Bill Text      Bill History      Bill Summary   

   TAKE ACTION       Talking Points   

    What To Expect At A Public Hearing      Find your WI State Representatives   

    How a Bill Becomes a Law in Wisconsin   

     On 2/15/23, LRB – 0290/1, relating to: Felony provisions for the mistreatment of animals, was introduced to the WI State Senate by Senators Wanggaard and Cabral-Guevara. It was given the number SB 65 and referred to Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety.

     The Assembly counterpart, AB 75, was introduced on 2/28/23, and referred to the Assembly Committee on Judiciary. A Public Hearing was held onThursday, October 19, 2023.

    Hearing Testimony and Materials   

    Assembly Committee on Judiciary Record of Committee Proceedings   

     The bill was originally cosponsored by Representatives Spiros, Nedweski, Plumer, Rettinger, Rodriguez, Steffen, Kitchens and Behnke, all Republicans, but Representative Ohnstad, a Democrat, was added as a cosponsor on 2/16/23 and another Democrat, Sen. L. Johnson, was added as an author on 2/22/23. It is very important to have bipartisan support. Unfortunately, after the Assembly Committee on Judicary public hearing, Rep. Ohnstad and Rep. Johnson withdrew their sponsorship.

     This is pretty much the same bill that Senator Van Wanggaard and Representative John Spiros introduced last session. It would:

• Make it a Class H felony if someone abuses an animal and it results in grievous bodily harm to or the death of the animal, and a Class I felony if someone commits an act of animal abuse that they know or should reasonably know may result in grievous bodily harm or death of an animal, regardless of whether that harm or death actually occurs. (Please note that the language of the bill states "an animal," which includes pets of all kinds, other domestic animals -- and even encompases torture of wildlife.)

• Provide a detailed description of the term “grievous bodily harm,” defining it as “fractured or dislocated bones, deep cuts, burns, torn members of the body, tissue damage as a result of exposure to cold temperatures, serious damage to internal organs, starvation, or other severe bodily injuries." This definition makes animal abuse complaints much easier to investigate, charge, and prosecute.

• REQUIRE a court to prohibit a person convicted of animal abuse from owning, possessing, training, or residing with the type animal they were convicted of abusing, for a specified period of time. This applies to misdemeanor violations, as well as felony violations.

• Allow a court to prohibit a person convicted of animal abuse from owning, possessing, training, or residing, with any type of animal for a specified period of time. Again, it applies to misdemeanors as well as felonies.

     We are NOT happy that the language exempting injuries "sustained by a dog while training or hunting with dogs in the manner authorized by the Department of Natural Resources" figures so prominently in the bill. We definitely agree that this law's protections should apply equally to every animal under its scope -- but after a lot of thought and discussion, we feel we must SUPPORT passage of an otherwise excellent protection for the majority of animals in Wisconsin. (Note that those protections for hound hunters already exist anyway under Chapter 29 and ACT 169, the laws allowing bear and wolf hunting with hounds.)

     There are also objections to mandating that convicted abusers be prohibited from owning animals for a specified time -- some argue that it will "break up families" or force children to give up their pets. Again, though, these cases would likely be a very slight minority -- and given the connections between animal abuse and domestic violence, where in many cases, the abuser uses animals as "leverage" against a family member -- we feel these prohibitions are for the greater good.

     We all know of cases -- either first-hand or through the media -- where the worst animal cruelty has occurred and the abuser arrested, only to get off with just a slap on the wrist. Or, worse, that the abuser wasn't even arrested because either the DA didn't think it worth the effort for a "just a misdemeanor" or the situation required a "judgement call" as to whether it actually fit the definitions of abuse. And what of the abused animal, as well as other animals in that person's home? Will they be subjected to future abuse? It's time that Wisconsin caught up with neighboring states and passed a strong, enforceable law to address and correct this deficiency.

     FYI, the Jack Russell Terrier pictured above was thrown off a highway bridge and left bruised, bleeding, and broken, to die on the pavement below. Because she was rescued and did not die, her abusers could only be charged with a misdemeanor.

      This is our FOURTH try for a strong and enforceable felony animal abuse law — if it fails again, will we get another chance in the foreseeable future?

    LRB – 0290/1 Co-Sponsorship Memo   

    Follow us on Facebook      Find your WI State Representatives   

Bill Summary (by the Legislative Reference Bureau):

     "Under current law, a person who commits an act of animal abuse is subject to a Class C forfeiture, unless the animal abuse results in the mutilation, disfigurement, or death of the animal, in which case the person is guilty of a Class I felony. Under current law, animal abuse means treating an animal in a cruel manner, but the prohibition on animal abuse does not prohibit normal and accepted veterinary practices." [NOTE: For this purpose, “cruel” is defined to mean “causing unnecessary and excessive pain or suffering or unjustifiable injury or death.” Under the new bill, the definition is expanded to "causing or engaging in actions that are likely to cause unnecessary and excessive pain or suffering or unjustifiable injury or death." ]

     "Under this bill, the prohibition on animal abuse does not apply to an injury sustained by a dog while training or hunting with dogs in the manner authorized by the Department of Natural Resources or to the care and treatment of the injury if the injury is treated as soon as is practicable under the circumstances. Under the bill, a person who commits an act of animal abuse is guilty of a Class H felony if the animal abuse results in grievous bodily harm to or the death of the animal and is guilty of a Class I felony if the person knows or reasonably should know that the animal abuse may result in grievous bodily harm to or the death of an animal, regardless of whether grievous bodily harm or death occurs." [NOTE: The bill defines “grievous bodily harm” as “serious bodily injury, including fractured or dislocated bones, deep cuts, burns, torn members of the body, tissue damage as a result of exposure to cold temperatures, serious damage to internal organs, starvation, or other severe bodily injuries.”]

     "Under current law, a court may order that a person who commits an act of animal abuse may not own, possess, or train any animal or type or species of animal for a period specified by the court, but not to exceed five years. Under the bill, the court is required to enter an order that a person who commits an act of animal abuse may not reside with, own, possess, or train any animal of the type involved in the violation, and may also enter such an order pertaining to other animals. Under the bill, if the person is convicted of a misdemeanor violation, the ordered period specified by the court may be up to five years, and if the person is convicted of a felony violation, the ordered period specified by the court may be up to fifteen years."

    Wisconsin Felony Crimes by Class and Sentences   

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

     General guidelines for contacting your representatives: Try to keep your message brief, and be sure to give your name, complete mailing address, and phone number. Let your representative know that you are a constituent. Please, ALWAYS be polite and respectful. Name-calling, and rude or abusive letters or emails will hurt, rather than help, our cause.

• The Assembly Committee on Judiciary held a PUBLIC HEARING on Assembly Bill 75, Relating to: mistreating an animal and providing a penalty, on Thursday, October 19. Since then, two cosponsors have withdrawn. More than ever, we need you to contact your legislators and ask them to SUPPORT this bill!  More on the bill, along with talking points, below.

• Please contact both your WI State Senator and State Representative and ask for their CO-SPONSORSHIP/SUPPORT of SB 65/ AB 75, relating to: Felony provisions for the mistreatment of animals. You can find your representatives at: https://legis.wisconsin.gov/

  • Put "SUPPORT SB 65 (or AB 75), relating to: Felony provisions for the mistreatment of animals" in the Subject line.

  • Again, it is VERY important that you include your full name, street address, city, state and zip. Phone number and email address are also helpful.

  • If you have objections to any of the details of the bill -- ask them to propose an amendment addressing your concerns!

• If you want to give reasons for your position, please see our Talking Points below!

• Also, please post your request/thanks on your Representative's Facebook page!

    Find your WI State Representatives   

Talking Points:

     Here is the text of a co-sponsorship memo sent to All Legislators, from Senator Van Wanggaard and Representative John Spiros:

"In February 2019, a Marshfield man placed nine newborn puppies into a trash bag, put them in a dumpster, and left them for dead. Luckily, a short time later, someone heard noises coming from the dumpster and contacted the Marshfield Police Department, who was able to save the puppies. Given the cold temperatures that time of year and the fact that the puppies were only one day old, they would surely have died quickly had someone not found them. You can watch this video for more context on the incident. (Note from WPMP: the little Jack Russell terrier shown above is NOT one of the Marshfield puppies but a separate cruelty case.)

     "The Marshfield man was arrested and charged with intentional mistreatment of animals and intentional abandonment of animals. Both of these crimes are misdemeanors.

     "Under current Wisconsin law, these types of crimes can only be charged as felonies if the action of the defendant resulted in the mutilation, disfigurement, or death of an animal. And while in this case the perpetrator clearly knew his actions were likely to result in the death of the puppies, he could only be charged with a misdemeanor.

     "This bill would remedy that by making it a Class I felony to commit an act that any reasonable person should know may result in grievous bodily harm or death of an animal, regardless of whether that harm or death actually occurs. The bill also increases the penalty for an act of animal abuse that actually results in grievous bodily harm to or death of the animal to Class H felony.

     "Additionally, current law states that a court may order that a person who commits an act of animal abuse may not own, possess, or train any animal for a specified period of time. This bill would require a court to prohibit a person convicted of animal abuse from owning, possessing, training, or residing with the type animal they were convicted of abusing, for a specified period of time. In addition, it allows a court to prohibit a person convicted of animal abuse from owning, possessing, training, or residing, with any type of animal for a specified period of time.

     "As was the case with the Marshfield man who left the puppies to die, many animal abusers have other animals at home. And despite their crimes, they are able to keep their animals after a conviction. This bill would ensure the most serious animal abusers are not able to continue to have animals in their home."

• We all know of cases -- either first-hand or through the media -- where the worst animal cruelty has occurred and the abuser arrested, only to get off with just a slap on the wrist. Or, worse, where the abuser wasn't even arrested because the DA didn't think it worth the effort for a "just a misdemeanor." And what of other animals in that person's home? Will they be subjected to future abuse? It's time that Wisconsin caught up with neighboring states and passed a strong, enforceable law to address and correct this deficiency.

  • In February 2019, a Marshfield man placed nine newborn puppies into a trash bag and put them in a dumpster. Luckily, someone heard noises coming from the dumpster and contacted the Marshfield Police Department, who was able to save the puppies. Given the cold temperatures that time of year and the fact that the puppies were only one day old, they would surely have died quickly had someone not found them. The abuser was arrested and charged with intentional mistreatment of animals and intentional abandonment of animals. Both of these crimes are misdemeanors. You can watch this video for more context on the incident.

  • Misty, an elderly lab mix, was taken out into the woods, stuffed into a canvas duffle bag, beaten with a hammer and left for dead by her owner, who had decided that she didn't want to deal with an old dog anymore. Misty was rescued, and her owner arrested. However, because Misty did survive -- even though the owner admitted her intention to kill the dog -- the abuser under current law could NOT be charged with a felony. More about Misty here.

  • A woman dropped off a severely malnourished dog, later named Gabriel, at the Dunn County Humane Society in November 2019. She originally maintained that she had found the dog at the side of the road, but later admitted that he was actually her dog. She was charged with felony mistreatment of animals, and intentionally failing to provide food for an animal which is a misdemeanor. (More details here.)

  • On October 26, 2020, a dog was found in Thorp with his front legs bound together with a black zip tie. In addition to severe lacerations to the legs, he appeared weak and skinny and was taken to an animal rescue representative from the local area for further care. The dog and owner were identified, and the owner was charged with mistreatment of animals and obstructing an officer in Clark County. (More details here.)

  • Even worse are the instances when the abuser hasn't even been arrested because DA's don't think it's worth the effort for a "just a misdemeanor."

  • Though a court may forbid the abuser to own any animals for a specific time, in many cases, this doesn't happen, and the abuser can even get back the very animal they were arrested for injuring in the first place!

• Currently, even the most horrific of animal abuse is considered a felony ONLY if the abuse resulted in the mutilation, disfigurement, or death of an animal -- even if the abuser clearly intended to kill.

  • This bill would make it a Class I felony to commit an act of animal abuse that an abuser knows or should reasonably know may result in grievous bodily harm or death of an animal, regardless of whether that harm or death actually occurs.

  • This bill would also increase the penalty for an act of animal abuse that actually results in grievous bodily harm to or death of the animal.

• Currently, a court MAY order that a person who commits an act of animal abuse may not own, possess, or train any animal for a specified period of time. Many abusers have other animals at home, and are able to keep them even after a conviction. They can even get back the animal they are convicted of abusing!

  • This bill would REQUIRE a court to prohibit a person from owning, possessing, training, or residing with any animal for a specified period of time if they are convicted of felony animal abuse. The most serious of animal abusers would NOT be allowed to have animals in their homes.

  • There are some objections to the requirement that convicted abusers be prohibited from owning animals for a specified time -- some argue that it will "break up families" or force children to give up their pets. Again, though, these cases would likely be a very slight minority -- and given the connections between animal abuse and domestic violence, where in many cases, the abuser uses animals as "leverage" against a family member -- we feel these prohibitions are for the greater good.

• Currently, “cruel” is defined to mean “causing unnecessary and excessive pain or suffering or unjustifiable injury or death.”

  • This bill provides a detailed description of the term grievous bodily harm, defining it as serious bodily injury, including fractured or dislocated bones, deep cuts, burns, torn members of the body, tissue damage as a result of exposure to cold temperatures, serious damage to internal organs, starvation, or other severe bodily injuries." This definition makes animal abuse complaints much easier to investigate, charge, and prosecute.

• Assembly Committee on Judiciary Hearing Testimony and Materials

• Assembly Committee on Judiciary Record of Committee Proceedings

    Bill Text      Bill History      Bill Summary   

   TAKE ACTION       Talking Points   

    What To Expect At A Public Hearing      Find your WI State Representatives   

    How a Bill Becomes a Law in Wisconsin   

    Reporting Animal Cruelty