For the third consecutive year, Kentucky has the weakest animal protection laws and ranks last in punishing animal abusers.

The findings come in an annual report released last week by the Animal Legal Defense Fund comparing laws in each state protecting animals from abuse for their strength and comprehensiveness.

This is the fourth year that the ALDF has issued the report. Kentucky finished second-to-last the first year and has ranked last in each subsequent year.

“The state is just really devoid of any meaningful laws in almost every category,” said Stephan Otto, author of the report and the ALDF’s director of legislative affairs.

Low-ranking states in the report tend to have the weakest laws regarding animal cruelty and fighting, and offenders convicted of violating those states’ animal protection laws face few restrictions on future animal ownership.

Otto said that state animal laws in Kentucky can sometimes strain the budget of prosecutors bringing an animal cruelty case to court.

“A huge issue we look at is what type of legal provisions are there for the state to recoup and minimize costs,” Otto said. “These cases can eat up a meager budget in some communities.”

The state is hurt by the absence of a provision ordering defendants in animal cruelty cases to pay cost-of-care bonds.

“That would shift the burden back to the offender in the community,” Otto said. “Once an animal gets rescued while a case is ongoing, the court can order the offender to post money to cover the cost of care such as food, shelter and veterinary care.

“Last year in this past legislative session there was a bill that would have allowed these cost-of-care bonds that was introduced, but it wasn’t successful.”

In fact, one successful bill that became law in Kentucky, making communication between veterinarians and their clients confidential, had the unintended consequence of prohibiting vets from voluntarily reporting animal cruelty, Otto said.

In some instances, animal protection laws have been strengthened. Last year, Gov. Steve Beshear signed into law a provision making the torture of a dog or cat and causing serious injury a felony on the first offense.

Locally, however, it’s just as common to see criminal cases involving animals come to court after a violation of city codes.

Ray Lane and Erica Cline have been charged with harboring a vicious animal - a violation of a city ordinance - in connection with the injuries suffered by 6-year-old Elisa Fannin during a pit bull attack last month. Their cases are pending.

“We utilize the state statutes as they’re written to the best of their ability, and we can step in under animal cruelty laws (and prosecute),” said Warren County Attorney Amy Milliken. “The city ordinances are much more strict than the state statutes.”

City codes offer more specific guidelines for animal owners. For example, failure, refusal or neglecting to provide an animal with food, drinkable water, shade and shelter is considered a violation of city animal cruelty regulations.

Milliken said that when prosecuting violations of animal laws, her office works closely with the Bowling Green-Warren County Humane Society.

“We try to make some common-sense sentences when a defendant comes before us, and that usually involves community service at the humane society,” Milliken said. “It’s one thing to punish them, but we try to actually teach them something and we work hand in hand with the humane society to make sure that’s done.”

Lorri Hare, director of the humane society, said that while it’s disappointing to see Kentucky ranked last again in the annual report, the city is at least helped by well-defined animal ordinances.

Also, the Warren County Sheriff’s Office recently hired an animal cruelty investigator to go over cases in the county.

“I’ve always said that having an animal is a choice, and if you choose to have an animal, you should take care of it,” Hare said. ... You have to be able to provide at least the basic care, vet care, fresh food and water.”

Hare said she would like to see a forfeiture bond ordinance put into place requiring an animal owner prosecuted for violating an animal protection law to sign over the animal to the humane society or pay a bond up front that would go toward the animal’s care.

That provision might provide an incentive to get animal protection cases through the court system more quickly, Hare said.

“If there is a really bad cruelty or neglect case that animal control is pursuing, most of the time it’s really difficult to get it in front of a judge quickly,” Hare said. “There have been cases in the past that have gone on for months and we’ve had to hold extremely aggressive animals for that period of time, and if those people go to jail for other reasons we don’t see that money.”