- Image by marieSF via Flickr
Puppy mills and dog fighting rings look out. Your felony cruelties may soon get your name, address, and place of work listed online, much as sex offenders and arsonists are. California has been hot to trot on animal welfare laws, and, as some have suggested, it may be because legislators can’t agree on anything else, but this new animal abuse registry bill is a game changer. Given the nature of animal abuse, the strong over the weak, and the connection that’s been made between this and sociopathic behaviors, it’s not an idea devoid of merit.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) was a key participant in drafting the bill. Spokesperson for the group noted that some civil libertarians think registries like this are a privacy concern, but considering the risk posed to communities, the ALDF disagree.
Financing for the bill would come from a small tax on pet food, according to the New York Times article. Oops. California being in the economic state it is in, outside observers don’t think this will fly. But then there’s the other side–the man who is sponsoring the bill comes from a farm-friendly area and has built a bipartisan Animal Protection Caucus…apparently no one to bet against. Read more…
Do you think we should have ultimate transparency on these offenders, no limits? Should the information be limited to neighborhoods where they move, schools, police, pet shops, breeders, shelters? Should this data be strictly under the aegis of law enforcement? Should this whole idea be scrapped? What’s your take on this?
(If you’d like to start this process in your State, take a look at this petition from ALDF’s Expose Animal Abusers site.)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e57c7474-328c-46ce-afcc-5dcb42537e11)
Wow — interesting concept. I'm not sure what good it would do to have the information available to everyone who lives in the neighborhood but for sure breeders and shelters should have it. And it couldn't hurt to have the information available to law enforcement so police would know that a complaint/offense may not be the first.
Hi, Edie, and thanks for your comment. I don't know a shelter who wouldn't be over the moon to have this information. To elaborate on the neighborhood use of this information, if this goes forward and continues to be based on the sex offenders model people who live in a given area, and those who are considering moving into an area, will be able to see if a (felony) convicted dog fighter/abuser lives there. Being forewarned to heighten awareness of danger and keep (kids, dogs) safe from predators is the principle that would apply. Moving around to avoid detection, a dog fighting rings do, would no longer help offenders maintain their anonymity. They also then become pariah, generally, wherever they go.
Great idea – but what would be the consequences to someone who is listed? Whereas listing sex offenders and arsonists may impact their life and employment prospects (because people care more about these kinds of offenders?) what teeth will this registry have?? The reason I ask is a result of just reading the current blog post at Thoughts Fur Paws (http://thoughtsfurpaws.com/dogs/nj-puppy-mill-mov… Apparently, the couple discussed in the post – having a list of dog/breeder violations as long as your arm – can't be stopped.
Consequences are that the offender will be aware he/she is being followed from place to place, and people will be forewarned of their crime and where they live. As a former employer, I believe most will absolutely care about a felony conviction involving violence and cruelty. It may not be as shocking as sex offenses, but I don't think it's something you want to invite into your company. And while it's true that laws must be enforced to have teeth, that is up to the States until such time as a tipping point may be reached and it gets the traction to go Federal. Ohio and other States need to stop being afraid to enforce laws and physically shut down bad operations. HSUS may have been happy to help in this regard–I don't know if they were consulted or not in the Ohio case you cite. Of course, if Congress takes a page from CA, animal laws may get more traction in general as one of the very few things legislators can agree on.
Sounds like a good idea, but I think that the info should only be kept to law enforcement and shelters/animal rescue. But what Rod says is interesting. How effective will this law be? The couple in the above article just pulled up stakes and moved to another state to continue their operation. I think that the law has to be national to have any effectiveness.
Hi Karen, thanks for adding to conversation. Sometimes you have to take a step here, a step there to start making a difference. Incremental change can be boring and frustrating. But we push forward anyway. We use all the tools we have to make it more and more difficult to operate in a cruel or violent way.
It's an interesting question. I can't help but think that taking the money that would be collected for a program like this, and directing it to more traditional methods for preventing animal abuse (for which funds are being slashed daily), would be more productive and effective. I look forward to followign this story.
Hi, Kevin, thank's for joining in! The thing is, if they don't get the money from a tax on pet food, there won't be a program, and Californians are not known for voting in taxes. I agree it will be a good story to follow and not just in California. It failed in Tennessee, and it will be interesting to see what other States try to get similar bills passed.
Information about puppy mills should be widely available. If anyone purchases a dog from a "breeder," they must check out the operation. Visit the site. Make sure you know where the dog or cat you are going to purchase comes from. If the "breeder" won't let you visit the property, shop elsewhere–preferably a local shelter or rescue club.