Showing posts with label Animal Welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Animal Welfare. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Fun Raids?

Heard through the grapevine;

  Last week, information came in that two Animal Control officers, both men, went to a house after an ambulance had left the house.  The Animal Control officers banged on the front door and were surprised when a house guest answered the door.  Animal Control told the house guest that they (Home owners) had animals running wild and that they, (Animal Control officers), needed to come into the house and search the house.

State law prohibits anyone from Animal Control to ever search any house for any reason.



Va code ann 19.2 56 from Chuck Thompson

That state law is cited above.  The house guest told them no and closed the door on them.  The animal control officers proceeded to search the property without any form of search warrant before leaving, finding the animals in question on the property fully secured.  Now the first assumption is that Animal Control, since they have radios and are able to listen to all 911 emergency calls, overheard a call to a specific house that they wanted to target for some reason and when the opportunity came up, decided to take advantage of that opportunity?

  Also, why was Animal Control even targeting a house?  Were they interested in robbing it?  Why did they tell a house guest that the animals on that property were running wild when they were secured?

Now this is only heard through the grapevine.  We are not giving out any more details than this and the folks this may have happened to may not want to come forward with the rest of the story in fear of backlash.  Should any backlash occur, we will be all over this story reporting every little detail to the fullest.  Who knows, maybe there is something to the grapevine?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 27, 2014

Gloucester, VA Animal Control Costs Still At About $600.00 Per Incarcerated Doggie

On January 6th, 2014 we did a  story on the outrageous costs we are paying here in the county for Animal Control and how it is costing us about $600.00 per doggie or kitty caught, which takes about two days per animal, and compared that to how one can call an ambulance to save a life at an average cost of about $400.00.

http://www.gloucestercounty-va.com/2014/01/gloucester-va-county-services.html

The above is an internal link to that story here on this site.

Here are the latest figures from the county as reported in the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal.  We have to get the information from them because the Animal Control department seems incapable of keeping it's own figures up to date on their web page.  The last entry they have is from 2011.

  The month of December, 2013, calls were down from last year, 237 for 2013 compared to 300 the year before.  43 lost dogs were reported, 41 general inquiries, 37 residents responding to correspondence, 35 stray dogs 13 cruelty cases, (May have been filed against one owner of anywhere from 1 to 6 animals), and 11 cat cases.  What these numbers say?  Nothing other than the secretary answered some phone calls and letters in between filing...... her nails.  It says nothing about how many calls Animal Control officers responded to.  Gee, was this by design?

  The only definitive information that was in the story was that Animal Control officers racked up a hefty 67.5 hours of overtime for the month by going out after hours during the week and calls on the weekend.  This we can only imagine that a good bit of it is above their monthly budgeted payroll plan.  We have to assume that there is some money held in the budget for OT for nights and weekend calls.

  This department is already obviously heavily bloated with way too much personnel that has shown over and over again to not even be capable of following it's own ordinances they are supposed to enforce.  The latest is Animal Control Officer Jeff Stihlman driving down Main Street while playing with his cell phone.  Was he texting?  This was early this morning, January 27th, 2014.  If the county is not looking to cut this department substantially, then we have a serious suggestion for at least ensuring that there will by no further OT expenses.

  There are 3 full time Animal Control officers and one part time Animal Control officer along with one full time secretary.  Why are these people all working a first shift, Monday through Friday if there are calls being answered during the weekday evenings and also on weekends?  Why not run multiple shifts and also incorporate a weekend shift?  This gets rid of the potential for the ridiculous overtime these folks like to rack up.  Put the keystone cops, err.....Animal Control officers to work in a much improved working environment for serving the county if we are going to keep this bloated expense to the taxpayers.  $600.00 per doggie caught and incarcerated?  Really?  The county can't do better than that?

  $400.00 to save a life but $600.00 to put a doggie in doggie jail and it takes two days per doggie?    $600.00 per animal handled for November, 2013 and about the same for December, 2013.  $600.00.  Can anyone think of anything better to do with $600.00?  How much food would that put on your table?  How much gas would that buy?  For some, $600.00 pays their mortgage.  $600.00 would pay a good amount of bills that keep piling up.  How much dog food would $600.00 buy?  How much cat food would $600.00 buy?  Come on folks, these people are costing us all a small fortune and for what?  We do not need these bloated costs and no human lives are being saved?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, November 8, 2013

Gloucester, VA Senior Deputy Animal Control Officer Position Now Filled

As of November 1st, 2013, a new member of the Gloucester Animal Control department has joined the department.  Laura Dickie has filled the position of Senior Deputy Animal Control Officer coming from an Animal Control position in Newport News.

Laura Dickie is a member of the Diamonds in the rough animal rescue group located here in Virginia and has been working with animals for some time.

We would like to welcome Laura Dickie to the Animal Control department and expect good things to come from her in her new position within the department.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Gloucester, VA - Proposed Re Write Of County Animal Control Ordinance Section 3-15

We have been going through the new proposed ordinance codes for Animal Control of Gloucester County and we are proposing several re writes already.  Specifically to section 3-15.  Our re writes put the code into state compliance where the present writing seems to cause a technical problem that could legally through the code out in a court of law if argued correctly.

  We removed the title at the top of the code, which presently reads as follows; "Failure To Perform Duties of Ownership".  The reason we removed this section is that it potentially opens the ordinance to malicious and or abusive charges and or prosecutions.  With that potential existing, it becomes a very serious threat to the public trust and in contradiction to how the state code 3.2-6503 and or 3.2-6503.1 are meant to be used which is what Gloucester County ordinance 3-15 is supposed to be mimicking.

  We added in after each statement Virginia law definitions from 3.2-6500 so that people are easily able to understand the ordinance and are not confused by the present way that the code reads and without having to search all over the place to find the meaning.  We also changed the way 3-15 ends with "The provisions of this section shall also apply to every an owner or custodian
of any animal, fowl, or reptile, including every private owner, animal shelter or
other releasing agency, and every foster care provider, pound, dealer, pet
shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section
shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized."

We changed this back to follow state law and be in full compliance with state law.  We put it as follows;

"The provisions of this section shall also apply to every pound, animal shelter, or other
releasing agency, and every foster care provider, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer,
and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other
animals be euthanized."

Present proposed ordinance 3-15 is written more broadly than state law 3.2-6503 which on a technical level, could just invalidate the ordinance as the terminology places agricultural animals, fowl and reptiles in the same category as domestic animals changing the meaning of the law altogether.  Hence a violation of state law and illegal causing it to be null and void in our view.

The following are our proposals for re writing the code to meet the needs of the county that would ensure and maintain the public trust.

Proposed Re Write of local ordinance 3-15
January 15th, 2013

Sec. 3-15.  Care of companion animals by owner; penalty. Based on VA Law 3.2-
6503

(a) Each owner or custodian of an animal shall provide for each of his
companion animals all the following as defined in section 3.2-6500 of

(1) Adequate feed;

Definition from VA law 3.2-6500:  “Adequate feed” means access to and the provision of food that is of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain each animal in good health; is accessible to each animal; is prepared so as to permit ease of consumption for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal; is provided in a clean and sanitary manner; is placed so as to minimize contamination by excrement and pests; and is provided at suitable intervals for the species, age, and condition of the animal, but at least once daily, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species.

(2) Adequate water;

Definition From VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate water” means provision of and access to clean, fresh, potable water of a drinkable temperature that is provided in a suitable manner, in sufficient volume, and at suitable intervals appropriate for the weather and temperature, to maintain normal hydration for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species; and is provided in clean, durable receptacles that are accessible to each animal and are placed so as to minimize contamination of the water by excrement and pests or an alternative source of hydration consistent with generally accepted husbandry practices.

(3) Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned and sanitized;

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate shelter” means provision of and access to shelter that is suitable for the species, age, condition, size, and type of each animal; provides adequate space for each animal; is safe and protects each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct sunlight, the adverse effects of heat or cold, physical suffering, and impairment of health; is properly lighted; is properly cleaned; enables each animal to be clean and dry, except when detrimental to the species; and, for dogs and cats, provides a solid surface, resting platform, pad, floor mat, or similar device that is large enough for the animal to lie on in a normal manner and can be maintained in a sanitary manner. Under this chapter, shelters whose wire, grid, or slat floors: (i) permit the animals’ feet to pass through the openings; (ii) sag under the animals’ weight; or (iii) otherwise do not protect the animals’ feet or toes from injury are not adequate shelter.

“Properly cleaned” means that carcasses, debris, food waste, and excrement are removed from the primary
enclosure with sufficient frequency to minimize the animals’ contact with the above-mentioned contaminants;
the primary enclosure is sanitized with sufficient frequency to minimize odors and the hazards of disease; and
the primary enclosure is cleaned so as to prevent the animals confined therein from being directly or indirectly
sprayed with the stream of water, or directly or indirectly exposed to hazardous chemicals or disinfectants,“Sanitize” means to make physically clean and to remove and destroy, to a practical minimum, agents injurious to health.

“Enclosure” means a structure used to house or restrict animals from running at large.

(4) Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate space” means sufficient space to allow each animal to: (i) easily stand, sit, lie, turn about, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable, normal position for the animal; and (ii) interact safely with other animals in the enclosure. When an animal is tethered, 

“adequate space” means a tether that permits the above actions and is appropriate to the age and size of the animal; is attached to the animal by a properly applied collar, halter, or harness configured so as to protect the animal from injury and prevent the animal or tether from becoming entangled with other objects or animals, or from extending over an object or edge that could result in the strangulation or injury of the animal; and is at least three times the length of the animal, as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail, except when the animal is being walked on a leash or is attached by a tether to a lead line. When freedom of movement would endanger the animal, temporarily and appropriately restricting movement of the animal according to professionally accepted standards for the species is considered provision of adequate space.

(5) Adequate exercise;

Definition of VA Law 3.2-6500:  “Adequate exercise” or “exercise” means the opportunity for the animal to move sufficiently to maintain normal muscle tone and mass for the age, species, size, and condition of the animal.

(6) Adequate care, treatment and transportation; 

Definition of VA Law 3.2-6500:  “Treatment” or “adequate treatment” means the responsible handling or
transportation of animals in the person’s ownership, custody or charge, appropriate for the age, species,
condition, size and type of the animal.

“Veterinary treatment” means treatment by or on the order of a duly licensed veterinarian.

(7) Veterinary care when needed for disease control or to
prevent suffering or disease transmission.

Definition of VA Law 3.2-6500:  “Adequate care” or “care” means the responsible practice of good animal
husbandry, handling, production, management, confinement, feeding, watering, protection, shelter,
transportation, treatment, and, when necessary, euthanasia, appropriate for the age, species, condition, size and type of the animal and the provision of veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or impairment of health.

“Emergency veterinary treatment” means veterinary treatment to stabilize a life-threatening condition, alleviate
suffering, prevent further disease transmission, or prevent further disease progression.

“Euthanasia” means the humane destruction of an animal accomplished by a method that involves instantaneous unconsciousness and immediate death or by a method that involves anesthesia, produced by an agent that causes painless loss of consciousness, and death during such loss of consciousness. The provisions of this section shall also apply to every pound, animal shelter, or other releasing agency, and every foster care provider, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.

(c) Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor. A second or
subsequent violation of section 3-15 (a)(1), (2), (3) or (7) is a class 2
misdemeanor; and a second or subsequent violation of section 3-15
(a)(4), (5) or (6) is a class 3 misdemeanor.

Transparency in government statement:  How Animal Control Officers seek to use this law to ensure
local compliance.  (Open so that Gloucester County Animal Control can make it's statement in this
section).

Now for Section 3-15.1 this is our proposed re write of that ordinance code;

Sec. 3-15.1. Care of agricultural animals; penalty. Based on VA Law 3.2-6503.1

(a)  Each owner or custodian shall provide for each of his
agricultural animals:

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Agricultural animals” means all livestock and poultry.

(1) Feed to prevent malnourishment;

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate feed” means access to and the provision of food that is of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain each animal in good health; is accessible to each animal; is prepared so as to permit ease of consumption for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal; is provided in a clean and sanitary manner; is placed so as to minimize contamination by excrement and pests; and is provided at suitable intervals for the species, age, and condition of the animal, but at least once daily, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species.

(2) Water to prevent dehydration; and

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500: “Adequate water” means provision of and access to clean, fresh, potable water of a drinkable temperature that is provided in a suitable manner, in sufficient volume, and at suitable intervals appropriate for the weather and temperature, to maintain normal hydration for the age, species, condition, size and type of each animal, except as prescribed by a veterinarian or as dictated by naturally occurring states of hibernation or fasting normal for the species; and is provided in clean, durable receptacles that are accessible to each animal and are placed so as to minimize contamination of the water by excrement and pests or an alternative source of hydration consistent with generally accepted husbandry practices.

(3) Veterinary treatment as needed to address impairment of
health or bodily function when such impairment cannot be
otherwise addressed through animal husbandry, including
humane destruction.

Definition from VA Law 3.2-6500:  “Veterinary treatment” means treatment by or on the order of a duly licensed veterinarian.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not require an owner to
provide feed or water when such is customarily withheld, restricted,
or apportioned pursuant to a farming activity or if otherwise
prescribed by a veterinarian.

(c) There shall be a rebuttable presumption that there has been
no violation of this section if an owner is unable to provide feed,
water, or veterinary treatment due to an act of God.

(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to agricultural
animals used for bona fide medical or scientific experimentation.

(e) A violation of this section is a class 4 misdemeanor.

Transparency in government statement:  How Animal Control Officers seek to use this law to ensure
local compliance.  (Open so that Gloucester County Animal Control can make it's statement in this
section)

These are our re writings to the presently proposed ordinances and we are sending these proposals to the Board of Supervisors as well as the Gloucester Mathews Gazette Journal.  We think this is a better way to present the ordinances.  We added in the transparency in government sections at the end of each ordinance so that everyone may be able to see how the county plans on using such.

St. Patricks Day Coupon Code

For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 14, 2013

Gloucester, VA - Animal Control Code 3-15 Partial Conceded Arguments

We are continuing to investigate 3-15 of Gloucester Animal Control and looking at how 3.2-6503 of Virginia Law is applied for those clues.  Here is what we see so far.  Case law studies under 3.2-6503.


Applicable Case Law:
Settle v. Commonwealth, 692 S.E.2d 641, 56 Va. App. 222 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
Facts: Charles E. Settle, Jr. was convicted in a bench trial of two counts of inadequate care by owner of
companion animals, pursuant to Code § 3.1-796.68, and one count of dog at large, pursuant to Fauquier
County Code §§ 4-22 and 13-1.  Witness testimony was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant, who was sitting in court in the witnesses' presence, was the same person with whom
the witnesses dealt on numerous occasions.
Holding:  Pursuant to Code § 3.1-796.115,all of the dogs at issue were seized from appellant's control
and placed in the care of local animal shelters. Additionally, the trial court declared three of the dogs dangerous pursuant to Code § 3.1-796.93:1. Settle was convicted of two counts of inadequate care by an
owner, in violation of Virginia Code § 3.1-796.68 and allowing a dog to run at large, in violation of Va.
Code § 3.1-796.128, In addition, pursuant to Code § 3.1-796.115, Settle was adjudicated unfit to own a
companion animal and his dogs.  Three dogs were declared to be “dangerous dogs” under Code § 3.1-
796.93.  Remaining dogs were ordered forfeited to the Fauquier County SPCA and/or the Middleburg
Humane Foundation.  Conviction affirmed.

Sentencing:  Settle was ordered to pay a total of $300.00 in fines and $423.00 court costs. The trial
court awarded a monetary judgment pursuant to the Middleburg Humane Foundation in the amount of
$45,261.51.


Hillman v. Commonwealth, No. 1211-01-3, 2002 WL 496982 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2002).
Facts: Appellant convicted in trial court for failure to provide care for her animals under Code § 3.1-
796.68.  Appellant contends her conviction for these offenses in circuit court violated both Code § 19.2–
294 and the double jeopardy prohibitions of the United States and Virginia Constitutions.
Holding: Convictions for cruelty to animals in circuit court did not violate Code § 19.2–294 because
those convictions occurred as part of the same prosecution as her convictions for failure to provide care
for those animals. Appellant’s convictions for cruelty to animals after she already had been convicted for
failure to provide care for those animals did not violate double jeopardy prohibitions because the
offenses are not the same.  The failure to care offense is not included in the cruelty offense.
Sentencing: Individual was convicted of both a Class 4 misdemeanor under Code § 3.1–796.68(A)(7)
for the lesser offense of failing to provide “veterinary treatment to prevent disease transmission” and a
Class 1 misdemeanor under Code § 3 .1–796.122(A)(ii) for the greater offense of failing to provide
“emergency veterinary treatment.”

These two cases above are how 3.2-6503 have been applied on one site.  We dug for many hours trying to find more where 3.2-6503 or 3.2-6503.1 have been used and prosecuted in other counties around the state.    So far we have found only one case where 3.2-6503 and or 3.2-6503.1 were solely used but they were in Gloucester County and charged under 3-15.  No other cases we found were solely prosecuted under 3.2-6503 or 3.2-6503.1.  Others who have been charged with 3.2-6503 or 3.2-6503.1 had other animal control laws that they were in violations of.

  Based on what we have found around other localities in the state, we concede the proper use of 3-15 in it's new form that Gloucester County is seeking to approve.  For that we do sincerely  apologize and admit when we are wrong and we were wrong here.  What we are not conceding at this time is the way in which Gloucester County Animal Control has used 3-15 in the past.  State law 3.2-6503 is very broadly stated to the point of allowing anyone to be charged with a violation to this law, making it a black hole law, even though it is backed by 3.2-6500.  In which case, the real issue is the state law, requiring a better understanding of the state law by localities is then needed along with a more clearly defined set of rules on how it is used.  This then becomes a state problem that the state needs to address with all it's localities.

  Here is what really ticks us off about all of this.  Animals have more rights than humans.  Put those same laws on localities for the homeless in their communities and every locality will fail that test.  Go ahead and apply 3.2-6503 to homeless people in any locality.  The locality would fail the test but even worse, the homeless fail even more.  We enjoy animals as much as the next person, but we do not put animal rights above human rights.  No locality provides adequate food, shelter that is properly cleaned, potable water, adequate space, adequate exercise, adequate treatment and transportation and adequate health care for the homeless of their communities.  None.  Animals have more rights than humans.  Now that should make everyone sick.

  People who torture animals on purpose are sick and require help.  Not more abuse from the legal system.  People who are suffering because of our wonderful economy and can not afford all the proper care that once only a short time ago was not an issue, are now being called criminals.  Animal Control laws that keep expanding infringe on the rights of humans and are a parasite to human rights when overrun by higher rights for animals.  Yes, protect the animals, but in a fair manner.  Clearly define violations in a fair manner.  Broadly stated black hole laws open up abuse.  3.2-6503 is ripe for abuse and has been abused.  There are probably more false charges of animal control violations than real ones causing real issues with anyone even wanting to own an animal anymore.  Hope everyone is ready to become a vegetarian or import all our meat from Mexico and Canada.

REEDS Jewelers Logo Option

  What is the best solution we can come up with for this mess?  Just bail out the banks again and go back to sleep.  God save the queen.  Bless the Pope and remember that your commander in chief knows best.  Oh yes, and we are not attorneys and only attorneys can give you legal advice.  This post is not meant for using as a mouth wash and can not be taken as legal council or advice.  Also, the world ended on 12-21-12, so what are we still doing here anyway?


For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Gloucester, VA - Readers Respond To Animal Control Law Section 3-15 - Is It Legal?

One of the people who responded early to the national survey on whether or not Gloucester, VA law , Section 3-15 is even a legal law has quoted some further interesting information and leaves some clues that they have a much higher knowledge of law than they originally stated.  The following is a new message that they have left.  We still see legal problems with their comments.

"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Gloucester, VA - Animal Control Law 3-15 Early Res...": 

From your "yes" voter ... I referenced that State law supports the local law. SPECIFICALLY see 3.2-6503 which mimics local law. If you have a problem, you are barking up the wrong tree:

§ 3.2-6503. Care of companion animals by owner; penalty.

A. Each owner shall provide for each of his companion animals:

1. Adequate feed;

2. Adequate water;

3. Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned;

4. Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;

5. Adequate exercise;

6. Adequate care, treatment, and transportation; and

7. Veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering or disease transmission.

The provisions of this section shall also apply to every pound, animal shelter, or other releasing agency, and every foster care provider, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.

B. Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of subdivision A 1, A 2, A 3, or A 7 is a Class 2 misdemeanor and a second or subsequent violation of subdivision A 4, A 5, or A 6 is a Class 3 misdemeanor.
                                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                           

This is an updated argument and we want to thank the person who sent this.  However, we are still arguing that 3-15 is not being properly used in Gloucester, VA by Animal Control.  Section 3-15 is not supported as a law that can be adopted by a locality as further evidenced through state law 3.2-6543.

Sec. 3-15.  Failure to perform duties of ownership; penalty.
(a)       Each owner or custodian of an animal shall provide for each of his animals all the following as defined in section 3.2-6500 of the Code of Virginia:
(1)       Adequate feed;
(2)       Adequate water;
(3)       Adequate shelter that is properly cleaned and sanitized;
(4)       Adequate space in the primary enclosure for the particular type of animal depending upon its age, size, species, and weight;
(5)       Adequate exercise;
(6)       Adequate care, treatment and transportation; and
(7)       Veterinary care when needed for disease control or to prevent suffering or disease transmission.
The provisions of this section shall apply to an owner or custodian of any animal, fowl, or reptile, including every private owner, animal shelter, pound, dealer, pet shop, exhibitor, kennel, groomer, and boarding establishment. This section shall not require that animals used as food for other animals be euthanized.
(b)       Game and wildlife species shall be cared for in accordance with current regulations promulgated by the Virginia Department of Games and Inland Fisheries.
            (c)        Violation of this section is a Class 4 misdemeanor.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
I like this person's argument as it shows us where the flaw in our own argument stands.  That required us to re write our survey to ask the correct question.  Let's look at Virginia Code 3.2-6503 a little closer.  It states that it''s a penalty.  What is the penalty?  A class 4 misdemeanor charge.  It does not show where the violation stems from but only a broad definition of what has been violated and that the penalty for the violation is a class 4 misdemeanor.  3.2-6500 of the Virginia code only defines terminology, or gives definitions to terms used.  However, it could logically be argued that the definition of terms is the source of origin.  New problem though is this.  Virginia law section 3.2-6543 provides the following.  

A. The governing body of any locality of the Commonwealth may adopt, and make more stringent, ordinances that parallel §§ 3.2-6521 through 3.2-65393.2-6546 through 3.2-65553.2-65623.2-65693.2-65703.2-6574 through 3.2-6580, and 3.2-6585 through 3.2-6590. Any town may choose to adopt by reference any ordinance of the surrounding county adopted under this section to be applied within its town limits, in lieu of adopting an ordinance of its own.   

Logo Package

We would like to note that 3.2-6503 is not part of what a county may adopt and or make more stringent according to Virginia State law 3.2-6543 
With that said, how can Gloucester Animal Control law 3-15 that parallel's 3.2-6503 then be considered legal if Virginia state law does not permit it to be adopted and or paralleled as shown above?   It was a sound sounding argument as long as you did not dig deeper into state laws.  I'm going to give that person a free pass here as they said they were not a legal professional and I want to thank that person for further input.  It helped us clarify our survey and our argument.  And as we like to note, we are not attorney's and this is not to be considered legal advice.  Only an attorney can advice you.  We are not trying to practice law on this site.  We are only questioning what we are seeing.

The following is the survey, updated to reflect the proper context of our arguments.




For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.

Enhanced by Zemanta