This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Pharaoh on 23 April 2010 - 18:04
Lawmakers Consider an Animal Abuse Registry
www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/us/22abuse.html
SAN FRANCISCO — California may soon place animal abusers on the same level as sex offenders by listing them in an online registry, complete with their home addresses and places of employment.
The proposal, made in a bill introduced Friday by the State Senate’s majority leader, Dean Florez, would be the first of its kind in the country and is just the latest law geared toward animal rights in a state that has recently given new protections to chickens, pigs and cattle.
Mr. Florez, a Democrat who is chairman of the Food and Agriculture Committee, said the law would provide information for those who “have animals and want to take care of them,” a broad contingent in California, with its large farming interests and millions of pet owners. Animal protection is also, he said, a rare bipartisan issue in the state, which has suffered bitter partisan finger-pointing in the wake of protracted budget woes.
“We have done well with these laws,” he said.
Last fall, California became the first state to outlaw so-called tail-docking of dairy cows, where the tail is partly amputated to ease milking. In 2008, voters in the state passed Proposition 2, which gave hens, calves and pigs more room in their crates or cages. That law has upset many in the California egg industry and prompted some agriculturally-minded residents to even talk about seceding from the state.
Under Mr. Florez’s bill, any person convicted of a felony involving animal cruelty would have to register with the police and provide a range of personal information and a current photograph. That information would be posted online, along with information on the person’s offense.
The bill was drafted with help from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an animal-protection group based in Cotati, Calif., north of San Francisco. The group has promoted the registry not only as a way to notify the public but also as a possible early warning system for other crimes.
“We know there’s a link between those who abuse animals and those who perform other forms of violence,” said Stephan Otto, the group’s director of legislative affairs. “Presumably if we’re able to track animal abusers and be able to know where they live, there will be less opportunity where those vulnerable to them would be near them.”
In addition to sex offenders, California lists arsonists in an online registry, and the animal abusers would be listed on a similar site, Mr. Florez said. Such registries have raised privacy concerns from some civil libertarians, but Joshua Marquis, a member of the defense fund’s board and the district attorney in Clatsop County, Ore., said the worries were unfounded.
“Does it turn that person into a pariah? No,” Mr. Marquis said. “But it gives information to someone who might be considering hiring that person for a job.”
He added: “I do not think for animal abusers it’s unreasonable considering the risk they pose, much like the risk that people who abuse children do.”
One supporter of the proposed law, Gillian Deegan, an assistant commonwealth’s attorney in Botetourt County, Va., says such a registry could also be valuable in tracking people who run puppy mills and animal-fighting rings, as well as hoarders, who sometimes collect hundreds of animals, often resulting in neglect.
contues on next post....
www.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/us/22abuse.html
SAN FRANCISCO — California may soon place animal abusers on the same level as sex offenders by listing them in an online registry, complete with their home addresses and places of employment.
The proposal, made in a bill introduced Friday by the State Senate’s majority leader, Dean Florez, would be the first of its kind in the country and is just the latest law geared toward animal rights in a state that has recently given new protections to chickens, pigs and cattle.
Mr. Florez, a Democrat who is chairman of the Food and Agriculture Committee, said the law would provide information for those who “have animals and want to take care of them,” a broad contingent in California, with its large farming interests and millions of pet owners. Animal protection is also, he said, a rare bipartisan issue in the state, which has suffered bitter partisan finger-pointing in the wake of protracted budget woes.
“We have done well with these laws,” he said.
Last fall, California became the first state to outlaw so-called tail-docking of dairy cows, where the tail is partly amputated to ease milking. In 2008, voters in the state passed Proposition 2, which gave hens, calves and pigs more room in their crates or cages. That law has upset many in the California egg industry and prompted some agriculturally-minded residents to even talk about seceding from the state.
Under Mr. Florez’s bill, any person convicted of a felony involving animal cruelty would have to register with the police and provide a range of personal information and a current photograph. That information would be posted online, along with information on the person’s offense.
The bill was drafted with help from the Animal Legal Defense Fund, an animal-protection group based in Cotati, Calif., north of San Francisco. The group has promoted the registry not only as a way to notify the public but also as a possible early warning system for other crimes.
“We know there’s a link between those who abuse animals and those who perform other forms of violence,” said Stephan Otto, the group’s director of legislative affairs. “Presumably if we’re able to track animal abusers and be able to know where they live, there will be less opportunity where those vulnerable to them would be near them.”
In addition to sex offenders, California lists arsonists in an online registry, and the animal abusers would be listed on a similar site, Mr. Florez said. Such registries have raised privacy concerns from some civil libertarians, but Joshua Marquis, a member of the defense fund’s board and the district attorney in Clatsop County, Ore., said the worries were unfounded.
“Does it turn that person into a pariah? No,” Mr. Marquis said. “But it gives information to someone who might be considering hiring that person for a job.”
He added: “I do not think for animal abusers it’s unreasonable considering the risk they pose, much like the risk that people who abuse children do.”
One supporter of the proposed law, Gillian Deegan, an assistant commonwealth’s attorney in Botetourt County, Va., says such a registry could also be valuable in tracking people who run puppy mills and animal-fighting rings, as well as hoarders, who sometimes collect hundreds of animals, often resulting in neglect.
contues on next post....
by Pharaoh on 23 April 2010 - 19:04
continued.....
“A lot of times these people will just pick up and move to another jurisdiction or another state if they get caught,” said Ms. Deegan, who has written on animal welfare laws. “It would definitely help on those types of cases where people jump around.” One Web site — Petabuse.com — already offers a type of online registry, with listings of animal offenders and their crimes.
Such registries have been introduced in other states, but never passed. In 2008, a similar bill in Tennessee stalled after passing the State Senate.
That legislation was endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States, said Wayne Pacelle, the president and chief executive of the society.
Mr. Pacelle said that the proposed financing mechanism for the California bill, a small tax on pet food, was “an extremely controversial idea” and unpopular with the pet food industry.
Taxes are usually opposed by Republicans in California, and that gives Mr. Pacelle doubts about the bill’s prospects.
“The idea of that succeeding in this climate in California is not high,” he said.
But the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Florez, who recently helped establish an Animal Protection Caucus, which includes Republican members of the State Senate and Assembly, says he is confident that he has the votes to move the measure forward and estimates that the registry would cost less than $1 million to establish. He also said his background — he hails from the farming-friendly Central Valley — will help the cause.
“I think people think, well, if Dean is supporting it,” he said, “it can’t be that off the wall.”
“A lot of times these people will just pick up and move to another jurisdiction or another state if they get caught,” said Ms. Deegan, who has written on animal welfare laws. “It would definitely help on those types of cases where people jump around.” One Web site — Petabuse.com — already offers a type of online registry, with listings of animal offenders and their crimes.
Such registries have been introduced in other states, but never passed. In 2008, a similar bill in Tennessee stalled after passing the State Senate.
That legislation was endorsed by the Humane Society of the United States, said Wayne Pacelle, the president and chief executive of the society.
Mr. Pacelle said that the proposed financing mechanism for the California bill, a small tax on pet food, was “an extremely controversial idea” and unpopular with the pet food industry.
Taxes are usually opposed by Republicans in California, and that gives Mr. Pacelle doubts about the bill’s prospects.
“The idea of that succeeding in this climate in California is not high,” he said.
But the bill’s sponsor, Mr. Florez, who recently helped establish an Animal Protection Caucus, which includes Republican members of the State Senate and Assembly, says he is confident that he has the votes to move the measure forward and estimates that the registry would cost less than $1 million to establish. He also said his background — he hails from the farming-friendly Central Valley — will help the cause.
“I think people think, well, if Dean is supporting it,” he said, “it can’t be that off the wall.”
by Mystere on 23 April 2010 - 20:04
Michelle,
I hope this gets to stay up, so people at least read something about the proposed legislation. I put the entire bill on a thread yesterday, which disappeared overnight. The thread was nothing but the bill, Shelly Strohl asking for a summary and my response that I wanted people to read it. I did not put up just a link, but the entire bill. It has been deleted.
I hope this gets to stay up, so people at least read something about the proposed legislation. I put the entire bill on a thread yesterday, which disappeared overnight. The thread was nothing but the bill, Shelly Strohl asking for a summary and my response that I wanted people to read it. I did not put up just a link, but the entire bill. It has been deleted.
by Krazy Bout K9s on 23 April 2010 - 20:04
I hope it stays up too....also hope it passes, something must be done, too bad we have to rely on "politicians" to do it though...
Steph
Steph
by Mystere on 23 April 2010 - 21:04
by Pharaoh on 23 April 2010 - 22:04
Yes, breeders should be able to look up on the database before they sell someone a puppy.
Puppy buyers want to know that they are not about to hand over a small fortune to a concentration camp for dogs.
After what I have read on this forum, I know that my inspection policy is worth the long drive.
Vote with your dollars.
Michele
Puppy buyers want to know that they are not about to hand over a small fortune to a concentration camp for dogs.
After what I have read on this forum, I know that my inspection policy is worth the long drive.
Vote with your dollars.
Michele
by mewoodjr on 24 April 2010 - 11:04
bump
by Pharaoh on 24 April 2010 - 17:04
bump
by Two Moons on 24 April 2010 - 17:04
It just keeps getting better and better.
by DDR-DSH on 24 April 2010 - 19:04
Speaking as a native Californian, I think it is getting "worse and worser". We need such a list for dirty / crooked politicians and lobbying firms, who are running this once-great state into the ground at the behest of special interest groups offering money and promises of popular support (which are often greatly exaggerated or at least ill considered)!
There is no end to the insanity which a full time legislature will entertain.
This "animal rights" agenda is the least of our problems (but maybe the tip of the iceberg). We lost a Pate' fois gras producer, over an AR agenda. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, you know? I, myself, voted to pass the bill which invited the abuses of the "Trevor Law Group" (Google it). That bill had to be sunsetted, because it was being used to beat up and shake down small businesses, basically making them into legal prey for slick lawyers.
There are SO many regulations with such dire and draconian penalties for non-compliance that businesses of all kinds are being run off ot other states, or just closing their doors altogether. Public employees' unions seem to think that they can jump on any opportunity to over-regulate anything and make enough money off of enforcements and penalties to just keep getting bigger and fatter.. This is unsustainable!
On the surface, this SEEMS like it's about helping animals. In my experience, it will NOT help, one bit.. or at least not significantly. There is NO need for such a list. Anyone who so much as rents an apartment these days, or takes a job of any importance, must submit to a background check, and if they have a record, it will be right there for the discerning eye to see. What's the point? And if you are worried about your own dog, then keep it on a leash or locked in your yard and in your home. Public stables and other animal facilities should have someone living on prem and a strict "no trespassing" policy, to keep people out who have no business being there.
If you're worried about me, please spare yourselves the trouble.. I don't sell to anyone, and I don't buy, either. If I wanted to buy (which I don't), believe me.. There are people who would sell, for the right price.
There is no end to the insanity which a full time legislature will entertain.
This "animal rights" agenda is the least of our problems (but maybe the tip of the iceberg). We lost a Pate' fois gras producer, over an AR agenda. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, you know? I, myself, voted to pass the bill which invited the abuses of the "Trevor Law Group" (Google it). That bill had to be sunsetted, because it was being used to beat up and shake down small businesses, basically making them into legal prey for slick lawyers.
There are SO many regulations with such dire and draconian penalties for non-compliance that businesses of all kinds are being run off ot other states, or just closing their doors altogether. Public employees' unions seem to think that they can jump on any opportunity to over-regulate anything and make enough money off of enforcements and penalties to just keep getting bigger and fatter.. This is unsustainable!
On the surface, this SEEMS like it's about helping animals. In my experience, it will NOT help, one bit.. or at least not significantly. There is NO need for such a list. Anyone who so much as rents an apartment these days, or takes a job of any importance, must submit to a background check, and if they have a record, it will be right there for the discerning eye to see. What's the point? And if you are worried about your own dog, then keep it on a leash or locked in your yard and in your home. Public stables and other animal facilities should have someone living on prem and a strict "no trespassing" policy, to keep people out who have no business being there.
If you're worried about me, please spare yourselves the trouble.. I don't sell to anyone, and I don't buy, either. If I wanted to buy (which I don't), believe me.. There are people who would sell, for the right price.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top