Just to follow on Mr. Coghill's comment, this bill does open-end the prohibition of animals for abusers. Obviously, it wouldn't necessarily have avoided the case that you suggested, which is quite horrific, but it certainly would allow the courts to prevent that person from ever owning an animal again in their lives. Mr. Coghill seems to be indicating that this needs to be applied nationally, which this bill does.
We strongly support the fact that people who abuse animals should not have the opportunity in the future to own animals again, and the courts will have that ability.