Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think criminal investigation software program with a good search engine for would be a better use of taxpayer money. I'm ok with the sex offender registry for pedophiles and federal law enforcement lists for suspected terrorists; anything beyond that, not so much.
The problem with promoting and allowing the government to place certain "groups" of people on a list is that eventually you will end up on one of them. Unintended consequenses are a b*tch.
I'm all for it. Any kind of legislation that will increase animals' rights, punish those who abuse them and perhaps prevent such abuse from happening in the future is, IMHO, a step forward.
I'm all for it. Any kind of legislation that will increase animals' rights, punish those who abuse them and perhaps prevent such abuse from happening in the future is, IMHO, a step forward.
How does creating a registry do this? It lists individuals "after the fact" and does nothing to prevent animal abuse up front.
If I understood the article correctly the "fee" (a.k.a tax) charged to previously convicted animal abuse offenders goes only to maintain that registry. Being previously convicted these folks are already in the databases and on leo radar.
Once someone has been convicted of a crime and served time is it even Constitional to "tax" someone for past offenses years down the line or don't fines have to be upfront at the time of court sentencing.
Unfortunately unscrupulous breeders and puppymills will not bother to look at the registry, especially since they neglect and abuse animals themselves. Abusive pet owners will still have a way to get animals, registry or not.
Not sure if it's a good idea or not but I think the bigger issue is people not reporting someone when they see neglect or abuse. I had a recent conversation with a local attorney that for ten yrs was the prosecutor for my area. He said that in all that time not one case was ever brought before him for abuse/neglect. I think people don't want to get involved or just turn the other cheek. I have seen this first hand because there were a few incidents on my street and I was the only one that stepped up and did anything about and it caused a huge stir to the point some of my neighbors don't speak to me. I don't care because if an animal is not being taken care of properly I'm not going to watch it happen but a lot of people don't feel the same. Those of us that care need to speak up and educate them and keep putting out the message to do something!
Terrible idea. Innocent people will end up on this list, because they are breeders, or own "too many" animals and get branded as "hoarders", or someone at animal control dislikes them for whatever reason. There are "abuse" cases out there, where people's dogs were taken from them and they are accused of "abuse" because the dogs had tartar on their teeth!
If you own 5 dogs, and your local animal control decides that this is "too many" and labels you a "hoarder" and raids you - they will accuse you of abuse. And you could easily end up on this list.
Use a training method that someone doesn't approve of? On the list. Dock tails/crop ears and someone doesn't agree with that? On the list.
Terrible idea. Innocent people will end up on this list, because they are breeders, or own "too many" animals and get branded as "hoarders", or someone at animal control dislikes them for whatever reason. There are "abuse" cases out there, where people's dogs were taken from them and they are accused of "abuse" because the dogs had tartar on their teeth!
If you own 5 dogs, and your local animal control decides that this is "too many" and labels you a "hoarder" and raids you - they will accuse you of abuse. And you could easily end up on this list.
Use a training method that someone doesn't approve of? On the list. Dock tails/crop ears and someone doesn't agree with that? On the list.
the proposed legislation says that one would have to be convicted in a court of law to be on this list....
the proposed legislation says that one would have to be convicted in a court of law to be on this list....
yes, as does all the passed and proposed legislation that I've read (in each state in which I've read the laws).
It's a wonderful idea, imo, because the link between animal cruelty and violence towards children and others is irrefutable. Animal cruelty is a profound indicator of certain psychoses (and I'm not talking about tapping your puppy on its butt)...one of which is a pervasive lack of empathy.
The laws have to do with cruelty and abuse. And a conviction requires virtually mountains of evidence, substantially more 'evidence' than having one too many dogs or cats.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
