Sidebar #2

Since my next post focusing on the 20/20 shellacking of the Texas SPCA is already obscenely long, I'm going to tackle the current state of the law, which is the one part of this that still disturbs me as an animal owner in Texas.

To review, the law regarding animal seizures and appeals is as follows (emphasis mine):

§ 821.025.  APPEAL.  (a)  An owner of an animal ordered sold at public auction as provided in this subchapter may appeal the order to a county court or county court at law in the county in which the justice or municipal court is located.  As a condition of
perfecting an appeal, the owner must file an appeal bond in an amount determined by the justice or municipal court to be adequate to cover the estimated expenses incurred in housing and caring for the impounded animal during the appeal process.  The decision of the county court or county court at law may not be further appealed.  An
owner may not appeal an order:
(1)  to give the animal to a nonprofit animal shelter, pound, or society for the protection of animals;  or
(2)  to humanely destroy the animal.                                          
(b)  While an appeal under this section is pending, the animal may not be:   
(1)  sold or given away as provided by Sections 821.023 and 821.024;  or   
(2)  destroyed, except under circumstances which would require the humane destruction of the animal to prevent undue pain to or suffering of the animal.

My wife, April, a licensed attorney, explained to me how such a dichotomy based on mode of disposition may have come into the law. My non-lawyer interpretation follows:

An appeal has traditionally been allowed in cases where the state is taking and auctioning livestock, because we as a people have always looked upon livestock as property. And property rights have always been staunchly defended in our country.

Traditionally, companion animals have not been looked upon as "valuable property." You're not earning income on them. Your income doesn't directly decline because someone takes your pet. So, one's rights are not traditionally as protected in this area.

Ironically, the reason that Moore and Chennault did not (in a larger legal sense) get an appeal is that we are treating them as pet owners and not owners of livestock. This comes down to one's definition, but I stand by my earlier assertion that no one has seventy "pets."

Although Texas law in this area doesn't explicitly differentiate between livestock and pets:

§ 821.001.  DEFINITION.  In this subchapter, "animal" 
includes every living dumb creature.

historically, livestock seized by the State would have been auctioned as property.

Interestingly, there has been a movement to assign a value to the emotional attachment to one's pet, similar to mental anguish caused by taking or hurting, say one's child. If you really want to go deep on that, here's a lengthy paper on the topic.

That movement is tangentially related to a push to redesignate animal owners as "guardians" of animals, essentially taking away property rights. In that case, the animal really is like your child rather than your property. Many fear that this would lead to unreasonable seizure of livestock.

For a good overview of varying points of view on animal law, there is a transcript from a roundtable at Lewis and Clark Law School.

And a proposal submitted to the Animal Law Section of the Texas Bar.

Comments

[Sam Stephens]

Thank you for attempting a fair assessment. First, I do not believe the 20/20 piece was full of inaccuracies as you stated. I personally know Pam C, and have found her to be dependable and honest.

The Canton seizure probably had some justification, if the pictures are real and not alterd.
I know of another case in Wills Point where dogs were taken, and even after two vets testified on the lady's behalf that the place was not a house of cruel treatment, the little 6 person jury found for the SPCA. See, there is an intimidation value here and Mr Garcia uses it to a real advantage.

According to my USDA inspector, the law in Texas defines cruelty as starvation,suffering and death. The SPCA defines it as a little poop in the cage, a dog that has mites (mange)or any other trumped up idea that they have. They then take pictures to a JP and convince them the place needs to be raided.

This law is certainly unjust and probably unconstitutional.

I will say that there are bad kennels in existence but even these need a chance to improve conditions.