Oklahoma Bar Journal
Cost of Care for Animal Abuse Cases
By Jeanne Snider
LEMURS, TORTOISES AND CAMELS … OH MY!
On April 29, 2021, a Norman Animal Welfare Officer observed several horses in east Norman that appeared severely malnourished and were eating bark off trees. The following day, the Norman Police Department and Norman Animal Welfare obtained a search warrant for the property.
What they discovered was staggering. A total of 356 abused and neglected animals were found on the property. The animals included both domestic and exotic animals and ranged from:
- 12 pot belly pigs (one pregnant)
- Otters
- Variety of foxes (fennec, bat eared, and Arctic)
- 25 tortoises and other turtles;
- A serval cat and Bengal cats
- 17 lemurs
- Four coatimundis
- Sugar gliders
- Moluccan cockatoos, parrots
- Horses, donkeys, bulls, lamas, alpacas, and a baby mule
- 12 camels
- Over 50 antelopes, deer, and Ibexes
- Several pygmy goats with offspring
- An African fruit bat and African crested porcupine
- Large number of ostriches, emus, chickens, geese, ducks, and roosters
- Variety of reptiles and fish
- Kangaroos
Most of these animals were deprived of food, water, shelter, and veterinary care; two animals had died, and a number of animals required emergency veterinary care.
In addition to the Norman Police Department and Norman Animal Welfare, law enforcement personnel from other agencies included the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office, Oklahoma State Wildlife Department and EMSA. All assisted with seizing the animals.
In the days that followed, Norman Animal Welfare worked tirelessly to place the animals with local veterinary hospitals and clinics, nonprofit foundations, sanctuaries, rescues, a zoo in Missouri, and community members. Some of the animals were housed at the Norman Animal Welfare shelter. By May 7, 2021, the total amount for boarding, expenses, veterinary care, and overtime for Norman Police and Norman Animal Welfare was approximately $95,000.
Curious how the total climbed so rapidly? Here’s how:
- Veterinarian care – $27,000
- Boarding, feed, supplies, labor – $34,000
- Norman Animal Welfare expenses – $16,000
- Overtime costs – $18,000
WHO PAYS FOR THIS?
The answer is clear. The owners, not the taxpayers of the municipality or nonprofits, are responsible for these costs. But how does the city or an agency caring for animals seek reimbursement for the costs incurred?
OKLAHOMA’S COST OF CARE LAW
In 2006, Oklahoma enacted House Bill 1672[1], supported by the Oklahoma Veterinary Medical Association. This law:
- Required veterinarians to report suspected abuse;
- Provided immunity from civil liability for reporting; and
- Gave impounding agencies the ability to petition courts to have the owners of seized animals post bond for reimbursement of anticipated costs incurred by the agency that is caring for the seized animals.
Bill Nations, former Norman Mayor and Oklahoma representative for District 44 in the Oklahoma Legislature, was the House author of HB 1672, along with Sen. Cal Hobson. In a 2007 affidavit,[2] Rep. Nations explained why he sponsored the bill:
“I sponsored this measure because without it the expenses incurred in caring for animals seized in cruelty cases can easily overwhelm and impede the day-to-day operations of law enforcement agencies who are attempting to enforce the state’s animal cruelty laws. In absence of specific cost mitigating provisions of law, such as the bond and forfeiture hearing process described in 1680.4 these agencies may be forced to reconsider rescuing abused and neglected animals due to the great financial burden of providing necessary care through lengthy legal proceedings.”
Throughout the country, these laws are commonly referred to as the cost of care laws. The significant financial cost associated with caring for the animals is unfair to municipal shelters and rescues when it is the owner who is legally responsible.[3]
Cost of care laws (also referred to as bonding and forfeiture laws) vary by state. They mandate a hearing after animals are seized from an alleged neglect or cruelty situation to seek payment for the animal’s care.[4] Strong cost of care laws shift the burden of animal care in cruelty cases from local agencies and the taxpayers to the animals’ owners and help rescued animals find homes sooner and save animal lives.
States without cost of care laws may require owners to reimburse expenses after a conviction. This system does not work well. Once a conviction is secured, the agencies, shelters, or rescues may have already spent thousands of dollars caring for the animals. If the defendants can’t pay the fees, the agencies, shelters, or rescues bear the financial responsibility.[5]
Cost of care provisions are grounded in the principle that individuals who abuse or neglected animals should not only face criminal penalties but also bear the economic consequence of rescuing and rehabilitating the animals they harmed. Without these statutes, municipal agencies and animal welfare organizations could be left absorbing substantial unreimbursed costs, often funded by taxpayers and charitable donations.
Oklahoma’s cost of care statute is found in 21 O.S. §1680.4.[6] Part (C) states:
“After an animal has been seized and prior to any charges being filed, the agency that took custody of the animal shall, within seven (7) days from the date of seizure, petition the district court in the county in which the animal was seized for a bond hearing to determine the cost and care for the animal. The bond hearing shall be held as soon as practicable and not more than ten (10) business days from the date of application for the bond hearing. If the court finds that probable cause exists that an animal has been abused, the court may order immediate forfeiture of the animal to the agency that took custody of the animal. Provided, however, within seventy-two (72) hours of the order of forfeiture, the person owning or having charge or custody of the animal may post a security bond in an amount determined by the court that is sufficient to reimburse all reasonable and anticipated costs incurred by the agency caring for the animal from the date of seizure. Reasonable costs include, but are not limited to, medical care and boarding of the animal.”
The short time frames outlined in the 21 O.S. §1680.4 are critical to ensure proper care for the animals and to minimize costs to the agency involved.
HOW THE PROCESS WORKS
During the hearing, testimony is presented from witnesses, which could include animal welfare officers, veterinarians, and the owner, regarding the condition of the animals. The seizing agency must present evidence of animal cruelty and/or the owner’s inability to care for the animals and demonstrate the bond requested is reasonable. The owner is given the opportunity to present his or her side to the judge as well.
If the court finds probable cause exists that an animal has been abused or neglected, the court can order immediate forfeiture of the animal to the agency. The owner may also post a bond for the cost of caring for the animals. Typically, the amount of the bond is determined by the judge based on evidence presented by the seizing agency, what costs have already been incurred and what costs are anticipated in the future.
12 O.S. Section 1680.4(C)(2)[7] states:
The bond shall be placed with the agency that took custody of the animal and the agency shall provide an accounting of expenses to the court when the animal is no longer in the custody of the agency or upon request by the court. The agency may petition the court for a subsequent bond hearing at any time. The bond hearing shall be held as soon as practicable and not more than ten (10) business days from the date of application for the bond hearing. When all expenses covered by the bond are exhausted and a subsequent bond has not been posted, the animal shall be forfeited to the agency.
The bond is not meant to punish someone for committing a crime. Instead, it helps cover the ongoing costs of caring for the animals when there is enough evidence of cruelty or neglect. These are costs the owner would normally be paying if the animals were being properly cared for. Owners can also choose to voluntarily relinquish the animals before or during the process.
WHY COST OF CARE LAWS MATTER
We are all legally responsible for the care of our animals. Taxpayers should not be responsible for the costs of care for an owner who faces cruelty charges. Animals may remain in shelters for extended periods, unable to be adopted while the municipal shelter or non-profits absorb enormous unreimbursed costs of boarding and veterinarian care. Even in the best facilities, holding animals for long periods of time in a shelter environment can be detrimental to the animals the cruelty laws were meant to protect.
The high cost of caring for neglected or abused animals can also deter law enforcement from pursuing cruelty cases. As a result, animals may be forced to remain in horrible conditions simply because there is no funding for their care. Because of the extreme conditions of the 356 animals seized by the City of Norman, the city was willing to seize the animals. However, smaller agencies may not have that same ability.
REMEMBER MICHAEL VICK?
In 2007, former NFL quarterback Michael Vick agreed to pay nearly $1 million for the care of about 54 pit bulls that were found during a dogfighting raid and seized from Bad Newz Kennels on his property in Virginia. The dogs required long-term housing, medical treatment, behavioral evaluation, and rehabilitation. Mr. Vick was indicted by a Virginia grand jury on state charges of running a dogfighting ring. Initially, nonprofits and government agencies absorbed the costs.[8] This case helped highlight that animal cruelty cases can become financially overwhelming for local governments and shelters, especially when large numbers of animals are seized.
NORMAN’S EXPERIENCE
The city has used the bond hearing process in numerous cases mainly involving horses, dogs, and cats.
One seizure involved an animal rescuer, who was also an animal hoarder.[9] An animal hoarder is a person who keeps an excessive number of animals, with good intentions, but is unable to provide adequate care for them. The situation often involves overcrowding, unsanitary living conditions, untreated medical problems, malnutrition and neglect, even when the person believes they are rescuing or helping the animals. It is often associated with mental health issues and can harm both the animals and the person involved. During this seizure, the city discovered a large number of cats, the majority of which had feline leukemia, and dogs living in extremely unsanitary conditions that required respiratory protective gear to enter the residence.
Another involved a person, living in unhabitable conditions in a dilapidated camper, with four dogs and a number of puppies.[10] Because the owner refused to relinquish the animals, the city filed a bond application to secure legal custody of the animals.
Relinquishment of the animals to the municipality should be the first option to avoid a cost of care hearing. Norman Animal Welfare officers have been very successful in obtaining voluntary relinquishments from animal owners. One elderly couple living in poor conditions in a rural area of Norman relinquished 17 miniature donkeys in dire need of veterinary care. Norman Animal Welfare transported 70 roosters involved in a cockfighting ring to a sanctuary in Colorado after the owner relinquished the roosters. The key to that success is the trained and compassionate staff of Norman Animal Welfare.
Over the past 20 years, the city has learned a lot about how to handle bond hearings. None of the prior cases compared to the scope of the 2021 seizure.
However, in April and June 2022, the same owner was involved in two additional seizures totaling over 200 animals which included over 40 rabbits, cats, three dogs, and a number of ostriches, emus, ducks, turkeys, geese, 15 goats, 19 pigs,over 100 various chickens, ducks, parrots, tortoises, four French Bulldogs, a draft horse, hairless cats, and a hairless Guinea pig, all from the same owner of the 356 animals in 2021. Interesting and frankly, shocking, the owner was and is a licensed veterinarian.
The second seizure resulted in expenses in the amount of $10,000. By the third seizure, the owners agreed to relinquish all the animals, and the city agreed not to seek any reimbursement. No charges were filed for the second and third seizures.
Ultimately, the owner reimbursed the city over $105,000 and relinquished all the animals to the city. The veterinarian and his partner were both charged with 18 felony counts of cruelty to animals in the 2021 seizure.[11] Two years later, they entered pleas to guilty on all counts and received a five-year deferred sentence. The owner has since moved out of the Norman city limits.
CONCLUSION
Animal cruelty cases can place a huge financial strain on local governments and animal welfare organizations. Cost of care laws help make sure the people responsible for abusing or neglecting animals are also responsible for the costs of caring for them.
More importantly, these laws help protect the animals. They allow animal welfare officers to step in quickly, provide proper care, and help animals get into safe homes faster, while also reducing the burden on taxpayers.
Editor’s Note: Photos courtesy of David Freudiger, Norman Police Department.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jeanne Meacham Snider has served as an assistant city attorney for the City of Norman since 2002 and is the municipal juvenile judge for Noble. She prosecutes municipal and juvenile cases, represents the city in workers' compensation, civil litigation, drafts ordinances, short term rental regulation, and advises Norman Animal Welfare. She is active in Lawyers Helping Lawyers, chairs the John R. Justice Board, and serves on the United Way of Norman Impact Council.
ENDNOTES
[1] HB 1672, 50th Leg., 2d Reg. Sess. (Okla. 2006) (codified at 21 O.S. §1680.4).
[2] Affidavit of Bill Nations, State of Oklahoma v. David Bradley Bell, Case No. CJ-2007 (Craig County Dist. Ct.).
[3] Humane World for Animals, ”Cost of Care toolkits: State-by-State,” https://humanepro.org (last visited April 28, 2026).
[4] Humane World for Animals, “Why we need cost of care laws, https://humanepro.org (last visited April 28, 2026).
[5] Id.
[6] Okla. Stat. tit. 21 §1680.4
[7] Id.
[8] CNN, “Vick to pay $1 million for dogs as fortune shrinks,” https://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/28/vick.dogs (last visited Oct. 8, 2021).
[9] City of Norman v. In Re: 24 cats and 8 Dogs, Case No. CJ-2007-1945 (Cleveland County Dist. Ct.).
[10] City of Norman v. Michael Bryan Scott, Case No. CJ-2025-510 (Cleveland County Dist. Ct.).
[11] State of Oklahoma v. Stachmus, Case No. CF-2021-989 (Cleveland County Dist. Ct.).
Originally published in the Oklahoma Bar Journal – OBJ 97 No. 7 (September 2026)
Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.