, yeah, the animal rights idiots get to say they "did something" "for the animals"...
Current Conditions
High: 53° | Low: 26°
Partly Cloudy

Inergize Digital This site is hosted and managed by Inergize Digital.
Mobile advertising for this site is available on Local Ad Buy.