Dyeing A Domesticated Animal, Or Moving And Trapping A Wild Animal

[seniorjudge]

...

Did I hear a creaking noise from the cellar?

...

Have you been reading my short stories again?

 

[Justice For All]

(See Silver I TOLD you I was magic. .. . bwahahahahhaha)

SECTION 47-1-125. Coloring or dying animals prohibited; sale or distribution of certain young animals prohibited; penalty.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to dye or color artificially any animal or fowl, including but not limited to rabbits, baby chickens, and ducklings, or to bring any dyed or colored animal or fowl into this State.

(2) It is unlawful for any person to sell, offer for sale or give away as merchandising premiums, baby chickens, ducklings or other fowl under four weeks of age or rabbits under two months of age to be used as pets, toys or retail premiums.

(3) This section shall not be construed to apply to any animal or fowl, including but not limited to rabbits, baby chickens and ducklings to be used or raised for agricultural purposes by persons with proper facilities to care for them or for poultry or livestock exhibitions.

(4) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not more than two hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days.

I saw that section also in South Carolina's law, but not in North Carolina's law.

 

[mommyof4]

I saw that section also in South Carolina's law, but not in North Carolina's law.

That's because it IS SC's code.

Here's NC code on animal cruelty. I could find nothing that specifically addressed the practice of coloring animals. I am assuming that if the vet has verified that nothing you use to dye the animals are dangerous to the birds (discounting the humiliation factor...I mean, really, would YOU want to be a rainbow colored dove?) and that whatever you are using them for is not detrimental or cruel, and that their care is adequate, you really have nothing to worry about.

§ 19A‑1. Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this Article:

(1) The term "animals" includes every living vertebrate in the classes Amphibia, Reptilia, Aves, and Mammalia except human beings.

(2) The terms "cruelty" and "cruel treatment" include every act, omission, or neglect whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering, or death is caused or permitted.

(3) The term "person" has the same meaning as in G.S. 12‑3. (1969, c. 831; 1979, c. 808, s. 2; 1995, c. 509, s. 19; 2003‑208, s. 1.)



§ 19A‑1.1. Exemptions.

This Article shall not apply to the following:

(1) The lawful taking of animals under the jurisdiction and regulation of the Wildlife Resources Commission, except that this Article applies to those birds exempted by the Wildlife Resources Commission from its definition of "wild birds" pursuant to G.S. 113‑129(15a).

(2) Lawful activities conducted for purposes of biomedical research or training or for purposes of production of livestock, poultry, or aquatic species.

(3) Lawful activities conducted for the primary purpose of providing food for human or animal consumption.

(4) Activities conducted for lawful veterinary purposes.

(5) The lawful destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, or the public health.

(6) Lawful activities for sport. (2003‑208, s. 1.)



§ 19A‑2. Purpose.

It shall be the purpose of this Article to provide a civil remedy for the protection and humane treatment of animals in addition to any criminal remedies that are available and it shall be proper in any action to combine causes of action against one or more defendants for the protection of one or more animals. A real party in interest as plaintiff shall be held to include any person even though the person does not have a possessory or ownership right in an animal; a real party in interest as defendant shall include any person who owns or has possession of an animal. (1969, c. 831; 1995, c. 509, s. 20; 2003‑208, s. 1.)



§ 19A‑3. Preliminary injunction; care of animal pending hearing on the merits.

(a) Upon the filing of a verified complaint in the district court in the county in which cruelty to an animal has allegedly occurred, the judge may, as a matter of discretion, issue a preliminary injunction in accordance with the procedures set forth in G.S. 1A‑1, Rule 65. Every such preliminary injunction, if the plaintiff so requests, may give the plaintiff the right to provide suitable care for the animal. If it appears on the face of the complaint that the condition giving rise to the cruel treatment of an animal requires the animal to be removed from its owner or other person who possesses it, then it shall be proper for the court in the preliminary injunction to allow the plaintiff to take possession of the animal as custodian.

(b) The plaintiff as custodian may employ a veterinarian to provide necessary medical care for the animal without any additional court order. Prior to taking such action, the plaintiff as custodian shall consult with, or attempt to consult with, the defendant in the action, but the plaintiff as custodian may authorize such care without the defendant's consent. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, the plaintiff as custodian may not have an animal euthanized without written consent of the defendant or a court order that authorizes euthanasia upon the court's finding that the animal is suffering due to terminal illness or terminal injury.

(c) The plaintiff as custodian may place an animal with a foster care provider. The foster care provider shall return the animal to the plaintiff as custodian on demand. (1969, c. 831; 1971, c. 528, s. 10; 1979, c. 808, s. 3; 2003‑208, s. 1; 2006‑113, s. 1.1.)



§ 19A‑4. Permanent injunction.

(a) In accordance with G.S. 1A‑1, Rule 65, a district court judge in the county in which the original action was brought shall determine the merits of the action by trial without a jury, and upon hearing such evidence as may be presented, shall enter orders as the court deems appropriate, including a permanent injunction and dismissal of the action along with dissolution of any preliminary injunction that had been issued.

(b) If the plaintiff prevails, the court in its discretion may include the costs of food, water, shelter, and care, including medical care, provided to the animal, less any amounts deposited by the defendant under G.S. 19A‑70, as part of the costs allowed to the plaintiff under G.S. 6‑18. In addition, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that even if a permanent injunction were issued there would exist a substantial risk that the animal would be subjected to further cruelty if returned to the possession of the defendant, the court may terminate the defendant's ownership and right of possession of the animal and transfer ownership and right of possession to the plaintiff or other appropriate successor owner. For good cause shown, the court may also enjoin the defendant from acquiring new animals for a specified period of time or limit the number of animals the defendant may own or possess during a specified period of time.

(c) If the final judgment entitles the defendant to regain possession of the animal, the custodian shall return the animal, including taking any necessary steps to retrieve the animal from a foster care provider.

(d) The court shall consider and may provide for custody and care of the animal until the time to appeal expires or all appeals have been exhausted. (1969, c. 831; 1971, c. 528, s. 10; 1979, c. 808, s. 4; 2003‑208, s. 1; 2006‑113, s. 1.2.)

Where in NC are you? I can probably give you a number to call for someone to come get the opposum.

 

[fairisfair]

I saw that section also in South Carolina's law, but not in North Carolina's law.

yes, it is south carolina's your question was

"if anyone in the Carolina's knows anything about the coloring of doves and its legality, PLEASE let me know, as I have never heard that before. "

 

[mommyof4]

yes, it is south carolina's your question was

"if anyone in the Carolina's knows anything about the coloring of doves and its legality, PLEASE let me know, as I have never heard that before. "

Heeheee....

Well, there is that, now isn't there? However, maybe it is because for some unfathomable reason (and I know this only from living there for 10 years) that people in NC seem to discount SC as being 'Carolinian'. Hence, the University of North Carolina is generally known as "Carolina". Well, wth happened to the University of SOUTH Carolina? Is there a giant black hole in the middle of Columbia that just sucked it in?

 

[fairisfair]

Heeheee....

Well, there is that, now isn't there? However, maybe it is because for some unfathomable reason (and I know this only from living there for 10 years) that people in NC seem to discount SC as being 'Carolinian'. Hence, the University of North Carolina is generally known as "Carolina". Well, wth happened to the University of SOUTH Carolina? Is there a giant black hole in the middle of Columbia that just sucked it in?

I thought he asked it that way merely so that it would be convenient for me to easily find the statute. ROTFLMAO.

After all, it is merely more of my magic. bwwhahahhahahaha

blue doves???? bah. . . . . try a green ram.

 

[Justice For All]

That's because it IS SC's code.

Here's NC code on animal cruelty. I could find nothing that specifically addressed the practice of coloring animals. I am assuming that if the vet has verified that nothing you use to dye the animals are dangerous to the birds (discounting the humiliation factor...I mean, really, would YOU want to be a rainbow colored dove?) and that whatever you are using them for is not detrimental or cruel, and that their care is adequate, you really have nothing to worry about.



Where in NC are you? I can probably give you a number to call for someone to come get the opposum.

Ok, Mommy. Thanks for the support. The opposum is gone. But if it is noticed again, will it be legal to trap it to protect others? The animal control officer told me it is illegal to trap wild animals.

P.S. Will you be my Mommy?

 

[Silverplum]

P.S. Will you be my Mommy?

I am not moving from this spot till I see what mommyof4 writes back!

 

[mommyof4]

Ok, Mommy. Thanks for the support. The opposum is gone. But if it is noticed again, will it be legal to trap it to protect others? The animal control officer told me it is illegal to trap wild animals.

P.S. Will you be my Mommy?

Well, that depends on how well behaved you are. I have strict standards. You will be expected to answer me in a respectful tone at ALL times, the words 'ma'am' and 'sir' will be a permanent part of your vocabulary. You will do exactly what I tell you to do WHEN I tell you to do it. You will keep your room clean, not mess up the rest of my house and will perform all of your assigned chores in a timely manner exactly as I expect them to be done.

You will NOT bring any party colored birds into my home. I don't want to hurt their feelings by laughing at them and my dog would eat them.

I will NOT spank you. So, if that is what you were looking for, call a 900 number.

As to your serious question? No, it is not illegal to trap a wild animal while you are waiting for someone to come remove the animal. The type of trapping you are talking about is perfectly legal (and completely necessary.) The AC moron was a bit on a power trip and was trying to use the law to BROADLY include your actions. Not applicable and I would recommend a call or letter to his supervisor.

 

[mommyof4]

Oh, and excpet for a couple of things, my kids come nowhere close to meeting my expectations, but they do try. That's what counts in my book.

 

[Silverplum]

*contented sigh*

Worth a short wait!

 

[seniorjudge]

...

I will NOT spank you.

...

Things were looking good till I got to that part.

 

[Justice For All]

Well, that depends on how well behaved you are. I have strict standards. You will be expected to answer me in a respectful tone at ALL times, the words 'ma'am' and 'sir' will be a permanent part of your vocabulary. You will do exactly what I tell you to do WHEN I tell you to do it. You will keep your room clean, not mess up the rest of my house and will perform all of your assigned chores in a timely manner exactly as I expect them to be done.

You will NOT bring any party colored birds into my home. I don't want to hurt their feelings by laughing at them and my dog would eat them.

I will NOT spank you. So, if that is what you were looking for, call a 900 number.

It looks my next post will deal with emancipation.

 

[Silverplum]

Just so everybody knows, the pink poodle case has been sorta resolved: she agrees to not dye any dogs for at least 6 months, and the Boulderites will drop charges.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/16092989/detail.html

(And this story is the first to mention that the law apparently does include any animal. All previous stories pointed out that the law only covered duckies and chickies and bunnies. Probably Boulder quickly changed it and is charging her like back child support. That's quite the norm in Boulder. )