A Smithfield man pleaded guilty in federal court Tuesday to killing a bald eagle, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Allen Thacker, 62, is accused of first firing a warning shot, then shooting the bald eagle because it was taking fish from his pond, a news release said. He then shot the bird using a Remington .22 caliber rifle and ran the bird over with his all-terrain vehicle, the release said.

According to the statement of facts filed with the plea agreement, Allen H. Thacker shot the eagle “because he was upset it had been hunting and taking fish from a pond located on his property,” a Department of Justice news release stated.

“Thacker also expressed his feelings that too much emphasis is placed on bald eagle protection because the birds are a menace and further stated that people with whom he associates feel the same way,” court documents state.

According to the statement of facts filed in court, a witness driving near Mill Swamp Road saw a man run over the bird March 13. The bird was large and had a white head and tail, court documents show. She saw the man drive the ATV in a circle and run the eagle over three or four times, and then saw the man drag the eagle from the field and into the woods, court documents show.

In his guilty plea Tuesday, Thacker admitted to shooting the bird and running it over. The specific charge is unlawful taking of a bald eagle, the release stated.

Thacker faces a maximum penalty of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine when sentenced on October 23.

This year’s Virginia General Assembly passed HB2381, which attempts to provide a better definition of what constitutes a ‘dangerous dog’. The City of Virginia Beach is the first locality to adopt language from HB2381. The language was adopted this Tuesday at the city council meeting.

Below is a basic summary of HB2381:

Dangerous dogs. Removes the requirement that a law-enforcement officer or animal control officer apply for a summons requiring a dog owner to appear before a general district court when the officer has reason to believe that the dog is dangerous. In the case of a dog that has bitten a cat or dog, the bill requires investigation by an officer for certain exemptions from the definition of “dangerous dog” to apply and removes an exemption for good cause as determined by a court. In the case of a dog that has bitten a person, the bill creates an exemption when an investigating officer finds that the injury is minor. The bill allows a court to use good cause as a reason to determine that a dog is not dangerous. The bill also reduces from 45 days to 30 days the period within which (i) an owner of a dog found to be dangerous is required to obtain a dangerous dog registration certificate and (ii) a convicted owner of a dangerous dog is required to comply with certain provisions.

Read the Full Language Here

The Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos is a project of Machipongo based United Poultry Concerns

NEW YORK, June 8, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – On June 6, 2017, the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, rendered a decision with respect to the appeal regarding Alliance to End Chickens as Kaporos v. New York City Police Department, et al, a lawsuit seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the NYPD and other city agencies to enforce the fifteen laws that are violated by the Jewish ritual known as Kaporos. Kaporos involves the slaughtering of 60,000 chickens on public streets. The lower court dismissed the action, and the Appellate Division affirmed the lower courtt’s decision. The appeal was filed by Alliance attorney Nora Constance Marino in June of 2016.
The central issue of the lawsuit hinges on whether or not the city agencies have “discretion” to enforce the laws they choose. Plaintiffs claimed that the health codes and animal cruelty statutes are mandatory, meaning there is no discretion, and enforcement is mandatory. Defendants claimed they do in fact have discretion, and enforcement is not mandatory. Three of the five appellate justices on the panel agreed with defendants, and due to the majority, the lower court decision was affirmed. Two of the justices, however, dissented, and filed a separate opinion. In the dissenting opinion, it was noted that the “plaintiffs have a right to the relief they seek.”
[Read more…]