Author Topic: Interesting  (Read 2922 times)

Theresa

  • Officially Boxer Crazy
  • ***
  • Posts: 11651
  • "No Pressure, no diamonds"-Mary Case
    • Getting Evan
Interesting
« on: August 19, 2010, 09:22:22 AM »
Mom to:
Beasley (flashy fawn male) born 11/15/2005
Peanut (classic brindle female) born 2/15/2009
Evan (two legged brunette male) born 4/20/2011

rmkoruga

  • Socialized
  • ****
  • Posts: 2281
  • Rachel-owned by Leroy Brown 6/21/03
Re: Interesting
« Reply #1 on: August 19, 2010, 09:31:37 AM »
huh I couldn't read the whole article siad I had to register?  :brood: Anyway sounds like a great idea if it would work. How cool would it be if you were a breeder (or a shelter) & could check the site before selling a puppy. Although the bad byb's probably wouldn't bother  :smash:
Rachel-
Leroy Brown 06/03

WildBeanerz

  • Canine Good Citizen
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
  • Macie
Re: Interesting
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2010, 09:39:11 AM »
I couldn't read it either...didn't want to sign up. But it sounds like a great idea!

April - mom of
Bones RIP big guy 11.04.10 :angel:
Macie 8 yrs brindle female
Chloe 11.19.09 fawn female
Love my rescue

Theresa

  • Officially Boxer Crazy
  • ***
  • Posts: 11651
  • "No Pressure, no diamonds"-Mary Case
    • Getting Evan
Re: Interesting
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2010, 09:47:03 AM »
Basically, it would create a registry for people convicted of animal abuse.  Pet stores, rescues, shelters etc. would have to check the registry before selling/adopting outan animal to them. 

The registry is only for 3 years but it's better than nothing
Mom to:
Beasley (flashy fawn male) born 11/15/2005
Peanut (classic brindle female) born 2/15/2009
Evan (two legged brunette male) born 4/20/2011

Newcastle

  • Most Informed Member - 2009
  • Administrator
  • Canine Good Citizen
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • WHEEE!!!!!
    • Newcastle Boxers
Re: Interesting
« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2010, 11:44:15 AM »
This is one of those bills that looks good on the surface but has the potential to be disastrous.

I can't read the full article, either, and other articles I could find only said that the Senator (Rep?) would be holding a press conference this morning, so I don't know the specifics on this one. The definition of "abuse" is the big issue, and at the very least I would want to see not only names/conviction dates/punishment but also links to trial transcripts. I know of too many cases where people were arrested for "abuse" because their dogs had a medical condition *that was being treated* but resulted in the dogs looking ill - scrawny, sores, etc. - and many times, especially in states that require you to pay tens of thousands of dollars in bonds for the care of your pets before you're even tried, much less convicted, people have no option but to plea bargain and accept a conviction on a lesser crime than the one with which they're being threatened, even though the charges are bogus. (Aside from the bonds, not everyone has the minimum $100,000 it takes to obtain an attorney to defend them.) So it would need to be a very controlled list with full disclosure on the events, the charges, the defense, etc.

You'd also want to know how they're funding it - who's going to pay for the registry, and how?

I'm not sure the premise is sound, either - the "link between animal abuse and domestic violence" is that in homes where domestic violence is occurring, animal abuse is also often occurring. That's definitely supportive of cross-reporting between various enforcement areas (animal, domestic violence, and child abuse) but it's not the same things as saying that animal abuse leads to violence against humans (something that is widely debated but, last I heard, not effectively proven).

Finally, I'm not sure what good such a registry would do. States already keep registries of felony convictions, so if an animal abuse registry is limited to felony animal abuse convictions it would just be a duplication of efforts. Additionally, while it might be useful for breeders, shelters and rescues, I can't see any reason for the general public to have access for such a list. It would only lead to harassment of those on the registry, regardless of their circumstance. Animal abusers generally abuse their own animals, and containment laws mean that they wouldn't have the chance to lure unsuspecting dogs into their homes to abuse, as sex offenders can do with children, because the dogs won't be wandering around the neighborhood.

A similar bill was proposed in California earlier in this year - some interesting comments on the subject are here: http://ocpets.ocregister.com/2010/02/23/state-senator-proposes-animal-abuse-registry/37875

Like most legislation, done right it could be a good thing, but done wrong it could be a nightmare.
Jennifer Walker
Newcastle Boxers, Reg'd
Mind ~ Body ~ Spirit ~ Naturally

Visit the Boxer Crazy Store

Theresa

  • Officially Boxer Crazy
  • ***
  • Posts: 11651
  • "No Pressure, no diamonds"-Mary Case
    • Getting Evan
Re: Interesting
« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2010, 11:52:21 AM »
Here is the text of the article.  I don't believe the bill is quite in the final draft stages yet.

Text

Suffolk Legis. Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Harbor) hopes to create a database of men and women who abuse animals, a list he compares to registries that track the whereabouts of sex offenders.

"It's tragic when an innocent animal's seemingly loving home becomes their torture chamber," said Cooper, who will hold a news conference Thursday to announce legislation to create a registry that would contain the names of convicted animal abusers.

Suffolk SPCA Chief Roy Gross, who will be at the news conference, said he supported the measure "100 percent," adding, "Hopefully, other municipalities will pick up on it as well, not only in New York, but maybe it could be a model throughout the nation. This is certainly needed."

Suffolk legislature presiding officer William Lindsay declined to comment on the plan Wednesday night, saying he had not carefully reviewed the language of the proposal.

Cooper said the legislation, if passed, would be the first of its kind in the nation. It would require people convicted of abusing animals to register and remain on the list for three years. The penalty for not registering would be a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to a year.

After expiration of the three-year period, anyone on the registry would be allowed to adopt or buy a pet.

Cooper said he'd introduce companion bills to ban people on the registry from obtaining animals, and to require pet stores and adoption agencies to check the registry and decline to sell or give an animal to anyone listed.

"This initiative will not only protect family pets, but because of the strong link between animal abuse and domestic violence, it will serve as an early warning system to the community to ward off the dangers of potential future violence against people as well," Cooper said in a statement Wednesday
Mom to:
Beasley (flashy fawn male) born 11/15/2005
Peanut (classic brindle female) born 2/15/2009
Evan (two legged brunette male) born 4/20/2011

Newcastle

  • Most Informed Member - 2009
  • Administrator
  • Canine Good Citizen
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • WHEEE!!!!!
    • Newcastle Boxers
Re: Interesting
« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2010, 12:24:04 PM »
Yeah, I think you'd really have to read the bill itself to know which way this one might go. (Of course my experience over the years is that they go bad, so I'm skeptical by nature anymore.) I would hope this is limited to felony convictions; a three-year ownership ban for a misdemeanor (which could be something as simple as, again, fleas) seems over the top. Then again, what are the current laws? Is there already a ban on animal ownership for those convicted of felony animal abuse?

Since similar legislation has been proposed in several areas, if this one would be the first of its kind I'd guess none of the others have passed - which may tell you something in and of itself.
Jennifer Walker
Newcastle Boxers, Reg'd
Mind ~ Body ~ Spirit ~ Naturally

Visit the Boxer Crazy Store

Theresa

  • Officially Boxer Crazy
  • ***
  • Posts: 11651
  • "No Pressure, no diamonds"-Mary Case
    • Getting Evan
Re: Interesting
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2010, 12:29:10 PM »
Yeah...I am not sure...let me see if I can find the bill on the county's website
Mom to:
Beasley (flashy fawn male) born 11/15/2005
Peanut (classic brindle female) born 2/15/2009
Evan (two legged brunette male) born 4/20/2011

Theresa

  • Officially Boxer Crazy
  • ***
  • Posts: 11651
  • "No Pressure, no diamonds"-Mary Case
    • Getting Evan
Re: Interesting
« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2010, 12:38:47 PM »
Okay.... you'll have to skip to page 180 of the link but it looks like its Felony Abuse and the adminstrative costs are offset by the offenders ($25 fee per year).  In theory it looks good....but I disagree with some of the Whereas clauses (i.e. domestic violence etc).

http://legis.suffolkcountyny.gov/clerk/Resolution%20Packet/2010/reso_pack081710.pdf
Mom to:
Beasley (flashy fawn male) born 11/15/2005
Peanut (classic brindle female) born 2/15/2009
Evan (two legged brunette male) born 4/20/2011

Newcastle

  • Most Informed Member - 2009
  • Administrator
  • Canine Good Citizen
  • *****
  • Posts: 3079
  • WHEEE!!!!!
    • Newcastle Boxers
Re: Interesting
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2010, 01:53:17 PM »
Thanks, T.  I don't have time to read the full text right now, but it sounds more reasonable than the CA law, at least.

Still, $25 per year and they have to self-register - why not tack $75 onto the fine and have them automatically registered? Unless they hope is that they won't remember so the county can collect the $1000 fine... (skeptic in me showing through again! ;) )
Jennifer Walker
Newcastle Boxers, Reg'd
Mind ~ Body ~ Spirit ~ Naturally

Visit the Boxer Crazy Store

aquagirl900

  • Socialized
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
Re: Interesting
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2010, 01:02:02 AM »
Thanks, T.  I don't have time to read the full text right now, but it sounds more reasonable than the CA law, at least.

Still, $25 per year and they have to self-register - why not tack $75 onto the fine and have them automatically registered? Unless they hope is that they won't remember so the county can collect the $1000 fine... (skeptic in me showing through again! ;) )

Well, don't ya know...this is America...all the laws are meant to do it to make money...that's all American government really cares about...

TobysMomma

  • Vet Checked
  • ***
  • Posts: 1274
Re: Interesting
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2010, 10:35:13 AM »
My feeling is this would not be effective legislation for lots of reasons especially given that these people would register themselves.  :thumbsdown:  Like Jennifer I am very skeptical of legislation that sounds good on the surface but how is it enforced and is it just a false sense of safety for people who think this would screen out abusers ... I would guess that very few animal abusers actually have convictions.  It would still be easy for these people to get a pet from in front of Kmart or just word of mouth, if they have a few bucks they will get a  dog.
Please Support Boxer Rescue
http://www.ncbr.org/ca/index.php
Lori Momma to Ajay, Bo and current foster girl Blanca
Toby and Ayla forever in my heart