California considers Animal Abuser Registry

[rambone]

I don't think the decision to create another government registry of anything should be taken lightly.

California considers animal abuser registry


In California, persons convicted of felony animal cruelty could soon share a dubious distinction with sex offenders and arsonists if a bill in the state Senate becomes law.

Sen. Dean Florez, co-chair of the Senate Animal Protection Caucus, introduced legislation Feb. 19 creating a publicly accessible state registry of animal abusers.

The Internet-based registry could be useful to animal shelters, animal sellers, and law enforcement, according to Florez, who believes identifying animal abusers would protect animals and reduce repeat offenses.

"We're not giving our counties and shelters the information they need. It's an information gap that needs to be fixed," Florez said at a press conference announcing the introduction of state Senate Bill 1277. "This, we believe, will allow us the ability to identify animal abusers in the state of California in a much more prevalent way."

Persons listed in the registry will have been convicted of felony animal abuse, such as torture, sexual abuse, animal fighting, or neglect.

Funds for establishing and maintaining the registry would come from a 2 to 3 cent tax on pet food sales. Any surplus would go toward spay and neuter programs in California. "We think this is a win-win," Florez explained.

California, where a ban on tail docking of dairy cattle was recently passed, is not alone in considering ways of publicly naming felony animal abusers. Legislation creating animal abuser registries has been introduced in Rhode Island, Louisiana, Colorado, and Tennessee.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund is spearheading a national campaign to establish public animal abuser registries in every state. The California-based animal rights organization has launched a Web site—www.ExposeAnimalAbusers.org—that helps the public petition state lawmakers to propose legislation creating these databases.

ALDF Executive Director Stephen Wells says animal abuse is often a sign of a much larger danger. "Many animal abusers have a history of domestic violence or other criminal activity, and there is a disturbing trend of animal abuse among our country's most notorious serial killers," Wells said.

The estimated cost of the California registry and the potential number of offenders named on it would be determined as the bill moves through the committee process, according to Florez.

 

[level.eleven]

I was a pretty unpopular guy during the Michael Vick fiasco for taking the position that animals are property. This is simply the progression of the idea that animals have rights and need government protection. So, yes, its a silly idea to tax people to start a "pet abuse registry.

 

[rambone]

And lets be honest here. If they want to abuse animals they will still find a way to do it. They are everywhere. This extra excuse to tax Californians will not result in less crime. Just higher spending.

 

[Fletch]

I maintain that animals are property as well, and believe that government should not really be involved. However, I strongly believe that everyone should treat them with care and respect, and would enthusiastically support non-violent social and economic means to get people on board with that idea.

 

[dross]

This is a tricky one for me. I see the logic in the animals as property argument, and when it boils down, if I can raise and animal and then kill it to eat it, or hunt, or perform painful experiments on it, all things I agree with, then how different is it to have dogfights or cockfights? And if we agree to that, then are we saying that it's perfectly legal is someone wants to have a pet because they get off on torturing it? If an animal is only property, then you have to be willing to go all the way with it. If there is some other standard, then we're looking for where to draw the line, which of course is always dangerous and a slippery slope.

That aside, I find people who abuse animals to be disgusting and morally repugnant.

 

[rambone]

Shall we resort to the old manta?

"Enforce current laws, don't create new ones."

 

[Bubba]

This is simply the progression of the idea that animals have rights and need government protection.

Cass Sunstein approves!

Just out of curiosity, will PETA supporters have to appear on the registry? Memo To Virginia: PETA Is A Slaughterhouse

 

[LEaSH]

It already exists. In the form of a criminal background check.

If someone is convicted of such a crime, it will show up on a standard background check.

Munipal aniamal shelters and law enforcement agencies can add it into their procedures. Pet shops can choose to make it their policy if they so choose. If they want to add it into the cost of the animal being sold - or forgo it altogether.

Just another inventive way to waste money the state doesn't have. Imagine that.

 

[jbombelli]

Why don't they just start a "conviction" registry that's sortable by offense? I mean, if they really want to go down this path, why not just go all out and do it?

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Shall we resort to the old manta?

"Enforce current laws, don't create new ones."

Or we could just reduce the ridiculously voluminous body of the law.

 

[level.eleven]

This is a tricky one for me. I see the logic in the animals as property argument, and when it boils down, if I can raise and animal and then kill it to eat it, or hunt, or perform painful experiments on it, all things I agree with, then how different is it to have dogfights or cockfights? And if we agree to that, then are we saying that it's perfectly legal is someone wants to have a pet because they get off on torturing it? If an animal is only property, then you have to be willing to go all the way with it. If there is some other standard, then we're looking for where to draw the line, which of course is always dangerous and a slippery slope.

That aside, I find people who abuse animals to be disgusting and morally repugnant.

This is exactly why I was pretty unpopular with the lunch crew. The only line I drew was that animals are property. If you want to eat it, hit it with a hammer, or take it bed, that's your call. When we start assigning rights to actual property, we have truly lost it. Property isn't able to reciprocate those rights. A dog will wonder onto your property and take a dump. He has no concept of property, rights, or law. Humans can reciprocate, or at least chose to, those rights. The only reason the feds got involved with Vick is they weren't getting their slice of the pie.

My family has over 50 pets. All but 4 are fish.

 

[Fletch]

A dog will wonder onto your property and take a dump. He has no concept of property, rights, or law.

I disagree with this one. Most animals understand territory and the consequences of violating it; the problem with regard to mixed-species society is communicating the boundaries in a way that all understand.

 

[level.eleven]

I disagree with this one. Most animals understand territory and the consequences of violating it; the problem with regard to mixed-species society is communicating the boundaries in a way that all understand.

Ok...now we are getting into biological tendencies, rational thought, decision structure, dare I say - evolution, etc...Humans don't operate by pissing on things they don't want others to have. I completely understand your point - there are 3 cats that are a part of my family. No dogs since we became city mouse, but that is a whole other story...i.e. wife = no dogs. ANYWAY.

Territory is also not the same as property rights. I could wonder all over town, pissing on buildings, marking them with spray paint, planting flags, etc..doesn't make them mine.

Communicating. I don't have to worry about this because my TV doesn't drop a deuce in other peoples yards. Remember, animals are property. I did a horrible job of communicating my point.

 

[Fletch]

Territory is also not the same as property rights.

I see it differently, but understand that I don't disagree with your larger point; our difference is one of perspective, the results are the same.

From my perspective, the reason animals are property is because they can't abide by our rules of property ownership and thus become owners themselves. If say, a chimp could be made to understand and agree to honor human rules of property, that chimp would cease to be property.

Communicating. I don't have to worry about this because my TV doesn't drop a deuce in other peoples yards. Remember, animals are property. I did a horrible job of communicating my point.

You didn't, we mostly agree, just from different perspectives.

 

[level.eleven]

From my perspective, the reason animals are property is because they can't abide by our rules of property ownership and thus become owners themselves. If say, a chimp could be made to understand and agree to honor human rules of property, that chimp would cease to be property.

Yes x10. This is my reciprocation argument in a nutshell.

 

[XMil]

Considering them property seems right, but I don't think you should be able to torture them.